Patent Suit Leads To 500,000 Annoyed Software Users

ciaran_o_riordan writes "A rare glimpse at the human harm of a software patent lawsuit: company receives 500,000 calls complaining about video quality after a video call system was forced to change to avoid a patent. That's a lot of people having a bad day. We don't usually hear these details because the court documents get ordered sealed and the lawyers only say what the companys' communication strategists allow. However, for VirnetX v. Apple, Jeff Lease decided to go the hearings, take notes, and give them to a journalist. While most coverage is focussing on the fines involved, doubling or halving Apple's fine would have a much smaller impact on your day than the removal of a feature from some software you like. Instead of letting the software patents debate be reduced to calls for sympathy for big companies getting fined, what other evidence is out there, like this story, for harm caused directly to software users?"

Comments

My give-a-darn meter is reading negative GADs

[symbolset]

I am not going to cry for Apple over software patents. Software patents are a crime against humanity but they are in that fight using them to commit their own atrocities. There is nobody to root for in this fight. A pox on both their houses. Nice /. banner ad though.

Re:My give-a-darn meter is reading negative GADs

[Technician]

Apple has run a Walled garden protected by patents for a long time. Maybe it is time for them to simply switch to an open standard supported by many parties such as SIP. If apple adopted open standards, they could interface with Jitsi users, Linksys/Supra users, Grandstream users, Asterisk PBX users, etc.

The reason they don't do this is because you are not locked to a carrier and can use ViaTalk, Ekiga, IPPI,Ring Central, or other providers. Same reason they don't offer unlocked phones.

Re:My give-a-darn meter is reading negative GADs

[Anonymous Coward]

What company has Samsung sued where the company hasn't sue them first?

Re:My give-a-darn meter is reading negative GADs

[Trolan]

Same reason they don't offer unlocked phones.

Hmm, I guess that "Buying from Apple" "Unlocked iPhones" section on their store support (http://store.apple.com/us/questions/iphone) was put there by hackers.

It's the carriers that want the lock. Apple couldn't care less, long as they see the revenue for the device from someone.

In any case, the problem here is in regards to the handshake, to handle NAT or other end-to-end traversal issues. Pretty much every protocol that wants to be peer-to-peer in a world with NAT has that issue, especially SIP (ergo, STUN. Nevermind how many SIP devices have no clue about IPv6, which is going to be another problem here soon). The VirnetX patent apparently covers some of how to handle that, and since their implementation apparently tripped over something in the claims, now FaceTime has to skip the direct attempts, and go via a relay.

Re:My give-a-darn meter is reading negative GADs

[rahvin112]

You are VERY wrong about them not caring. Apple is adamant about having the carriers involved because overall it nets them far more revenue. Subsidized phone sales through the carriers allows Apple to charge probably 20% more for their product than they could on the open market. Carrier subsidized phones hide the price from consumers.

This is one of the reasons iPhones don't sell as well outside the US. In many other countries phones are sold directly to the consumer, as a result the consumer is well aware of the price they are paying. The net result is they purchase phones less often and price shop more competitively. In the US market the carrier negotiates a price (actually Apple dictates the price and a minimum volume of purchases) the true cost of the purchase is concealed from the customer. That is GOOD for apple. Their phones are very overpriced and have margins the rest of the manufacturers can't sustain.

Make no mistake, if US regulators tried to impose some of the same rules that European nations have imposed (in particular forcing carriers to unbundle the phone subsidy) Apple would actively campaign for the carriers. Hiding the true price is the only reason their sales are as high as they are in the US.

Tough, Apple

[Animats]

"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." - Steve Jobs.

Well, sometimes that comes back and bites you.

"the data will bolster VirnetX's arguments that its patents are technologically significant, hard to work around, and deserve a high royalty rate."

None of this would have happened if IPv6 had been deployed by now, and everything had a static IP address. Then peer to peer services just work.

Re:Tough, Apple

[PPH]

None of this would have happened if IPv6 had been deployed by now,

The patent trolls would just refile all the existing stuff as 'do X in IPv6'. And the USPTO would grant the patents, resetting the term to start at the new filing date.

Patents are supposed to be non obvious. Unless someone can show where Apple had tried (and failed) to implement the protocol in question until VirnetX published. And suddenly Apple succeeded. Then I'd buy the argument that Apple swiped their idea. But if Apple sat down on its own and built the same damned thing, I'd say the solution is a)obvious and b)trivial. Add any third parties coming up with the same thing and I'd say there's no way it is patentable.

'Hard to work around' doesn't mean something is patentable. The wheel is pretty hard to work around as well.

Re:Tough, Apple

[spire3661]

Its also that every address will be globally unique, so no more NAT traversal, which is what a lot of this 'innovation' covers. Its not 'just' more address space, its a fundamental shift.

Re:why should apple steal someone's work?

[msobkow]

Look, here's the simple fact: peer-to-peer communications for any protocol is not a "novel" idea. It's a normal, every-day thing a programmer or engineer considers as a means of preventing bottlenecks at a proxy or server.

Worse, the standards for SIP specifically set up peer-to-peer connections after the initial hand-shake, so every SIP stack is affected by this bullshit patent. In other words: virtually every IP phone on the planet, whether hardware or software based.

The US patent system is fundamentally and badly broken. Everyone knows that. But I'm rooting for Apple to spank the everliving shit out of these assholes.

Eh?

[0123456]

Inconveniencing folks so they can't use technology until they give you money is the whole point of patents.