5 ms·

Wasn't this the patent that stopped FaceTime from being an open standard? Sad. Damn patent trolls :(

by tf2manu994 10y ago

ianlevesque 10y ago
Yes, and forced them to move from a P2P architecture to proxying through their servers instead.
- briankwest 10y ago
  Then why aren't they going after Google for WebRTC? Chrome uses P2P to accomplish the same thing.
  - ferbivore 10y ago
    Give them a moment, would you? We all want justice, but going against two megacorporations at the same time would be sheer folly.
    - jwatte 10y ago
      "Justice"
  - ww520 10y ago
    Establishing precedent. The first one is the toughest. Once Apple gone down, others will be a cakewalk.
- ComodoHacker 10y ago
  Wait, is this same troll responsible for Microsoft ruined P2P in Skype?
briankwest 10y ago
This underscores the idiocy of our patent system.
lifeisstillgood 10y ago
Sorry, Apple wanted FaceTime to be a p2p open protocol?! I assumed it was Apple marketing bullshit not external forces?
- eknkc 10y ago
  It was in the announcement keynote. They said it would be open, which never happened due to patent issues.
  - artursapek 10y ago
    I'm stunned that this is still a problem we're wasting so much time and money on in this world.
  - IshKebab 10y ago
    How would patent issues stop it being an open standard? H.264 is an open standard but still subject to patents.
    - jpalomaki 10y ago
      Maybe the problem was that they had to change the original design due patent issues and with the new design (proxy servers etc) the openness would not have worked out so well.
    - gwright 10y ago
      Because the patent owners bought into the intellectual property regime created by H.264. H.264 happened because the patent owners agreed to the standard not because the H.264 committee had some sort of legal authority to ignore the patent owners.
    - xenadu02 10y ago
      VirnetX claims to have patents covering the P2P mechanism behind the original FaceTime. Originally it worked similar to iMessage in that you had a system to exchange identities but the actual communication was all P2P after that. Apple had to change it to use their servers to get around the patents (which VirnetX claimed wasn't enough and was still infringing). Once that changed there was no point in releasing it as an open standard since it required Apple's servers to operate. If VirnetX prevails then Skype, Google Hangouts, and everyone else is infringing too and VirnetX will use the precedent to go after them as well. It's a common strategy: go after a couple of people first, establish a win, then use that to leverage settlements out of the remaining players.
speeder 10y ago
Another crappy patent troll case: someone started suing hdd manufacturers over acoustic management, claiming (maybe in truth) that they patented the algorithm that actually make the hdd head move silently when it is active. The manufacturers proposed as settlement disable the feature being toggleable, and this was accepted. The patent holder never got money, and people never stopped using his patent, they only made users unable to select if theg wanted silent mode or not. A rrsult of this: WD has been for a while making low end WD Black and high end WD Blue with shared mechanics. One model in particular, the WD Black 1TB is almost 100% identical to the blue version. Except it had acoustic management off, while blue had it on. After noise complaints (people even returned hdds thinking it was broken) they made the black have it 100% identical to the blue... but as result despite being now silent, it is 30% slower, slow enough to cause buffer problems for musicians and video editors. (or to make megatexture problematic in id software games). So in the end everyone lost. No money for troll, algorithm is still in use, but consumers now have problems to find the hdd they want (almost no manufacturer advertise the hdd is not silent... so if you need to buy a fast hdd, it is trial and error)

Wasn't this the patent that stopped FaceTime from being an open standard? Sad. Damn patent trolls :(

ianlevesque 10y ago

Yes, and forced them to move from a P2P architecture to proxying through their servers instead.

briankwest 10y ago
Then why aren't they going after Google for WebRTC? Chrome uses P2P to accomplish the same thing.
- ferbivore 10y ago
  Give them a moment, would you? We all want justice, but going against two megacorporations at the same time would be sheer folly.
  - jwatte 10y ago
    "Justice"
- ww520 10y ago
  Establishing precedent. The first one is the toughest. Once Apple gone down, others will be a cakewalk.
ComodoHacker 10y ago
Wait, is this same troll responsible for Microsoft ruined P2P in Skype?

briankwest 10y ago

This underscores the idiocy of our patent system.

lifeisstillgood 10y ago

Sorry, Apple wanted FaceTime to be a p2p open protocol?! I assumed it was Apple marketing bullshit not external forces?

eknkc 10y ago
It was in the announcement keynote. They said it would be open, which never happened due to patent issues.
- artursapek 10y ago
  I'm stunned that this is still a problem we're wasting so much time and money on in this world.
- IshKebab 10y ago
  How would patent issues stop it being an open standard? H.264 is an open standard but still subject to patents.
  - jpalomaki 10y ago
    Maybe the problem was that they had to change the original design due patent issues and with the new design (proxy servers etc) the openness would not have worked out so well.
  - gwright 10y ago
    Because the patent owners bought into the intellectual property regime created by H.264. H.264 happened because the patent owners agreed to the standard not because the H.264 committee had some sort of legal authority to ignore the patent owners.
  - xenadu02 10y ago
    VirnetX claims to have patents covering the P2P mechanism behind the original FaceTime. Originally it worked similar to iMessage in that you had a system to exchange identities but the actual communication was all P2P after that. Apple had to change it to use their servers to get around the patents (which VirnetX claimed wasn't enough and was still infringing). Once that changed there was no point in releasing it as an open standard since it required Apple's servers to operate. If VirnetX prevails then Skype, Google Hangouts, and everyone else is infringing too and VirnetX will use the precedent to go after them as well. It's a common strategy: go after a couple of people first, establish a win, then use that to leverage settlements out of the remaining players.

speeder 10y ago

Another crappy patent troll case: someone started suing hdd manufacturers over acoustic management, claiming (maybe in truth) that they patented the algorithm that actually make the hdd head move silently when it is active. The manufacturers proposed as settlement disable the feature being toggleable, and this was accepted. The patent holder never got money, and people never stopped using his patent, they only made users unable to select if theg wanted silent mode or not. A rrsult of this: WD has been for a while making low end WD Black and high end WD Blue with shared mechanics. One model in particular, the WD Black 1TB is almost 100% identical to the blue version. Except it had acoustic management off, while blue had it on. After noise complaints (people even returned hdds thinking it was broken) they made the black have it 100% identical to the blue... but as result despite being now silent, it is 30% slower, slow enough to cause buffer problems for musicians and video editors. (or to make megatexture problematic in id software games). So in the end everyone lost. No money for troll, algorithm is still in use, but consumers now have problems to find the hdd they want (almost no manufacturer advertise the hdd is not silent... so if you need to buy a fast hdd, it is trial and error)