Apple Now Relaying All FaceTime Calls Due To Lost Patent Dispute 179
Em Adespoton writes "Before the VirnetX case, nearly all FaceTime calls were done through a system of direct communication. Essentially, Apple would verify that both parties had valid FaceTime accounts and then allow their two devices to speak directly to each other over the Internet, without any intermediary or 'relay' servers. However, a small number of calls—5 to 10 percent, according to an Apple engineer who testified at trial—were routed through 'relay servers.' At the August 15 hearing, a VirnetX lawyer stated that Apple had logged 'over half a million calls' complaining about the quality of FaceTime [since disabling direct connections]."
Something I noted... (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, I noted that some "patent expert" didn't report this at all, despite being one who is self proclaimed as following and reporting on patent issues. I am sure if this involved Google/Motorola or Android, this "expert" would have lots to report on the issue. I will abbreviate his name as FM. Is there a trend?
Lost a lawsuit? (Score:0, Insightful)
Just ask Obama to overturn the ruling.
Or maybe this man in the middle concession is the price of overturning the import ban?
Re:What patent? (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the patent involved here? Establishing a connection between two entities on an IP network? NAT traversal techniques? Usage of Interactive Connectivity Establishment protocols?
Better question: Who cares? The patent system is so hopelessly corrupt it might as well be "Company A wants to extort money from Company B"... and so, a patent is produced, that is vaguely worded and could possibly cover something vaguely related to what Company B does. And then it's elephant mating season, with its attendant judges, teams of lawyers, reporters, etc. ...
I gave up long ago trying to keep up with the news on these things -- is the patent valid? Isn't it? What legal process will happen now? Aww fuck it. You know what; Corporations are like children. They don't play well with others and really need their ass paddled to learn some discipline. Unfortunately, Uncle is drunk off his ass ranting about the war and not watching the kids...
Re:What patent? (Score:5, Insightful)
The technology to establish a connection between two peers for voice or video communication is standardized, in particular by the IETF, and implemented by many vendors.
If there is a patent on that technology, that would put into question hundreds if not thousands of products worldwide.
Re: Obvious patents and patent trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
What? I am eagerly awaiting VirnetX's release of it fabulous point to point video communications software. I mean its sure to be released soon right, right?!
The disaster of allowing software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
The patents in question describe nothing more than perfectly normal combinations of Internet services that any software engineer who knows basic networking would be expected to create as a matter of course. Combining such services into higher protocols is simply algorithmic construction in network programming.
This patent suit illustrates well the chilling effect that software patents have on our ability to use computers and the Internet to best effect. When you allow software algorithms to be locked away in patents, the ability of engineers to use computers and networks as an enabling technology decreases dramatically, to the extreme detriment of our ability to improve our systems.
Each new software patent just adds further bars to the prison. If this disease isn't stopped soon, the profession is going to be worthless except as a feeding pit for lawyers.
Re:Obvious patents and patent trolls (Score:4, Insightful)
I've got nothing against patenting good ideas, but the techniques described in the patents involved seem inevitable to me.
But then again juries don't usually include computer engineers so everything computer seems like magic to them.
Re:Something I noted... (Score:2, Insightful)
Curious, I see everyone calling him a paid shill. However, I haven't seen any evidence that he actually does that? He presents his source materials for his analysis.
How is he a shill? Just because he needs to make a living and gets paid by Oracle - and publicly announces that he does get paid by Oracle?
Re: uhuh sure (Score:5, Insightful)
US intel is not "stupid" except when talking to Congress, which is.
This is the same 'US intel' which missed the collapse of the USSR, 9/11, the Boston Bombers, and were totally sure Saddam Hussein had WMDs, right, not another 'US intel' that's actually competent?
As for original comment, intercepting calls is vastly easier when they go to a central server and they have direct access to the decrypted data than when they go peer to peer with encryption.
Re:uhuh sure (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing to do with ability to intercept.
Wait, why was parent marked troll?
In the case of Skype the very FIRST thing Microsoft did (was forced to do) was bring all call routing back through their own servers
How do you know the patent troll in this case wasn't funded by the NSA to force the very same thing on Apple? By forcing Apple to route all sessions through their already compromised data centers, the ability for the government to monitor the calls is restored, and Apple doesn't have to admit anything. Apple already appears on the leaked Prism source chart [theguardian.com]. So forcing all facetime sessions to go through already compromised data centers would be a high priority for the NSA.
I don't think you can dismiss out of hand the possibility that this was a planned outcome.
Re:Does this affect people in other countries? (Score:4, Insightful)
Time to open an office in Dublin and move the operations.
Re: uhuh sure (Score:4, Insightful)
US intel is not "stupid" except when talking to Congress, which is.
This is the same 'US intel' which missed the collapse of the USSR, 9/11, the Boston Bombers, and were totally sure Saddam Hussein had WMDs, right, not another 'US intel' that's actually competent?
As for original comment, intercepting calls is vastly easier when they go to a central server and they have direct access to the decrypted data than when they go peer to peer with encryption.
The collapse of the USSR was well known in the press ahead of time. I remember reading predictions a couple months in advance.
The NSA knew about 9/11, they were monitoring those guys, but nobody was listening to them seriously in those days. That's the date they started being taken seriously.
Boston Marathon: I bet they knew something was up with those guys as well, although a quiet plot between brothers is pretty hard to intercept.
Where is the innovation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Making direct connection between nodes is so fucking obvious. Any kind of service that would benefit from it, the designers would just do it. A patent that covers that in general adds nothing. A patent with some kind of innovative idea in this area might be possible for ways to improve direct communications. But such an innovative patent would not cover the obvious aspect of direct communication.
The problem is not the patent trolls that exploit bugs in the patent system to their own unjustified financial gain. Instead, the problem is the USPTO that issues patents for obvious ideas just because they were able to find someone in their office that could not think up the idea, which appears to be more than 99% of patent applications. This is where the fix needs to happen. Patents must pass the innovation test and USPTO is not even aware how to do this test.
Re:The disaster of allowing software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
When you allow software algorithms to be locked away in patents
Actually that is not the biggest problem. That would be fair enough if those algorithm required years of R&D. What we are talking about here is stuff that is normal everyday problem to solving for the engineer in charge of developing the feature.
Patent are supposed to expose secrets in exchange for a temporary monopol. However, if nobody look at the patents to find those secrets and yet manage to reinvent them, what exactly is the value of those patent ? If you have a patent system where people need to search for the patent to license after they have made their product, your patent system is broken at a fundamental level.
Re: uhuh sure (Score:3, Insightful)
"Boston Marathon: I bet they knew something was up with those guys as well, although a quiet plot between brothers is pretty hard to intercept."
Well, the Russian authorities warned the US about them.
Re: uhuh sure (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a good thing our government doesn't waste resources checking all of them out instead of high priority tasks like groping airline passengers and busting pot dispensaries.
Re:uhuh sure (Score:2, Insightful)
Skype was moved to centralized servers so they could survive the new era of communications: mobile devices. It was impossible to do Skype on mobile devices without centralized servers because the P2P communications would eat your battery AND your data bill. I'm sure this helps with interception as well, but it wasn't he main intention. This is discussed in detail by a former Skype engineer here:
http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/2013/06/sort/time_rev/page/1/entry/6:271/20130623090855:0B714E0A-DC06-11E2-9F35-8CD4CCA160A2/
Re: uhuh sure (Score:5, Insightful)
...and so you link to the Washington Times, and completely destroy any credibility you might have had.
Two problems. One, the mainstream press [nbcnews.com] did cover the story. [washingtonpost.com] Two, old rocket engines and old chemical weapons shells in dumps and scrapyards tell us only that Iraq used to have WMD --- never a contentious point.
The conclusion that Iraq had no WMD at the time of the American attack isn't some liberal media (ha!) conspiracy, it's the conclusion of the gorram CIA [cnn.com].
Bush lied, and the Fox "News" set continues to lie, about Iraq.