Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Targeted in New Patent Suit Over VPN on iOS
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Let's be fair. Apple patents everything they can come up with. And they take this route to protect the company, and yet when someone else does... they are patent trolls? I don't think so.
To me it is clear that Apple took the wait-and-see approach. Hoping to skip license fees, but will now be forced to pay, as they should have done right from the start.
Just accept this fact, and let Apple cough up the money hello fellow share holders and we all go on with our lives, while we wait for a new claim.
To me it is clear that Apple took the wait-and-see approach. Hoping to skip license fees, but will now be forced to pay, as they should have done right from the start.
Just accept this fact, and let Apple cough up the money hello fellow share holders and we all go on with our lives, while we wait for a new claim.
the patent in question was applied for in 1999. I think that's about the time the VPN RFC came out but don't remember any products. everyone was doing dial up at the time.
looked it up and the patent has all kinds of cool diagrams. unless someone proves prior art this looks legit.
Most of the Congress and all of the Judges are lawyers. You're not going to see any real legal reforms any time soon.
There is virtually no research done on Prior Art or public domain at the patent office. They are simply bureaucrats making decisions on stuff they know nothing about....that pretty much makes the patent office workers very much like Congressmen and Judges.....
There is virtually no research done on Prior Art or public domain at the patent office. They are simply bureaucrats making decisions on stuff they know nothing about....that pretty much makes the patent office workers very much like Congressmen and Judges.....
It has nothing to do with the base VPN. Clients, such as Cisco's VPN client, including additional drivers for the network stack (Cisco's is branded as "Deterministic Network Enhancer"). I'm assuming these are what is in question, otherwise other companies would be included.
Some people can invent, but not finance production. Patent holding can be a respectable way to make a living/run a business.
But isn't researching for prior art the patent applicant's responsibility?
My university gives every student free VPN access. I use it on my iPhone, iPad and laptop whenever I'm on a public WIFI network and don't want potential hackers sniffing my packets.
It's not that simple.
Generally, patent troll refers to companies that don't produce anything but instead use their patent IP for the purpose of suing or otherwise aggressively extracting money from companies that do.
Apple, on the other hand, primarily uses their IP to protect the stuff they produce from patent trolls.
Muddying the waters is that there are a surprising number of patents that seem absurdly overbroad or obvious, which should have precluded the patent from being granted in the first place. A lot of people (I do) feel that how valid a patent is affects how "trollish" a company is being when they defend it.
OK, if it's clear to you then you must have read & analyzed the relevant patents and Apple's use of relevant technology. Maybe you did, which is great, but otherwise you're not in any position to see it clearly one way or the other.
VPN Lawsuit Cr@p
This is crazy.
let's see they should be suing the following:
Apple
Google
Cisco
AT&T
SonicWall
DLink
NetGear
VPN has been around for more than a decade, who are these bozos??
Software/Idea Patents are stupid.
What ever happened to you must have an implementation where the algorithm can be patented but the actual code is a copyright. The idea you get no protection.
This is crazy.
let's see they should be suing the following:
Apple
Cisco
AT&T
SonicWall
DLink
NetGear
VPN has been around for more than a decade, who are these bozos??
Software/Idea Patents are stupid.
What ever happened to you must have an implementation where the algorithm can be patented but the actual code is a copyright. The idea you get no protection.
Patent reform anyone?
Under traditional patent law it used be that you could only patent a device or a tangible invention or a process used to create those. If it was a process, the patent holder was required to show why that process was proprietary. So you couldn't patent something like milking a cow. You could patent a mechanical device like a telephone. But you couldn't patent the process of talking on the telephone to communicate with another over a distance.
In the 1980's that changed because the courts (judges) didn't quite understand the computer and internet revolution. So through judge made law, all of a sudden you could patent things like "talking over the internet in a private conversation". Congress has done nothing to clarify and modernize patent law and in fact has shown some incredible ignorance about it. So for now patent trolls are viable and lawful business models. This is of course very unfair and has a chilling effect on innovation.
Under traditional patent law it used be that you could only patent a device or a tangible invention or a process used to create those. If it was a process, the patent holder was required to show why that process was proprietary. So you couldn't patent something like milking a cow. You could patent a mechanical device like a telephone. But you couldn't patent the process of talking on the telephone to communicate with another over a distance.
In the 1980's that changed because the courts (judges) didn't quite understand the computer and internet revolution. So through judge made law, all of a sudden you could patent things like "talking over the internet in a private conversation". Congress has done nothing to clarify and modernize patent law and in fact has shown some incredible ignorance about it. So for now patent trolls are viable and lawful business models. This is of course very unfair and has a chilling effect on innovation.
with can always make some similar device just different enough. like the original cameras. it's called innovation and the idea behind patents is that someone is always trying to make the same thing but better.
with software, developers are notorious for reusing code which makes it so easy. either way the algorithm is really the patent. hd dvd and blu ray along with betamax and VHS co-existed for a few years. they did the same thing just in different ways.
same thing with software. you can create another VPN type system, just make it work differently than the current patent. there are already several different VPN systems out there. sonicwall is clientless. checkpoint requires a client. Windows comes with a few basic clients.
with software, developers are notorious for reusing code which makes it so easy. either way the algorithm is really the patent. hd dvd and blu ray along with betamax and VHS co-existed for a few years. they did the same thing just in different ways.
same thing with software. you can create another VPN type system, just make it work differently than the current patent. there are already several different VPN systems out there. sonicwall is clientless. checkpoint requires a client. Windows comes with a few basic clients.
Looks like MS paid a settlement.
That was prbably the test to the validity of the case and now going after others.
Much as I don't like actual patent troll organizations, there is a use for organizations that buy patents from inventors who haven't the means or motivation to actually build the widget patented. It's a way for inventors to monetize their inventions (get paid) rather than spend a zillion hours shopping inventions, or looking for infringers. They just sell the invention to a holding company that will do those things. The inventor gets his money right now.
Clearly, not all patents are actually valid, but in this case, Microsoft thought it was valid enough to pay $200 million or so. Maybe there's a real, valid patent there, and those using it should pay up.
This is a general misconception, and one that I keep reading about here, because one can be an inventor, with a very valuable patent portfolio, and not manufacture anything yourself. Yet you still have the right to sue anyone who thinks to come by free and rip your work. I don't see any wrong doing in it.
Note: I have a patent portfolio and don't plan to manufacture anything myself. I'll let companies like Apple use them, for a fee. So tell me. Does that qualify me as a patent troll, just because I choose not to produce anything myself? I don't think so.
No sir. Apple patents are here to protect Apple's inventions, and to make sure that Apple is the only manufacturer – and rightfully so – or you'll first have to obtain a license from Apple. This way Apple can control important things, stuff that matter to them, like quality control.
Also. Apple's patent portfolio is pretty large. Filled with stuff that it isn't using... and mark my words because the first company burning its fingers, will get hit by a patent lawsuit. And why would they?
But what I read here, most of the time, is the tendency by people to protect Apple. Even when it is very obvious, at least to me, that what Apple did was wrong.
And thus so be it.
Unlike the Patent Trolls, Apple at least tries to do something with the ideas they patent. The Trolls simply sit on them until somebody else builds it, then either demands licensing or sues for cash.
True. I don't recall Apple ever suing anyone for a patent they owned but didn't have implemented in an existing product on the market.
Re your Sig.
If a "Synanym is a word you use in place of a word you can not spell what is a "synonym"