Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 26, 2013, 08:38 AM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Apple Backtracks on Planned Changes to VPN On Demand Behavior on iOS Devices




Earlier this month, we reported that Apple had announced upcoming changes to the behavior of VPN On Demand for devices running iOS 6.1 or later. The changes, which were planned to be deployed in a software update later this month, were necessitated by a $368 million judgment against Apple in a patent lawsuit brought by VirnetX.

Virtual private networking (VPN), which is most commonly used by corporate users to access company networks, allows a user to securely connect to a private network via public networks as if his or her device were directly on the private network.

Apple's changes to the feature were to see the removal of the "Always" configuration option for VPN On Demand, with the behavior defaulting back to an "Establish if needed" option. That option does not, however, perform ideally under certain circumstances, leading Apple to suggest that users may need to resort to turning VPN On Demand on and off manually, a potentially significant inconvenience.

The patent judgment covered previous infringement by Apple but did not address future use of VirnetX's intellectual property, and it seems that Apple had decided to simply remove the "Always" feature from iOS rather than agree to an additional licensing deal with VirnetX.

But it now appears that the two sides may have reached an agreement, as Apple on Wednesday updated its support document on the issue to note that it no longer plans to make the previously announced change.
Quote:
Apple no longer plans to change the behavior of the VPN On Demand feature of iOS 6.1 for devices that have already been shipped. The "Always" option will continue to work as it currently does on these devices.
It is, however, currently unclear why Apple specifically mentions that it will not be changing the VPN ON Demand feature on "devices that have already been shipped", leaving open the possibility that it may make changes to devices that have yet to ship.

Apple's proposed changes had brought significant scrutiny from the enterprise-focused security community, with security firm Mobile Active Defense having released a detailed whitepaper (PDF) highlighting numerous issues with Apple's proposed changes.

(Thanks, Jorge!)

Update: Computerworld notes that in its 10-Q regulatory filing earlier this week, Apple reported that it is continuing to challenge the $368 million judgment in VirnetX's favor. The move suggests that Apple may simply be delaying making any changes to VPN On Demand until the case has run its course rather than the two companies having reached a licensing agreement.

Article Link: Apple Backtracks on Planned Changes to VPN On Demand Behavior on iOS Devices
MacRumors is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2013, 08:42 AM   #2
yaredna
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Wow

No-one is interested.. few minutes, and not a single comment.
yaredna is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2013, 08:43 AM   #3
markfc
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Prestatyn, Wales, UK
Send a message via ICQ to markfc Send a message via AIM to markfc Send a message via MSN to markfc Send a message via Skype™ to markfc
Somebody somewhere just got a load of cash...
markfc is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2013, 08:45 AM   #4
SteveLV702
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
How do you setup the "Always" on cause I've always had to manually turn my VPN Manually ON... dont have to manually turn off it turns off all by itself... as soon as screen goes to sleep it disconnects which drives me crazy...
__________________
Thank You,
Steve
MacBook Pro iMac White iPad 2 Verizon 3G 64GB WhiteVerizon iPhone 4S 32GB
SteveLV702 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2013, 08:49 AM   #5
AdeFowler
macrumors 68020
 
AdeFowler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England
Quote:
Originally Posted by yaredna View Post
No-one is interested.. few minutes, and not a single comment.
Iíll hazard a guess that the only people interested in this, are currently making money, not browsing MacRumors
__________________
15Ē 2012 MacBook Pro | Mac Pro 6-core | 30Ē ACD
64gb 3g iPad and an iPod or two
AdeFowler is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2013, 08:52 AM   #6
alex00100
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Moscow, Russia
Uhhh... What?
__________________
17" MacBook Pro 2011 2.2GHz 8gb
iPad 3 3G 32gb
iPhone 5 16gb
alex00100 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2013, 08:56 AM   #7
jan1024188
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Oh crap this really sucks. I use VPN's all the time...oh wait, I don't even have an iPhone. Nevermind.
jan1024188 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2013, 09:00 AM   #8
Trik
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
I wonder if this was a bluff on Apple's part to get them to drop the licensing fees. As in,
"Fine we'll take it off entirely, and you won't get a dime from now on"
VirnetX: "No way you'll do that"
**insert 6.1 release notes**
VirnetX: "Ok ok, we'll drop the price."

**Tim Cook sips his Mai Tai**

Last edited by Trik; Apr 26, 2013 at 09:30 AM.
Trik is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2013, 09:01 AM   #9
whooleytoo
macrumors 603
 
whooleytoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cork, Ireland.
Send a message via AIM to whooleytoo
"Apple says they don't infringe. But Apple developers testified that they didn't pay any attention to anyone's patents when developing their system."

Comment from the lawyer representing VirnetX. To me, that just seems to be acknowledging Apple didn't copy VirnetX, they just unwittingly ran into a 'roadblock' patent. While that makes no difference to the lawsuit, it does highlight that patents are just being given out too easily - including to Apple.
__________________
Mac <- Macintosh <- McIntosh apples <- John McIntosh <- McIntosh surname <- "Mac an toshach" <- "Son of the Chief"
whooleytoo is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2013, 09:11 AM   #10
shiftless
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveLV702 View Post
How do you setup the "Always" on cause I've always had to manually turn my VPN Manually ON... dont have to manually turn off it turns off all by itself... as soon as screen goes to sleep it disconnects which drives me crazy...
This...

Where is the "Always" setting?
shiftless is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2013, 09:25 AM   #11
WildCowboy
Administrator/Editor
 
WildCowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveLV702 View Post
How do you setup the "Always" on cause I've always had to manually turn my VPN Manually ON... dont have to manually turn off it turns off all by itself... as soon as screen goes to sleep it disconnects which drives me crazy...
It's generally set up at the enterprise level using iPhone Configuration Utility and pushed out to devices as a configuration profile.

VPN On Demand
__________________
Editor in Chief, MacRumors
WildCowboy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2013, 09:26 AM   #12
unlinked
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ireland
Quote:
Originally Posted by whooleytoo View Post
"Apple says they don't infringe. But Apple developers testified that they didn't pay any attention to anyone's patents when developing their system."

Comment from the lawyer representing VirnetX. To me, that just seems to be acknowledging Apple didn't copy VirnetX, they just unwittingly ran into a 'roadblock' patent. While that makes no difference to the lawsuit, it does highlight that patents are just being given out too easily - including to Apple.
I think developers are instructed not to look at patents because if you know about them then any infringement can be found to be willful and the judgement against you will be larger.

Anytime I have looked at a patent is has left me more confused than informed so I'm pretty sure the whole system is failing at at least half its purpose.
unlinked is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2013, 09:28 AM   #13
smithrh
macrumors 68000
 
smithrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by unlinked View Post
I think developers are instructed not to look at patents because if you know about them then any infringement can be found to be willful and the judgement against you will be larger.
Exactly right.
smithrh is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2013, 09:32 AM   #14
melgross
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York City
The "already shipped" comment isn't so hard to understand. Apple has now paid for all past infringing devices, so those devices are licensed to use the software as is.

Whether they will pay a license for new devices is still not known.
__________________
If you say so.
melgross is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2013, 09:54 AM   #15
JHankwitz
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Send a message via AIM to JHankwitz
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdeFowler View Post
Iíll hazard a guess that the only people interested in this, are currently making money, not browsing MacRumors
So very true. VPN users are currently using their corporate equipment and networks, so are not allowed to be wasting company resources visiting a rumor site. Those not on VPN could cate less about it.
JHankwitz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2013, 10:02 AM   #16
mittencuh
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdeFowler View Post
Iíll hazard a guess that the only people interested in this, are currently making money, not browsing MacRumors
I use a VPN for my work, but I'm here all the time
mittencuh is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2013, 12:40 PM   #17
CallMeSizzle
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post
The "already shipped" comment isn't so hard to understand. Apple has now paid for all past infringing devices, so those devices are licensed to use the software as is.

Whether they will pay a license for new devices is still not known.

NOT TRUE...Apple hasn't paid a dime yet and is still infringing without a license. The Products that came after this lawsuit are part of a second suit that has yet to come to trial. It is likely that if they reach an agreement it will be for everything and the second suit will be dropped.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trik View Post
I wonder if this was a bluff on Apple's part to get them to drop the licensing fees. As in,
"Fine we'll take it off entirely, and you won't get a dime from now on"
VirnetX: "No way you'll do that"
**insert 6.1 release notes**
VirnetX: "Ok ok, we'll drop the price."

**Tim Cook sips his Mai Tai**
That is one wishful thinking way to be thinking about it. More like this:

Apple: Well, we steal we don't pay
Court: You must pay
VirnetX: This is our rate
Apple: No way. We will just come up with a workaround!
VirnetX: Good luck with that.
Users: Hey Apple, WTF is going on with VPN???
User: Hey WTF is up with iMessage and FaceTime??? They keep going down!
Apple: Uh..how much do we need to pay again?

While Tim Cook reads rumors of big investors asking for him to be replaced
CallMeSizzle is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2013, 03:38 PM   #18
haravikk
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by unlinked View Post
I think developers are instructed not to look at patents because if you know about them then any infringement can be found to be willful and the judgement against you will be larger.
And it wastes a fantastic amount of time to try to look up patents for every little thing you add, especially when practically any line of code these days is potentially something that's been patented judging by a lot of the recent cases.

If you have to stop every five seconds to look up whether a particular usage of a socket, for loop or increment has been patented, then it just plain stops developers from doing what they're supposed to be doing; developing. This is why big companies have legal teams to look for possible conflicts, but then they don't necessarily know enough about the specifics to be able to find exact matches anyway; there are a lot of patents out there, and nearly all of them are worded in incredibly unhelpful language that makes the concept as vague as possible to all involved in the hopes of it being applicable to something only loosely related for maximum profit from zero actual development work.


Sorry, I just really hate the stupidity in patents, and yet nothing is being done to actually fix the damn things.
__________________
"Early 2008" MacPro, 2 x 3.2ghz Quad-Core Xeons, 10gb DDR2 800mhz ECC RAM, 120gb Solid State Drive (Mac & Windows OS), 4 x 750gb hard-drives (striped, users/files), NVidia GeForce 8800GT (512mb).
haravikk is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2013, 03:33 AM   #19
Marlor
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
This is a big win.

We would have needed to totally change the way we deploy iPhones if this happened. It would have broken our security model and denied access to many intranet sites.

I spent a week trying to create a workaround, but there was none that would keep full functionality.
Marlor is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2013, 07:06 AM   #20
SiriusExcelsior
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canis Major
Quote:
Originally Posted by haravikk View Post
Sorry, I just really hate the stupidity in patents, and yet nothing is being done to actually fix the damn things.
It's just stupid the amount of effort and money you have to spend to find if someone, somewhere has already done the same thing you just "made". Most of the time you'll only find out when a lawyer comes knocking on your doors...

It'd be nice if you are allowed to "reinvent" things and use what you have without paying if you can prove you independently came up with something (R&D notes, etc), since you'll have made the investment in developing that too (which is the whole point of patents, right?), but that system's going to be hell to administer and enforce...
__________________
Try not!
Do, or do not.
There is no try.
SiriusExcelsior is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2013, 01:15 AM   #21
chikin
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Instead of screwing your customers with this annoying workaround, Apple, how about you just spend a minuscule fraction of your eleventy billion dollars and just license the damned patent? For eff's sake, Tim, you're way ahead in the market. Stop acting as if Apple's the one always being slighted.
chikin is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:53 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC