Apple Targeted in New Patent Suit Over VPN on iOS

[Consultant]

Originally Posted by Earendil

Can someone who understands VPN a little better explain how Apple could possibly have infringed on it on the iPhone etc?

afaik VPN is a protocol and software based, and its something that Apple does not support out of the box. Third party software is required.

There isn't some sort of hardware implementation required to create a VPN is there?

iOS comes with built in VPN support.

[Master Chief]

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.

[alent1234]

Originally Posted by Earendil

Can someone who understands VPN a little better explain how Apple could possibly have infringed on it on the iPhone etc?

afaik VPN is a protocol and software based, and its something that Apple does not support out of the box. Third party software is required.

There isn't some sort of hardware implementation required to create a VPN is there?

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.

[BayouTiger]

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.....

[belvdr]

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.

[Rajani Isa]

Originally Posted by Salacion

Patent trolls should be killed, murdered and killed!

The patent should be void if you haven't incorporated it into whatever it is you do.

Some people can invent, but not finance production. Patent holding can be a respectable way to make a living/run a business.

Originally Posted by BayouTiger

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.....

But isn't researching for prior art the patent applicant's responsibility?

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Xavier

I can say honestly that I have never used a VPN on my mobile device.

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.

[skeep5]

yeah i'm in the wrong business. patent squatting is where its at.

[BornAgainMac]

VirnetX sounds too close to OS X. Apple might have to sue.

[shen]

and filed in Texas, natch. Is there a reason we haven't just nuked that place and moved on?

[LagunaSol]

Can't we just outlaw this scourge called "patent holding firms?" They should be right up there with cockfighting and Ponzi schemes on the "illegitimate businesses" list.

[iSee]

Originally Posted by Master Chief

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.

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.

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.

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.

[techwhiz]

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.

[maturola]

I really hate all this patents trolls!...

[litmag01]

Originally Posted by cybaster

Someone opened the cage doors for patent trolls lately.....

Got that right!

[MacRigor]

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.

[alent1234]

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.

[bruinsrme]

Originally Posted by bwillwall

oh apple... you cant just do anything you want

Looks like MS paid a settlement.
That was prbably the test to the validity of the case and now going after others.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally Posted by shen

and filed in Texas, natch. Is there a reason we haven't just nuked that place and moved on?

And a big middle finger back at you too.

[edoates]

Originally Posted by rmatthewware

Patent reform?

I get it when Nokia sues Apple, or visa versa. Those are active companies actively producing things. I hate it when patent holding companies sue people. So, you patent something, have no intention of doing anything with it, then wait for someone not only to use it, but make money on it. Then you sue. You don't sue when it first happens, you wait until the pot is sweet enough. These people are vultures in the worst way, and it shouldn't be allowed to go on like this.

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.

[spillproof]

What else is new?

I should be a lawyer for Apple. $$$

[Master Chief]

Originally Posted by iSee

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.

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.

Originally Posted by iSee

Apple, on the other hand, primarily uses their IP to protect the stuff they produce from patent trolls.

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?

Originally Posted by iSee

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.

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.

Originally Posted by iSee

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.

And thus so be it.

[Vulpinemac]

Originally Posted by Master Chief

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.

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.

[LagunaSol]

Originally Posted by Vulpinemac

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.

[nebo1ss]

Originally Posted by Salacion

Patent trolls should be killed, murdered and killed!

The patent should be void if you haven't incorporated it into whatever it is you do.

Re your Sig.
If a "Synanym is a word you use in place of a word you can not spell what is a "synonym"