Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51C1B21F9DF3 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 16:44:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y28XnDXiO33l for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 16:44:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f177.google.com (mail-ie0-f177.google.com [209.85.223.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3577621F9DBA for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 16:44:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id e14so9033358iej.36 for ; Mon, 02 Sep 2013 16:44:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=Dd1weTDtSCQT4BxktF85bJQclPZptnf4Ryfazc7DWgI=; b=KpbPtqHI2bpCqk1EKMXFHbuRLJC/kBM2+DFt9WPNi3CrAdyWcPQ9rAbFuLJheRgWnv dab728TY1QhepKE2G4RIXwBBa4eOzhr+nWbA1dpW4MUaU1mPo7AmOJRI2TKVHo6yxsq3 rzzb76Q6eXkGxvteeHQJkRRnuDTiUZjDUydQGSgURSLqDR0mJ54FRpJ8nHbzg6+tR2Ye qwvuewVj1zfQ8u4znGnoZuqGEnfFjmzXL24vsX+Ai/WW7/1LZjVFhxqYkwO2nbZJr4+V DKRbjPavHl4Q2FZHz4RwoMuJ4by7bkQ+uwsYfGhmhJV89stxmFslzkZa+aHhgMXjzZJ8 +YWA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnOl03DVPX/Ju/cnFa0yGUE+HUN1T5q9FYgWl8edaII/94hBkTi7KgxRlpm5qQm6aaFLulx X-Received: by 10.50.20.232 with SMTP id q8mr13969920ige.0.1378165478736; Mon, 02 Sep 2013 16:44:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id p5sm20756756igj.10.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Sep 2013 16:44:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <522522E2.70604@bbs.darktech.org> Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 19:44:34 -0400 From: cowwoc User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Silvia Pfeiffer References: <5223991F.1040508@bbs.darktech.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090102090504040902040108" Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Virnetx IPR X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 23:44:52 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090102090504040902040108 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Silvia, Something doesn't make sense. It's my understanding that Facetime involves direct video chat connections (no VPN) and yet Apple was found to be infringing Virnetx patents. Quoting http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/report-after-patent-loss-apple-tweaks-facetime-and-logs-500000-complaints/: Both sides in the litigation admit that if Apple routes its FaceTime calls through relay servers, it will avoid infringing the VirnetX patents. Once Apple was found to be infringing---and realized it could end up paying an ongoing royalty for using FaceTime---*the company redesigned the system so that all FaceTime calls would rely on relay servers. Lease believes the switch happened in April*. This makes me believe the patent affect direct p2p connections. Gili On 01/09/2013 6:38 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > FAIK it's unrelated: WebRTC is not using a vpn to establish > connections. But IANAL. :-) > Silvia. > > On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:44 AM, cowwoc wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Is WebRTC affected by this? >> >> http://apple.slashdot.org/story/13/09/01/1233230/apple-now-relaying-all-facetime-calls-due-to-lost-patent-dispute >> and >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/virnetx-files-vpn-patent-suit-against-apple-cisco-nec/ >> >> Thanks, >> Gili >> _______________________________________________ >> rtcweb mailing list >> rtcweb@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb --------------090102090504040902040108 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Silvia,

    Something doesn't make sense. It's my understanding that Facetime involves direct video chat connections (no VPN) and yet Apple was found to be infringing Virnetx patents.

    Quoting http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/report-after-patent-loss-apple-tweaks-facetime-and-logs-500000-complaints/:

Both sides in the litigation admit that if Apple routes its FaceTime calls through relay servers, it will avoid infringing the VirnetX patents. Once Apple was found to be infringing—and realized it could end up paying an ongoing royalty for using FaceTime—the company redesigned the system so that all FaceTime calls would rely on relay servers. Lease believes the switch happened in April.

    This makes me believe the patent affect direct p2p connections.

Gili

On 01/09/2013 6:38 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
FAIK it's unrelated: WebRTC is not using a vpn to establish
connections. But IANAL. :-)
Silvia.

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:44 AM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

Hi,

    Is WebRTC affected by this?

http://apple.slashdot.org/story/13/09/01/1233230/apple-now-relaying-all-facetime-calls-due-to-lost-patent-dispute
and
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/virnetx-files-vpn-patent-suit-against-apple-cisco-nec/

Thanks,
Gili
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

--------------090102090504040902040108--