Judge denies Apple's motion to dismiss claim that they intentionally broke FaceTime

Judge denies Apple's motion to dismiss claim that they intentionally broke FaceTime
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ruled Friday that proceedings may continue in a class action suit leveled by iPhone 4 and 4S users claiming that Apple intentionally "broke" FaceTime for iOS 6 users. This suit comes after a series of court cases between Apple and the alleged "patent troll" company VirnetX, which in 2012 won a lawsuit against the company for infringing on peer-to-peer patents used in FaceTime.

At the time, iPhones used a combination of peer-to-peer communication and relays sent over servers owned by Akamai to connect users via FaceTime. After the ruling, Apple was forced to rely solely on Akamai's servers for a period of time, spiking their cost's significantly. Up to $50 million was paid to Akamai in one six-month period according to testimony from a follow-up lawsuit by VirnetX. Naturally, Apple engineers started looking for ways to cut this cost, and by iOS 7 a peer-to-peer alternative that didn't infringe on VirnetX's patents was implemented, but there was still too many people still using iOS 6. 

The lawsuit alleges that Apple's solution, citing internal emails and sworn testimony from the VirnetX trial, was to "break" iOS 6's FaceTime compatability by prematurely expiring a vital digital certificate, and blaming the incompatibility on a bug. Apple's support documents, at the time, recognized this "bug."


The support page has been revised many times since its original 2014 posting, no longer mentioning the April 16, 2014 bug.

Plaintiffs argue that this causes measurable loss to the value of their phones and violated state consumer protection laws. Apple rebutted, contending that the loss of FaceTime resulted in no economic loss since it was a "free" service. This motion was denied by Judge Koh.


You can check the source link below for the full lawsuit filing.

sources: Reuters and Apple Insider

FEATURED VIDEO

32 Comments

1. trojan_horse

Posts: 5868; Member since: May 06, 2016

"The lawsuit alleges that Apple's solution, citing internal emails and sworn testimony from the VirnetX trial, was to "break" iOS 6's FaceTime compatibility by prematurely expiring a vital digital certificate, and blaming the incompatibility on a bug" Typically Apple.

5. Finalflash

Posts: 4063; Member since: Jul 23, 2013

You won't see the Apple apologists or iFan army here, primarily because they got nothing to say to being openly shafted (usually its behind closed doors so they can defend it in public).

7. MrShazam

Posts: 987; Member since: Jun 22, 2017

Sounds like you'll be surprised by just how brainwashed some of them are. Even though apple is being sued for the it, they'd proudly deny this is any form of planned obsolescence, despite clear evidence in front of them.

9. Flash

Posts: 1972; Member since: May 19, 2017

Like Samsung fans and the Galaxy S8 right?

10. kiko007

Posts: 7491; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

Tbf, those dudes aren't really brainwashed, they're just excellent at giving Samsung fellatio... huge difference. Never seen anything like it in a tech forum before.

15. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 2012

Exactly why I make an effort to move my data out of the Apple ecosystem after learning that they have secretly delete songs from iPod not bought from iTunes Store. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/lawsuit-accusing-apple-of-deleting-ipod-songs-set-to-go-on-with-new-plaintiff/ High Load Count when installing third parties HDD in Macbook Pro. Meaning Apple Macbook firmware would randomly spin and stop on the third parties HDD to wear it out. Within a week of use, the HDD would appear to have been used for 30 years. https://discussions.apple.com/thread/2806260?start=0&tstart=0 Apple has been such a bully that the only recourse is not to use their product despite being a fan in the beginning.

20. ShadowSnypa786

Posts: 492; Member since: Jan 06, 2017

Wow someones butthurt :D

24. PhoneCritic

Posts: 1345; Member since: Oct 05, 2011

Wow- that was harsh.

11. razmahtaz001

Posts: 501; Member since: May 11, 2013

re: 5. Finalflash (Posts: 3508; Member since: 23 Jul 2013) You won't see the Apple apologists or iFan army here, primarily because they got nothing to say to being openly shafted (usually its behind closed doors so they can defend it in public). =============================== just like how they like to pretend that iphones dont lag even tho there are so many stories online from many iphone 7 and earlier models users who complain about lags LOL...smoothest os? just works? hahaha, ok wutevers LOL

2. airoid

Posts: 126; Member since: Dec 13, 2016

Patents troll? Vernetx OWN the patents and Apple infringed the patents. They bought with their money so they can do anything about it.

3. deewinc

Posts: 455; Member since: Feb 21, 2013

When Apple sues, "They have been copied or have their patent infringed." But when Apple is sued, "Patent trolls" are after Apple's success.

8. NarutoKage14

Posts: 1306; Member since: Aug 31, 2016

The reason VirnetX won the case: DOD contractor.

4. talon95

Posts: 985; Member since: Jul 31, 2012

This has nothing to do with patent trolls. Apple promised consumers FaceTime and then took it away when it started to cost them money. Unless you work for Apple you should be pleased this was allowed to be looked into further. When you pay for a device with a feature it should work.

6. Heisenberg

Posts: 367; Member since: Feb 11, 2015

Do you mean FaceTime doesn't work on Apple devices ? Pls kindly break it down

12. HansP

Posts: 542; Member since: Oct 16, 2011

Wuuuut? Did Apple forget to make the monthly payment to Lucy Koh's offshore account or something?

13. Dingy_cellar_dweller

Posts: 339; Member since: Mar 16, 2013

The check/cheque is in the mail

14. darkkjedii

Posts: 30836; Member since: Feb 05, 2011

One global video chat service, would rock!

16. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

It's a free service tbat people rely on and you broke it on purpose to cut cost. Get thrm! May th3m lay dearly!

17. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

It's a free service tbat people rely on and you broke it on purpose to cut cost. Get 'em! May them pay dearly!

18. Leo_MC

Posts: 6710; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

Since when is a company obliged to provide a service? Google discontinued wave, buzz, iGoogle, talk and I have not heard of being sued for that.

19. MrShazam

Posts: 987; Member since: Jun 22, 2017

*FACEPALM* Is facetime discontinued everywhere? Trying to equate completely discontinued services to an intentionally broken service that was advertised to come with the device is just retarded, to say the least.

21. Leo_MC

Posts: 6710; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

Hangouts was able to send/receive sms, now it doesn't do that. What is opinion on that?

22. MrShazam

Posts: 987; Member since: Jun 22, 2017

Where was Hangout's SMS function advertised as something you get with a google product you purchased?

25. Leo_MC

Posts: 6710; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

It doesn't matter that it was advertised or not; it's something that Hangouts did and no longer does, which means "Google intentionally broke it".

27. MrShazam

Posts: 987; Member since: Jun 22, 2017

"It doesn't matter that it was advertised or not" Yes it does, as that's what influenced the buyer's decision to buy the product. If you actually think advertising makes no difference, you're serioisly delusional and mistaken.

28. Leo_MC

Posts: 6710; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

Google also advertised Google Play, yet Gingerbread users can't use it anymore. How about that?

29. MrShazam

Posts: 987; Member since: Jun 22, 2017

Firstly, it's newer versions of google play services that wouldn't be able to run on gingerbread, doesn't block access to older versions: https://9to5google.com/2016/11/21/google-play-services-gingerbread-support-end/ Second, you do realize this your desperate attempt of trying to equate this abdurd and extremely greedy move of apple's to some other company doesn't make it any less absurd and greedy, right? Unless you're some apple share holder, trying to defend such extremely greedy move is just asinine like a blind fanboy.

30. Leo_MC

Posts: 6710; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

I don't care about Apple or Google, I only care for their products. I gave you an example of app that had its functionality removed by Google (just like Apple removed the functionality for FaceTime); you rejected my example, because (this is one of the stupidest reasons I have read on this site) Apple advertised the service while Google didn't (this is a f**king mindblow). I gave 2 other examples: Google Play and Android Market, but they seem to be bad, because they... prove my point so you just rejected them... Don't be an illogical fan, both Apple and Google are doing the same s**t; the same goes for Facebook, Microsoft and every tech company (look for apps discontinued on WP or older Android devices and you'll find that I'm right).

31. MrShazam

Posts: 987; Member since: Jun 22, 2017

Your point has simply been retarded and baseless from the start. First two excuses were ignorant of the context (a service advertised as a reason to buy the device, the later being intentionally broken), the latter wasn't even true to begin with. Don't be an asinine blind fanboy, if google were in any way doing the same extremely greedy sh*t as apple, I'm sure millions of their users wouldn't hesitate to sue them too. Your desperate attempt to equate merely discontinuing apps to discontinuing a service that was a selling component of a device shows how ignorant of the context and narrow minded you are. Your example is as retarded as saying 'cause iPhones have caught fire, they should be recalled like the Note 7. Ignorant of the context of how many devices have been sold. Context matters, get a clue of what that means before looking for another example.

32. Leo_MC

Posts: 6710; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

Dude, I have asked you nicely not to be a stupid fanboy and yet you ignored my request. This is the last prove that shows the fact the Google is doing the exact same thing as Apple: Google killed support for YouTube in some older devices (iPhone included); Google advertised YouTube, Apple advertised YouTube, Panasonic and other companies did the same, yet no f**king user sued those companies when Google (Google, not Apple, not Sony) killed the support for YouTube. Get it through you thick skull: it is legal for a company to discontinue an app or a service; Apple did that, I have shown that Google did that, Facebook also did that with its app on wp, Microsoft also did that by blocking older OneDrive apps etc. If you're fixated on saying something bad about Apple, go f**k yourself and stop wasting my time with stupid fanboy allegations.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.