Reply to post: Re: What??!!

Apple tries to have VirnetX VPN patent ruling overturned again, US Supremes say no... again

whitepines Silver badge

Re: What??!!

Because their patent basically covers ANY point to point videoconferencing connection, as if that wasn't something completely obvious to do.

In the world of unfiltered IPv6, it's quite obvious and easy. However, I can attest from personal experience that doing so from NATted endpoints (i.e. any phone on IPv4, most computers, etc.) is far from trivial -- if I recall, we ended up using some kind of corporate reflector server (expensive, since all data flows through it, leading to high connectivity costs) because that was the only way to make it work reliably. And even then it wasn't great, didn't help productivity any, and to this day we primarily use Email, phone, and chat for communications as the proven best tools for the job.

I haven't looked at the patent in question, but 10 years would put it well before IPv6 was deployed in any meaningful way. Setting up a circuit between two NATted devices without a reflector is indeed quite difficult and non-obvious.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021