Lawsuit claiming Apple purposely broke FaceTime on older iPhones is dismissed

midian182

Posts: 6,286   +53
Staff member

As reported by MacRumors, a class-action lawsuit was launched in California against Apple back in 2017 that claimed it purposely broke FaceTime in iOS 6, forcing users onto iOS 7. It was alleged that this meant Apple would avoid having to pay Akami for using its servers. In addition to dealing with that case, a similar lawsuit was brought against the company last August in Florida.

Apple settled the California suit in February, but a federal court this week ruled that the claims in the Florida case “are untimely and must be dismissed.” The judge, Raag Singhal, said the complainants had several chances to file suit against Apple but waited too long to lodge their complaints.

When FaceTime launched in 2010, it used two technologies to connect iPhones: a peer-to-peer method that used a direct connection, and a “relay method” that used Akami’s servers. But in 2012, Apple’s peer-to-peer tech was found to infringe on VirnetX’s patents, forcing it to switch entirely to the relay method.

The VirnetX trial revealed that Apple was paying $50 million per year in fees to Akami, so to save money, it created a new peer-to-peer system for FaceTime that arrived in iOS 7.

The lawsuits claimed Apple created a bug that caused an important digital certificate to expire early, thereby breaking FaceTime on iOS 6 and forcing people to upgrade to iOS 7.

Permalink to story.

 

GregonMaui

Posts: 230   +87
Taking the complainers at face value, what harm was caused anyone by upgrading to iOS 7 that had an iPhone 4 or later? none. The complaint then is solely for iPhone 3GS (2009) and earlier (a 5 year old phone at the time of release of iOS 7)

Well I know I had an old phone that my carrier no longer supported and it was less than 5 years old. I guess tech moves on
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reehahs

candle_86

Posts: 627   +547
Windows messenger was intentionally broken when Microsoft forced everyone to move to Skype and my windows 95 computer won't run it. Same logic, it's ridiculous.