context is important-- to wit the full conversation in court :
MR. WILLIAMS ...... just because a call is not relayed, does not mean it is infringing. I hope I made
THE COURT: So you are saying there may be another non-infringing alternative that you are considering for the future other than the relay non-infringing alternative? [regarding Facetime]
MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely. And I will represent to the Court that obviously, I mean, Apple continues to redesign and change features in its phone. And it does not exclude VPN on Demand or FaceTime. So I just want to make sure that that is clear; that there is not going to be a going back, if you will, to what was adjudged infringement.
MR. WILLIAMS ...... but the question is would Apple continue along, truly, along that path if they saw -- if management saw that and said we are not going that route. We will do another non-infringing route. Right? So that assumes there is no other change. Like I said, I can tell the Court now that they are, in fact, looking at other alternatives.
THE COURT: Other than them looking at it, do you have any evidence of any other non-infringing alternative at this time other than the relay?
MR. WILLIAMS: None that I can submit to the Court, Your Honor.
in other words the apple attorney has nothing other than the claim that facetime is run on very expensive relay servers as of april with related service degredation -- the judge will disregard any other claim that they "are looking at" other non-infringing alternatives. it's a bluff the judge will disregard.
and this claimed design around for facetime only-- apple still on the hook for infringing VHC tech re VPNonDemand for $703M per testimony at the trial. apparently tried some changes to that and the enterprise customers went nuts so apple backed off. Maybe apple should consider a liscence for this nextg gen communications tech, quit #$%$ away $ on patent lawyers and get the jump on their competitors--- before their competitors do so.....