Andrew Aurenheimer, better known as “Weev” in the hacking world, has been placed in solitary confinement. The man was placed in the segregated part of the prison for “investigative purposes” due the to fact that he was tweeting from prison. His tweets were sent via a prison email account and later relayed to his Twitter account by a third party. The account has not been updated since the 8th of April.

Aurenheimer sent snail mail to the Daily Bot explaining the situation.

I am disgusted to have to write an actual paper letter but they took away all my electronic comms methods and put me in the special housing unit where I am under 24/7 lockdown. All this for the high crime of blogging, despite nation B.O.P. [Federal Bureau of Prisons] officials having made public statements that what I was doing wasn’t against the rules[…]

It has been a week of this and I feel completely alone and abandoned. I don’t even have my loved ones or attorney’s address (they took most of my papers and I happened to have your address on a property slip they didn’t toss). and am unsure when or if anyone will find out about my situation.

Weev was sentenced to prison for 41 months due to taking user information from a public AT&T website and sharing it with Gawker. A lot of the tech world (including myself) has questioned the sentence length, and whether or not it was warranted. On top of his prison time, Aurenheimer will have to pay AT&T $73,000 in restitution charges.

Image Source: Daily Tech

Apple wants Google to hand over documents relating to Android that will help it in its case against Samsung. Apple, which is in a patent-infringement lawsuit with Samsung, claims that Android “provides much of the accused functionality” of Samsung’s infringing products and that doing a thorough search of these documents is essential to proving Samsung is intentionally infringing on its patents.

Lawyers for Samsung argue that Apple intentionally left Google out of its lawsuit and only targeted Samsung as Google doesn’t have as many rights when its a third party to the trial, and thus there’s more of a chance that the company will be forced to hand over the documents that Apple is after.

“It’s a question of transparency,” Mark Lyon, a lawyer for Apple, told Grewal yesterday, referring to the documents. “We have concerns that they’re not doing a full search,” Bloomberg reports.

Samsung and Google are concerned that Apple will find information that can hint at future Android products or updates that will give them an unfair competitive edge. Apple claims that it is simply trying to protect its patents from Samsung.

This is the second major patent case between the two companies. Apple won the first one and Samsung was forced to pay Apple $639 million in damages.

Don’t think it’s the last one, however, as It is fair to expect back and forth patent wars between these two companies until the end of time.

Image Credit: Extreme Tech

Apple has been ordered by a court in China to pay three Chinese writers as compensation for infringing on their copyright after making their books available on the App Store without first asking permission. The books were reportedly uploaded by a third party and sold without proceeds going to the authors or their publishers.

While Apple didn’t publish the books itself, the company is still being held responsible because it didn’t follow current laws and ask permission to publish the books from the original authors.  As a result, Apple has been ordered to pay $118,000 for the infringement.

Feng Gang, the judge presiding over the case, said that Apple should have known that the uploaded books violate the writers’ copyright.

“The writers involved this time include Mai Jia, whose books are often on best-seller lists across the country,” he explained. “In this way, Apple has the capability to know the uploaded books on its online store violated the writer’s copyright.”

This isn’t the first time that Apple has had legal trouble concerning copyright issues in China and this is actually the second group of lawsuits filed against Apple by the Writers’ Right Protection Union.

Feng stressed that other technology companies should learn from Apple’s case and adjust verification systems accordingly in order to avoid facing similar fines in the future.

The lawyer who represented the writers in this case, Wang Guohua, told the China Daily that it was happy with the verdict of the case, which resulted in more compensation than most copyright infringement cases.

Also, LAWL Chinese Copyright.

Image Credit: Digital Reader News

Google has been slapped with a fine of 145,000 Euros, about $189,000, for violating “one of the biggest data protection rules” known in Germany. The violation? Google’s Street View cars illegally collected data from open Wi-Fi networks between 2008-2010.

German prosecutors dropped criminal proceedings against Google last fall when they failed to find “criminal violations,” but data protection regulators picked the case up again in hopes of discovering exactly what Google had done that was illegal, and did they ever. Between 2008 and 2010, Google’s cars collected data, including contents of e-mails, passwords, photos, and chat protocols, according to Hamburg data regulator Johannes Caspar.

Google’s global privacy counsel, Peter Fleischer, said the company has tightened up its system to address the Street View issue. He also said the Google’s Street View team was unaware of the collection and never looked at the illegal data that it gathered.

“In my view, this is one of the biggest data protection rules violations known,” said Caspar. Google’s “internal control mechanisms must have severely failed.”

$189,000 fine doesn’t seem like much of a fine for violating one of Germany’s biggest data protection rules. In fact, the fine represents less than 0.005% of Google’s profit last quarter. It’s like paying a third of a parking ticket for the average customer. Not exactly something that will convince a company to behave itself.

Right now fines for negligent data rule violations are limited to 150,000 euros under German law, but Caspar argues that this should be raised in order to deter unlawful behavior. How about handing out these fines on a sliding scale based on revenue? That’ll get Google’s attention pretty quickly.

Image Credit: Damon Tucker

In an effort to end the year and a half long EU antitrust investigation involving Apple and a number of large publishers, Pearson’s Penguin unit has offered to the European Commission to end its e-book deal with Apple that placed price restrictions on Amazon and other retailers.

If the European Commission accepts the offer it would make Penguin the fifth and final book publisher to settle with regulators, effectively ending the 16-month long investigation without fining or finding any wrongdoing.

Regulators have been worried that pricing deals like this would prevent growth of the e-book market, with higher prices for consumers. Right now Amazon has the biggest share of that market.

In December, settlements were reached with the Commission between Apple and publishers Simon & Scuster, News Corp unit HarperCollins, Lagardere SCA’s Hachette Livre and Verlagsgruppe Georg con Holtzbrinck, the owner of Germany’s Macmillan.

Penguin’s offer includes ending the “most-favored nation,” which kept rival booksellers from selling e-books at a lower price point than Apple, for five years. The agreement would also allow retailers to set prices and discounts for two years, which is the same agreement that other publishers have settled with the Commission.

Interested parties have one month to comment on Penguin’s proposal before the Commission comes to a decision.

Image Credit: VentureBeat

David Miller, a securities trader at Rochdale Securities, has pleaded guilty to fraud after buying $1 billion of Apple stock without permission, which  ultimately resulted in bringing down the company he worked for at the time.

Miller bought 1.625 million shares on the day that Apple reported its third-quarter results in October 2012, hoping he would be able to make a profit when the share price rose.

Prosecutors have said that Miller’s plan backfired. The 40-year-old reportedly made the trade on behalf of one of Rochdale’s clients who had actually only order 1,625 shares. Miller allegedly conspired with another person to split the profit if the share price went up or claim “human error” if the price dropped.

When the share price ended up dropping, Miller claimed he had made a mistake in purchasing a thousand times too much stock, leaving Rochdale with 1.6 million shares it didn’t want and losing $5.4 million, pushing its assets below the legal limit for a brokerage and pretty much destroying the company.

Miller’s scheme was “deliberate, brazen and ultimately ill-conceived,” according to the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission.

Miller is now looking at 25 years in prison when he is sentenced on July 8, but could get only five to eight years under a plea deal. Miller’s attorney said he’s sorry for what he did and the harm it caused.

“Those who know David know that what happened here was out of character for a kind and generous family man who has lived an otherwise law abiding and good life,” Kenneth C. Murphy said. “When the time comes he will accept his punishment and he will spend the rest of his life trying to make up for the wrong he committed.”

Image Credit: IT PRO

Apple has been involved in yet another lawsuit where the company was accused of not honoring warranties on iPhones and iPod touches. Now Apple is reportedly agreeing to pay $53 million to settle the iPhone water damage warranty lawsuit.

The settlement is intended to reimburse potentially hundreds of thousands of iPhone and iPod touch consumers who were refused service by Apple. Apple was unwilling to repair or replace their faulty phones under the one-year standard, or two-year extended warranty. Noreen Krall, Apple’s chief litigation counsel, signed the agreement on Wednesday. Apple hasn’t actually admitted to any wrongdoing in the settlement, which still needs a judge’s approval.

According to a number of lawsuits combined in a San Francisco federal court, Apple refused to honor warranties if the white indicator tape found in the headphone jack or charging portals had turned pink or red. This indicator is used to measure the effects of water damage. If it’s pink, it’s supposed to indicate the presence of water, which voids the warranty. The tape’s maker, however, said that humidity, and not necessarily water contact, could have caused the color to at least turn pink.

So owners of the original iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, and the first-, second- and third-generation iPod touches that were refused service over water exposure could be eligible for a payout. The payouts are expected to be around $200 and could be less or more depending on the number of claims submitted.

Image Credit: GSMsolutions

Following Apple’s recent decision to pull the popular app discovery tool AppGratis from its App Store, France’s junior minister for digital economy Fleur Pellerin visited iMediaApp, the publishers of AppGratis, to discuss the situation. Following the meeting, Pellerin stated that Apple’s decision to remove the app was both “extremely brutal and unilateral” and that the EU must begin to put in place tighter regulation over Internet companies.

It should be noted that iMediaApp is a French company, so we should obviously expect there to be some bias here.

Pellerin states that problems like these are becoming too popular within Europe. She says that Internet companies are guilty of “repeated abusive behaviour” and that she now plans on asking “the European Commission and EU member states to better regulate digital platforms, search engines and social media.”

Apple states it removed AppGratis, which was originally launched in 2010, because it violated the guidelines that Apple lays out for its developers. Before it was removed, AppGratis had a sizeable 12 million users on iOS.

Apple’s decision to remove AppGratis has certainly caused a lot of bad press for the Cupertino based company. It will be interesting to see in the coming weeks if Apple chooses to allow AppGratis to return to its App Store, or whether it will stand by it original decision.

Image Credit: Europe1

Apple and Google-owned Motorola Mobility have accused each other of infringing on the other’s patents related to wireless technology. The judge presiding over the case, however, has accused both companies of using the litigation more as a business strategy than an effort to resolve their dispute.

“The parties have no interest in efficiently and expeditiously resolving this dispute; they instead are using this and similar litigation worldwide as a business strategy that appears to have no end,” U.S. District Judge Robert Scola said yesterday in an order. “That is not a proper use of this court.”

The list of patents that Apple and Google are using against each other has grown since the case was first filed in 2010. This case is just one of the many legal battles that Apple is involved in, challenging any company or device that it believes is copying its iPhone, the most notable of which is Samsung.

Scola explained in his order that the case in Florida involves more than 180 claims related to 12 patents and disputes over the meaning of more than 100 terms. Apple and Google were unable to solve anything and Scola called both companies’ actions “obstreperous and cantankerous conduct.”

“Without a hint of irony, the parties now ask the court to mop up a mess they made by holding a hearing to reduce the size and complexity of the case,” he wrote. “The court declines this invitation.”

Well, someone obviously isn’t too impressed.

Scola has given Apple and Google four months to narrow the case down. If they are unable to do so, he will put the case on hold until he resolves all the disputes over the definition of patent terms.

Image Credit: Voice from Russia

Yesterday, we brought you the news that Apple had shut down the popular iOS app AppGratis, a discovery tool that helped users find other cool apps on Apple’s App Store. Apple claimed that AppGratis was removed due to its violation of App Store guidelines 2.25 and 5.6.

“2.25 – Apps that display Apps other than your own for purchase or promotion in a manner similar to or confusing with the App Store will be rejected.”

“5.6 – Apps cannot use Push Notifications to send advertising, promotions, or direct marketing of any kind.”

Now AppGratis CEO Simon Dawlat has posted an extensive blog post detailing the ordeal that resulted from the removal of appGratis.

Dawlat tells how he was on a business trip to the company’s Brazil office when he first discovered the bad news. When Dawlat stepped off the plane in Sao Paulo, he looked at his phone and was greeted with “over 75 missed calls, and a seemingly infinite flow of unread text messages.”

“I almost fainted,” said Dawlat.

Dawlat seems to put all the blame on one new App Review team member, who Dawlat refers to as “R” in order to protect his privacy. Dawlat says that prior to last week, his company had always worked with App Review members “C” and “K”, who Dawlat described as always available to talk and very helpful.

Dawlat claims that “R” tried to call him three times, all while Dawlat was on a plane to Brazil, and that when he was unable to reach the AppGratis CEO he decided to pull the app from the App Store for breaking the guidelines 2.25 and 5.6. This all coming just one week after AppGratis had a new iPad version of the app approved by Apple’s App Store team.

Dawlat gave “R” a follow-up call to discuss the decision, but he claims that all “R” could do was simply repeat multiple times that the app had been pulled due to guidelines 2.25 and 5.6.

I asked how he and his team could have possibly changed their minds overnight, pretty much pulling the plug on a 45-person company. He seemed very detached regarding the gravity of the situation, and was unable to let me know on what specifics these decisions had been made.

Dawlat says that at the moment, the company’s focus is to continue to serve the existing 12 million AppGratis users that are still able to access the now removed app. “If you’re part of the 12 million lucky people to have downloaded our app before last Friday, know that it will keep updating everyday with new free apps and cool discounts. ”

The blog post ended with three steps of action:

1. If someone in charge at Apple reads this and wants to discuss the matter more in-depth, I’m happy to jump over to Cupertino anytime to prove to you that we’re on a mission for good. My email is simon@appgratis.com, so feel free to email me anytime.
2. If you are a user of AppGratis, a friend, a client, an app developer, or just a person that thinks AppGratis is good for the world, please share this post.
3. Finally, to my team, as always: keep pushing. You guys are doing an absolutely amazing job. And I know that right now, some of you are sad and scared. I am too.
But even in dark times, every problem has a solution.
And we are going to find one.

Although Dawlat says that his team’s mission is “far from finished”, it seems as though AppGratis’s only real plan is to somehow find a way to get itself back up on the App Store. While an existing 12 million person userbase will certainly continue to produce fairly sizeable revenues, it is definitely not the business model investors such as Iris Capital had in mind when they invested $13.5 million dollars into the company back in January.

At the time of the investment, Iris Capital partner Sophie Dingreville was quoted as saying, “AppGratis is a champion in the fast-growing app-marketing market, which is expected to be worth $25 billion by 2015.” It seems now that Apple doesn’t have any intentions of letting the market reach anywhere near that target.

Image Credit: The Verge

A major lawsuit was recently settled between Capitol Records and music start-up ReDigi, a platform for users to buy and sell “used” digital music that was bought from iTunes. Capitol Records sued ReDigi over copyright violations, and a U.S. District Judge ruled that ReDigi is not authorized to allow users to resell their digital content.

ReDigi’s argument held that “first-sale doctrine” should apply to digital purchases, not just physical ones, which means that you are able to sell legally purchased books or CDs to other parties. Sullivan’s ruling stated:

However, here, the Court cannot of its own accord condone the wholesale application of the first sale defense to the digital sphere, particularly when Congress itself has declined to take that step. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Capitol’s motion for summary judgment on its claims for ReDigi’s direct, contributory, and vicarious infringement of its distribution and reproduction rights. The Court also DENIES ReDigi’s motion in its entirety.

So basically, Sullivan argued that unless the copyright owner gives explicit permission to do so, you’re not legally allowed to resell a digital media file.

The judge granted partial summary judgment to Capitol Records, but ordered both parties to report back to him by April 12 for the next steps.

Apple recently filed for a number of patents that hinted that the company is considering ways for users to resell, lend or inherit digital content. Apple hasn’t indicated when, or even if, such a service will be made available.

Image Credit: The Verge

China isn’t giving Apple an easy time lately. The company was recently targeted by a Chinese state-run broadcaster who attempted attempt to bash Apple, which unfortunately backfired. Now Apple is being sued for 3.3 million yuan ($500,000) by a state-owned  film studio , which claims that Apple sold its movies without approval.

Shanghai Animation Film Studio, the first film studio established by a communist party and producer of blockbuster animated films like The Monkey King, is accusing Apple and Apple Electronics Products Commerce (Beijing), one of its Chinese subsidiaries, of infringing on intellectual property rights while selling content on its App Store without permission.

The animation film studio is claiming that Apple has sold 110 of its movies, including Calabash Brothers and Black Cat Detective.

“We want to keep tight-lipped on this case because, as we see it, it’s just a litigation in which we want to get compensation [for our product],” an official from the Shanghai film studio said. “It’s a sensitive period now since Apple is a big multinational company and it is surrounded by controversies on its practices in China.”

Apple hasn’t commented on the situation.

Image Credit: Cult of Mac

Last year the Australian House of Representatives started investigating whether or not some products are more expensive in Australia than other parts of the world. In February of this year, Apple, Microsoft and Adobe were called in by the Australian Parliament for questioning on pricing levels. Apple has officially responded to these inquiries at today’s scheduled pricing inquiry.

Australian customers see software and digital content prices that have been inflated by more than 70% compared to pricing in the U.S. During the Australian Parliamentary pricing inquiry, Apple’s Vice President for Australia, Tony King, blamed “old-fashioned notions” of record labels, movie studios, and TV networks for inflated prices that Australian customers pay on the iTunes store. King argued that prices for Apple products are comparable with the U.S., but rights holders are to blame for digital media inflation.

“The pricing of this digital content is based on the wholesale prices which are set through negotiated contracts with the record labels, movie studios and TV networks,” King explained. “In Australia, they have often set a higher wholesale price than the price of similar content in the United States.”

King said that in the digital age “the content industry still runs with perhaps old-fashioned notions of country borders or territories or markets,” which “creates confusion for customers.” He also said that Apple is pushing meetings with content owners for lower Australian pricing.

Image Credit: The Sydney Morning Herald

Apple really isn’t the only company that Samsung likes to tussle with. LG has called Samsung out on a possible patent infringement over eye-tracking technology that can be found in both the Galaxy S4 and the LG Optimus G Pro.

LG claims that it owns the patent to this technology, which is available on the Optimus G Pro called the Smart Video. A similar technology is seen in Samsung’s smartphone, called Smart Pause, which allows a video playing on the phone to be paused when the user looks away.

LG hasn’t actually filed an official complaint yet, but it has said that it will be looking into whether or not Samsung’s Smart Pause feature has infringed on their patent when it launches next month.

In typical fashion, Samsung has denied the allegations, arguing that their own technology was used and that it differs from the method used by LG to offer a similar experience. Stop us if you’ve heard this one before. Both companies’ phones are scheduled to be released in April.

Over the past year, the rivalry and competition between LG and Samsung has really been heating up. Both companies announced 55-inch OLED TVs at CES in 2012, and LG was able to ship the product first, despite both companies being very behind schedule. At CES 2013, Samsung announced a curved OLED TV, and LG responded with the “world’s first” curved panel within a couple of hours.

It seems that the rivalry continues behind the scenes as well, with the two companies butting heads over the underlying technology in their products. They’ve sued each other for various OLED patent violations and Samsung filed a lawsuit in its home country in December, claiming that LG infringed on its LCD patents, asking the court to ban the violating products. These cases have since been settled outside of court, but it doesn’t look like the ongoing quest for dominance in the market will be ending any time soon.

It looks like even Android phonemakers can’t decide who’s copying who these days.

Image Credit: The Economic Times

Andrew Auernheimer, better known as “Weev” in the web security world, was just sentenced to 41 months in prison for discovering and exploiting an AT&T security flaw. Auernheimer was convicted of identity fraud and a count of conspiracy. He was given nearly three-and-a-half years in prison for the “crime” and will be required to pay AT&T $73,000 in restitution payments. On top of these charges, Auernheimer will face another three years of probation upon release. Auernheimer has promised to appeal these charges.

Auernheimer found 114,00 email addresses that belonged to iPad 3G users. He then gave these email addresses to Gawker Media, which published the partially blurred out email addresses. According to his attorneys, the hack was apparently so easy that someone without hacking skills could have gotten past AT&T’s security. Heck, an AT&T investigator even said that Auernheimer “circumvented no security” during the hack.

Personally, I don’t think Auernheimer should get jail time for this supposed hack. He didn’t do anything malicious with the email addresses, considering they were censored when published by Gawker. If anything, he helped AT&T by discovering the hack early on. Auernheimer plans to continue to keep a blog during his prison term, so this isn’t the last we’ll hear of him.

Sadly, it’s not the last we’ll hear from AT&T either, considering its  general douchery these days.

Image Credit: liewcf

THX, an audio technology company, is suing Apple over speaker designs used in the iMac, iPhone and iPad. Apple is reportedly using the company’s patented speaker design technology. The patent in question, No. 7,433,483, was awarded to THX in 2008. The company has also said that Apple has caused “monetary damage and irreparable harm,” and that the company will seek a court order to stop Apple from infringing on its patent. THX is also expecting compensation in the form of royalties for damages.

The patent itself covers technology for “Narrow profile speaker configurations and systems.” This technology is meant to be used in flat-screen televisions. THX reportedly found the technology used in the iPhone 4, 4S and 5 as well as models of the iMac and iPad. However, Apple will likely try to counter this suit using its small portfolio of speaker-related patents. Apple and THX have until May 14th to discuss an early settlement.

THX is a sound technology company that was originally a part of Lucasfilm, the creators of Star Wars, in 1983. The company became independent in 2001 and currently develops sound standards for movie theaters and home sound systems.

Image Credit: David Guo’s Master

Seven Apple Stores in France have been caught violating a French law that prohibits employees from working after hours. Apple has been given a fine and the violating stores have been banned from making their employees work late anymore.

Following complaints from labor unions, a court in Paris fined Apple 10,000 euros, about $13,000, in damages to the worker’s union. Apple will also be fined an additional 50,000 euros, or $65,000, if stores are caught violating this law again.

According to French law, after hours work is considered to be between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and companies can only have employees work during those times for exceptional cases, which must be justified. Apple retail stores close at 9:00 p.m. but employees often stayed an additional two hours to clean and prepare for the next day. Apple argued that after hours work was unusual and denied any violation.

Apple Store locations found violating the French law include: l’Opera in Paris, Parly 2 in Le Chesnay, Carre Senart in Lieusaint, Val d’Europe in Marne-la-Vallee, Cape Town 3000 in Nice, and Atlantis in Saint Herblain.

Another ruling from a higher French court is expected to be announced on April 16.

Honestly, the only thing I’ve taken away from this is that I’m moving to France. No overtime? No work between 9:00pm and 6:00am? Sounds like blogger paradise.

Image Credit: The Verge

Apple and Brazilian company IGB Electronica are reportedly nearing a settlement in their iPhone trademark dispute. IGB, a telecommunications service firm, owns the brand Gradiente, and in March 2000 asked the Brazilian Industrial Property Institute (INPI) for exclusive rights to the name “iPhone.”

This all happened well before Apple came out with its first iPhone, and the iPod and iTunes were the only known Apple products on the market with the famous ‘i’ in front of it. In 2008, INBI granted IGB rights to the trademarked name and the company launched the G-Gradiente iPhone in the same year.

Now that Apple has established itself as top dog with its own iPhone, it has been looking to gain exclusive ownership over the the term “iPhone,” but IGB is standing in the way. Apple challenged the trademark, arguing that IGB didn’t use the trademark until it was close to expiration. INBI ruled on IGB’s side after it launched a low-cost Android smartphone using the iPhone brand last year.

Apple took the issue to court, but has now withdrawn legal actions after IGB said it would be open to selling the trademark. According to Brazil’s largest daily, Folha de Sao Paulo, Apple and IGB have agreed to end the trademark lawsuit for “iPhone” and come to a “pacific agreement.” In the past, Apple has paid millions for exclusive rights for trademarked words (it paid $60 million for the iPad trademark in China) and it wouldn’t be surprising if Apple were to pay IGB a good sum of money as well.

Once we hear more, we’ll be sure to update you on how this plays out in Brazil.

Image Credit: VentureBeat

Microsoft pulled a ‘Scumbag Steve’ move and has attempted to patent Apple’s “Pinch and Zoom” technology as its own. According to a patent application by Microsoft that was released by the United States Patent Office earlier this week, Microsoft is trying to patent its own version of Pinch and Zoom that looks identical to Apple’s Pinch and Zoom patent. We’ve embedded a copy of the patent diagram below for your viewing pleasure.

From the patent filing:

As evident, the mobile device is displaying the entirety of the chart which was present on page one, but not the entirety of the first page. In order to provide context for the user as to where they are within the content, the user can indicate a “pinching” motion for zooming out of the content.

–

The user can also indicate a pinching motion to zoom-out at this point when the display associated with FIG. 2B is shown.

Why would Microsoft do something so stupid? The company, along with Google, is hoping that Apple has its famous Pinch to Zoom patent invalidated, though that’s unlikely to happen anytime soon due to endless appeals. Patently Apple noted that Microsoft may have filed this patent as a “just-in-case” motion.

Apple is known for its secrecy, but it looks like the company is going to have to reveal a few things. Apple is being forced by U.S. Judge Paul S. Grewal to give detailed evidence of how it’s complying with court orders to turn over evidence in a privacy lawsuit because the judge can no longer trust what Apple tells him concerning this case.

The judge issued this order after the plaintiffs’ lawyers claimed that Apple withheld documents that it had been ordered to produce. Grewal said that he already “refereed” the dispute and that it is “unacceptable” for Apple to wait more than three months to confirm whether it has complied with the November court order to turn over the documents.

In the order, Grewal wrote:

Luckily for the plaintiffs, Apple has provided more than enough evidence itself to suggest to the court that it has not fully complied with the court’s order. In light of Apple’s performance in this case, the court cannot rely on its representations that this time it really has or will produce all responsive documents.

In turning over the documents, Apple may reveal some inner workings that the company usually works really hard to hide.

Apple is also being accused of collecting customers’ location data from iPhones even if they have their geo-location services turned off and giving third parties access to that information without consent. Apple argued that it is withholding some requested documents in the case to protect customer privacy. Despite this, Grewal ordered Apple to submit a detailed account by March 8.

Image Credit: Trading Desk

Apple has won another case in the ongoing patent battle against Samsung. This win came in a UK court where the judge ruled that Apple’s products do not infringe on Samsung’s patents that concern the ability to send and receive information over a 3G network.

Apple got the win because, according to the ruling, Samsung’s claims that Apple products infringe on their patents have been invalidated. It doesn’t look good for Samsung’s attempt to claim close to 2.5% of royalties from sales of Apple’s 3G-enabled devices.

Apple has reportedly won 24 claims worldwide of patent infringement by Samsung, while the Korean company has won only three cases, two of them in Korea.

In a statement, a Samsung spokeswoman said: “We are disappointed by the court’s decision. Upon a thorough review of the judgment, we will decide whether to file an appeal. For decades, we have heavily invested in pioneering the development of technological innovations in the mobile industry, which have been constantly reflected in our products.”

The seemingly never-ending patent war between these two companies started in 2011 when Apple sued Samsung for patent infringement concerning design, user interface, patents, and trademarks. The legal battles have since extended to South Korea, Japan, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and the UK.

Image Credit: Fox News

Apple stated in court Tuesday that it would like the trial’s judge to dismiss the lawsuit accusing the company of having a monopoly over iOS apps. The lawsuit was brought forward by the plaintiffs back in 2011, who argued that forcing developers to sell their apps for iOS through the App Store with no other legal options was a monopolistic practice. They also argued against Apple’s claim to 30% profit off all apps sold on the store.

Apple argues these points and states that what they’re doing is both completely fair and legal. Apple attorney Dan Wall stated during yesterday’s hearing, “There’s nothing illegal about creating a system that is closed in a sense.”

An attorney representing the seven suing plaintiffs asked during the hearing, “Can a consumer go somewhere else to buy Angry Birds for the iPhone? If the answer is no, then Apple is a monopolist.”

While companies like Google boast of having ‘open’ (heh!) and wide systems of access for users and developers, Apple is more focused on creating one closed system that is simple and accessible.  Or, so the argument goes. Having just one place where you can buy apps makes using devices such as the iPhone a much easier experience for users to understand.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has not let anyone know when she will present her decision. This one could get interesting in a hurry.

It was announced yesterday that Microsoft will be fined €561 million ($731 million) by the European Commission over antitrust violations connected to the distribution of its Internet Explorer browser. In a formal response, Microsoft has said that it won’t appeal the fine, and takes “full responsibility” for the error that caused the violation.

This fine is related to Microsoft’s practice way back in 2009, when they bundled the browser within its operating system. It was already being investigated over antitrust violations, and along with that, they were distributing Windows 7 without giving users a way of opting out of using Internet Explorer as an option. The case has been going on for months and back in October officially entered the formal complaint stage. Microsoft has decided not to appeal the decision made by the European Commission, possibly because of its unsuccessful attempts in the past to appeal decisions.

The official statement from Microsoft reads: “We take full responsibility for the technical error that caused this problem and have apologized for it. We provided the Commission with a complete and candid assessment of the situation, and we have taken steps to strengthen our software development and other processes to help avoid this mistake – or anything similar – in the future.”

Can anyone else believe we’re still dealing with antitrust lawsuits regarding Internet Explorer? Did we just take a step back to 1994?

Image Credit: ComputerWeekly

Judge Koh has just cut $400 million from the famous Apple vs. Samsung suit. Apple was originally supposed to be paid $1 billion from Samsung after winning the suit, but Koh seems to think differently. Koh has brought Apple’s award from the case down to $598.9 million USD. This is roughly $400 million less than Apple’s previous award, but is still a pretty big chunk of cash.

She is also ordering a new trial for 14 of Samsung’s affected products that include the Galaxy Prevail, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, AT&T Galaxy S II, Captivate, Continuum, Replenish, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Transform, Nexus S 4G, Droid Charge, and Galaxy Tab. Koh’s reasoning behind this is the fact that “the Court identified an impermissible legal theory on that the jury based its award.”

As of now, there is very little information behind this retrial including the date when it will take place. We will probably not see the trial take place until appeals from the first ruling are completed.

At this point, I doubt Apple cares about losing the $400 million. With Apple worth more than $100 billion and having billions in cash, $400 million is just a drop in the bucket for the company.

Image Credit: Kai Hendry

Snapchat, the photo messaging app, has been booming in popularity in recent months. Now, the app’s founders are being sued by a man claiming that he was the one who originally came up with the idea for the service.

Frank Reginald Brown IV was a student at Stanford along with Snapchat founders Evan Spiegel and Bobby Murphy. A picture of the three in front of a Snapchat themed cake obtained by the L.A. Times shows that the three did in fact know each other; however, the extent of their relationship is unknown.

Brown claims that he was the first one to ever come up with the Snapchat concept and that Spiegel and Murphy referred to it as a “million dollar idea”. Brown even claims that he was the one that came up with the current Snapchat ghost logo. He says that after working on the app together for a whole summer, back when the app was named Picaboo, Spiegel and Murphy changed the passwords to their servers and prevented Brown from coming back.

Snapchat responded to the lawsuit with the following statement:

We are aware of the allegations, believe them to be utterly devoid of merit, and will vigorously defend ourselves against this frivolous suit. It would be inappropriate to comment further on this pending legal matter.

Now all we need is to wait a few years, have Snapchat grow a bit bigger, get David Fincher involved and we have an Oscar nominated film on our hands.

Apple has just settled with a group of parents who were suing the company over in-app purchases. The group was suing Apple because their children spent unauthorized money on in-app purchases through ‘Freemium’ games. Before iOS 4.3, children could purchase these app add-ons without having to type in an iTunes password. Some of the kids managed to purchase between $99 and $300 worth of these add-ons without permission according to the suit.

Apple will be settling with the parents by offering $5 in iTunes credit to those who were charged under $30 and full refunds to those who were charged $30 or more. The $5 iTunes credit can also be requested in a cash equivalent. Apple customers who want to claim the credit or cash must attest that their minor purchased the in-app purchases and that the child was not provided with an iTunes password.

The iPhone and iPad maker should start to pay out these settlements towards the end of the year or in early 2014. We haven’t heard specifics as on how many users will be paid, but Law360 stated that Apple will email “over 23 million iTunes account holders who made a Game Currency purchase in one or more Qualified Apps.”

Image Credit: Richard, enjoy my life!

Like any child with a scraped knee, crying to two parents is often better than just one. Apple and Samsung, back in an Australian court room to battle out their patent infringement complaints, now have the luxury of presenting the case to two Federal Court judges. Two, it’s absolutely better than one.

Considering its breadth, Justice David Yates has joined Justice Annabell Bennett in hearing the case. Apple is claiming that Samsung has abused 19 patents, on 120 grounds, in 9 smartphones, and 2 tablets. No wonder Australia appointed two judges to make heads or tails of the case. There’s going to be a lot of arguing, and a lot of patents to wrap your head around.

According to the Financial Times, “Justice Bennett had raised the notion of introducing a second judge to the hearing last year as means of helping to understand the complex patents and mountains of documents involved in the trial.”

Things are back underway in Australia as the companies battle it out in court. Apple’s legal team has already addressed the court, showing footage from the original iPhone release.

This one won’t be over any time soon. We hope you’re ready for a long, drawn out battle in court. It’s already been going on since 2011, and there’s no end in sight at this point. We hope you’ve got yourselves a large supply of cheese to go with all this whine. It’s going to take a while.

Apple has released a statement saying that it is complying with a court ruling and will be removing Proposal 2 from voting at an investor meeting on February 27th. The ruling came earlier this morning from a Manhattan judge, who ruled that Apple could not hold a proxy vote that would allow the company to stop issuing perpetual preferred shares.

Here’s Apple’s statement:

We are disappointed with the court’s ruling. Proposal #2 is part of our efforts to further enhance corporate governance and serve our shareholders’ best interests. Unfortunately, due to today’s decision, shareholders will not be able to vote on Proposal #2 at our annual meeting next week.

Proposal 2 has been very controversial among Apple’s investors over the past few weeks. David Einhorn of Greenlight Capital has been seriously angry at Apple for the proposition and has even filed a lawsuit. Einhorn wants Apple to out “iPrefs”, or shares which essentially pay out forever. The shares would have a base value and would pay out a dividend of $2 per year. Apple would be able to redeem these shares for face value, and, according to Einhorn, “shareholders should expect to receive 50 cents per quarter, every quarter, forever.”

Image Credit: Le ciel azuré

Judge Lucy Koh is probably as annoyed as the rest of us when it comes to dealing with Samsung and Apple’s patent claims. While it may be a surprise to anyone just now tuning into the debacle, this is quickly turning into the lawsuit that never ends.

Bloomberg has the deets:

U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh in San Jose, California, today told lawyers from both companies that they must “focus and streamline” their cases to 25 patent claims, or elements of the patents at issue, and 25 accused products. … “We’ll keep narrowing and narrowing,” Koh said. “You’ve already been litigating this thing for a year; you must know something about what’s your best case.”

This whole thing isn’t going to be resolved any time soon either. Another trial is schedule to happen in 2014, and both companies are fighting out an appeal to the original lawsuit overseen by Judge Koh.

We don’t even want to know what Koh really thinks about this trial behind closed doors. I certainly wouldn’t want to be her.

Though no ruling has been made on whether to block next week’s shareholder vote on a proxy proposal, if his legal attack against Apple moves forward, David Einhorn’s Greenlight Capital hedge fund may find success.

Earlier this month, Greenlight Capital sued Apple in an attempt to get the company to send a larger amount of its $137 billion in cash to its shareholders. The lawsuit argues that Apple improperly “bundled” three proposed amendments to its charter into one proxy proposal of regulatory rules. On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan withheld his decision on Greenight Capital’s request to stop the February 27 vote on Apple’s shareholder proposal that would eliminate Apple’s ability to issue preferred stock without investor approval. Sullivan said at a court hearing in New York: “Candidly, I do think the likelihood of success is in favour for Greenlight.”

Sullivan didn’t specify when he would mak his ruling in Greenlight’s injunction request, but said he would focus now on whether the fund would be irreparably harmed if the vote moves forward.

Apple spokesman Steve Dowling declined to comment, as did a spokesman for Einhorn.

Stay tuned for more updates on the case of Greenlight Capital LP, et al., v. Apple Inc., U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 13-900.

The court dispute that began between Zynga and EA last August over the similarities between Zynga’s The Ville and EA’s The Sims Social has been resolved out of court. A U.S. judge has dismissed the copyright case “with prejudice.”

The controversy began when EA filed a lawsuit for copyright infringement against Zynga. In this lawsuit, EA argued that Zynga’s Facebook-based game had just one too many similarities to its own mobile game application. Zynga responded by throwing back its own countersuit, contending that EA’s claims were unfounded, anticompetitive and unlawful, with a statement that read: ” Today we responded to EA’s claims which we believe have no merit. We also filed a counterclaim which addresses actions by EA we believe to be anticompetitive and unlawful business practices, including legal threats and demands for no-hire agreements.”

Most recently, however, both companies have released matching statements referring to a confidential settlement agreement that reads: “EA and Zynga have resolved their respective claims and have reached a settlement of their litigation in the Northern District of California.”

Word’s still out on whether or not Zynga will continue to copy independent game titles for a quick buck.

Image Credit: Pinoytutorial Techtorial

According to Reuters, U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan has approved Apple’s request to speed up its case with Greenlight, a shareholder that is suing them. The judge will be speeding up the suit’s schedule because Apple stated that the previous meeting date would interfere with the company’s shareholder meeting. CNET has reported that the arguments have been moved up to February 19th from its previous date of February 22nd. The publication has also stated that the filing date has been moved up by “two or three days”.

Apple is being sued by Greenlight Capital’s David Einhorn. He believes that Apple should be dividing its $137 billion cash pile to its investors in the form of perpetual preferred shares, which come with a hefty 4% yield. He reportedly said that Apple turned down the idea when he brought it up in the past.

Tim Cook and Co. will be chatting with investors about how to split up some of its cash during the company’s shareholder meeting, which is taking place on the 27th of this month. The shareholders will be voting on Apple’s “Proposal 2″, which would take away the board’s ability to issue preferred stock. Apple has been ordered by the judge to respond to Greenlight Capital by Wednesday.

Image Credit: HowardLake

Apple is now the only company that remains in a highly covered e-book price fixing lawsuit that began nearly a year ago, involving five of the largest American book publishers as well as Apple itself. Today publisher Macmillan reached a settlement with the U.S Department of Justice, a similar settlement to the ones made by the other four publishers, Penguin, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, and Hachette.

The terms of Macmillan’s settlement are:

“Under the proposed settlement agreement, Macmillan will immediately lift restrictions it has imposed on discounting and other promotions by e-book retailers and will be prohibited until December 2014 from entering into new agreements with similar restrictions. The proposed settlement agreement also will impose a strong antitrust compliance program on Macmillan, including requirements that it provide advance notification to the department of any e-book ventures it plans to undertake jointly with other publishers and regularly report to the department on any communications it has with other publishers. Also for five years, Macmillan will be forbidden from agreeing to any kind of most favored nation (MFN) provision that could undermine the effectiveness of the settlement.”

Apple, however, denies any allegations that they purposefully rose the cost of e-books. The company issued a statement back when the lawsuit was first filed that stated, “The DOJ’s accusation of collusion against Apple is simply not true. The launch of the iBookstore in 2010 fostered innovation and competition, breaking Amazon’s monopolistic grip on the publishing industry. Since then customers have benefited from e-Books that are more interactive and engaging. Just as we’ve allowed developers to set prices on the App Store, publishers set prices on the iBookstore.”

Hopefully this isn’t guilty by association. It’ll be interesting to see what happens with Apple over the coming weeks.

Earlier today the Internet was abuzz with news of a lawsuit against Apple from a fund manager who wanted Apple to give more cash back to shareholders. We passed on running the story because it was painfully boring, but it seems to have escalated to a point where Apple’s issued an official comment on the situation.

David Einhorn, the fund manager in question, wanted an additional $145 per share returned to shareholders. Apple clearly took notice of the claims and issued the following statement:

“Apple’s management team and Board of Directors have been in active discussions about returning additional cash to shareholders. As part of our review, we will thoroughly evaluate Greenlight Capital’s current proposal to issue some form of preferred stock. We welcome Greenlight’s views and the views of all of our shareholders.”

“As a part of our efforts to further enhance corporate governance and serve our shareholders’ best interests, Proposal #2 in our proxy includes some recommended changes to our articles of incorporation. These changes were recommended independently of Greenlight’s proposal and would not preclude Apple from adopting their concept. Contrary to Greenlight’s statements, adoption of Proposal #2 would not prevent the issuance of preferred stock. Currently, Apple’s articles of incorporation provide for the issuance of “blank check” preferred stock by the Board of Directors without shareholder approval. If Proposal #2 is adopted, our shareholders would have the right to approve the issuance of preferred stock. As such, Proposal #2 has the support of many of our shareholders.”

We cut out the boring preamble and concluding paragraph, but if you want to read them as well, you can check them out here.

The ruling from last August that found Samsung guilty of infringing on a number of Apple patents and resulted in Samsung have to pay a $1 billion fine is still not over. Yesterday, Judge Lucy Koh ruled that Samsung did not willfully infringe on Apple’s patents, despite the jury having previously ruled that it was willful.

So what does this mean for Samsung? The company is still found guilty of infringing on the patents and will still be required to pay the billion dollar fine, but Samsung will not be charged with any additional damage charges as Apple was hoping, because the infringements weren’t deliberate.

As part of the post-verdict proceedings, Samsung’s legal team asked Koh to consider if this could be challenged, and Koh agreed. She wrote in her ruling that for Samsung’s infringement to be found willful, Apple needed to prove that there was an “objectively high likelihood that its [Samsung's] action constituted infringement of a valid patent.” Samsung’s argument was that it had reason to believe that Apple’s patents were invalid, so that even if Samsung was found to have infringed, it couldn’t have done so willfully.

So, long story short: Koh said that she believed Samsung did not infringe willfully on Apple’s patents because Samsung entered the situation with a reasonable belief that it wasn’t at fault. Kind of perplexing, no?

Last week it was reported that Apple CEO Tim Cook was ordered to be questioned for four hours in a lawsuit against Apple, Google, Intel, and other companies by five former employees in an anti-poaching case. Now a court filing has just been made public that reveals former Apple CEO Steve Jobs threatening former Palm CEO Ed Colligan with a litigation to stop him from hiring Apple employees.

The defending tech companies wanted to keep a range of documents private, but U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh rejected parts of that request, which led to details of Jobs’ 2007 communications with Colligan becoming part of the public record.

In his statement, Colligan said that Jobs suggested eliminating competition between the two companies for talent and “Mr. Jobs also suggested that if Palm did not agree to such an arrangement, Palm could face lawsuits alleging infringement of Apple’s many patents.”

Colligan responded that any such agreement would probably be illegal and that Palm also had patents that it could use to countersue.

Google was also pretty involved in these no-hire practices. The court filings also detailed how Google developed its own no-hire agreements. In an email written by then-chief executive Eric Schmidt, he stated: “I would prefer that Omid do it verbally since I don’t want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later? Not sure about this.. thanks Eric.”

You can see below some of the condemning documents that have been made public:

Image Credit: The Verge

]]> http://www.macgasm.net/2013/01/23/old-e-mails-show-steve-jobs-threatening-palm-with-patent-suit-over-no-hire-policy/feed/ 0 http://www.macgasm.net/2013/01/22/500px-ios-app-pulled-from-app-store-due-to-nude-picture-concerns/ http://www.macgasm.net/2013/01/22/500px-ios-app-pulled-from-app-store-due-to-nude-picture-concerns/#comments Tue, 22 Jan 2013 20:48:26 +0000 Toby Wellington http://www.macgasm.net/?p=126708 Apple has pulled the newly re-designed 500px iOS app over concerns that it is too easy to search for nude images. An Apple reviewer apparently told the company that the app made nude pictures too accessible for users and so the app was promptly removed earlier today. While Apple has only just put the hammer

Kariem McFarlin, the man who broke into the late Steve Jobs’ house, has been given a 7-year sentence. McFarlin did not dispute the claims during his trial and apologized to his victims and will ultimately end up paying restitution to them. His crimes were reportedly carried out because of money problems. I guess in McFarlin’s case the phrase goes, “Less Money, Mo’ Problems.” During questioning, McFarlin admitted to the burglary as well as to others in the San Francisco Bay Area. The other burglaries include one home in Alameda County, two in Marin County and four in San Francisco County.

McFarlin committed these crimes sometime between the night of July 16th and the morning of July 17th. He broke into the Jobs’ home through the garage after jumping over a construction fence that was up while the house was being renovated.

Once inside, McFarlin stole two iMacs, three iPads, three iPods, an Apple TV as well as personal items, which included jewelry. He was arrested in August after Apple security saw the devices connecting to the web from his apartment. What a dumbass.

Free Press has just launched a petition against AT&T’s views and actions against the FCC’s Net Neutrality laws. An example of this would be AT&T not allowing grandfathered unlimited data plan users to use FaceTime over the company’s cellular network, though tiered data and Mobile Share plans just recently received the functionality. The petition’s headline states “AT&T: Your World. Blocked.”

Not only does the petition demand FaceTime over cellular data functionality for AT&T’s unlimited data users, it’s petitioning AT&T’s stance on Net Neutrality. The company is reportedly against any local or national law that would force the company to offer a free and open Internet to all of its customers.

We’d highly recommend signing this petition to stop AT&T’s violation of FCC Net Neutrality regulations in the United States. AT&T has been throttling and limiting its users for way too long, and it needs to stop. Because in the end, it’s our data, and we should be able to use it however we want to use it. As of now, over 7,700 individuals have signed the petition with more signatures pouring in every second. You do not have to be an AT&T user to sign and signing only requires a name, email address and ZIP code.

U.S. Judge Lucy Koh has ordered that Apple CEO Tim Cook be questioned by plaintiff attorneys for four hours in an anti-poaching case against major tech companies, including Apple, Google, Intel and others, filed by five former employees.

The former employees claim that the various tech companies engaged in illegal conspiracies to eliminate competition for each other’s employees.

Judge Koh recently revealed that internal emails showed unnamed company executives agreeing that not poaching each other’s workers would end up being financially beneficial. The jurist explained that top executives agreed to hire employees collectively as it would be more beneficial than negotiating with individual workers.

Judge Koh must decide if the suit should be classified as a class action, which would give plaintiffs more leverage to extract a large settlement.

Apple argued that Cook wasn’t involved in the anti-poaching allegations as he was the company’s COO at the time, but Judge Koh said “I find it hard to believe a COO would have no say over salary and compensation for all employees.”

Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt will also be subject to questioning on February 20, while top ranking officials like Intel’s Paul Otellini is also expected to take part in the depositions.

In April of 2012, Apple and six other defendants tried to have the lawsuit dismissed, but Judge Koh refused, citing a high probability of collusion. As a result, it was revealed that Steve Jobs had sent an email to Google’s Schmidt in 2007 asking him to stop poaching his employees.

In 2009 it was discovered that Apple and Google had an unofficial agreement not to poach each other’s employees, which resulted in a U.S. Department of Justice antitrust investigation. Apple, Google, Pixar, Intel, Adobe, and Intuit agreed to a settlement in 2010 that prevented the companies from engaging in any further anti-poaching deals.

Image Credit: All Things Apple

Apple and Samsung have both been allowed to add new devices to the patent lawsuit that is scheduled for trial on March 31, 2014, including the iPhone 5 and Galaxy S III.

U.S. Judge Paul Grewal is the judge that allowed the additional devices, based on the assumption that not allowing the companies to add them would just result in new lawsuits. The order also includes amended stipulations to their original filings by both Apple and Samsung, which are part of Apple’s Galaxy Nexus case and not part of the trial that ended last August.

Apple has added the Galaxy Note II, Galaxy S III with Android 4.1, Rugby Pro, Galaxy Tab 8.9 Wi-Fi, and Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 to the list of devices that it believes Samsung infringes on at this time. Samsung just added the iPhone 5.

The Galaxy S III mini was previously included, but Apple agreed to let it go after Samsung said it would not market or sell the device in the U.S.

Neither Samsung nor Apple has commented publicly on the addition of these devices to the ongoing patent lawsuit.

Image Credit: Digital Trends

Apple has yet again proven unsuccessful at banning its rival’s line of tablets from a certain country. A Dutch court today ruled that the Galaxy Tab 10.1, the Galaxy Tab 8.9, and the Galaxy Tab 7.7 should not be banned in the Netherlands, denying Apple’s request.

The judge cited a decision previously made back in October by a U.K. judge who stated that Samsung’s devices differed from Apple’s as they lacked the “extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design.” Apple had attempted to get the devices banned in the U.K. but they eventually lost the case and the appeal. Apple was then also forced by the U.K. judge to publicly apologize for claiming Samsung stole their designs.

There are a number of other patent cases still going on in other countries between Apple and Samsung and it’s impossible to tell how they will all turn out. Samsung, however, remains confident and issued a statement today in regards to the Dutch court ruling:

“We continue to believe that Apple was not the first to design a tablet with a rectangular shape and rounded corners and that the origins of Apple’s registered design features can be found in numerous examples.”

Though Apple and Amazon are still scheduled to go to trial over the use of the term “app store,” a judge has ordered the two companies to try to settle the issue outside the courtroom first.

U.S. Judge Elizabeth Laporte ordered Apple and Amazon to meet on March 21 with their attorneys to try to work out a settlement for the lawsuit. Apple claims that Amazon infringes on its trademark by using the name to promote the Amazon Appstore. Amazon argues that the term “App Store” is too generic to be trademarked and “the use of the term ‘app store’ to refer to selling apps is commonplace in the industry.”

This disagreement started in March 2011 when Apple sued Amazon for the use of the term, which Apple attempted to trademark in 2008 after the launch of the App Store for iPhone. Apple’s claims that Amazon engaged in “false advertising” were dismissed and the judge ordered Apple to omit that particular complaint.

Apple owns the rights to the terms “App Store” and “Appstore” in Europe, but not in the U.S. as its trademark application for the term is pending approval.

If Apple and Amazon can’t reach a settlement outside the courtroom, the case is scheduled to go to trial in August. Expect for this one to go to trial in August.

Image Credit: Create Digital Music

With Apple’s warranty, all Apple hardware comes with a one-year limited warranty, but under EU law Apple is required to protect consumers’ products for a minimum of two years, including the iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, and iPod devices. To get coverage beyond the one year, Apple encourages buyers to purchase the AppleCare Protection Plan or AppleCare+.

Test-Aankoop claims that Apple’s warranty practices don’t comply with local laws and argues that Apple isn’t properly informing consumers of their rights. The lawsuit was filed yesterday by the Belgian organization with the Commercial Court of Brussels, saying Apple withholds information about the official EU directive on purpose to try and sell more AppleCare. The EU official directive automatically extends warranties on electronics to two years.

This isn’t the first time that Apple’s warranty practices have been called into question in Europe.

In its statement, Test-Aankoop said warranty problems are at the “top of the hit parade” in Belgium, and it considers Apple one of the biggest offenders.

Last March, Test-Aankoop was one of ten European organizations that called Apple out for its “illegal” warranty program, and says Apple has not responded to complaints very well.

Image Credit: English Forum

Judge Allan L. Gropper has just approved Kodak’s sale of 1,100 patents to Apple, Google and other tech companies. This sale includes many digital imaging patents that relate to the capture and display of the images themselves. Apple and other companies have put $527 million together to purchase the patents, though Kodak wanted $2 billion for the patent collection. Even Judge Gropper called the outcome of the sale “disappointing”, though he agrees the cash is much needed to help Kodak come out of the grave as a whole new company.

Kodak needed to earn at least $500 million from the sale according to the company. The complete list of buyers is pretty extensive and includes Apple, Google, Microsoft, Adobe, Samsung, RIM, Fujifilm, Facebook, Huawei Technologies, Amazon, HTC and Shutterfly. Originally, Apple and Google led two different packs of potential buyers, though the companies teamed up in the end.

Image Credit: glen edelson

The Swiss photographer, Sabine Liewald, had complained that Apple misused her photo by including it in a promotion for its latest MacBook Pro with Retina display. Liewald argued that Apple had the rights to use the image of the model’s eye for “layout purposes only,” and not for commercial use.

News of the settlement came in a court-ordered dismissal dated for last Wednesday. Both parties were scheduled to meet for a pretrial conference today. Terms of the settlement are unclear and Apple has not responded for comment.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York back in October and was looking for a trial by jury to determine damages and potential lost profits.

Image Credit: AppleInsider

After Samsung was ordered by jury to pay $1.05 billion dollars in compensation to Apple this past August for damages caused by the sale of Samsung’s Galaxy devices, Apple attempted to go even further by making a request to ban the sale of the devices in the U.S. entirely. After this request was denied, Apple made a new request to have Samsung reveal the sales numbers of its phones in an attempt to be granted further compensation, which Judge Koh has now approved. Samsung was already forced to show their old sales numbers earlier in the case, however, now they will be forced to show more recent figures.

Samsung was, however, given permission by Judge Koh to retain from releasing the sales information on two specific phone models because of their relevance to an ongoing appeal in the case.

While these copyright cases are often largely boring, it’s always interesting when a company is forced to reveal specific sales figures as these are numbers we typically can only speculate about. There can occasionally be significant differences between how successful we think a device is, compared to how successful it actually is. It’s only a matter of time now until we know with certainty just how many devices Samsung has sold recently.

This could get interesting in a hurry.

The Beijing Second Intermediate Court has found Apple liable for selling unlicensed work by eight local writers. The court has ordered Apple to stop publishing the material and to pay 1.03 million yuan (165,908 USD) in compensation. Among the authors whose work was illegally published are Murong Xuecun, Li Chengpeng and He Ma.

The writings involved in the case were published within an application on the iTunes store. Apple was found guilty because it failed to check the content designed by the app developers, who might have included the writings illegally.

This could be bad news for app developers as stores like iTunes and Google’s Play Store will likely impose stricter restrictions on incoming apps. Apple’s guilty verdict will definitely make the company more cautious when accepting new apps; however, now’s the time to ask whether or not a company like Apple should be responsible for the actions of developers who break the law in this regard.

Should Apple have to pay reparations and fines because a developer managed to sneak copyrighted content by their reviewers? More importantly, shouldn’t copyright holders be suing developers and app owners for the copyright infringement?

We’re probably going to find out soon enough…

Image Credit: InformAfrica

FOSS Patents has just reported that Samsung was recently warned of a large product injunction that could cost them up to 88 percent of income from certain Samsung devices. This information has come from a publicly redacted court document that show Judge Pender’s plan of punitive action against Samsung. Trust us, this action doesn’t look anything close to pretty for Samsung.

According to FOSS Patents, the products affected by the case will be banned from sale in the United States after a 60-day International Trade Commission (ITC) presidential review session. A cease-and-desist order would then be brought upon Samsung, banning any commercially significant orders of the accused products in the United States. Samsung will then have to post bond for 88 percent of all mobile phone values, 37.6 percent of all tablet values and 32.5 percent of all media player values during the presidential review period. Judge Pender has threatened to raise the 88 percent bond up to a 100 percent bond if Samsung continues to press an argument that the “differential analysis is not adequate”. Ouch.

As of now, these repercussions are still only the worst case scenario as the ITC board must agree to Samsung’s punishment across the board. However, I think that if this extreme punishment was indeed brought upon Samsung, it would certainly make them think twice about blatantly copying Apple’s products and technologies in the future.

Image Credit: vernieman

In more Apple versus Samsung news, Apple has agreed to drop patent claims against Samsung’s new phone with a high-end display after Samsung said it would not sell the phone in the U.S. Apple revealed the agreement on Friday in U.S. District Court in San Jose, California.

Last month Apple had asked for the Galaxy S III Mini and other Samsung products, including a number of tablet models, to be added to the long list of patent infringement claims against Samsung. In defence, Samsung said the Galaxy S III Mini was not available for sale in the United States and should therefore not be included in the case.

Apple won a $1.05 billion verdict against Samsung earlier this year, but hasn’t managed to secure a permanent sales ban on a number of older Samsung models. The patent filings against the Galaxy S III Mini are separate from those that already went to trial.

Samsung began selling the Mini in Europe in October to compete with Apple’s iPhone 5. Initially Apple argued that its lawyers were able to buy “multiple units” of the Mini from Amazon.com Inc.’s U.S. site and have them delivered to the U.S. Samsung countered that it is not “making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing the Galaxy S III Mini in the United States.” As a result, Apple agreed to drop patent claims against the Mini “so long as the current withdrawal will not prejudice Apple’s ability later to accuse the Galaxy S III Mini if the factual circumstances change.”

Looks like Samsung’s Galaxy S III Mini is safe. For now, anyway.

Image Credit: mikeshouts

Apple’s iOS Notification Center is similar to an Android feature called Status Bar, which Google just received a U.S. patent for. Apple recently brought the Notification Center to the Mac with OS X Mountain Lion.

This Samsung patent isn’t believed to be a “standard essential” implementation of the idea, unlike many of the patents Samsung uses against Apple. It’s not clear if the patent Samsung is using is one of its own or one that Google now owns for its similar technology. Apple’s Notification Center is different from both companies’ version of the basic concept. For instance, it features Facebook and Twitter integration by default, but it’s clearly Apple’s own version of the concept that first showed up in Android phones.

Notification Center shows updates in email, Messages, texts, weather, calendar events, and individual app alerts through a drag-down screen that is accessible on all iOS devices. Users can personalize their Notification Center by allowing or disallowing specific apps to show alerts through preferences. It’s not yet known which part of Apple’s Notification Center Samsung claims violates their patent. It’s unlikely that Samsung tried to warn Apple or offer licensing terms before filing the lawsuit in South Korea, like Apple did before suing Samsung in a U.S. court.

Image Credit: Techindustriya

The dispute involves only financial issues as Starck apparently received a lower payment than expected. Starck was only paid €6 million ($7.9 million) by Jobs’ family but believes he is owed €9 million ($11.8million).

A port of Amsterdam spokesman, Jeroen Ranzijn, confirmed that the boat has been in the harbor since December 8 and won’t be able leave until the civil dispute is resolved. He said, “It was actually ready to continue its voyage when there was a dispute between two parties, including the heirs, and one party laid a clam on the boat.”

Jobs helped Starck design the superyacht, which basically looks like an Apple Store on a boat, with the same minimalistic design. The yacht is 256 feet tall, with an exterior made of aluminum, floor-to-ceiling glass walls and 7 iMacs featured in the wheelhouse.

Image Credit: One More Thing

The company claimed that the iPhone, iPad, and MacBook models infringe on three of its patents and that LG’s Chocolate Touch VX8575, Bliss UX700, Touch AX8575, Lotus Elite LX610, Mystique UN610 and Samba LG8575 infringe on two patents.

According to Bloomberg, both Apple and LG argued that  they had already paid appropriate licensing fees through an industry-wide “pay-as-you-go” pool.

Apple’s attorney, Juanita Brooks, said: “We are very pleased with the verdict.” Alcatel-Lucent’s attorney, Frederick Lorig, and LG Electronics’ attorney, Michael McKeon, declined to comment on the ruling.

Her comments received a few chuckles but she went on to explain her point: “I’m not joking… I’ve said this all along. I think it’s time for global peace… If there is any way this court can facilitate some sort of resolution, I’d like to do that. It would be good for consumers and good for the industry.” Despite this plea, Samsung said it was “willing to talk,” while Apple argued Samsung’s $1 billion fine was just a “slap on the wrist.”

Apple went after Samsung’s design decisions, saying Samsung takes designs to the limit of what they think they can get away with legally. Samsung threw back that Apple just wants to “compete through the courts rather than the marketplace” and was using the courts as a smear campaign.

In his interview yesterday with NBC’s Brian Williams, CEO Tim Cook commented on the situation. He admitted that his relationship with Samsung, which is one of Apple’s biggest component suppliers, is “awkward.” Cook also said that they had “no other choice” and that “in a perfect world,” companies would “invent their own stuff.”

Unfortunately, it looks like Judge Koh’s plea for global peace will go unheard as Apple and Samsung continue to bicker in the courtroom.

Image Credit: Cult of Mac

Apple’s patent describes a way to scroll past the edge of a zoomed-in photo and see a glimpse of the next series of images, with the initial picture bouncing back onto the screen. Samsung has reportedly used this technique in its Galaxy products. In Samsung’s own photo gallery software it replaces the bounce-back feature with a “blue flash” that lights up the edge of the image.

Samsung already lost a case over the same patent last year in the Netherlands, with a sales ban on the then-infringing Galaxy S, SII and Ace. Samsung had since stopped delivering infringing products after adjusting the infringing technique. In its defense for this trial, Samsung argued that since the last verdict it has used its own technology in all products in the Netherlands. Samsung didn’t provide proof of this though, which led to a guilty verdict.

Judge Peter Blok said Samsung’s argument wasn’t enough to prevent a sales ban, and he would grant the sales ban because Samsung refused to sign a declaration of abstinence promising not to infringe on the patent. Samsung just can’t let go of its cheating ways.

The court ordered Samsung to tell Apple how much net profit it made from the infringing products since June 27, 2011, which will determine how much of that profit Samsung owes to Apple.

If Samsung continues to infringe on the patent, it will be required to pay Apple a penalty of 100,000 euros (US$129,000) for every day that it continues to violate the ban.

Image Credit: PC Advisor

According to Electronista, Apple has apparently filed to add six additional Samsung products to the second Apple versus Samsung patent trial. The claim? Gross patent infringement, of course. As for the products in question, they are the Samsung Galaxy S III running Jelly Bean, the Galaxy Note II, The Galaxy Tab 8.9 WiFi, the Galaxy Tab 2 10.1, the Rugby Pro, and the Galaxy S III Mini.

While this might make Apple sound like the villain here, it looks like both parties are still feeling equally puglistic. A few days before this, Samsung had filed to add the new iPad and the iPad mini to the suit, alongside the iPhone 5. That said, it doesn’t quite match the 20-item manifest from Apple. For those who have been following the story, this really isn’t new. Not only have the companies been slinging patent suits at each other, they’ve also engaged in a certain amount of unnecessary cheekiness as well.

Come on, fellas. Is it so hard to get along?

Legal experts say that the details of the Apple and HTC deal and the patents covered in the settlement could be crucial in Samsung’s argument that a royalty settlement would be better than a permanent sales ban. Samsung argues that it’s “almost certain” the HTC deal involved some of the same patents involved in its own patent war with Apple.

HTC filed its own response to Samsung’s request, arguing that divulging the details of the settlement with Apple would harm the company, but the U.S. court was not persuaded otherwise.

The court officially ordered Apple to produce a full copy of the settlement agreement “without delay,” which is subject to an Attorneys-Eyes-Only designation. Apple and HTC had both previously agreed to disclose a version of the settlement with all the financial details redacted, but this was obviously refused.

Image Credit: Next Big Future

Both hackers were charged for the same thing, but 27-year-old Auernheimer has been found guilty on one count of identity fraud and one count of conspiracy to access a computer without authorization. This means he is facing two consecutive five-year felony charges for exploiting the flaw. The other hacker, Daniel Spitler, accepted a plea bargain last year.

The weird thing about him being found guilty, though, is that he didn’t actually hack anything. He didn’t steal any passwords or break into AT&T’s customer database, which AT&T confirmed during the hearing. Basically, Auernheimer is guilty of breaking the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, which makes it illegal to “access a computer without authorization or exceed authorized access” on any “protected computer.” Auernheimer argued this act doesn’t really make sense anymore and said this to the press, ”the ‘protected computer’ is any network computer. You access a protected computer every day. Have you ever received permission from Google to go to Google?”

Despite being found guilty, Auernheimer remained positive and told his Twitter followers not to worry and that he would be appealing the decision.

Image Credit: BGR

Speaking at a product launch in Tokyo, HTC CEO Peter Chou denied analyst estimates that HTC would pay Apple $6 to $8 per Android phone as part of the settlement. Here’s what he had to say:

“I think that these estimates are baseless and very, very wrong. It is a outrageous number, but I’m not going to comment anything on a specific number. I believe we have a very, very happy settlement and a good ending.”

The patent battle between the two companies began in 2010 when Apple sued the Taiwanese handset maker. This was Apple’s first major legal dispute with a manufacturer using Google’s Android operating system. Since then, global patent wars have taken off between Apple and other competitors, including Samsung and Google’s Motorola Mobility.

Image Credit: TechnoBuffalo

The ITC ruled today that Samsung will have another shot at getting back at Apple. The ITC will be reevaluating the case in January (Reuters) and determining whether or not Apple actually infringed on some of Samsung’s patents. If Apple is in fact found guilty of infringing on patents, some of Apple’s products could be blocked from sale in the United States. That could mean that iPhones, iPads, or iPods wouldn’t be on the shelves in the new year. It seems very unlikely at this point, but the possibility is very real. As of now, the ITC has not given a reason why they will be reevaluating the case, but the fact that the score is a billion dollars to nothing surely had something to do with it.

Some of the re-evaluation seems to stem from the classification of standards essential patents and how companies should be allowed to charge for use of those patents. The ITC has asked for briefs on how it should consider these standard essential patents in the case.  Standard essential patents are necessary for technology involved with industry standard adherence. For instance, connecting to a 3G network would require the use of certain standards, likely patented by a company. The use of these patents are usually licensed for free or at very little cost.

The FTC alleged that Google “duped millions of Web surfers using the Safari browser into believing their online activities couldn’t be tracked by the company as long as they didn’t change the browser’s privacy settings.” Google was already feeling the heat for ignoring Safari’s settings, and issued an apology on its website earlier this year. Apparently, according to the AP, Google issued promises to the FTC that they would keep their privacy commitments earlier in the year. When it became common knowledge that Google was conducting business as usual again, the FTC stepped in to fine the company.

Some companies take user privacy more serious than others. In some instances you have a company like Apple that makes its money from selling you actual products, and in other cases you have companies like Google and Facebook that make all of its profit from spying on you and your online habits.

Can you tell which practice we’re more in favor of around these parts?

While there are plenty of reasons as to why people want iPhones, one thing is universal: we all want one. (Except for the Android folk, of course.) Naturally, given the incredible demand, supply can be an issue.

According to the Verge, suppliers from Lanyou Shuma.com were allegedly tried in a Shenzhen court as part of the five rings that smuggled over 162,000 mobile phones over the last two years. In case it wasn’t obvious enough, that’s a lot of money — about $80 million in electronics, to be precise.

Interestingly, the people responsible for this supposed felony are not who you would expect them to be. Reuters reported that half of the suspects have been described as “housewives who frequently travel to Hong Kong.” Mind-blowing, isn’t it? Can you picture soccer moms in criminal rings? I can’t either.

Nonetheless, it hasn’t been made clear as to whether or not all 26 defendant have served as suppliers for Lanyou Shuma.com. The company in question, in turn, has offered no comment on the subject.

Dickie Chang, an analyist with research firm IDC, reports that in the third quarter tablet shipments reached 2.07 million units, which is up from 1.15 million in the previous quarter. That’s an 80 percent increase in sales, which Chang clearly associates with the resolution of the trademark dispute.

It was four months after the iPad was available in the U.S. that it finally went on sale in China, hitting stores on July 20. The iPad sales show how Apple tablets and products continue to dominate China’s market. Apple’s major competition in China is Lenovo, which only shipped 278,000 tablets in the third quarter. Following this, Samsung is China’s third top tablet vendor and sold 143,000 units.

Apple sales in China will continue to increase in the fourth quarter because Apple has yet to release the fourth generation iPad or iPad mini. Apple has not yet confirmed when these releases will take place in China, but some reports suggest that a December release is expected. China accounts for 15 percent of Apple’s overall revenues.

After the release of the iPhone 5 in September, Samsung sought to add it to the patent suit. At the same time, Apple also looked to add the Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1, Galaxy S III and the Jelly Bean operating system. Both company’s have “accused each other of copying designs and technology for mobile devices.”

Reuters reports that the Judge’s order notes that Samsung was allowed to add the iPhone 5 to the case because they acted with “reasonable diligence” in asking the court. While not filed for addition yet, it’s expected that Samsung will add other recently released Apple products to the lawsuit, including the iPad 4 and iPad mini. While Apple didn’t oppose the addition of the iPhone 5, Judge Grewal did warn Apple to “think twice before opposing similar amendments reflecting other newly released products – e.g. the iPad 4 and iPad mini – that Samsung may propose in the near future.”

JK Shin, the head of Samsung’s mobile unit, has said that Samsung has no intention of either negotiating or settling the patent dispute with Apple, reports PC World. It’s not really surprising considering there’s a lot more at stake than the $1.05 billion dollar award handed to Apple last summer.

Just when we thought we would never have to write about one of these lawsuits again, Samsung and Apple sneak in a left hook. Jerks.

The publishing house’s attorney, Sun Jianhong, confirmed that Apple filed the appeal and said that “We have always been confident all through the first-instance trial procedures, and we remain confident for the appellant trial.” He also noted that the publishing house will try to have the decision from the first trial upheld.

In the appeal, Apple argues that the Encyclopedia of China Publishing House’s complaint was incorrect and unfounded and the fine too high, according to the Jinghua Times. The court decided that Apple was guilty of pirating as it approved the content for the App Store and ultimately profited from its sale.

While the $84,000 wouldn’t put a huge hole in Apple’s pockets, losing this appeal could set Apple up for similar lawsuits from other companies that may feel they have suffered infringements on the App Store. This could get very interesting very quickly and set quite a few precedents. It’s worth keeping an eye on how this one unfolds.

Image Credit: AppleInsider

Samsung and Apple, two of the top tech giants in the world, have been locked in ongoing design and technology patent battles around the world since April 2011. Apple has been involved in similar patent lawsuits with HTC, which announced recently that the two companies had reached a deal to end the ongoing litigation and sign a 10-year licensing agreement over patents. Terms of the settlement were not revealed, but experts speculate that HTC will pay between $6-$8 per phone, which would amount to about $180 million to $280 million a year.

Shin Jong-kyun, who heads Samsung’s mobile and IT division, told reporters, “It may be true that HTC may have agreed to pay 300 billion won (US$276 million) to Apple, but we don’t intend to (negotiate) at all.”

Samsung was ordered by a U.S. jury in August to pay Apple $1.05 billion in damages for being found guilty of copying design features of the iPhone and iPad in its own Samsung Galaxy smartphones. The company has since appealed the ruling, while two courts, in Japan and the Netherlands, have dismissed Apple’s claims of patent infringement.

Image Credit: Infozguide

Samsung has argued that Velvin Hogan, the jury foreman, didn’t disclose during the jury selection that he had previously been sued by Seagate, his former employer, which led Hogan to file for bankruptcy in 1993. Samsung pointed out in court papers that Seagate and Samsung have a “substantial strategic relationship” and argues that Hogan should have informed the court about the case.

Hogan noted that he did disclose that he had been involved in a litigation with a former partner when the judge asked, but has said in response to Samsung’s allegations that the judge didn’t ask for a complete list of all the lawsuits he had been involved with.

Legal experts say it will be difficult to overturn the jury decision for alleged misconduct, and that they believe that there was no outside influence on Hogan or the other jurors involved in this case, which is what’s needed to get the case thrown out.

Judge Koh has said she will look into the allegations at a hearing on December 6. As part of the inquiry, she will also require that Apple disclose what information the company’s lawyers knew about Hogan.

Here’s Judge Koh’s official order on the matter:

On October 30, 2012, Samsung filed a motion to compel Apple to disclose the circumstances and timing of Apple’s discovery of certain information regarding the jury foreperson. On November 2, 2012, Apple filed an opposition. At the December 6, 2012 hearing, the Court will consider the questions of whether the jury foreperson concealed information during voir dire, whether any concealed information was material, and whether any concealment constituted misconduct. An assessment of such issues is intertwined with the question of whether and when Apple had a duty to disclose the circumstances and timing of its discovery of information about the foreperson.

Image Credit: CNET

According to Wired:

[quote]“This design patent gives Apple no new advantage, because no one is out there trying to market an iPad lookalike,” said Lea Shaver, Associate Professor with Indiana University’s McKinney School of Law. “It’s not a game changer. It’s just a little bit of positive news in an otherwise bad week for Apple, between the Wisconsin dismissal and the mishandling of the UK apology.”[/quote]

We’re not sure what kind of drugs Shaver is on, but we’re pretty sure most tablets on the market these days look exactly like iPads. I know, you’re crying fanboi and bias, but it’s a simple reality, just take a look at tablets before and after the iPad. It’s pretty obvious what the game-changer was over time.

The new patent (D670,286) was filed a couple months after the original iPad was announced. Now that Apple has another patent behind its lawsuits against Samsung and other cloners on the market, you can be assured that Apple’s about to assert its rights any moment now.

Tune in tomorrow, same bat time, same bat channel, for another edition of how the patent-lawsuit turns…

VirnetX’s patents cover the use of domain-name service to set up virtual private networks, through which a website owner can interact with customers in a secure way or an employee can work from home and have access to a company’s electronic files. VirnetX was looking for $708 million in damages. Cawley also said that “for years Apple refused to pay fair value for the VirnetX patents. Apple says they don’t infringe.”

Apple denied infringing on any patents, and its lawyers argued that FaceTime uses a different system. Lawyer Danny Williams said in his closing argument that, “VirnetX is not entitled to money for things they did not invent. The VirnetX technology, if used, is a small part of very large, complex products.”

Previously, VirnetX received $100 million from Microsoft for patent infringement in 2010.

Image Credit: Engadget

Today, Apple told judge Paul S. Grewald that they would like to add the Galaxy Note 10.1 to its ongoing lawsuit against Samsung. Apple is also trying to add Android 4.1 “Jelly Bean” to the current lawsuit. These additions come just a couple months after Apple filed complaints against the original Galaxy Note and Galaxy S III in the United States. The addition of Jelly Bean to the list could show that Apple may be attempting to start a full scale lawsuit against Google, something that hasn’t happened yet. This case is set to go on trial in 2014. Hurrah!

It’s worth noting that this case isn’t the same as the Apple vs. Samsung trial that took place over the summer, though this patent suit is under the purview of Lucy Koh, the same judge who oversaw the previous case that saw Apple take home a cool $1.05 billion dollars for its efforts.

Samsung also has an ongoing lawsuit against Apple as Apple is apparently violating UTMS patents that are owned by Samsung. Obviously Samsung added the iPhone 5 to the case early last month, because why not…

Anyone else tired of this crap? Honestly? It seems like it’s never going to end. Personally, we’d prefer if this garbage ended sooner rather than later. We’re tired of playing lawyer-blogger with this junk.

According to the BBC, Motorola was looking for 2.25 percent of the price of Apple products that use some of its patents, which is higher than the one dollar Apple was willing to pay. When companies own standard-essential patents they have to be licensed under FRAND terms (fair and non-discriminatory), but deciding on a price can be a struggle.

Then, late last week, federal court judge Barbara Crabb in Madison, Wisconsin, questioned whether she had the legal authority to hear Apple’s claims, which ultimately led to the dismissal of the case yesterday with prejudice. Apple has already filed a legal brief, arguing that she does have the authority to hear its claims, hoping the judge would reconsider the ruling.

In a court filing last week, Apple said it would “not consider itself bound by Crabb’s rate if it exceeded $1 per Apple phone” and given the company’s position on this, Crabb questioned whether or not she had the power to offer an advisory opinion. She wrote, “It has become clear that Apple’s interest in a license is qualified.”

Despite the case being dismissed, Google-owned Motorola has stated it is still open to negotiations with Apple and said, “We remain interested in reaching an agreement with Apple.”

Image Credit: Good E-Reader

You’ve got to love it when big companies bicker like children in the schoolyard. Figuratively speaking, mega-corporations Apple and Samsung have been at each other’s throats for some time now. Following a ruling in favor of Samsung, Apple was charged by a UK court to issue an ‘apology’ to the other company in regards to claims that Samsung had infringed on Apple’s designs and patents. Apple complied. Sort of. The statement issued by Apple included a quote explaining that Samsung’s designs were not quite as ‘cool.’

Naturally, that didn’t go over so well with the UK court. Apple was promptly told to remove its so-called apology to Samsung as it was deemed non-compliant with the court order and to produce a corrected statement within 48 hours. The company did. Adverts by Apple ran in the UK press, as we reported yesterday. Today, Apple followed up by running a statement on the front page of its UK website that its original apology had been accurate.

In case you’re too lazy to maneuver your way there, here’s the statement:

Samsung / Apple UK judgment

On 9 July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s Community registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available from www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is available from www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the Community registered design in force anywhere in Europe.

Er. Yeah. It definitely isn’t particularly apologetic-sounding, but at the very least, it does not include personal opinions about Samsung. Is this the end of the on-going feud? We’ll have to wait to find out.

Source: The Next Web 

Apple has taken out a small advertisement in this morning’s Guardian in the UK and included the same statement that was on the Apple website, minus the extra bit that got the company into trouble. (Apple acknowledged that Samsung was found not guilty of infringing on its patents in the UK but then included other court orders that found Samsung guilty, pretty much saying Samsung did copy).

The statement has been printed in the Guardian in 14-pt Arial font, as required by the court. While the original apology has been removed from the website, Apple has been ordered to produce a new statement but is required this time to change its positioning from a small link that brings you to a new page to an apology on the front page of its website, printed in 11-pt Arial font.

Representatives from Apple reportedly told the court it would take up to fourteen days to change the statement on its website, but one judge refused to believe this. So far, no new apology has appeared on Apple’s website and there’s no word on when it will be added.

Image Credit: The Next Web

In its court filing, Apple said: “A pioneering brand – the first successful brand in a new market – plays a unique role in educating consumers about the product category as a whole while simultaneously building consumer affiliation between the product and the pioneer.”

The judge in this hearing, Judge Phyllis Hamilton, isn’t convinced and argued that everyone who uses a smartphone already knows the difference between Apple’s iOS system and the Android System. She went on: “Where’s the confusion? There’s some suggestions [by Apple] that if Amazon is using the ‘Appstore’ term someone might think they have as many apps as Apple does. Well, why? And how, in fact, does that contribute to any deception on the part of Amazon?”

To back up its claims, Apple conducted surveys before the hearing to show consumer confusion. While the results from the surveys showed that most people associated Apple products with the “app store” term, the judge said consumers weren’t asked directly if they were deceived.

Amazon, and other supporters like Microsoft, object to Apple’s App Store trademark because they believe the term is too generic. Most have said they’re not using the term partially to avoid legal trouble, and not out of special regard for it. Apple has aways argued that the App Store term was in some way a play on its own name and really became more widely used after the iPhone was first released in July 2008.

So in short, the judge doesn’t think Apple has a very strong case. Apple’s attempts to trademark the term “app store” have been stalled by HTC, Sony, and Nokia. Amazon and others have argued that “app” was a word of the year in 2010, and even former CEO Steve Jobs used the term generically when talking about options from competitors.

Looks like the scales of justice are in favor of Amazon on this one…

Image Credit: The Next Web

For the first time in Apple history, Apple has agreed to license patents from Motorola. FOSS Patents has reported that Apple is looking to license essential wireless patents from Motorola Mobility. However, it looks as if Apple’s lawyers are looking to cheap out a bit when it comes to actually licensing them.

A passage from Apple’s legal filing states that Apple will not pay Motorola more than a dollar on each iPhone sold for its patent. Unfortunately for Apple, the court wants to set the price for their patents a bit higher. Apple has stated that they will appeal the ruling if the patent price is set at more than a dollar for each iPhone sold. We’ve embedded part of the passage below:

[quote]Motorola cannot offer evidence at this trial that the rate should be higher than $1 per phone, but to the extent the Court sets the rate higher than $1 per unit, Apple reserves the right to exhaust all appeals[/quote]

As of now, Motorola is requesting 2.25 percent of the sale of each iPhone sold; however, Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents has said he doesn’t expect Motorola to get payout anywhere near that amount. I also think that 2.25 percent of each iPhone sold is a bit extravagant, but $1 seems a bit low for such a crucial technology.

Motorola Mobility was acquired by Google for $12.5 billion dollars in August of 2011. Google supposedly acquired Motorola to use its hardware resources for making its own phones and tablets in-house; however, Google has yet to use Motorola for any of the company’s Nexus phones or tablets.

Image Credit: gillyberlin

So while Apple did comply with the ruling by posting this letter, it’s pretty safe to say that Apple isn’t sorry at all. The letter starts with some legal jargon explaining that the UK court didn’t find Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple’s patent. Apple then provides a few select statements from the judge comparing the Apple and Samsung products:

“The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design.”

“The informed user’s overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool.”

The letter ends with Apple letting readers know that Samsung was found guilty in the same patent trial in other countries, like Germany and the U.S., which all ruled in Apple’s favor.

In other words, Apple is letting everyone know that the judge only thinks Samsung didn’t copy because their device isn’t “as cool” as Apple’s and everyone else still thinks Samsung copied anyway.

Image Credit: Otago Daily Times

When it seems as if Samsung couldn’t get in any more trouble with Apple, it did. A judge with the United State’s International Trade Commission has just given Apple another win over their consumer electronics rival Samsung. Judge Thomas Pender has come to the conclusion that Samsung was infringing on four Apple patents, including the touchscreen technology patent as well as the iPhone design patent. More specifically, patents ’949, ’922, ’678, and ’501. Some of the devices that were convicted of infringing Apple’s patents include the Samsung Galaxy S II and original Galaxy S.

Even though Apple made it out of the lawsuit with a few wins (4), the judge sided with Samsung on two other infringements. It’s also worth noting that the suit is still awaiting a preliminary ruling; however, it’s doubtful that the verdict will change this far along in the case.

So, Samsung, how about them Apples? Oh, and we should probably point out that the ITC has the power to spot the importation of Samsung devices into the US.

Despite Apple having a big win over the summer in the ongoing patent dispute with Samsung, the two companies are still locked in patent disputes in 10 countries. In September, Apple went to the Hague court arguing Samsung infringed on its multitouch patent that lets users use two fingers at one time on a touchscreen.

This isn’t the first time Apple has taken Samsung and other companies to court over this “pinch to zoom” patent, which is a function often seen on smartphones and tablets. Apple lost a preliminary injunction on this patent in the Dutch courts last years as well, and lost again in Britain against HTC. Apple also lost in Germany against Samsung and Google-owned Motorola Mobility.

This time, the Dutch court acknowledged that the multitouch patent ruling was similar to those in Britain and Germany. “With these products Samsung does not infringe the claims that Apple has made,” the court said in its ruling.

This marks another loss in a series of losses for Apple lately. Just yesterday the U.S. patent office invalidated the rubber-band patent that was part of Apple’s win against Samsung over the summer.  In the UK, Apple has been ordered to issue a public apology to Samsung. Samsung has expressed that it is satisfied with this ruling in the Dutch court, but Apple was not available for comment.

Image Credit: Android Authority

Samsung broke the news late last night to Judge Lucy Koh, stating that the USPTO found Apple’s invention was either based on prior art or, in some instances, just obvious. Apple must now prove to the patent office or the court of appeals that the IP was new and not based on prior art.

Samsung has already found a way around infringing on the overscroll bounce patent, but would likely bring the feature back if Apple isn’t able to prove that it wasn’t based on prior art and the patent becomes officially invalidated.

This could prove to be a significant win for Samsung in this patent battle, though Apple is still in the lead. Yesterday two Samsung patent claims against Apple were rejected by a Japanese court, but Apple will soon have to apologize to Samsung after losing an appeal in the UK.

Image Credit: Slate Magazine

Mueller went on to say that, outside of Korea, the only case that Samsung has won on the offensive side was in the Netherlands, which wasn’t even a major victory. The rulings were made by the Tokyo District Court on September 14 and October 11. The first ruling found that Apple did not infringe on a Samsung patent related to application downloads and the second ruling said Apple did not infringe on a patent related to airplane mode on mobile devices.

It’s difficult to monitor lawsuits in Japan, which is why the rulings were only just made public over the weekend by the Asahi Shimbun. Samsung did have a win on the defensive side in the Tokyo District Court in August, though, when the court found that they did not infringe on certain utility patents owned by Apple. Since this ruling Apple has appealed the decision.

According to Mueller, “Samsung’s problem is not that there were two non-wins in Japan. Samsung’s problem is that Apple has won a variety of rulings (even if none of them had or has the potential to force Samsung out of a major market) while Samsung hasn’t won anything meaningful outside of Korea, and nothing anywhere in the world over a non-standard-essential patent.”

If you’re trying to keep score, which is pretty hard to do with all the lawsuits going on around the world, it sounds like Apple’s winning where it matters most. Well, winning the patent lawsuit at least. We’re not entirely sure that they’re winning over any new fans with all the litigation.

Image Credit: Winnipeg Free Press

Zach Ward and Thomas Buchar have done something that few others have: they’ve filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S District Court in Northern California against Apple. Why? Because they claimed that the mega-corporation had violated anti-trust laws by chaining iPhone buyers into contracts with AT&T Mobility.

As reported by CNET, the “plaintiffs claim Apple violated the Sherman Act’s prohibition on monopolization by not obtaining consumers’ contractual consent to have their iPhones locked when the tech giant entered into a five-year exclusivity agreement with the wireless carrier in 2007.”

If that hasn’t caused you to raise your eyebrows past the roof just yet, it gets better. The lawsuit apparently also seeks an order “restraining Apple from programming iPhones in such a way that would prevent consumers from unlocking their SIM cards.” Additionally, they’re also demanding that Apple provide SIM unlock codes to whomever requests them, an order that prevents Apple from selling iPhones without “adequately disclosing that the handsets are locked” and acquiring contractual agreement from the consumers in regards to that arrangement.

While this is certainly not the first time that consumers have expressed dissatisfaction against hardware locks of such variety, the lawsuit filed by the aforementioned duo is one of the rare ones looking to pursue the handset maker as opposed to the wireless carrier. Will they succeed? Only time will tell.

From The BBC:

[quote]The judge that oversaw the case is Judge Birss, and the judge stipulated that the ads noting that Samsung hadn’t copied iPad had to remain on Apple’s website for at least six months. The judge also stipulated that Apple would have to run other ads “to correct the damaging impression” that Samsung was copying Apple designs. The ads are to be placed in various magazines and newspapers.[/quote]

In the UK the Galaxy Tab 10 did not infringe on iPad patents. But, in the US, during the patent trial between Apple and Samsung, a jury found that the Galaxy Tab and Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringed on Apple’s patents. If this isn’t a prime example of how badly the patent system needs an overhaul, we’re not sure what else would paint a more troubling picture.

Image Credit

In August, a Japanese court ruled in favor of Samsung in a suit against Apple in which Apple claimed that Samsung was infringing on JP Patent No. 4,204,977. This patent has to do with remote audio and video syncing. Samsung was reportedly infringing on this patent with some of their most popular devices including the Samsung Galaxy S, Galaxy S II as well as the Galaxy Tab. Apple was, and still is, seeking 100 million yen from Samsung in damages. This is equivalent to roughly $1.3 million USD.

Apple has just appealed the ruling, though it looks unlikely that they’ll win. Japanese Judge Tamotsu Shoji wasn’t so happy when Apple brought the case to Japan. After Apple lost the case, Judge Shoji said the following to Apple before making them pay for court fees:

[quote]It’s hard to believe the products belong to the range of technologies of the claimant[/quote]

Personally, I think that Apple should cut Samsung a bit of slack in terms of small lawsuits as they just won a $1 billion dollar lawsuit against Samsung in the United States. And while that suit was necessary due to blatant copying of Apple designs, suing Samsung over a small technology for just over a million dollars seems a bit unnecessary to me.

Source: Apple Insider
Image Credit: liewcf

The appeals court has found that “the district court abused its discretion in enjoining the sales of the Galaxy Nexus.” As a result, the ruling has been reversed and remanded.

Should you feel the need to read the entire court document regarding the reversal of the injunction, you can get it here. Be warned, it’s seventeen pages long and full of legalese.

We’ll keep an eye on this one as more information comes in…

This record will likely come to an end this current quarter, as Samsung spends more on marketing itself against Apple’s iPhone and other competition.

Samsung is expected to make a record $25 billion profit for the entire year, so losing the $1 billion patent verdict against Apple won’t make that much of a dent in profits for the company overall.

New quarterly results are due on October 26, but Samsung is already valued at $197 billion and is considered the world’s leading maker of TVs, smartphones, and memory chips and has estimated a profit jump in July-September of 91 percent to 8.1 trillion won ($7,301,552,946.198 USD) from one year ago.

Since Samsung was found guilty of copying Apple products in the recent high-profile patent trial in August, Samsung shares have risen 7.2 percent while Apple shares have risen less than 1 percent.

Strong sales from Samsung’s handsets have been more than enough to offset the reduced profits from companies like Apple. Samsung is expected to reduce its investment in chips next year, due to a drop in demand.

Source: Reuters via BGR
Image Credit: T3

The Galaxy Tab 10.1 is a slightly older model, but the lifted ban could still help Samsung during the holiday season. Samsung said of the lifted ban: “We are pleased with the court’s action today, which indicates our position that there was no infringement of Apple’s design patent and that an injunction was not called for.”

Samsung and Apple continue in their patent battle, as Samsung has just added eight new patents against Apple’s iPhone 5. It all began last year when Apple sued Samsung in a number of countries, prompting a counter attack from Samsung who subsequently sued Apple.

The injunction was placed on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 ahead of the month long trial between Apple and Samsung in August. However, the jury found that Samsung did not violate the patent that caused the temporary injunction and Samsung argued for the sales ban to be lifted. The ban is now dissolved.

Apple could not be reached for comment.

Source: Reuters via TechCrunch
Image Credit: Straight

Samsung submitted an amendment to a lawsuit that was first filed in April against Apple, adding the iPhone 5 to the list of devices that include the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPad 2, and the new iPad, all of which have been accused of infringing on Samsung’s patents.

When Samsung first threatened to sue Apple last month for patent infringement, it was assumed to be over the iPhone 5′s use of LTE. While the new iPhone does feature faster 4G wireless networking, which Samsung has a number of patents for, Samsung’s latest lawsuit amendment didn’t even address the LTE patents. A representative from Samsung told CNET that the eight patents include six utility patents and two standard essential patents unrelated to its LTE patent portfolio.

This patent filing has been added at the same time a federal judge issued an order that lifted the three-month-old sales ban on Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the U.S.

Samsung said of the new filing, “we have little choice but to take the steps necessary to protect our innovations and intellectual property rights.” Apple has not yet issued a comment.

Source: CNET
Image Credit: Ars Technica

According to Bloomberg, Reding wrote to member countries asking them to verify whether Apple retailers failed to advertise consumers’ right to a minimum two-year warranty for Apple products. In the letter Reding wrote, “Apple prominently advertised that its products come with a one-year manufacturer warranty but failed to clearly indicate the consumers’ automatic and free-of-cose entitlement to a minimum two-year guarantee under EU law. These are unacceptable marketing practices.”

This is exactly what Apple was fined for in December. The Italian regulator, which also enforces consumer protection rules, said Apple misled consumers by “prominently advertising” that its products have a one-year manufacturer warranty.

Alan Hely, a spokesman for Cupertino, California-based Apple in London, declined to comment, other than referring to Apple’s EU statutory warranty page on its website. This page basically states that EU consumer law covers product defects at the time of delivery and Apple’s one-year limited warranty and the AppleCare protection plan covers any defects to the device after the buyer receives it.

Different rules exist in EU countries for violations of consumer protection law. Although the European Commission can’t investigate companies concerning misleading advertising, it can take legal action against countries that don’t enforce EU rules.

Source: Bloomberg via 9to5Mac
Image Credit: GiantBomb

So, Apple can win a billion dollar case against Samsung but can’t trademark an icon because of MySpace? That’s how it looks. Gigaom is reporting that Apple was denied protection of its iOS Music icon after a trademark judges said that users may get the icon confused with MySpace’s music icon. Yeah, really. The icon that caused Apple’s inconvenience was originally trademarked by iLike in 2008. iLike was a music sharing and downloading service that was acquired by MySpace in 2009 and axed earlier this year.

Apple didn’t let this go down without a fight. They told the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or TTAB, that not a single iOS user would confuse the logos and that the TTAB had a “weak” argument as other companies have trademarked icons with music notes in them. However, the TTAB refuted this argurment by saying the following:

[quote]In view of the facts that the marks are similar, the goods and services are related and are encountered by the same classes of consumers, we find that applicant’s double musical note and design for “computer software [..]” is likely to cause confusion with the registered mark comprising a double musical note and design [..] for listening to MP3’s and for sharing MP3’s and music playlists with others.[/quote]

Personally, I think the TTAB’s reasoning is completely and utterly ridiculous. MySpace hasn’t been relevant for a decade, so most people probably don’t even remember the icon. Not to mention, the icons look completely different. Heck, they’re even displaying different musical notes.

You can view the TTAB’s full document here.

Source: Gigaom
Image Credit: TTAB

After Apple’s substantial win against Samsung in U.S. courts recently, the Cupertino legal team must be feeling pretty good. Well, they shouldn’t be too cocky with their case against two patents held by HTC, apparently. Thomas Pender, an ITC Judge, says that “I have to be pretty darn certain a U.S. patent is invalid,” and that means Apple better have some pretty compelling evidence, or they should be prepared to move on to greener legal pastures.

This case revolves around patents dealing with faster transfer speeds using LTE. If HTC wins their case, it could have legal ramifications for the third generation iPad and the supposed new iPhone. In reality, this is just a further example of the patent system being used as a bargaining chip. This case is very likely being used to get Apple to settle, and leave HTC alone. While it is fairly obvious that Samsung is pretty guilty of copying their competitors, it is a shame that Apple is forced to use the patent system to get some blood. Now the battle between HTC and Apple is heating up in a similar fashion.

The problem here isn’t with Apple, Samsung, or HTC. The problem is the patent system. As they say, “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.” The patent wars are a giant game that wastes resources on a massive scale. If we want to see this change, bitching about Apple or HTC abusing the system isn’t going to do anything. Instead, we need to overhaul the entire thing. Sadly, that won’t be happening any time soon.

Source: Businessweek
Image Credit: Brian Turner

It seems that Samsung’s lawyers argued the following:

[quote]While Apple’s technology is a “very nice invention,” the technique used in Android differs from the iOS solution, argued Bas Berghuis van Woortman, one of Samsung’s lawyers. Because the Android based method is more hierarchical the system is more complex and therefore harder for developers to use, he said … In addition, Apple devices disallow touch input in sections of the screen on the OS level, while Android does that on the application level, he said. Both are reasons Samsung’s Android devices do not infringe on the patent, he added.[/quote]

It sounds like complexity and seamless integration are a differentiator that, according to Samsung’s lawyers, validate their arguments that Samsung did not infringe on Apple’s patents. Had Samsung actually infringed on Apple’s multitouch patents, their system would be easier for developers to use. Apple’s lawyers obviously didn’t buy the logic, stating: “They suggest that they have a lesser solution, but that is simply not true.” Apple’s lawyers then went on to argue that the systems are similar enough to warrant the ban and recall of the Galaxy lineup.

File this one under bizarre arguments in court during an Apple versus Samsung trial. At this point, the book’s almost full. If you want more on the bizarre legal battles between Samsung and Apple, check out our Legal Battles section.

The Korean Fair Trade Commission isn’t the only government agency looking into whether or not Samsung is using its influence in the market to unfairly stymie the competition, according to a Reuters report, the European Union is also investigating the company “for possible breaches of antitrust rules by accusing rivals of infringing its technology patents.”

What’s FRAND? It’s a legal term that refers to licensing commitments and obligations that are required by companies that set standards for certain industries. These standard-setting organizations “are the industry groups that set common standards for a particular industry in order to ensure compatibility and interoperability of devices manufactured by different companies.” In this case, Apple is arguing that the patents used by Samsung are required to be licensed under these terms, and that the technology is necessary for 3G interoperability.

Source: Reuters

Like others before him, Willis has discovered that he doesn’t actually own any of the music he’s purchased from iTunes, but is instead ‘borrowing’ it under a license. Apple has changed the way people can access music, but has made it clear that any music purchased from iTunes should not be shared or passed on to others.

If Willis were to win, it could benefit not only himself and his family, but the millions of people who have purchased songs from Apple’s iTunes Store.

According to the Daily Mail, Willis has two options: he could ask his legal team to establish a family trust as the ‘holder’ of his downloaded music, or he could support ongoing legal action in five US states to give downloaders more rights to do what they want with their music.

This definitely won’t be an easy battle for Willis with all the power that Apple established for itself. Apple can freeze any iTunes accounts if the owner is believed to be passing on music to others, such as transferring songs to any MP3 players not owned by the account holder.

Lawyer Chris Walton said of the matter: “Lots of people will be surprised on learning all those tracks and books they have bought ofter the years don’t actually belong to them. It’s only natural you would want to pass them on to a loved one. The law will catch up, but ideally Apple and the like will update their policies and work out the best solution for their customers.”

It will be interesting to see how all of this unfolds. If Willis wins, it could change the future of digital music rights, shifting the power from Apple to the downloaders.

Willis isn’t the only one thinking about this either. Our own Joshua Schnell wrote a piece about music transfers and the iTunes terms and conditions early last week. Looks like Willis reads Macgasm.

Source: The Daily Mail via BGR
Image Credit: entertainment

After Apple screwed Samsung out of just over $1 billion dollars in court last week, Samsung is threatening to do the same to Apple. Samsung is reportedly gearing up to sue Apple if the next iPhone has LTE networking. Samsung has said that they apparently have the patents to do so and will be suing Apple immediately when the new iPhone is introduced.

Here’s the only problem with their threat: Samsung doesn’t own all the LTE patents. Samsung currently owns 12.2 percent of LTE patents and Nokia owns just over 18 percent while Qualcomm and Ericson both own roughly 12 percent each. And while it isn’t all about numbers, I think Samsung may have a hard time suing Apple for using such a widespread technology.

The Korea Times also notes that Samsung is partnering with other companies to fight against Apple. For instance, Samsung is reportedly working with Verizon Wireless to modify designs in their popular Galaxy line of phones to clear them from infringing on Apple’s patents. Samsung is also working with Microsoft to make more Windows Phones, but honestly, is that really a threat? I think not.

I can’t help but think that Samsung is acting like a kid who got caught for stealing something and is threatening the person who caught him. Seriously, Samsung, keep it classy and don’t release public statements threatening to sue someone if they release a product — just do it.

Source: Korea Times via Cult of Mac via Phone Arena

In the statement, Google attempts to distance itself from the controversy, arguing that most of the issues presented during the trial do not relate to Android itself, but rather deal with Samsung’s own software implementations and its hardware design decisions. Google writes:

[quote]The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims. Most of these don’t relate to the core Android operating system, and several are being re-examined by the US Patent Office. The mobile industry is moving fast and all players — including newcomers — are building upon ideas that have been around for decades. We work with our partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don’t want anything to limit that.[/quote]

For those that don’t know, Google lets Samsung, and other mobile-phone makers, use its Android OS in their handsets for free. Samsung is the biggest of the mobile phone manufacturers to use Android.

Google is definitely trying to stay away from the controversy with this statement, but does argue that the mobile industry builds on ideas that “have been around for decades,” perhaps suggesting that Samsung isn’t entirely to blame.

Source: The Verge via Mac Rumors
Image Credit: itWorldCanada

Yesterday we posted an article about an iPhone 5 backplate mod that would let users quickly convert their iPhone 4S to a new backplate that is designed to look like the new iPhone’s backplate. Well, at least, designed to look like how the rumor mills say the backplate is going to look on the upcoming iPhone.

Turns out the hounds of Cupertino weren’t too impressed with the backplate, and Apple has filed a takedown notice with iPhone5Mod to remove the product from its website.

The iPhone5Mod team posted the take down letter on its website. Here’s an excerpt:

[quote]We are authorized to send notice and takedowns on behalf of Apple Inc. (“Apple”), the owner of the federally registered Apple logo trademark (among others) hereinafter referred to as the Apple Trademark(s) … We are writing to request your assistance with a website hosted by xxx INC that is violating Apple’s intellectual property rights … The website, http://iphone5mod.com/, is offering for sale and selling merchandise bearing counterfeit Apple trademark(s). Such illegal use of Apple Trademark(s) is a violation of federal and State trademark laws.[/quote]

There’s plenty of backplate replacement companies on the Internet that ship cheap replacement parts for cracked iPhone backplates. They all continue to exist, and it seems like few have been sent takedown notices. Which begs the question, why this backplate mod and why now? I’m sure you can connect the dots on this one.

iPhone5Mod will continue to sell the backplates for 48 hours, and they will ship out the products and fullfill requests according to their website. If you’re looking for a nice new update to your iPhone without having to shell out for a new phone, now’s your chance.

Source: iPhone5Mod

According to Samsung, though, their new store, just a block away from Apple’s Sydney store, was completely their own idea, as reported in The Sydney Morning Herald. Samsung Australia’s Vice-President of Telecommunications, Tyler McGee, said Apple “didn’t even come into the equation when we were looking for a location [for the store].”

But everything from the glass storefront to the store layout to the staff, and even to the products and packaging, is strangely similar to Apple’s own stores.

McGee went on to say that this is the layout that Samsung uses around the world and it’s about giving consumers the chance to “interact, learn and play with our devices.”

Despite Samsung’s denials that they are an Apple copycat, many people aren’t buying it, and its turning into more of a joke than anything else. Recently Conan O’Brien even made fun of Samsung with a parody video of Samsung’s obvious copying.

Whether intentional or not, a store so similar to Apple’s own retail stores does nothing to dispel the idea that Samsung is a copycat. And this is all happening while the world waits for a jury verdict in a case between Apple and Samsung, where Apple first accused Samsung of copying the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad.

What do you think? Did Samsung copy Apple’s store layout?

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald via Apple Insider
Image Credit: The Sydney Morning Herald

The Seoul Central District Court said Apple infringed on two of Samsung’s technology patents, while Samsung violated one of Apple’s patents. Both companies are required to pay small amounts in damages and have been ordered to stop selling the infringing products in South Korea. This includes Apple’s iPhone 4 and iPad 2 and Samsung’s Galaxy S, Galaxy S II, and Galaxy Nexus smartphones, as well as the Galaxy Tab and Galaxy 10.1 tablet computers.

The court also ruled that there was “no possibility” that consumers could confuse Samsung and Apple smartphones as both feature different logos on the back of each model. Samsung’s smartphone icons were found not to infringe on Apple’s patents.

The three-judge panel ordered Apple to pay 20 million won ($17, 650) for each violated patent, while Samsung is ordered to pay 25 million won ($22,000), falling short of the 100 million won ($90,000) that both companies were seeking from the other in damages.

Samsung is guilty of infringing on Apple’s patent for bounce-back technology, which occurs when a user scrolls beyond the edge of a photo, web page, or document and it bounces back into place.

This is just one of many court cases that Apple and Samsung are involved in, with similar issues in other countries — Apple accuses Samsung of violating its design patents by copying its smartphone and tablet PCs, while Samsung says Apple is using some of its wireless communication technology without paying a fee.

This mirrors the current case in the U.S., which is still awaiting a verdict from the jury.

Source: The Wall Street Journal via Electronista and Reuters via ModMyi
Image Credit: DAWN

Goodrich began working for Apple in 1998 and was promised by Jobs in a one-on-one meeting with the late CEO in May of 2005 that he would always have a job at Apple. According to Goodrich, this meeting took place after Jobs’ return to work from a medical leave to receive cancer treatment.

According to the complaint, Goodrich was executive producer of Apple’s public presentations, which included all new product releases, and was involved in the creative process for developing the presentations and working with Jobs to prepare the events. He also said he played a key role in working with Jobs to plan major product events such as the debut of the iPhone and iPad. Goodrich states that one of his major accomplishments at Apple was introducing the company to Siri, after being the first Apple employee to meet with the company that developed the technology.

Goodrich is suing Apple for breach of contract and unfair business practices and is seeking damages for lost restricted stock units, wages, benefits, and emotional distress. He wants compensation for the loss of restricted stock that was worth $97.40 a share when awarded in 2008 and about $635 a share as of Aug. 17. Goodrich’s lawyer, Phil Horowitz, wrote in the complaint that Apple fired him to avoid paying the restricted stock.

Goodrich was also allegedly assured by Jobs, again in 2010, that he would be given another job at Apple if anything happened to his position and Jobs wasn’t around.

Spokesman for the Cupertino, California-based Apple, Steve Dowling, declined to comment on this lawsuit.

Source: Bloomberg Businessweek via ModMyi and Apple Insider
Image Credit: Social Barrel