courts
Latest
Man gets 180 days in jail for not handing over his iPhone PIN
US courts are still torn about how to handle defendants who refuse to give up passcodes for encrypted smartphones, judging by two recent court cases reported in the Miami Herald. In one, child abuse defendant Christopher Wheeler got six months in jail for failing to provide a correct code, despite pleas to the judge that he couldn't remember it. In a different court, a judge let off Wesley Victor (accused of extortion), even though he also claimed to have forgotten his iPhone code.
Florida court rules police can demand your phone's passcode
A Florida man arrested for third-degree voyeurism using his iPhone 5 initially gave police verbal consent to search the smartphone, but later rescinded permission before divulging his 4-digit passcode. Even with a warrant, they couldn't access the phone without the combination. A trial judge denied the state's motion to force the man to give up the code, considering it equal to compelling him to testify against himself, which would violate the Fifth Amendment. But the Florida Court of Appeals' Second District reversed that decision today, deciding that the passcode is not related to criminal photos or videos that may or may not exist on his iPhone.
Court extends claims period on $27 million EA Sports settlement
The United States Federal District Court for the Northern District of California has sent word that it has modified the settlement distribution plan and certified the ongoing lawsuit against Electronic Arts and its exclusive NFL, NCAA, and AFL licenses. Because fewer than expected claims have been filed, the court has extended the claim period from this past March to May 15, 2013.If you've already filed a claim, you're good to go, and the court says this agreement won't decrease your portion of the settlement. If you haven't filed a claim yet, aren't an EA employee, and bought a Madden NFL, NCAA Football, or Arena Football game for Xbox, Xbox 360, PlayStation 2 or 3, the GameCube, or the Wii between January 1, 2005 and June 21, 2012, you can file a claim on the website and still be eligible to receive some compensation.This decision does not mean the court has agreed to any wrongdoing on EA's part, and EA itself still denies the claims that these exclusive licenses were anything but "legal and proper," according to the notice. But EA says that it is filing this settlement "solely to eliminate the uncertainties, burden, and expense of further protracted litigation."
WSJ: Apple will respond to Greenlight Capital lawsuit by Wednesday
The pace is picking up in the lawsuit filed against Apple by Greenlight Capital fund manager David Einhorn. The Wall Street Journal reports that 1 Infinite Loop will issue its response to the suit by this Wednesday, February 13, with Greenlight expected to follow up with its comments by Friday in the US Court for the Southern District of New York. George Riley of O'Melveny & Myers, a longtime Apple attorney and close friend of Steve Jobs, will be arguing the case. Apple is eager to address the suit quickly, before its scheduled shareholder meeting on February 27. The suit is likely to be a top topic during the meeting, as it concerns the belief of Einhorn and other shareholders that Apple should share more of its earnings -- particularly a more than $100 billion cash stockpile -- with investors. We'll have more on the story after Apple files its response in court.
Fund manager David Einhorn sues Apple, wants cash to go back to shareholders
David Einhorn is a fund manager at Greenlight Capital, and he's leading the charge with a lawsuit against Apple, claiming that the company hasn't done enough to make sure its shareholders receive the benefits of their success. Apple's been making plenty of money lately, of course, but Einhorn's problem isn't with the making, it's with what Apple is doing with that money. The company from Cupertino has built up a cash bank of nearly $100 billion, and investors have already made it clear they're not happy that Apple hasn't turned that money back into bonuses for shareholders. "We understand that many of our fellow shareholders share our frustration with Apple's capital allocation policies," says Einhorn. "Apple has $145 per share of cash on its balance sheet. As a shareholder, this is your money," he told fellow investors. And so Einhorn has filed suit in a New York court to try and modify a proposal Apple has pending, and change the company's stance on paying off its shareholders. We'll have to see how this plays out. Certainly Apple has a duty to its stockholders, and that is definitely a lot of money (more than any one company's ever seen before). But Apple's R&D costs are rising all the time. If Tim Cook has a good reason to have such a big cash pile, odds are it'll come out in this case.
UK court says Apple notice was 'false and misleading,' orders full repayment of Samsung's legal costs
Nothing truly says "I'm sorry" like a large sum of cash, and Apple will have to open up its wallet to Samsung thanks to "false and misleading" information it published in a court-ordered statement. The decision stems from an earlier UK high court ruling ordering Cupertino to post an apology on its British website stating that the Galaxy Tab didn't copy the iPad. However, according to a new judgement by the the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, the apology it issued contained statements "calculated to produce confusion," like references to unrelated, favorable judgements. Though Apple issued a second apology, the court is taking the unusual step of forcing it to pay all of Samsung's legal fees for the entire case on an "indemnity basis" -- in other words, to compensate the Korean maker for losses suffered due to the original statement. If you'd like to parse the legalese for yourself, hit the source. Update: Some thought the original phrasing "which it did" implied that we thought Samsung did copy Apple, rather than the intended meaning -- that Apple did issue a retraction. We've changed the wording, so thanks to everyone who pointed it out.
Japan court rules Apple did not infringe two Samsung patents
In the latest scuffle between Apple and Samsung, a Tokyo court has ruled that the iPhone 4 and 4S do not infringe on two of Sammy's patents. According to The Asahi Shimbun, a decision on September 14th found Apple had not violated a patent related to app downloads, as Samsung's method is different. A dispute regarding flight / airplane mode also went in Cupertino's favor on October 11th, because the technology in question was regarded by the court as incremental. Only one case against Apple remains undecided in Japan -- for a patent on using "homescreen space" -- but, as usual, don't expect that to be the last chapter in the neverending story.
Lodsys: 150 iOS developers give in to patent demands
Lodsys filed what many are calling a "patent troll" lawsuit against a number of smaller iOS developers last year, claiming that while Apple may have licensed its in-app purchase technology patents for iOS, individual developers have not, and should be held accountable for using it. Despite the fact that this seems patently absurd (pun intended), Lodsys claims that over 150 developers have licensed the technology for themselves, with the majority of them actually doing so "outside of the litigation process." The exact charges of licensing the tech aren't known, but it's rumored to be around 2.5 percent of whatever revenues are earned with in-app purchases. In other words, over 150 of the targeted developers have decided to pay licensing fees to Lodsys, rather than face the threats of legal action or further fines. Lodsys originally offered $1,000 to any developers it said had been wrongly targeted by the lawsuit, but of course that would be after costly court action due to the legal challenges. It's possible that these developers simply decided it wasn't worth the trouble fighting for their cause. Apple promised to assist these developers in court, and tried to make the case that its own licensing payment covers third-party developers. But Lodsys says separately that the issue is still "unresolved and clearly contested." Lodsys seems dedicated to going after smaller developers who lack the huge legal or monetary resources that Apple itself can use, and thus can be more easily threatened into paying out licensing fees rather than face an expensive court battle. [via GigaOm]
Amazon rejects Apple's false advertising claim in App Store suit
Amazon.com has filed a statement in Apple's ongoing claim against the online retail giant, saying that the generic use of the term "app store" is not a violation of Apple's "App Store" trademark. Amazon also asked for judgment regarding the suggestion that its use of "Appstore" to describe its own Android marketplace would be considered false advertising, in an attempt to somehow convince customers that the marketplace was related to Apple's own iOS App Store. Amazon also cites Steve Jobs and other Apple executives as calling competitors' markets "app stores" as well. Apple has trademarked the phrase "App Store," in reference to its own very popular iOS apps marketplace. But Amazon says this isn't even a question of trademark just yet -- it's simply trying to get a judge to agree that using the phrase "appstore" isn't false advertising. We should hear a decision on this filing coming up sometime soon.
Fujitsu and Acacia resolve patent disputes with settlement, keep it out of the courts
Fujitsu's bank balance may be a little lighter today, since Acacia Research Corp. has reported that subsidiaries of both companies have signed a settlement deal over patent disputes. As usual, Acacia is keeping tight-lipped about exactly what the patents cover, but a little digging on our part has revealed they are related to flash memory and RAM technologies. The agreement resolves lawsuits in the works at district courts in Texas and California, which is probably a good thing. After all, these cases can get pretty messy when they go to court.
Judge denies Apple's bid to move Kodak suit to new court
Apple has suffered another setback in its attempts to stop the bankrupt Kodak from auctioning off a series of patents. After Apple's previous attempt to stop the auction wholesale failed, the company appealed to try to move the case from bankruptcy court to a local district court, which Apple said would be more experienced and better equipped to handle a case like this. But last week, a judge in the case denied Apple's request for a change of venue, cutting off one more argument from Apple against these patents being auctioned off. This case has been a messy one. Kodak has filed complaints in the case that have been dismissed by the judges involved. In the end, it might all be a moot point anyway. If Apple can't stop the sale of Kodak's patents, it could simply buy them, and Kodak has already accused Apple of trying to bring the patents' sale price down by questioning their legality. The auction is currently set to take place next month.
Court upholds EU antitrust decision against Microsoft, reduces fine slightly to $1.07 billion
Europe's second-highest court has finally denied Microsoft's 2008 appeal of its 899 million euro ($1.35 billion) EU antitrust fine, while reducing the award to 860 million euros ($1.07 billion). If you can't remember that far back, Redmond was hit with the penalty for delaying information about its operating system to rival companies, impeding their progress in competing with the software giant. It's not known if a further appeal is possible, but we suspect that the company won't give up if it's got any options -- it's not exactly pocket change we're talking about.
E-book price fixing court date set for 2013
The Justice Department has been ready to take Apple to task over these recent allegations of e-book price fixing, and now a court date has been set: Apple will have to face the music almost a year from now, on June 3, 2013. Apple, Macmillan and the Penguin Group are the targets in the case, and while each of them has denied any formal price-fixing in the past, the court will do a little formal digging into those claims. A year is quite a long ways away, but stay tuned and we'll see exactly what case the Justice Department plans to lay out against Apple and the other publishing companies then. [via Engadget]
Court refuses request to review Psystar case
You have to give Psystar credit for being tenacious. The Mac clone company spent four years fighting Apple and took its legal battle all the way to the Supreme Court. According to a CNET report, the Supreme Court on Monday refused Psystar's request to review a lower court decision that prevents the company from selling non-Apple hardware with OS X. The decision upholds the original ruling in 2009 which said Psystar "violated Apple's exclusive reproduction right, distribution right, and right to create derivative works." Apple was awarded a permanent injunction against Psystar and the company was forced to stop selling its Mac clones. This Supreme Court rejection should put an end to litigation between the two companies.
Samsung sales injunction won't kick in prior to patent validity check
Stick with us here. A German court has ruled that Samsung will be able to fight to protect the sale of its products before an argument over the actual patent involved in those products is resolved in favor of either company. If that sounds confusing, it's because it is. Usually, in Germany, companies can sue for injunctions before the patents in question are ruled valid or invalid, to stop sales of a certain product immediately. If the patent is then ruled invalid (meaning that the competitive device is actually not infringing it and will not need to be changed), there's a compensation system in place to make good the lost sales income. If it is a valid patent, then sales were rightfully blocked. But in the case of Apple accusing Samsung of using photo gallery technology it has previously patented, the German court has ruled that Samsung will be able to try and stop the injunction, even before the patent argument has been decided. If Samsung is able to block the injunction, then, it will be able to keep selling its phones, even if the eventual patent dispute is resolved in Apple's favor.
Japanese court orders Google to halt Instant search for suggesting one man be fired
Could Google Instant suggest you out of a job? According to one Japanese man's claims, that search algorithm is precisely what landed him a pink slip and permanent spot on the unemployment line. The Kyodo News Agency is reporting that a string of unflattering searches performed by the plaintiff's former employer allegedly linked him to a host of illegal and unflattering behavior, leading to his eventual termination. Baseless claims of a paranoiac? One Tokyo court doesn't think so, as the search giant's been issued an injunction that temporarily bars the use of autocomplete in the country. So far, Mountain View's refused to bow down to the order and maintains its service is consistent with user privacy policies. Our currently jobless John Doe-san would beg to differ and had previously sought the company's assistance in deleting the offending queries before seeking judicial aide, albeit to no avail. Should be interesting to see how this case plays out, seeing as the infraction is the first of its kind and could potentially alter the legal parameters of internet queries. We'll keep you posted on further developments as this courtroom drama continues to play out.
German appeals court lets Motorola to continue push notification patent against Apple
Germany has been the site of quite a few patent battles between Motorola and Apple in the past, and there's another crater on the landscape over there: One of the High Regional Courts in that country has made a decision on Motorola's ongoing challenge against Apple over push notifications, saying that a motion by Apple to try and suspend an injunction by Motorola attempting to keep Cupertino from using iCloud over there has been denied. In other words, Motorola is free to continue its battle to try and prevent Apple from using push notifications. Not great news for Apple, and not bad news for Motorola. Motorola is obviously trying to keep Apple from using iCloud and push notifications in Germany, claiming that it already owns the patent on that technology. FOSS Patents has a more complete rundown of what's going on if you're tracking the legal maneuvers.
Court says reworked Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1N can be sold in Germany
Apple's been going back and forth in German courts over the Samsung Galaxy Tab, suggesting it "borrows" a few too many features from the iPad, but the latest ruling has fallen in Samsung's favor. A German court has now decided that the Galaxy Tab has "clear differences" from the iPad, and thus can be sold in that country. Note, also, that this is the Galaxy Tab 10.1N, not the original version, so Samsung has already made some changes to the design. And those changes apparently worked, because the court has ruled that sales are on. That's not great for Apple, though Cupertino may likely follow up with appropriate appeals going forward. Samsung also has its own lawsuit going up against Apple in Germany, claiming infringement on a few of its own patents. The next ruling in that case is apparently due on March 2nd.
German court grants injunction against Apple for infringement of Motorola patents (update: Apple responds)
Motorola just confirmed that earlier today, the Mannheim District Court in Germany granted a default judgment in its case against Apple that bars the sale of Apple products in Deutschland. In addition to the confirmation, Motorola also issued the following, rather unrevealing statement: "As media and mobility continue to converge, Motorola Mobility's patented technologies are increasingly important for innovation within the wireless and communications industries, for which Motorola Mobility has developed an industry leading intellectual property portfolio. We will continue to assert ourselves in the protection of these assets, while also ensuring that our technologies are widely available to end-users. We hope that we are able to resolve this matter, so we can focus on creating great innovations that benefit the industry."The ruling comes as a role reversal of sorts for Apple, which most recently received a pair of injunctions in Germany, banning the sale of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in that country, along with the rather embarrassing removal of the Tab 7.7 from the show floor at IFA. According to FOSS Patents this is a default judgment, meaning Apple did not respond to Moto's filing and as a result got hit with the injunction, which could result in its products being pulled or the company being required to pay damages. And so the saga continues... Dust off the pocket translator and hit up the source link for the full ruling in German.Update: We just got the following statement from Apple regarding the ruling: "This is a procedural issue, and has nothing to do with the merits of the case. It does not affect our ability to sell products or do business in Germany at this time."So, it appears our iDevice-loving German friends have nothing to worry about, at least for now.Update (11/7): FOSSPatents has posted a second update accessing the procedural rules, how they (might) affect this case and whether or not Apple has anything to worry about. If you can't get enough FRAND and Zivilprozessordnung news you can read through it -- we'll just hang on until the courts make another decision or someone's products actually get pulled from shelves.
HTC sues Apple over patents
HTC has filed a lawsuit against Apple, claiming patent infringement on three different patents the company obtained in 2008 and 2009. We don't have a lot of information on what patents these are or what HTC believes the infringement to be, but stay tuned -- as soon as we get a hold of the legal documents, we'll do a full breakdown of what the case is here. And this will complicate things even further in this patented tech space: Apple already has a lawsuit running against HTC, and in that case they've already earned a partial win. It's possible that this is HTC fighting back in kind. The acquisition of all of Motorola's patents by Google, as announced Monday, also puts a wrinkle in things, as HTC is one of Motorola's biggest Android competitors. It's not clear exactly how the company will deal with Google running its own Android phone manufacturer, so the company might have some issues there as well.
