courts
Latest
Apple sues Samsung again for copying the iPhone's design, this time in South Korea
As if Apple and Samsung's patent infringement catfight weren't distracting enough, Apple is recreating the legal spectacle in Samsung's home country of South Korea. Apple just filed a suit against Samsung Electronics in Seoul Central District Court, with Cupertino alleging that the Samsung Galaxy S copies the third-generation iPhone, according to a report from the online news site, MoneyToday. That closely matches the claims Apple made when it it sued Samsung back in April for "slavishly" copying the iPhone and iPad. Since then, Apple's expanded its case to include additional Samsung devices, including the Droid Charge, Infuse 4G, Nexus S 4G, Galaxy Tab 10.1, Galaxy S II, and a handful of others. Meanwhile, Samsung has attempted (in vain) to subpoena prototypes of Apple's next-gen iPhone and iPad. We wouldn't be surprised if Samsung abandoned its efforts to peek Apple's forthcoming products, but if this is, indeed, destined to be a case of déjà vu, Samsung might well strike back with a suit of its own.
Massachusetts court opens up to social media and live video, Ice-T expected to cameo
This story ripped from today's headlines: the Quincy District Court, just south of Boston, Massachusetts, will now stream live video online. Dubbed OpenCourt, the experiment will also offer WiFi and encourage liveblogging and social media reporting -- all in an attempt to help the judiciary understand and accommodate new digital reporting tools. Funded with a $250,000 grant from the Knight News Challenge, it proposes a more transparent philosophy for the legal system, which has often banned cameras and restricted access. But the court won't become an open free-for-all. There will be no video for restraining order cases and those involving minors, among others, and judges can disable the video feed at any time. Said executive producer John Davidow,"The idea is to bring the courts and what goes on in the courts closer to the people so they understand how the law and the justice system work in this country." With such high-minded goals, expect viewing that's closer to C-SPAN than Law & Order.
Google ordered to pay libel damages to perturbed gentleman, plans to appeal
You know those search terms that automatically pop up once you begin typing something on Google? Yeah, that's Google Suggest, and it's just an aggregate of the most popular searches based on past requests from users. In other words, Google doesn't actually generate those suggestions itself, nor does some magical alien in its California labs. Despite all that, the Superior Court of Paris has ordered El Goog to shell out €5,000 ($6,721) to an unnamed gentleman who claimed that searches for his name automatically led to a list of suggestions that were damaging to his reputation. The kicker? Said gentleman actually had been "condemned to a prison sentence on charges of corrupting a minor" earlier in his life. Imagine that -- humans interested in his story were searching for his name along with "rape," "rapist" and "prison." Shame on you, Google. P.S. - Google's appealing, for obvious reasons.
Apple and Psystar still battling in court
Like a league of zombies that just won't go away, Mac clone maker Psystar just keeps coming back for more punishment. In the most recent chapter of this ongoing courtroom drama, Psystar filed an Opening Brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in its request for an appeal to the permanent injunction that keeps the company from making Mac clones. Contrary to its former tactic of making all court filings open, Psystar requested that the Opening Brief be sealed. Apple, on the other hand, made its Answering Brief public and the contents were interpreted for The Mac Observer by an attorney who said that Psystar's strategy seems to be focused on "getting the court to adopt a radical revision of the Copyright Misuse doctrine that would in effect destroy copyright and force all copyrighted works to be licensed." Apple's Answering Brief noted that "Because Psystar has no proof that Apple has inhibited competition or suppressed creativity, Psystar urges this Court to abandon long-standing precedent and create a new doctrine of per se copyright misuse. Under this doctrine, any license agreement - such as Apple's SLA - that restricts the use of copyrighted software to particular hardware is per se copyright misuse." Apple also stated that "Psystar's grossly overbroad per se theory of copyright misuse would eliminate fundamental rights guaranteed by the Copyright Act -- the rights to control the reproduction, modification, and distribution of copyrighted works." The court system is unlikely to completely revamp the long-established tenets of copyright law, but the way this case seems to keep coming back from the dead, anything is possible.
Ousted Infinity Ward founders 'plan to have an announcement very soon,' lawyer says
"Since being fired by Activision, Jason and Vince have taken steps to regain control over their creative future and plan to have an announcement very soon," Robert M. Schwartz, attorney for ousted Infinity Ward studio heads Jason West and Vince Zampella, told IGN. Responding to the claims made by Activision in the countersuit filed today, Schwartz described Activision's statements as "false and outrageous" and argued that, while West and Zampella did in fact hire a Hollywood agency to represent them and consider spinning off the studio, both of those actions were driven by Activision. Their rationale for hiring the Creative Artists Agency was only to "advise them in their negotiations with Activision, and not to breach their contract," and it was Activision itself who came up with the original spinoff plans for the studio, Schwartz said. Even if the claims were true, says the attorney, West and Zampella's actions haven't "had any negative affect on Activision -- none," before pointing out that "Modern Warfare 2 has been the world's most successful video game." Schwartz says that West and Zampella "would still be at Infinity Ward developing new games" if Activision hadn't "kicked them out." With plans to announce something "very soon" relating to their "creative future," we expect them to be back to developing new games. Just not at Activision, of course. And under an umbrella of legal intrigue. Full statement after the break:
Court orders Microsoft to stop selling Office 2007 by January 11th
Update: A statement from Microsoft's director of public affairs, Kevin Kutz, clarifies the affected versions. Note that Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac was not cited as an infringing product, so this ruling is not applicable to Mac versions of Office. We have just learned that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has denied our appeal in the i4i case. We are moving quickly to comply with the injunction, which takes effect on January 11, 2010. This injunction applies only to copies of Microsoft Word 2007 and Microsoft Office 2007 sold in the U.S. on or after the injunction date of January 11, 2010. Copies of these products sold before this date are not affected. With respect to Microsoft Word 2007 and Microsoft Office 2007, we have been preparing for this possibility since the District Court issued its injunction in August 2009 and have put the wheels in motion to remove this little-used feature from these products. Therefore, we expect to have copies of Microsoft Word 2007 and Office 2007, with this feature removed, available for U.S. sale and distribution by the injunction date. In addition, the beta versions of Microsoft Word 2010 and Microsoft Office 2010, which are available now for downloading, do not contain the technology covered by the injunction. While we are moving quickly to address the injunction issue, we are also considering our legal options, which could include a request for a rehearing by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals en banc or a request for a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court. Whoa. A judge for the The U.S. Court of Appeals has just upheld an earlier verdict forbidding Microsoft from selling both Office and Word after January 11th, 2010. This suit, which was filed by i4i, a creator of a XML plugin for Microsoft Office, alleged that Microsoft's Open XML format, which uses the DOCX and XLSX extensions that have been a part of Office on the Mac since Office 2007, violated i4i's patented XML handling algorithms. The court ruled in favor of i4i back in May, and Microsoft today lost their appeal, with the judge telling them that they don't have the right to sell the software as-is. Microsoft now either has to attempt to appeal the ruling again, or settle with i4i (read as: "Ballmer has to write a big honking check"), and is currently considering further legal options. The company is also working to remove these features from Microsoft Office (possibly in time to release new versions of the old software on January 11th), and this ruling doesn't affect the upcoming Office 2010 for Windows. We'll keep you posted if anything further develops.
Glider down for the count
We knew this would happen after that last big Glider decision, but the judge's ruling has turned into action, and Glider has suspended their sales and operations. They're still hoping to bring it back up at some point -- there's still an appeals process to go through -- but that seems unlikely. Keep in mind that using Glider or any other botting software like it is a breach of Blizzard's terms of service and will most likely get you banned from the game.The company also has a FAQ up (which includes a PDF link to the latest ruling), and they sound hopeful there as well, saying that they'll know in a little while whether they'll be "back within a month or... gone for at least a year." Just in case you have (against Blizzard's rules) purchased and used Glider and are concerned that your information is being passed on to Blizzard, worry not -- they say that the ruling doesn't require them to give up any sales information, just shut down their operations and sales of the program.As Blizzard posted last month, they see this as a clear victory for both the company and players of the game -- Glider undermined both the wishes of the designers and the experience of other players in the game. Blizzard apparently feels the battle is over, while we're sure Glider is planning to continue the legal fight for as long as it takes. It seems unlikely that we'll see this software (or any bot software) back up for sale legitimately again, but if we do, we'll let you know.Thanks to everyone who sent this in!
German court finds 2005 e-voting was unconstitutional, uncool
Oh, e-voting machines... ever since they arrived on the scene to challenge old timey lever-laden beasts of yore (not to mention pencils and paper, if you remember what those are), there have been numberless examples of their hackability, their unreliable software, and the general mayhem caused by not having a paper trail in elections. It's been a fun ride, but one that's causing a ruckus in Germany... almost four years after the fact, anyway. That's right, the country's highest court has ruled that the 2005 General Election was, in fact, unconstitutional, after the use of e-voting machines was challenged by a father and son team. The ruling states that while the voting was unconstitutional (read: illegal) because the software used on the machines is unreliable, they have not proven that any mistakes were made, nor do they rule out the possibility of using such machines in the future, when stuff will be cooler and work better.
Blizzard responds to Public Knowledge about WoW Glider
As we've been posting on WoW Insider, Blizzard is entangled in a lawsuit with the makers of WoW Glider, a bot program that is against WoW's terms of service. And there's been a wrinkle in the case -- an advocacy group called Public Knowledge has filed an amicus brief in the lawsuit arguing for Glider, and saying that if Blizzard wins this case, it could set a precedent for copyright law that would make any copying of a computer program (including the simple act of copying it for an install to the hard drive) be illegal at the IP owner's will. That's unacceptable, says Public Knowledge, so even though they agree that Glider may be against the ToS, they don't think Blizzard should win the case.And now Blizzard has responded to Public Knowledge, and their argument isn't all that new. They claim that when you "buy" your WoW software, you don't actually own it -- you're just "licensing" it to use it on your computer. This is an argument that's long been used by copyright owners to claim that end users don't have the right to hack or otherwise modify their software, and it opens up a whole other can of worms, not least of which is that Blizzard is claiming if Glider wins this case, then all software "sales" ever really will give end users the ability to hack or modify it at will (something that a company like Microsoft, with their Windows OS, wouldn't want to happen).As we've said before, there are a few ways this case could pan out, and it's likely that it won't end with either of the doomsday scenarios that Blizzard and Public Knowledge are describing -- the court could still rule narrowly in favor of Blizzard, stopping Glider but staying away from the other messes brought up here. Oral arguments in the case started this week -- we'll keep an eye on what happens next.[via Massively]
Former Supreme Court Justice designing educational game
In recent years, gaming has made great inroads with non-traditional demographics like women and senior citizens. There is one segment of the population, though, that has remained extremely hard for the game industry to crack: former Supreme Court justices.That looks like it might be changing, though, if Sandra Day O'Connor's recent speech to the Games for Change conference is any indication. The former associate justice for the country's highest court is using her retirement to help design an educational game called Our Courts with University of Wisconsin-Madison Professor James Paul Gee. The game, due out in September 2009, will let players "step into the shoes of a judge, a legislator, an executive" and "teach [players] how to think through and analyze problems, take action and voice opinions to their elected representatives," according to O'Connor.O'Connor sees the game as the first step to fixing the American public's deplorable knowledge of civic matters. "Only one-third of Americans can name the three branches of government, but two-thirds can name a judge on American Idol," she told the conference. Maybe if some of those branches of government passed a bill commenting on Sanjaya's hair they'd get more attention. We're just saying ...
Blizzard defeats Peons4Hire gold farmers in court
In news likely to have repercussions for similar cases, Blizzard has handily won their lawsuit against the gold farming outfit Peons4Hire (aka Game Dollar). The permanent injunction [pdf] they were awarded in the suit's settlement effectively means you'll never see a Peon spam message in your mailbox or chat window ever again. The original suit was filed because of Blizzard's belief [pdf] that this gold spam 'diminished players' game experience and cost Blizzard subscribers, bandwidth, employee time, and ultimately, revenue.'The injunction deals with that by prohibiting Game Dollar/Peons from selling virtual assets from World of Warcraft, or powerleveling characters in the game. They're also legally enjoined from using the chat or in-game mail system to advertise their service ... possibly the first time I've seen a court case refer to a virtual world's specific forms of communication. Beyond all that, Game Dollar is further prohibited from investing in a new company that engages in these activities. Read on for ... the catch. (There always is one.)
Blizzard puts Peons4Hire out of work
This is probably the best news I've heard so far all year: Blizzard has won an injunction against Peons4Hire (we'll say their name now), which means that the one-time constant chat spammer is now legally banned from interfering with the game. It sounds like Blizzard sued on nearly all the causes that were speculated on a while ago, and as a result, have outright won their case: according to the injunction, In Game Dollar (the company that advertised Peons4Hire) is "permanently enjoined" from "making any use of the World of Warcraft in-game communication or chat system to advertise any website, business, or commercial endeavor." var digg_url = 'http://wow.joystiq.com/2008/02/01/blizzard-puts-peons4hire-out-of-work/'; Which means, in no uncertain terms, that we'll never see those ingame tells again. The only drawback is that, as Virtually Blind says, this is an injunction, not a decision, and so it doesn't have the "precedential weight" that a decision might-- Blizzard can't really legally use this to walk away with an easy win in the next case that comes along. But over the course of a few different settlements, including stuff happening in other virtual worlds, there is a legal precedent being established against using one company's service without permission to advertise another.I'm just happy that, after being driven nuts by all that chat spam for so long, Blizzard was able to walk away with a solid victory.
Playlogic wins copyright battle over Ancient Wars: Sparta
Fights over who owns what is certainly not uncommon in big business, though video game companies generally seem to keep their noses clean, no doubt thanks to the groundwork laid by a handful of notable past litigations. Still, from time to time studios lock horns over a title, and that is certainly what happened when publisher Playlogic and Russian devs WorldForge threw down in September over the developer's PC strategy game Ancient Wars: Sparta. There was a lot of name calling and mud tossing between the two parties, as WorldForge claimed it wasn't paid and that the publisher smelled bad, while Playlogic responded by calling the devs filthy liars and that it was 'rubber' to WorldForge's 'glue.'However, in the end, it was Playlogic who came out on top, with the studio issuing a statement that it now owns the copyrights to Ancient Wars: Sparta. The drama played out before the District Court of Amsterdam, with the judge ruling in Playlogic's favor on all counts. Not only that, but WorldForge will be the one forking over the cash, as it was also ordered to pay Playlogic a penalty of €10,000 "each time they state the contrary or refrain from publishing rectifications of former wrong statements." The developers are also barred from dealings with the game "outside countries of the former Soviet Union," and will have to pay "a penalty of €1,000 for every copy without permission." You know, WorldForge, sometimes it just pays to keep your head down, stay quiet, and just enjoy the ride.
Norway takes iTMS ToS gripes to court
A consumer advocacy group in Norway is apparently not too happy with the iTMS ToS (Terms of Service) and has won a preliminary ruling in an attempt to force Apple to make some edits. Specifically, the Norwegian group is attacking Apple's liability for any security breaches their software might allow (think: "Sony rootkits"), as well as the company's 'we can edit these ToS anytime we want' policy that is outlined in said ToS. Also on the table, yet again, is the use of DRM and whether it violates fundamental consumer rights in Norway, and the proposition of a 'cooling off' period for iTMS purchases.First France, now Norway. The iTMS and its practices are taking quite the beating lately. We should take bets as to how long it will take Norwegian pro-music industry lobbyists to get these rulings fixed this time around.[via MacNN]
Patent infringement lawsuit hits Apple
In a move that screams 'I was waiting for the right time to mention it,' Burst.com yesterday filed a patent counterclaims lawsuit against Apple Computer, claiming that their iTunes, iTMS, iPod and QuickTime Streaming infringe on four of their patents.It appears that this time around Apple actually fired first. Earlier this year, Apple asked the courts to render Burst's patents invalid, which sparked this counterclaim they filed yesterday. Burst has stated that they had hoped to avoid the courts and negotiate a "reasonable license fee," but it seems that a court is exactly where these two companies will need to settle the dispute.Check out Macworld's article if you're interested in more details surrounding the case.
