dispute
Latest
FTC tells ITC that bans over standards-based patents aren't kosher, looks warily at Motorola and Samsung
Most of the scrutiny over abuse of standards-based patents has come through European Union investigations of Motorola and Samsung. That attention might come to the US if the Federal Trade Commission has its way. It just sent a letter to the International Trade Commission arguing that companies should be blocked from landing bans if they base their disputes on standards. These kinds of blockades "deter innovation" and spur companies to try for much more of a cash windfall from a patent than it's really worth, the FTC argues. The letter doesn't directly accuse anyone of getting their fingers dirty, but there's little doubt that it's referring to Motorola (now part of Google) and Samsung: their varying ITC disputes against Apple and Microsoft are often based around standards patents for technologies like 3G and H.264 video, which aren't supposed to demand legal action except as a last resort. An angry FTC missive doesn't constitute a formal investigation that would actively worry either Motorola or Samsung, but it certainly fires a warning shot across the bow.
Apple hits HTC with third ITC dispute, One series goes under the gun
Apple chief Tim Cook might have said that he doesn't like lawsuits, but he must have left a loophole open for International Trade Commission disputes. His company quietly filed a third challenge against HTC on June 4th (just now coming to light) that -- surprise -- claims HTC is still violating patents that it supposedly worked hard to avoid. If successful, Apple would slap down 29 devices that include a much more modern set of hardware than the first two disputes, including the One X (and EVO 4G LTE), One S and One V. Apple had success in December with the final results of its first ITC complaint and may simply be rolling the dice to try for more. Whatever throw Apple lands, there's no doubt that HTC and its fans are exasperated at the thought of more launch delays, or worse.
ITC says again that Apple and RIM don't violate Kodak patent
Kodak hasn't caught a break lately, and that trend isn't easing up any time soon with a second rejection arriving in its main International Trade Commission (ITC) patent dispute with Apple and RIM. Despite having had its case remanded after a loss last year, Kodak is once more being told that BlackBerrys and iPhones don't violate a patent on previewing photos. The one violation was rendered moot through "obviousness," according to administrative law judge Thomas Pender. It's still an initial ruling, and Kodak is trying to put a positive light on the situation -- it's "pleased" there's still an infringement, even if the patent claim is invalid -- but the patent wars aren't looking good for a photography company that has already had to give up cameras to have a chance of staying afloat. Most of Kodak's hope, then, will be pinned on a second wave of ITC disputes that might stand a better chance of putting at least Apple's feet to the fire.
ITC judge finds Apple in violation of Motorola WiFi patent
Motorola scored a win with the US International Trade Commission this week in its on-going patent battle with Apple. The commission's Judge Thomas Pender ruled that Cupertino is in violation of a Motorola WiFi patent -- one of four patents included in a complaint filed by the RAZR maker back in October 2010. Before the ITC actually goes so far as blocking the import of Apple products, however, the ruling is subject to review by the commission. The decision follows another patent win for Motorola, handed down by the ITC yesterday in a dispute with Microsoft. Update: Motorola sent along the following, not surprisingly chipper statement on the matter: We are pleased that the ALJ's initial determination finds Apple to be in violation of Motorola Mobility's intellectual property, and look forward to the full commission's ruling in August. Our commitment to innovation is a primary reason why we are an industry-leader in intellectual property, and our focus continues to be on building on this strong foundation to enhance the user experience.
Man gets served on Facebook, literally
Being unceremoniously dumped online isn't the only indignation made easier by social networks. For the first time, lawyers in the UK have been granted permission to serve a legal suit via Facebook. Traditionally, documents must be delivered physically, be it in person, by post or even fax. But, in a pretrial for a commercial dispute, these old-fashioned methods proved fruitless. The prosecuting team then decided to check online, and noticed recent updates on defendant Fabio De Biase's profile. Satisfied it was currently active, they sought permission to send documents via the website, with Justice Nigel Teare duly obliging. Wondering what that noise is? That's the sound of millions of mice clicking on "privacy settings" all at once.
LightSquared's troubles continue, company defaults on $56M payment to Inmarsat
It's been a while since LightSquared had some good news to boast about, and it doesn't look like that situation's about to change anytime soon. The latest stumble for the company stems from its 2007 agreement with UK-based satellite operator and spectrum owner Inmarsat, which was due a $56.25 million payment from LightSquared that it has now defaulted on. For its part, LightSquared is laying some of the blame on Inmarsat, saying that it has "raised several matters that require resolution" before the first phase of the agreement comes to a close, and that "the terms of the agreement allow for additional time to resolve pending questions before phase one is complete and the final payment is due." This comes as the company faces a brick wall in the form of the FCC, which it has been struggling to get approval from and has recently been criticizing in increasingly blunt terms. Its full statement on the Inmarsat matter can be found after the break.
LightSquared grasps at straws, slams FCC in a statement
To say it's been a bumpy road for LightSquared over recent months would be an understatement. However, developments this week could see the beleaguered company reach a critical fork in the road. On Tuesday, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration confirmed that LightSquared's planned network would indeed interfere with global positioning systems, and that there was no "practical way" to work around this. The FCC subsequently proposed to indefinitely suspend LightSquared's authority to migrate its satellite spectrum to land-based use. Unsurprisingly, this evoked a less than cheerful response from the troubled startup, which slammed the FCC in a statement, claiming it's "harmed not only LightSquared, but also the American public" and accusing the committee of "the height of bureaucratic irresponsibility." The following day, the Wall Street Journal reported that firm was now making a last-ditch effort to revive hope, by attempting to exchange its wireless licenses for ones similar to those operated by the Department of Defense. Reuters has since reported that contrary to rumors that the company was seeking restructuring advice, hedge fund manager Philip Falcone claims that filing for bankruptcy would be off the cards, defiantly stating "there are other ways around this." As to what these other ways include we're as yet to see, but we admire the optimism.
Grooveshark goes dark in Germany over 'unreasonably high' license fees
The masses of online music streamers in Germany have discovered that there's one less option for blasting Cee Lo Green. Grooveshark has pulled the plug on its services in the country due to the seemingly truckloads of cash it was shelling out to GEMA, the performance and reproduction rights organization. The US-based music streaming service is no stranger to licensing quarrels, though, as they've been in scuffles with Sony, Universal, Warner and EMI in the States.
AT&T blows a gasket, calls FCC report 'an advocacy piece, not analysis'
You know who's madder than hot fury right now? That guy you picked last on your recreational kickball squad. Also, Jim Cicconi, AT&T Senior Executive Vice President of External & Legislative Affairs. He's credited with penning a scathing response to the recent FCC Staff Report surrounding the proposed AT&T / T-Mobile transaction, which obviously didn't go at all in the way that the former had intended. In fact, he goes so far as to call the document "so obviously one-sided that any fair-minded person reading it is left with the clear impression that it is an advocacy piece, and not a considered analysis." And in turn, effectively teaches us that his rebuttal is equally so. As you'd expect in any legal / political throw down with billions at stake, AT&T feels that the report "cherry-picked facts to support its views, and ignored facts that don't." Hardly shocking, mind you, but it's the clearest evidence yet that the company isn't backing down from its stance. Of course, with a $4 billion break-up fee looming if this all falls apart, it's probably worth a few Hail Marys along the way. As you'd expect, Sprint also took the time to respond to AT&T's response of an FCC report, which responded to both Sprint and AT&T's initial responses. You'll find that, and perhaps other tales of intrigue, after the break.
Electronic Arts sues EA (a fitness company) in logo dispute
The logo pictured, for Energy Armor, probably reminds you of the Electronic Arts logo. And according to Electronic Arts, it's a logo "likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive consumers as to an affiliation, connection, or association between Energy Armor and Electronic Arts." Because of this, Electronic Arts has filed a complaint with the court of California, Gamasutra reports. Energy Armor, a company whose chief offering is wristbands, recently registered the logo with the United States Patent and Trademark Office -- the same logo that appears on the company's popular wristbands. Electronic Arts' complaint calls for a block on the registration, and that all existing wristbands Energy Armor is holding on to be delivered and destroyed. Not yours, though. You already bought it, so you're cool.
Red 5 Studios and Webzen resolve legal dispute
Remember back in July, when Red 5 Studios was all like, "You're not advertising our upcoming game enough, Webzen!", and then Webzen was all like, "We gave you several million dollars, and we're still waiting for this game you said you're working on!"? Well, it turns out both parties have decided to put the whole thing behind them, and live happily ever after. According to a press release, "Webzen will receive compensation for the prior development fees paid to Red 5 and also will share in future revenue generated from Red 5's game entitled Firefall for a certain period of time." This settlement will also give Red 5 complete global publishing rights to Firefall and relieve Webzen of all advertising involvement.
Did Apple shrink the Samsung Galaxy S in Dutch lawsuit filing?
We haven't had a chance to head on down to The Hague to have a look-see for ourselves, but Dutch tech site Webwereld spotted some more inconsistencies in Apple's Samsung lawsuit filings. This time the culprit is a shrunken Galaxy S, standing side-by-side with an identically tall iPhone 3G -- when in reality the Samsung phone is seven millimeters taller than its Apple counterpart, and slightly wider as well. The image, filed in the Netherlands, is part of an intellectual property suit against Samsung, and came to light just days after accusations that Apple manipulated photos of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 that it submitted to a German court. While misleading, this latest error isn't nearly as concerning as last week's shrunken Tab -- which could easily be described as image manipulation, considering that the tablet included in that filing represented an incorrect 4:3 aspect ratio, while the Samsung device has a 16:10 display. Update: The phone pictured above is the Samsung Galaxy S, not the Galaxy S II. [Thanks, Florian]
Did Apple alter photos of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in its injunction filing?
Previously, on Apple Versus Samsung: Cupertino's finest sued Samsung for making "similar" products -- a legal spectacle that most recently culminated with an injunction blocking the sale of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 across Europe (with one exception). The case hinges on Apple's assertion that Samsung is ripping off its designs, but tech site Webwereld spotted signs that perhaps Apple's claims are exaggerated, and that the outfit might have even gone so far as to alter images of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 to suit its case. The comparison shot you see up there is lifted from page 28 of a filing made by Freshfields Bruckhaus Derringer, Apple's European lawyers. Both devices look pretty identical with an aspect ratio of 4:3 -- except in reality, the Tab has a 16:9 16:10 aspect ratio and is far narrower than Steve's magical slate. Of course, we might never know if this was actually a malicious move on Apple's part -- certainly, Samsung's legal team isn't saying anything. For now, though, if you're game to play armchair attorney, head past the break for a comparison shot of the competing tabs as we actually know and love them. [Thanks, Jack]
NL ruling on Apple vs. Samsung dispute due on 9/15, courtroom antics catalogued
Apple has succeeded in getting the Galaxy Tab 10.1 blocked from import into most of Europe -- but not the Netherlands. Today the initial proceedings in the legal dispute between the two companies there came to a close, an apparently entertaining show that saw Apple attempting to make the case that its design is being stolen. Apple presented online market research indicating that 80% of respondents found the iPad and Galaxy Tab 10.1 to be "identical" or at least "similar in general impression," a study that apparently did not impress the judge. Apple also alleged infringement from the Galaxy S and the Galaxy Ace, while Samsung, for its part, said Apple's claims were far too vague, enough so that any digital photo frame would be in trouble.While Danny Crane sadly did not make an appearance the presiding judge still seemed rather amused, calling the various legal representatives "terriers" according to Andreas Udo de Haes, an editor at Webwereld who live-tweeted the proceedings. The judge finished by saying a ruling would come on September 15th and if indeed an injunction were coming it won't appear until October 13th. So, tablet fans in the Netherlands, know that you have at least two months worth of worry-free shopping ahead of you.[Thanks, Paul]
Microsoft rebuts Intel's claims about Windows 8, calls them 'factually inaccurate'
Bad Intel! Microsoft has issued a strongly worded response to comments this week from Intel SVP Renee James describing the future of Windows 8 on ARM as fragmented and backwards-incompatible. Those statements, says Microsoft, were "factually inaccurate and unfortunately misleading," though we're left without clarification as to what specifically was untrue. James claimed that legacy x86 programs won't be running on the ARM architecture, requiring a re-write for developers and probably a re-purchase for users. She also went on to suggest that each of the four hardware suppliers for Windows 8 systems-on-chip will have a different code stack, incompatible with the rest, which sounds like a far worse allegation to us. Now the issue is to try and figure out which of those two big accusations Microsoft has taken offense to. The Redmond team had nothing more to say on the matter, offering only a reminder that Windows 8 is still at the tech demo stage and there's still a long way to go.
Sprint to pay at least $1 billion to use Clearwire's 4G network through 2012
Although it might not make a difference to consumers, the 4G network ripping through Sprint-branded devices such as the EVO 4G doesn't actually belong to the carrier. Rather, Sprint rents use of Clearwire's network, and the two have been duking it out for months over just how much that service is worth. That battle finally came to an end today when Sprint, which happens to be Clearwire's majority owner, agreed to pay at least $1.03 billion this year and next to run its WiMAX devices on the network. The two companies also agreed to mutual wholesale rights, meaning they can sell access to each other's 3G and 4G networks to other providers. And they reached a pricing agreement for phones that offer both 3G and 4G connectivity -- a bone of contention for Sprint, whose customers can't all take advantage of 4G speeds, depending on where they live. Then again, Clearwire needs those billions precisely so that it can expand its network. As for Sprint, it can now blow less cash on legal fees -- and instead gird itself for a potential three-horse race against Verizon and AT&T&T. [Image courtesy of Mobiledia]
Apple spent nearly $5.7b on Samsung parts in 2010, faces 'strong' response to its patent suit
Want some numerical context to last night's revelation that Apple is suing Samsung Electronics for copying the iPhone and iPad? How does $5.7 billion sound? That's how much Apple spent on buying up parts from Samsung last year, according to the AFP, which cites the Cupertino company as Samsung's second-biggest client after Sony. Given the breadth of Samsung's component manufacturing, these expenditures can and probably do span everything from flash storage and RAM to processing chips to displays. What's fascinating here -- and illustrative of the psychopathic nature of corporations -- is that in spite of this massive interdependency, Apple's lodged a broadly worded patent assault on a major prong of Samsung's business (smartphones and tablets) and now Samsung's been quoted as saying it has "no choice but [to] respond strongly." A company official has apparently expressed the belief that Apple may be infringing on some of Samsung's wireless patents, which means we can probably look forward to another fat batch of papers being submitted to the Northern District of California court. Lovely.
Microsoft keeps gunning after Apple's 'generic' App Store trademark, brings in a linguistics expert
We'd say this was getting silly but that would imply that it wasn't already. Microsoft and Apple are still at each other's throat over the latter's trademark application for the term "App Store," with Microsoft now bringing in a Dr. Ronald Butters, Professor Emeritus at Duke University and a man with a taste for hardcore semantics. He says the compound noun "app store" is perfectly generic in that it "does not merely describe the thing named, it is the thing named." In a wildly geeky turn, he references the potential for someone discovering a use for masers and trying to trademark the term "maser store" in response, which would seem immediately and logically absurd. An app store, says the good doctor, is no more capable of being trademarked than a grocery store or a stationery store or a computer store. Of course, as with most trademark disputes, what's truly at stake here isn't linguistics, but a big fat wad of consumer goodwill. Having previously been quite uncomfortable with the idea of buying additional software for his mobile phone, Joe Consumer has nowadays grown quite accustomed to dropping little chunks of change on smartphone apps, and the terminology that sets his mind at ease most readily is indeed "app store." Preventing others from using that well established moniker would clearly be a significant competitive advantage for Apple and it's pretty hard to argue with its contention that it's responsible for generating the goodwill that sits behind it. Then again, we reckon Android's Market, webOS' admittedly small App Catalog, and other moves by the likes of RIM, Nokia and Microsoft itself with WP7, haven't done the app store cause any harm either, so in purely ethical terms it still seems a little rich for Apple to be claiming the app store crown all to itself. As to the legal battle itself, it's descending into quite amusing minutiae, but its outcome will be of great interest to most of the aforementioned mobile ecosystem purveyors.
Nokia keeps the lawyers well fed, returns to the ITC with fresh complaints about Apple
Like a desperate suitor unable to take "no" for an answer, Nokia's come back to the ITC with fresh allegations about Apple using its patented technologies without proper authorization. On Friday, the International Trade Commission made an initial determination that Apple wasn't actually making use of five patents held by the Finnish company -- a ruling that has yet to be ratified by the Commission itself, notably -- which Nokia predictably "does not agree" with and is now countering with the addition of seven more patents it believes have been infringed. Those relate to multitasking, data synchronization, positioning, call quality, and Bluetooth accessories, and affect "virtually all products" in Cupertino's portfolio. Rather boastfully, Nokia informs us that a total of 46 of its patents are now being actioned in some sort of lawsuit against Apple, whether you're talking about the ITC, US, Dutch, German, or British courts. As the old saying goes, if you can't beat 'em, send in the lawyers. See Nokia's press release about this latest legal activity after the break.
China, predictably, denies Google's accusations of Gmail tampering
On Monday, Google expressed its belief that its email users in China were experiencing "a government blockage carefully designed to look like the problem is with Gmail." Now, as is par for this thorny course, the Chinese state has come out with a terse rebuttal, saying simply that "this is an unacceptable accusation." The retort was, says the BBC, part of a regular news conference on Tuesday and it doesn't appear that any more time was spent on the subject. Which is odd since most people would tend to act to prevent something they see as unacceptable -- but then we suppose China already has a pretty long list of folks it'd like to shut up, Google's just gonna have to get in line and wait its turn. There's a good citizen.
