infringment
Latest
Oracle v. Google: Judge finds structure of Java APIs not copyrightable, renders jury infringement verdict moot
Thought the Oracle v. Google litigation fireworks were over? Well, if you weren't aware, during the copyright phase of the trial, the jury found that Google had infringed the structure, sequence and organization of Oracle's Java APIs. However, at the time, Judge Alsup had yet to evaluate the validity of Oracle's API copyright claims upon which that verdict was based. Today, Alsup found that Oracle's argument didn't hold water because it would expand the breadth of copyright holder's rights too far -- in essence, it would allow owners of software code to prevent others from writing different versions to perform the same functions. This ruling renders the jury's earlier infringement verdict moot, and gives Mountain View yet another courtroom victory. Despite this latest defeat, Oracle's sure to run the case up one more rung on the legal ladder, so let the countdown to the appeal begin.
Apple coughing up $8 million to Personal Audio in iPod playlist settlement
Ah, the Eastern District of Texas. Home to tumbleweeds, free range cattle and boatloads of patent trolls. Personal Audio, a patent licensing company with a highfalutin' facility in Beaumont, Texas has become the latest outfit to claim victory over a major CE company, with Apple being asked to hand over $8 million to settle a tiff involving iPod playlists. Bloomberg reports that a federal jury in the Lonestar state found that Cupertino's iPod players infringed on patents for "downloadable playlists," right around two years after Personal Audio initially filed the claim for a staggering $84 million. We're told that the inventions cover "an audio player that can receive navigable playlists and can skip forward or backward through the downloaded list," and while Apple unsurprisingly stated that it wasn't actually using those very inventions, that hasn't stopped the courts from disagreeing just a wee bit. Now, the real question: are Sirius XM, Coby and Archos -- also named in the original suit -- going to be facing similar circumstances?
Samsung drops Apple countersuit -- Apple's still got a bone to pick
Back in April, Samsung slapped back at Apple's claims of patent infringement with a healthy helping of ten claims of its own. Now Bloomberg is reporting that Samsung quietly dropped its countersuit against the Cupertino-based company on June 30th, in an attempt "to streamline the legal proceedings." Of course that doesn't mean the saga is over: Apple's smartphone infringement accusations stand, as do legal battles in South Korea, Japan, Germany, and the UK. Samsung says it will also continue to fight Apple's accusations in the US in the form of a counter-claim. One down, one to go?Update: To clarify, this does not mean that Samsung has abandoned its own infringement claims against Apple. Those claims have been rolled into counter-claims in the original suit.
Samsung strikes back at Apple with ten patent infringement claims
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone: in the latest chapter of the Apple-Samsung dispute over their smartphones' resemblance, the latter company has just retaliated by filing lawsuits against Apple in three countries. Sammy's load of ammo includes five patent infringements in South Korea, two in Japan, and three in Germany, though we've yet to hear more details about these claims. Now we just sit back and enjoy the show -- popcorn, anyone?[Thanks, Jake L.]Update: Reuters has shed some light on the actual patents Samsung is alleging are being infringed. The news organization reports they relate to "power reduction during data transmission, 3G technology for reducing errors during data transmission, and wireless data communication technology."
Sprint hits up Vonage for another $80 million
Vonage, everyone's favorite "gettin' sued by The Man" company has taken another beating in the Sprint-Nextel patent suit, agreeing to settle the case and license the telco's internet-calling technology for the tidy sum of $80 million. This comes hot on the heels of last month's ruling, which stipulated that Vonage was to pay $69.5 million to Sprint over six patents which the mobile phone company says it had infringed. "We are pleased to resolve our dispute with Sprint and enter into a productive future relationship," said Sharon O'Leary, General Counsel for Vonage, though it's possible she wasn't as ecstatic as that quote would have you believe. This is just another money-siphoning event for the VoIP company, which in March was hit up for $66 million from Verizon for illegally using some of its patents. If you're keeping count at home, that's $215.5 million paid out. If this keeps up, they may not even be able to afford those snappy commercials anymore. [Warning: read link requires subscription]
Linus Torvalds to Microsoft: put up or shut up
Aw snap. Just when you thought the Microsoft / open-source relationship was getting bad, it's now getting even worse, as yet another turn has been taken in the on-again, off-again love affair between the two. Soon after Microsoft's General Counsel claimed that free and open-source software (FOSS) -- a bundle of which related to Linux -- violated precisely 235 of its patents, Linus Torvalds decided to fire back on behalf of the little guy. In an interview with InformationWeek, Mr. Torvalds retorted by suggesting that it is actually "a lot more likely that Microsoft violates patents than Linux does," and even noted that if "the source code for Windows could be subjected to the same critical review that Linux has been, Microsoft would find itself in violation of patents held by other companies." Of course, he backed his statements by stating that the "fundamental stuff was done about half a century ago and has long, long since lost any patent protection," and closed things up by insinuating that Redmond should put its cards on the table so that Linux users prove 'em wrong, or better yet, "code around whatever silly things they claim." As if you couldn't tell, them's fightin' words, folks.[Via IDM, image courtesy of TACTechnology]
1GB Nike shoe USB flash drive disregards trademark
While we've seen the swoosh used on questionably licensed apparel before, we're fairly certain that a one-off Japanese e-tailer isn't selling a svelte Nike USB flash drive before the company itself with due permissions in place. Nevertheless, users can (well, for the time being, at least) pick the 1GB training shoe USB drive for their Mac or PC, and while it doubles as a keychain or hangs on tight to your Kensington lock port, the real utility is stored beneath the toe. Admittedly, it doesn't look half bad (click through for more proof), but we'd recommend plopping down your ¥2,480 ($20) real quick like before the legal teams return on Monday.[Via EverythingUSB]
Attributor software scours the internet for copyrighted material
While we can't argue the usefulness of sites like YouTube, certain content "owners" have some (understandable) beef with their media (or text, etc.) being passed around the internet like hors d'oeuvres at a reception. While scanning programs aren't exactly new, Attributor Corp. is hoping to cash in on the recent push to eliminate unlicensed content from floating around so freely. The company's yet-to-be-named software purportedly scans the internet for specific "digital fingerprints" tailored to a client's media, and can sniff out occurrences with "as little as a few sentences of text or a few seconds of audio / video." The firm says that it will have "over 10 billion web pages" in its index before the end of the year, presumably implanting fear in the hearts of dubious uploaders everywhere. Of course, the company could stand to make hefty profits by extracting portions of royalties companies and individuals are able to garner thanks to its eagle-eyed software, and also hopes to "encourage more owners to put their content online with confidence that they'll be able to police its use and share in any profits." Although Attributor has started testing the system already, it won't be officially available until "the first quarter of 2007," and more notably, it won't be sweeping those oh-so-dodgy P2P networks anyway (at least initially).[Via Slashdot]
MPAA strikes again, says transporting DVDs to iPods is wrong
We don't seeing anything with helping a man out, or cutting him a sweet deal if he picks up a bundle of goods, but apparently the MPAA isn't down with companies loading the DVDs that consumers purchase onto their iPods as a friendly convenience. In another round of studios forcing consumers to purchase content multiple times for no good reason at all, Paramount Pictures has filed a lawsuit against the all but helpless Load 'N Go Video, which provided customers picking up an iPod and a few DVDs with a converting service to get flicks onto their handheld as a thank you for their business. According to the suit, the actual ripping of the DVD is illegal under the almighty DMCA, making the entire process illegal, fair use or not. Evidently selling millions of copies of Mission: Impossible III isn't good enough, as it appears that customers will be asked to shell out multiple times for the same (admittedly subpar) content. While pirating copies for personal gain is certainly aggravating the law, transcoding content for personal use sure seems harmless to us, but you'll have an exceedingly difficult time convincing Hollywood of that.
