legality
Latest
Blizzard's Overwatch bumps into trademark issues
Remember when no one knew what Overwatch was and we were all speculating it was some sort of expansion based on the fact that the trademark had been filed? Oh, it was a more innocent time. Unfortunately for that trademark, it might be having a little bit of a problem after all, as it has come to light that another company filed an earlier claim for the trademark that would supersede Blizzard's use of the name due to likelihood of confusion. The trademark that has already been filed is for an app that can be used to provide enhanced functionality for paintball matches, laser tag matches, and the like. Both trademark applications are currently suspended pending investigations, so it remains to be seen whether Blizzard will be pushing forward or will change the name of the game to something legally different. Like Oversupervise, for instance.
Court upholds Apple victory in Cover Flow, Spotlight, Time Machine patents
An appeals court in Washington has upheld a recent Apple victory on a number of different patents for features in the OS X operating system, including things like Cover Flow, Spotlight search and Time Machine. A company called Mirror Worlds is trying to get a judgment that Apple infringed on its patents with those features, but after initially winning damages of more than $625 million in a jury case, Apple was able to get the decision appealed and wiped the initial ruling clean. Now, an appeals court has denied Mirror Worlds' appeal, leaving Apple the victor, at least until another appeal is filed and run through the courts yet again. Apple's been doing well for itself in patent cases lately -- this ruling follows a huge decision a little while ago that earned Apple a whopping $1.05 billion in damages. That case is also probably set to be appealed by Samsung, as these companies will use whatever tactics they can to try and avoid paying out these huge sums of money.
OnLive Desktop migrates to Windows Server 2008, sidesteps licensing concerns?
Just this time last month, we reported that OnLive was in hot water with Microsoft over the company's ostensible lack of proper licenses for its remote virtualization software -- you know, the app that gave Android and iOS users free access to Windows 7 and Office 2010. Just recently, OnLive Desktop transitioned to Windows Server 2008 R2, and while neither company has confirmed suspicions, the move may be sufficient to satisfy the licensing requirements for both the operating system and Microsoft Office. Due to their similar foundation, most consumers are unlikely to notice the difference with the Aero theme active, and while the Windows 7 virtual keyboard is no longer available, OnLive has already replaced it with a mobile-inspired alternative. Let this be a lesson, kids: it helps to play by the rules -- especially when there are plenty of loopholes.
Microsoft: OnLive Desktop may violate licensing agreements
Typically, when a product hits the market, you'd hope details like nitty-gritty licensing and IP would have all been worked out prior to going on sale. Of course, things in the real world are never that simple. Take for example, OnLive and Microsoft, which according the latter, says OnLive Desktop isn't exactly in the clear when it comes to its remote Windows 7 slinging abilities. Clarified on Microsoft's Volume Licensing blog, Joe Matz, VP of worldwide licensing, said the company is "actively engaged with OnLive" in the hopes of "bringing them into a properly licensed scenario." When asked, an OnLive representative responded with: "We have never commented on any licensing agreements." Sounds like it'll all get resolved soon, but in the meantime do your homework kids -- lawyers are expensive.
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.
Atari, EA and others push court to accept Apple's request against Lodsys
Lodsys filed suit earlier this year against a number of third-party App Store developers, claiming that it owned patents covering a number of functions used by Apple's app marketplace, and that by using that store, these third-party devs were in violation of these patents. Apple, however, came out swinging a little while back, throwing a blistering letter down in the lawsuit, essentially calling Lodsys' claims nonsense. And now Atari, EA, and a number of other iOS developers named in the lawsuit have thrown their support behind Apple's argument, officially filing motions to support Apple's position outlined in that letter. The motions also ask that Apple be allowed into the lawsuit as an intervenor and not just a third-party, so that it can properly review and make an actual response to everything filed by Lodsys. Lodsys has been accused of making an end-run around Apple to the smaller developers in this case, and trying to go after companies that might not be able to afford a fight, but passing this motion would pit Lodsys straight up against Apple and all of its resources rather than just the developers themselves. One notable exception from the companies already fighting the case: Google. Lodsys reportedly also targeted Android developers, but so far Google hasn't stepped up in the same way that Apple has. We'll have to see if the folks in Mountain View are willing to join the fight as well.
Former Apple employee admits he sold confidential info, cost the company in excess of $2 million
Paul Devine, the man who last August collected a pretty lengthy list of charges against his name from the FBI and IRS -- which collectively amounted to an accusation of "screwing Apple" -- has now admitted his guilt. Specifically, Devine has fessed up to wire fraud, conspiracy and money laundering, in which he engaged while exchanging confidential information about upcoming Apple products for cold hard cash from interested parts suppliers. He's now having to forfeit $2.28 million in money and property that resulted from his nefarious exploits, with sentencing scheduled for June 6th. Devine's lawyer is quoted as saying he's a "good man who made a mistake, and now he's trying to make amends." Indeed, the mistake of getting caught and the amends of trying not to go to prison. Jump past the break for a full statement on the matter from the US Department of Justice.
American student finds GPS tracker stuck to car, FBI shows up to reclaim its 'federal property'
Mechanics spot strange things stuck under cars all the time, but when 20-year-old Yasir Afifi's ride was put up on lifts his shop found something that hadn't been kicked up from the road: a cylindrical tube connected to a device with an antenna. An extremely paranoid person would think they'd found a bomb, but the truth isn't much better. It was an FBI tracking device. Afifi posted pictures and his story on Reddit while a friend contemplated cunning things to do with it, sticking it to someone else's car or selling it on Craigslist. They didn't have long to ponder long before two "sneaky-looking" people were spotted outside his apartment. Afifi got in his car and drove off, only to be pulled over by FBI agents who demanded the device back, threatening "We're going to make this much more difficult for you if you don't cooperate." Now, we've already given our opinions on using GPS technology like this and, while it's unknown whether these agents had a warrant to place this device, the 9th US Court of Appeals recently made one unnecessary for this sort of thing. The ACLU is working with Afifi to fight that ruling, and for now we're hoping that he, who is an American with an Egyptian father, is currently able to hit the town without agents following his every move. However, at this point they may not need a tracker: one agent who retrieved the device took the time to list off his favorite restaurants and even congratulated him on his new job.
New York judge rules 'private' Facebook content can be used as evidence in court
Privacy? On the internet!? You've got to be joking. That has, more or less, been the reaction of New York Justice Jeffrey Spinner when faced with the issue of deciding whether or not content posted to the private sections of Facebook and MySpace should be made available as evidence in court. To be honest, it shouldn't come as a shock to anyone, since typically private information -- like emails and home contents -- can regularly be thrown into the public light when there's "a reasonable likelihood" it may turn up evidence material to a trial's outcome. Bring that tradition to the internet -- where publishing anything comes with an inherent desire to disseminate or share that info -- and the lady claiming for personal injuries against a chair company shouldn't be surprised her "private" snaps are being requested. You know, in case they show her doing the limbo on a tropical isle somewhere. Then again, she could always move to California, where a local judge answered pretty much the same question in a converse fashion. Laws, it's all about how you interpret them.
Google's South Korean offices raided by police as part of Street View investigation
Google may be trying to make nice and play ball with all the thoroughly outraged governments affected by its unintentional WiFi snooping with Street View cars, but that apparently hasn't been good enough for South Korea. Earlier this morning, Google's Seoul HQ was subjected to a raid and search operation by the cyber crime unit of the Korean National Police Agency, due to suspicions that it may have collected and stored data from WiFi networks without authorization. So it's the same old complaint the rest of the world's been dealing with, only the zeal of the methodology seems to have been turned up to 11. It'll be interesting to see if this raid uncovers anything more salacious than what we already know; we'll keep you posted if it does. [Thanks, D. Kim]
Game developers speak with FCC about bandwidth concerns
Last month, a group of online game developers (from companies like Turbine and Vivox, and even a board candidate for the Independent Game Developers Association) met with the FCC to argue for Internet neutrality, and against Internet Service Providers offering premium access and bandwidth to paying game publishers (here's the PDF of the meeting notes). The argument here, brought up again by a think tank called Digital Society, is about differentiating certain network connections from others -- if you allow ISPs to charge for accounts with better quality of service (QoS), then it's possible, argue these game developers, that companies or customers who don't pay will end up suffering from lag and other game-breaking problems. It's a tough issue. As the game devs told the FCC, bandwidth is already tough to program around (especially in games like FPSes where nanoseconds count), and with the advent of bandwidth-intensive services like OnLive and "peering" rather than dedicated servers, these developers argue that ISPs charging companies for QoS would edge out entrepreneurs and actually discourage innovation in gaming. ISPs answer that a premium service doesn't mean the non-premium service is bad, just that they want to offer premium products to customers (and of course rake in the ensuing fees). Unfortunately, it's going to take more than just an FCC workshop to solve this ongoing concern.
Apple C&Ds Gawker over bounty on tablet info
Yesterday, as you might have heard, the blog Valleywag offered up a total of $100,000 in prize money for information on the rumored Apple tablet. They posted on their site that they were offering bounties for pictures, information, or eventually a full $100,000 for a hands on of the currently unannounced device. As expected, Apple has brought the legal hammer down on Gawker (who runs both Valleywag and Gizmodo), ordering them to cease and desist the bounty hunt for tablet information, and even threatening under California law that it is illegal to (paraphrasing) acquire, use, or disclose Apple trade secrets while knowing that the person who gave them to you was under a confidentiality agreement. Valleywag hasn't updated their original post (and presumably, their lawyers will have confirmed with them that there was some legal course for what they were doing -- they do say to would-be leakers that they shouldn't do anything illegal to get their information), but Apple threatens legal action if any secrets are leaked or published. Very exciting, no? Gizmodo's headline claims that this is confirmation of the tablet's existence, but we're not so sure -- while obviously there have been lots of rumors about the tablet (some of them possibly even leaked from Apple itself), soliciting trade secrets for a payoff is against the law, and we're sure Apple would pursue legal action whether or not there was a tablet device. Just the fact that they sent a C&D hardly means "confirmed." But it will be interesting to see what happens, either if Valleywag doesn't call off the hunt, or if they do find something worth paying for. Most likely, they'll end up hearing about it when we do: at the rumored event later this month.
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!
WoW still on store shelves in Australia
Our good friend Tateru Nino (who is in fact an Aussie herself) has a followup over at Massively about the report that World of Warcraft was no longer legally available in Oz earlier this week. The issue isn't in the rules -- those are the same: unclassified games like World of Warcraft are held to the same rules as banned games -- but in the lack of enforcement. Since the issue has gone public, stores are continuing to sell the game (though some have removed larger sale displays of the games), and law enforcement has made no moves to try and get the games off of store shelves.The real problem here, of course, isn't that Australia wants to ban these games, but that they're falling through the cracks of what seems to be an extremely lax rating system. There's really no rating assigned to these games, so according to the rules, they can't be sold. But the rules make no sense in this case: no one, as far as we've heard, actually wants to ban these games in the country, and no one cares whether they're being sold on store shelves or not.Still, Massively does expect action, eventually, even if it's an apparently much-needed rejiggering of the ratings system to include these "unrated" games. Bottom line right now is that if you want to buy or sell World of Warcraft in Australia, no one's stopping you from doing so.
RuneScape dev: buying MMO gold is like funding prostitution
And not just because somebody gets screwed. No, RuneScape's Imre Jele tells Eurogamer that gold trading is like prostitution because the worst part of it isn't necessarily the problem itself (most games can deal with gold trading in their economy), but all the other problems that come along with it-- gold farmers, illegal purchases, and so on. Jele says that stolen credit cards are often used to buy gold, and we've all heard of the working conditions and pay of many gold farmers out there.Jele also says that he's taken steps to stop the gold trading by making unbalanced trades illegal in his game, and has called out other industry players to do the same. But finally, he lands on the real matter at the heart of the problem-- we have to aim at the reason players want to cheat in the first place. If you make games fun, says Jele, players won't need to cheat at all. We're not quite sure exactly how the prostitution metaphor holds up in there, but he has a point.[Via gamesindustry.biz]
Is it legal to unlock your iPhone?
Just in case you missed it, Engadget did a nice little analysis of whether it's legal to unlock your iPhone or not-- a more and more pertinent question as we get closer and closer to having unlocking solutions become available. In short, it is legal... mostly.The main questions of legality lie around an exception to the DMCA, which allows you to unlock your cell phone "for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network." Under that law and that exception, it's perfectly legal to use an iPhone on T-mobile, Verizon, or any other provider that you can get it to work with. Things really only get prickly when you start selling those unlocked phones, or somehow profit off of selling unlocked phones. Then, Apple and AT&T start to have a case against you for honing in on their business.Oh, and the other fun part is that the DMCA exemption that gives you an out on this one actually expires in November of 2009. So if nothing is done on that front, unlocking phones will be illegal within a few years. Still, Engadget makes the same conclusion that I would-- unlocking your iPhone for personal use on another network very likely won't bring AT&T's legal goons to your doors. It likely will void your warranty, and while some unlocks brag that they'll stay after updates, a future update may undo the unlock.
