appeal
Latest
Sony drops appeal for ICO-issued 2011 data loss fine
Sony dropped its appeal and will therefore have to pay a £250,000 fine issued by the UK Information Commissioner's Office related to a massive data breach on PSN in April 2011. ICO issued the fine in January 2013, calling the hack a "serious breach of the Data Protection Act." "After careful consideration we are withdrawing our appeal. This decision reflects our commitment to protect the confidentiality of our network security from disclosures in the course of the proceeding," a Sony representative told V3. "We continue to disagree with the decision on the merits."
Report: $27 million Madden payout to customers stalled in Appeals court
In 2008, a lawsuit alleged EA violated antitrust laws by holding exclusive licenses with the NFL, NCAA and AFL, and in 2012, EA admitted no wrongdoing and settled for $27 million. That money was, in part, to be distributed among people who bought Madden NFL, NCAA Football or Arena Football games for Xbox, Xbox 360, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, GameCube or Wii between January 1, 2005, and June 21, 2012. Those applicable could fill out an online form to claim their damages, and in April the form deadline was extended because so few people applied; individual payouts tripled from the initial estimate. Now, people who followed the case and filled out the form have to wait to receive their payout, following an objection from an invested person named Aaron Miller, Kotaku reports. Miller objects to the size of the attorneys' fees, and while his initial movement was dismissed, his subsequent appeal is in San Francisco's US Court of Appeals for the Ninth District. While the appeal is in process, payouts are on hold. Miller's brief is due on October 7 and the response to his filing is due one month later, the site says. Payouts will remain in limbo until the end of the year. Stay strong – there's no real "bad time" for free, surprise money.
Outcast creators purchase IP from Atari
The founders of Appeal, the development studio responsible for 1999's sci-fi action game, Outcast, have purchased the intellectual property rights for that brand from holding company Atari, formerly known as Infogrames Entertainment. The original Appeal employees involved, Yann Robert, Franck Sauer and Yves Grolet, are starting a "revival of the franchise" according to the announcement of the rights acquisition – specifics as to what that means were not given. Outcast designer Bruno Bonnell's name was also not mentioned in the press release. Outcast concerns one Cutter Slade, an ex-Navy SEAL operative tasked with escorting a team of scientists into an alternate dimension, so that they may locate and recover a US government probe that is in danger of causing a black hole. All of this takes place in the distant future year of 2007, but here in 2013 the game itself can be purchased on GOG for $3.
Nintendo loses appeal in wiiu.com dispute
Nintendo of America has lost an appeal in a domain dispute it filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization over the ownership of the wiiu.com domain name. Nintendo secured a series of Wii U-related domain names in 2011 – including wii-u.com and wii-u.net – but an unnamed registrant snapped up the coveted wiiu.com domain in 2004, before the original Wii console was announced. Nintendo filed a cybersquatting complaint in a bid for domain ownership in February, which the WIPO subsequently denied. Nintendo will now need to contact wiiu.com's domain owner directly in order to negotiate a purchase. Microsoft recently filed a similar domain dispute with the National Arbitration Forum in an attempt to claim ownership of the xboxone.com and xboxone.net domains.
Appeals court upholds Nintendo victory over IA Labs in patent lawsuit
Companies that prevail in patent lawsuits can't relax until the inevitable appeal is over -- just ask Motorola. Nintendo, however, can take a momentary break. A US Court of Appeals just upheld the company's win over IA Labs, declaring that the Wii Balance Board doesn't infringe on an IA Labs patent. While the ruling isn't all that vital when the accessory is now a rarity at best, it puts IA Labs on the hook for Nintendo's $236,000 attorney bill. It also sends a warning to other companies plotting similar legal assaults, although we'd still expect lawsuits when other patent holders are hitting paydirt.
Appeals court denies ReDigi appeal, says music downloads can't be resold
ReDigi took a gamble that it could resell legally purchased song downloads, much as you would that one-hit wonder CD you bought in high school. Unfortunately for ReDigi, the odds weren't ultimately in its favor: a Southern District of New York court has shot down ReDigi's appeal against a Capitol Records lawsuit accusing it of copyright infringement. The court didn't accept ReDigi's view that first sale principles apply to strictly digital music, at least as its service implements the technology. While the startup tries to keep traders honest by making them delete originals after a resale, the process by its digital nature still involves making a copy of the track without Capitol's permission, according to the court. We'll have to wait to know what penalties ReDigi might pay, but there's enough legal precedent in the case that it's doubtful others will follow in the service's experimental footsteps.
Court dismisses Verizon attempt to halt FCC data roaming requirements
Verizon hasn't been fond of the FCC requiring data roaming agreements; it sued the agency last May on claims that the requirement overstepped the FCC's legal bounds. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals isn't quite so worried, as three judges at the court have unanimously ruled that the FCC was within the authority of the Communication Act to make data roaming deals mandatory. Regulators have been measured in developing the rule and aren't treating cellular networks like Verizon's as common carriers, the court says. Verizon hasn't yet commented on the court loss, although FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is more than pleased -- he sees the roaming rule encouraging competition and keeping more of our mobile gear online. We're sure smaller carriers would tend to agree now that they won't always have to build out wide-reaching (and expensive) cellular coverage of their own just to offer more than voice and texting for travelers.
Beyonce tries to escape Gate Five lawsuit again, fails again
Singer Beyonce has failed, once again, to get herself extricated from the impending lawsuit against her by developer Gate Five Studios. Gate Five claims Beyonce agreed to help make a video game called Superstar: Beyonce late last year, but then backed out of the deal, causing severe financial damage to the studio. Beyonce's lawyers attempted to get a summary judgment in April, claiming Gate Five hadn't pulled in the financing needed to make the game, but that attempt was denied.Now the appeal of that judgment has failed. This doesn't mean Beyonce's lost the case, but it does mean that it'll likely go to trial, where a jury will have to determine if Beyonce was within her contract to leave the project, or if she somehow broke the agreement. The main issue seems to be that Beyonce required a certain amount of financing to stay on board, which she says the studio didn't get. Gate Five has suggested that there was an agreement to get the money Beyonce's contract required very soon, and that she knew that deal was all set to take place.Beyonce, we're really happy for you, and we're going to let this finish and all, but Axel Rose had one of the best video game lawsuits of all time. One of the best video game lawsuits of all time!
Oracle begins appeal process in its Java patent case against Google, Android (Update: Google too)
You should know by now that it's never truly over when tech giants resort to legal warfare over their technology, and just as it said it would, Oracle has filed an appeal of the US District Court ruling in its case against Google. In case you'd forgotten, back in May Judge William Alsup found that the structure of its Java APIs were not copyrightable so Oracle had to settle for $0 in damages over its claims that Android infringed on its patents and copyrights. FOSS Patent's Florian Mueller has a full breakdown of what he sees in the case, meanwhile we'll be preparing our fallout shelters for potential Android Armageddon... again. Update: Haven't had enough of paperwork flying back and forth? Good, because according to Bloomberg, Google has also filed an appeal in the case over the judge's decision not to set aside the jury's copyright verdict or order a new trial.
YouTube scales back automatic Content ID takedowns, improves appeals process
In the last several years Google has become quick to respond to complaints of copyright infringement. Unfortunately, its record in dealing with unfounded claims (specifically on YouTube) is a bit mixed. In particular the process for appealing a Content ID takedown has left many users frustrated and with little recourse in the event of a rejected dispute. And its the content owners themselves who make that decision. Starting today, even if a dispute is rejected, users can file an appeal that leaves a content owner with one of two choices -- rescind the complaint or file a proper DMCA takedown notice. To minimize the amount of appeals and disputes Google is also launching an improved Content ID algorithm that identifies potentially invalid claims and places them in a queue to be reviewed manually before takedowns are issued. For more, check out the source. Update: Wired has a statement from Google clarifying that the queue flagged content ends up in is for it to be reviewed manually by the content owner, not Google itself.
US Appeals court rules Motorola can't enforce injunction against Microsoft in Germany... again
In another face of the ever turning world of patent battles, Reuters reports Microsoft has snagged a victory over Motorola as the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in its favor today. Motorola had obtained an injunction in Germany against Microsoft products -- including the Xbox 360 and Windows 7 -- based on its h.264 patents back in May, but today the court upheld a previous decision putting enforcement on hold because of Microsoft's existing lawsuit against Moto for breach of contract. Microsoft's push to leverage its patents into licensing payouts from manufacturers of Android devices have seen the two at each other's throats since at least 2010, when the folks from Redmond lodged an ITC complaint over nine patents and followed up with another suit accusing Motorola of charging unfair license fees for its patents. Motorola fired back with its own pair of lawsuits -- all of this a year before we heard it would be acquired by Google -- and the battle was on. Whether or not this moves us any closer to any resolution remains to be seen, but at least Bavarian gaming consoles are safe, for now.
Apple denied Galaxy Nexus and Tab ban in Germany
Samsung is having slightly better luck in Munich than it is here the US in its ongoing legal battle with Apple. The high court upheld a previous ruling that Cupertino's patent relating to "list scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display" was invalid. The end result is that the Galaxy Tab 10.1N and Galaxy Nexus will stay on shelves in Germany, while Apple undoubtedly looks for a new avenue of attack against its primary competitor (one we presume will also be of the legal variety). The decision to deny an injunction against the 10.1N comes only two days after the same device passed a similar challenge in Dusseldorf, where the cosmetic design was the focus. Samsung was obviously pleased with the result, saying that it confirmed the company's position that its Android products did not infringe on Apple's IP. Cupertino, on the other hand, remained predictably silent. Of course, this war is far from over, and it's only a matter of time before a new ruling hands one of the two manufacturers another small victory.
Apple wins stay on having to post 'Samsung did not copy' notice
Apple's pride can stay intact for at least a little while longer: the company successfully won a stay on a UK ruling that would have it post notices clearing Samsung's name in the wake of the two tech giants' patent dispute in the country. Apple now won't have to face any kind of public flogging unless it loses an appeal on the non-infringement verdict, which is due to be heard in October. Not surprisingly, the iPad creator doesn't want its own site to become a billboard promoting someone else's work. The decision makes Samsung's victory that much more bittersweet -- along with losing that instant satisfaction from a humbled Apple, it still has to accept a verdict that claims the Galaxy Tab supposedly isn't cool enough to have been an imitation.
Apple to appeal court order to publish statement about Samsung
Apple is not planning to simply give in to a UK judge's orders that it should acknowledge on its website that Samsung didn't copy the iPad. Apple plans to appeal the decision, and the motion will be heard in a UK court of appeals. The judge who had issued the ruling in the first place (and said that Galaxy Tab wasn't as "cool" as the iPad) allowed the appeal to be filed. [Via MacNN] #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
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.
HTC drops federal appeal of ITC complaint exonerating Apple, more arrows remain in the quiver
HTC was understandably upset when its first ITC complaint against Apple was tossed out. The company must have since decided that it has bigger fish to fry, as it was just granted a motion to dismiss its federal-level appeal. The choice isn't a defeat so much as an acknowledgment that other disputes are underway which stand a better chance of surviving scrutiny. As it stands, HTC already has more appeals either on deck or in progress that it will more likely want to pursue, such as the dispute over using Google's patents as well as its off-again, on-again acquisition target S3 Graphics' loss at the ITC last year. Apple, naturally, hasn't been waiting around.
Silicon Knights plans to appeal in Epic case
X-Men Destiny and Too Human developer Silicon Knights plans to appeal a recent court loss to Epic Games, studio head Denis Dyack told Joystiq. After losing a five-year-long lawsuit this week to Epic Games, Silicon Knights was ordered to fork over $4.45 million in damages to Epic. Dyack said he was "disappointed by the outcome," and that his company would appeal the ruling.Silicon Knights sued Epic Games in 2007 due to a dispute over Silicon Knights' licensing of Epic's Unreal Engine 3. SK claimed that Epic intentionally withheld pieces of the engine – an engine that was originally licensed to help build Too Human – which resulted in repeated delays of that project. A jury in the US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina disagreed with Silicon Knights' assertion, and found that the Canadian studio instead caused damage to Epic's license agreement and trade secrets.
AT&T launches Samsung Galaxy Appeal GoPhone, available at Walmart on June 5th for $150
What's in a name? For the Samsung Galaxy Appeal, everything. The moniker of AT&T's new Android GoPhone fits the manufacturer's current legal situation perfectly, though admittedly its side-slider QWERTY-packing form factor is the least likely of Sammy's lineup to catch the attention of Cupertino's team of suits. Joking aside, the 4.3-ounce Appeal offers Android 2.3, a 3.2-inch HVGA (that's 480 x 320) display, 800MHz Qualcomm MSM7225A processor, 3MP rear camera and 512MB of RAM. It's also made with 80 percent recycled material and has a microSD port and 1,300mAh battery. The Appeal will begin its wireless sojourn on June 5th at Walmart for $150, and will pop up at other AT&T outlets beginning July 15th. Head below to find the legal team-approved press release.
Apple files (again) for a preliminary ban against the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1
If you found yourself longing for the minor tweaks Samsung made to the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany earlier this year, you may be in luck: Apple's filed for a preliminary injunction against the slate stateside. It isn't the first one, either, Cupertino filed something similar back in February, though it didn't quite pass legal muster. After gaining some headway earlier this week, Cook's crew is in for round two, according to FOSS Patents, asking for Judge Koh to rule in their favor without a new hearing. Concerned consumers, however, can sidestep the whole mess by simply opting for an injunction-exempt Galaxy Tab 2. Details and speculation can be found at the source link below, just in case you aren't already sick to death of the whole Samsung / Apple spat.
Apple gets another bite, wins appeal to pursue preliminary injunction against Samsung
We'll forgive you if you've forgotten, given the myriad Apple/Samsung legal shenanigans, but back in February, Apple attempted to obtain a preliminary injunction against Samsung to prevent the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and a few phones from being sold in the US. Samsung emerged victorious, as the district court denied Cupertino's request because it questioned the validity of a couple of Apple's patents and didn't see how Apple would be irreparably harmed if it failed to get Sammy's products banned. Naturally, Tim Cook's crew appealed that decision, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has decided to give Apple another crack at obtaining an injunction. The CAFC upheld the lower court's ruling as to three of the four patents, but found fault with the District Court's holding that Apple's tablet design patent had substantial questions of validity. Essentially, the lower court held that Apple's patent was likely no good because it was an obvious design in light of two tablets that were created long before Apple patented the iPad's look. However, the CAFC found that one of the previous slate's asymmetrical bezel and lack of an unbroken, all-glass surface (among other differences) were sufficient to render Apple's patent non-obvious. Basically, the appellate court found that the District court "construed the claimed design too broadly," and remanded the issue so that the district court could complete its preliminary injunction analysis. So, Apple's cleared a big hurdle towards getting the Galaxy Tab 10.1 off the US market, but the company's still got to persuade Judge Koh that it'll be irreparably harmed without the injunction. This decision assures even longer legal proceedings, but given how well both of these tech titans are doing these days, we're pretty sure they can afford the attorneys' fees.
