appeal
Latest
Kaleidescape DVD servers granted a temporary stay
Things have been looking bleak for Kaleidescape's DVD servers since a Judge ruled against them on appeal, and earlier this month issued an injunction that was to have taken effect on April 8th. We say was because CEO Michael Malcolm is now saying the California 6th District Court of Appeal has issued a temporary stay of that injunction. The court is still deciding whether or not to stay the injunction during the entire process, a decision Malcolm says could affect whether or not the company survives or has to lay people off. While the current case does not affect Kaleidescape's tethered Blu-ray servers, it's tiring to hear about all this from the DVD CCA over a DRM scheme that was cracked wide open so long ago, and a case that had appeared to be over.
AU Optronics found guilty of US price fixing, appeal already in the works
AU Optronics has had its name bandied about in the courtroom before, most recently in a 2009 group suit where it was targeted for LCD price fixing. 'Course, LCD price fixing has been quite a popular pastime for a smattering of outfits, but it looks like AUO will be seeing the wrong end of the decision process here in the States. A US court found the Taiwanese company guilty in a case that could see it hit with a fine totaling as much as $1 billion. Yeah, with a b. As it goes, the outfit was charged as part of an alleged price-fixing group that operated between 1999 and 2006, but it was the only Asian LCD maker in that lot to plead not guilty. This here ruling comes after LG agreed to pay a $400 million fine in 2008, while Samsung talked itself into an early deal to sidestep prosecution. A pair of AUO execs were also found guilty, but its former CEO L.J. Chen (who is still hanging around in the top brass) was not. We're told that the company plans to appeal -- a process that could last as long as a year -- but that hasn't kept its stock price from sinking in the interim. First comes sliding LCD margins, and now the looming thought of a $1 billion slap on the wrist; suddenly, your woes don't seem so bad, huh?
China higher court hears Apple's iPad appeal
Apple and Proview went head-to-head in a Chinese court this morning. Apple argued in the Higher People's Court of Guangzhou that it owns the right to use the iPad trademark in China. Proview's lawyers argued that Apple bought the trademark from Proview's Taiwan subsidiary, not the one in Shenzhen. Proview Shenzhen claims it still owns the trademark and is seeking an out-of-court settlement. Legal experts cited by Reuters say this is a crucial case for Apple. The verdict of this higher court is usually the final ruling in China. Apple can appeal to China's Supreme People's Court and ask for a retrial, but these requests usually don't change the outcome of the original verdict. If Apple loses, the Cupertino company would either have to settle with Proview for a large dollar sum or change the name of the iPad.A verdict in this case is not expected right away which gives both sides time to consider their strategy. Legal expert, Jeremy Zhou of Joinway Law Firm in Shanghai, believes a long trial could lead to a settlement, which would be a favorable outcome for the cash-strapped Chinese company. The timing of this case is terrible for Apple. The company is about to launch the iPad 3, and a negative ruling could affect future sales of the device.
Pirate Bay founders lose final appeal in Sweden, prison looms on the horizon
It looks like Pirate Bay's legal drama has finally come to a close in Sweden, where the Supreme Court today turned down the site's final appeal. At the center of the case are the file sharing site's founders -- Fredrik Neij, Peter Sunde and Carl Lundström -- who have been battling Swedish prosecutors for quite a few years now. After being convicted of facilitating copyright infringement, the trio was initially sentenced to prison. They appealed the ruling in 2010 and, though they failed to overturn it, managed to see their 12-month sentences reduced by between two and eight months. Today, though, their final attempts were shot down, with the Court's dismissal. The fines and prison terms remain the same: ten months for Neij, eight months for Sunde and four for Lundström. There's also a fourth co-founder involved, Gottfrid Svartholm, who has been absent from several hearings. Under today's ruling, his original 12-month sentence will stand, and the four men will have to pay a total of $6.8 million in damages. Because the case has dragged on for at least five years, however, there's a chance that the sentences could be reduced by 12 months (bringing them down to zero), as is common in the Swedish legal system. The decision on this matter, however, remains with the court. TorrentFreak reports that at least one defendant intends to appeal to the European Court of Justice, though the results wouldn't have any effect on Sweden's decision.
Storyboard: Three guys walk into a bar
My days of playing Magic: the Gathering are... well, they're not over, exactly, but I'm certainly not in my heyday any longer. Despite this, I've made no secret of the fact that I still avidly read Mark Rosewater's Making Magic column because the stuff he says in the column is applicable to game design in general. There are a lot of ideas that I've drawn out of there over the years, and one of the ones that's stuck with me is the Timmy-Johnny-Spike split that Rosewater's quite fond of explaining at length. For those of you not interested in reading a decade's worth of columns just to understand what I'm talking about, the three names in questions are the so-called "psychographics" for Magic's audience, three psychological snapshots of why people play and enjoy the game. They're useful tools for understanding the reason certain cards resonate well with some players and not with others. And they're applicable to almost everything -- even roleplaying.
Apple seeks to broaden HTC import ban
While Apple won a partial victory in December in its patent battles with rival smartphone maker HTC, the scope of the ruling was both fairly tame and narrow enough for HTC to develop a workaround a mere two days after the ruling. According to FOSS Patents, Apple filed an appeal against the International Trade Commission's ruling in the matter and is seeking to broaden the scope of the import ban by including more patents that won't be so simple for HTC to dodge. "Whatever the scope of Apple's appeal against the ITC may be, I believe Apple has realistic chances of winning a better outcome," says Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. Apple initially filed suit against HTC nearly two years ago, claiming the company was in violation of 20 Apple-held patents. As is usual in patent lawsuits, it's been a lengthy tennis match of suits being tossed back and forth with no end in sight.
Ask Massively: We do not make the games edition
Sometimes, I get questions for Ask Massively that I just can't use, and not because they're questions to which the answer is just "I don't know," although I try to steer away from those as frequently as possible because it's such an unsatisfying answer. No, sometimes we get questions for which we're not even the right people to answer, period. You can ask me to put a feature in EverQuest II or to consider developing it, but I don't work on EverQuest II. Heck, I don't even play it. This week's installment of Ask Massively has been pared down to the questions that I can actually answer, including answers about the potential audience of the upcoming WildStar and the future of Star Wars: The Old Republic as it pertains to allowing user-coded addons. If you've got a question you would like answered in a future installment of the column, just send it along to ask@massively.com or leave it in the comments below. Questions may be edited slightly for length and/or clarity.
Telecoms win immunity in wiretapping case, US court approves separate suit against the government
Looks like a case of good news-bad news for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in its fight against warrantless wiretapping. A US appeals court upheld a 2008 ruling, granting telecoms such as AT&T, Verizon and Sprint immunity for cooperating with the government in its surveillance activities. Still, Judge Margaret McKeown of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals insists that immunity only applies to telecoms, not the government, and that "the federal courts remain a forum to consider the constitutionality of the wiretapping scheme and other claims." Indeed, while the 9th Circuit upheld immunity for telecoms, it also gave the go-ahead for a separate suit against the NSA, former president George W. Bush, senior members of the Bush administration and President Obama for using AT&T's network to conduct "an unprecedented suspicionless general search," according to the filing. The court's decision to allow this suit to proceed marks a reversal of an earlier ruling, in which a lower court said the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to pursue the case. [Image courtesy PBS]
Australian High Court just says no to Apple appeal, Samsung breathes a sigh of relief
First, Apple got Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 banned from Oz, then Sammy got the temporary injunction lifted. Undaunted, Apple vowed to appeal the Korean company's victory to the High Court of Australia, and today, The Register reports that the court has denied Apple's appeal. Details are sparse as to why Cupertino's arguments were unpersuasive, but one thing's for sure: Samsung's going to have a much more merry Christmas as a result of its latest legal victory. [Thanks, Jeremy]
Apple receives week-long extension on Aussie Galaxy tab ban
Australia's High Court has decided to extend Apple's temporary injunction against sales of the Samsung Galaxy Tablet 10.1 in Australia for a week, reports GigaOM. The delay will give the court time to consider Apple's request for permission to appeal the end of the ban, which was struck down on Wednesday. It's possible that Apple's immediate intention here is to continue to keep the Galaxy Tablet 10.1 off of Australian shelves during the all-important holiday sales period. Losing a week of retail in December could be more detrimental than a similar loss during the rest of the year. In fact, such a costly delay could prompt Samsung to scrap an Australian release entirely. Apple believes the Tab infringes on its patents for the iPad, while Samsung is obviously arguing in the other direction. The High Court is scheduled to announce a decision within the next seven days.
Samsung appeals Australian Galaxy Tab injunction
On Thursday, Samsung began the appeal process that could overturn an injunction preventing it from selling the Galaxy Tab in Australia. Samsung lawyer Neil Young argued that Justice Annabelle Bennett "made errors of law in her approach" and based her injunction decision on "irrelevant considerations." Justice Lindsay Forster, who is presiding over the appeal, allowed Samsung to proceed and expedited the process so the Korean company could have a chance to overturn the injunction before the end of the holiday shopping season. A date for the appeal has not been set, but Foster hopes to schedule it for the week of November 21. Apple is also turning its attention to third-party resellers in Australia that are still selling the Galaxy Tab. A few brazen retailers like MobiCity.com.au and dMavo.com.au have received threatening letters from Apple. A dmavo spokesperson confirmed the company intends to continue selling the Galaxy Tab and is not responding to the request in case it goes to court. Now that it has been granted an injunction against Samsung, Apple could file for additional injunctions against other companies. A fight against MobiCity and dMavo may be difficult as these two companies are based in Hong Kong which makes jurisdiction a thorny issue. Other retailers, like Australian-based Kogan, have complied with Apple's request and stopped selling the Galaxy Tab. [Via Sydney Morning Herald]
French court reverses DS flash cart ruling, Nintendo smiles
Nearly two years ago, a French court dismissed a lawsuit that Nintendo filed against a group of vendors accused of illegally selling DS flash carts. At the time, the game-maker argued that sales of the cartridges should be halted on the grounds that they could be used to illegally pirate software, but the presiding judge thought differently, countering that the R4-like devices could be used to develop homebrews or other DIY projects. Last week, however, the Paris Court of Appeals overturned the ruling, in a decision that Nintendo has met with understandable delight. In a statement released today, the company confirmed that Divineo SARL and five other flash cart retailers must pay a total of €460,000 in criminal fines, along with €4.8 million in damages to Nintendo, as ordered by the appeals court. Details behind the ruling remain vague, though Nintendo hailed it as a "strong message to French companies... that such activities are illegal and will not be tolerated," and that convicted vendors will "risk prison terms, face substantial fines and obligations to pay damages." Sail past the break to read Nintendo's statement, in full.
Verizon appeals net neutrality rules, let the legal wrangling begin
We told you it was only a matter of time and, honestly, it took a bit longer than expected. Verizon has officially filed an appeal to the FCC's net neutrality rules, which are set to take effect on Novemeber 20th. It wasn't until the regulations were published in the Federal Register on September 23rd that they became fair game for legal challenges -- a technicality that resulted in Verizon's previous attempt to block the rules being tossed out by the US Court of Appeals in April. While Verizon senior vice president and deputy general counsel, Michael E. Glover, assures netizens that the company is "fully committed to an open Internet," it none-the-less takes issue with the FCC's attempt to institute new "broad" and "sweeping" regulations on the telecommunications industry. We're sure this is only the first of several cases that will be brought before the courts challenging the commission's authority. Stayed tuned to see if and when MetroPCS re-enters the fray, and to find out the ultimate fate of net neutrality here in the US. Check out the brief statement from Verizon after the break.
Psystar loses appeal in battle with Apple, told to ditch Mac clones for-ev-ver
We're sure Psystar, its lawyers and its tens of fans, didn't really expect to win the appeal it filed following the permanent injunction handed down against its commercial hackintoshes, but you can't blame the company for trying. A little over three years after the drama began, with Apple suing to ban Psystar's products, it seems the epic tale has come to an end. The company hasn't really been in business since December of '09 anyway, so today's ruling upholding the injunction won't make much of a difference either way. We're just sad that this may, in fact, be the last time we ever hear from Eugene Action -- let's take a moment to reminisce, shall we?
WTO says China's rare earths export controls violate international rules, US applauds
China's monopolistic approach to the rare earths market is in violation of international trade regulations, according to a new ruling from the WTO. The verdict, issued yesterday, covers exports of nine minerals -- including zinc, manganese and magnesium -- that are used to produce a wide variety of smartphones, tablets and other gadgets. China, which controls about 95-percent of the world's rare earth supply, had previously argued that its export restrictions were needed to prevent overproduction and to conserve natural resources, but the WTO determined that the country was "unable to demonstrate" these environmental benefits. The investigation was originally spurred 18 months ago, after the US and other countries complained that China's quotas and tariffs unfairly favored domestic manufacturers, while distorting global prices. Experts expect Beijing to appeal the ruling, but this extra international pressure, combined with shifting supply chains and newfound deposits, may bring about the changes many have been calling for. If it doesn't, we'll all be stuck with corn phones.
Microsoft loses $290 million patent battle, begins searching couch cushions
We've diligently followed the Microsoft v. i4i Limited Partnership patent dispute as it wound its way through the courts, and now comes the day of reckoning: by a unanimous decision, the US Supreme Court has upheld the patent-infringement finding against Redmond. For those of you just catching up, MS had been taken to court by Toronto-based i4i over a portfolio of XML-related patents -- patents it had already offered to license to the software behemoth. In court, Microsoft claimed it had not infringed and that the patents were invalid; a 2009 Texas court disagreed and awarded $200 million in damages. A subsequent appeal failed. Oh, and the government sided with i4i. Today's Supreme Court verdict upholds the lower courts' decisions: Microsoft Word is an infringing product, and the company now owes $290 million. The finding likely won't affect consumers, as the offending versions of Word are now obsolete. Still, $290 million isn't chump change, even for the world's largest software company. There's probably a joke in here about i4i justice, but we'll be dadblasted if we can find it.
Government says it's got i4i's back in Word patent dispute
As the US Supreme Court prepares to hear yet another appeal in the seemingly unending patent dispute between Microsoft and XML specialists i4i next month, some pretty influential folks are starting to take sides -- officially. Perhaps most notably, Acting Solicitor General Neal Kumar Katyal filed an amicus brief backing i4i and a previous US Court of Appeals decision to uphold the $290 million judgement against the software giant. Other big guns backing i4i with amicus briefs include DuPont, 3M, Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and GE. Of course, Microsoft's getting a little help from its friends with official I-got-you-bro statements coming from Google, Apple, Toyota, and Walmart. The appeal is expected to hit the Supreme Court in April and has big implications for patent litigation -- specifically, it could give tech giants like Microsoft more guts to go after patents held by little guys like i4i.
Mortal Kombat publisher appealing Aussie 'Refused Classification' decision
Warner Bros. Interactive's Australian arm will appeal the RC (Refused Classification) "unrating" bestowed upon Mortal Kombat by the Australian Classification Review Board. The designation prevents the game from being sold by retailers in the country. "After reviewing both the gameplay and the Board's original decision, WBIE Australia believe the violence in the game is on par with numerous other titles readily available for sale in the Australian market," reads the publisher's statement, obtained by IGN AU. "As such, the company wants to exhaust all options to make the game available to Mortal Kombat fans in this country. An identical version of the game will be submitted for appeal." Two years ago, Valve resubmitted an unedited version of Left 4 Dead 2 to the Aussie classification board in an appeal to an earlier RC ruling and ... lost.
MetroPCS takes a cue from Verizon, appeals FCC's net neutrality code
It's not just Big Red taking issue with the FCC's final stance on net neutrality, which shouldn't come as much of a surprise -- landline and wireless operators tend to do a pretty good job harmonizing their opinions on regulatory issues, and net neutrality is about as big of a regulatory issue as you're going to get. Next up to drop the legal hammer is MetroPCS, filing this week with the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and saying that it wants to make sure "the concerns of competitive wireless carriers, like MetroPCS, are addressed." Interestingly, the company specifically calls out net neutrality complaints against its new 4G plans -- which stratify non-browser data usage as a separate category with its own bucket -- as one of the reasons it's filing the appeal; separately, the carrier says that it's going to formally respond to those complaints next month, so it's clearly not ready to back down and rethink its LTE strategy. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Microsoft files motion to dismiss Apple's 'App Store' trademark claim, says term is generic
That Apple had the original App Store isn't under dispute, but should the company have the right to exclude others from using the same term to describe their program repositories? Microsoft says no, and has this week filed a motion with the US Patent and Trademark Office asking for it to dismiss Apple's trademark claim for "App Store." The application seeks to secure for Apple the exclusive use of the term in the context of computer software broadly, not just on the mobile front, but Microsoft is arguing that its constituent words are generic (or simply descriptive) both individually and as a pair. In making its case, the Redmond company cites Steve Jobs himself, whose exposition on the topic of Android fragmentation included specific mention of multiple "app stores" for the Google OS. It would seem this has been brewing for a while, too, as the last update -- dated 7th of July, 2010 -- on Apple's trademark application notes there's a pending opposition to its claim. Now that Microsoft's escalated its complaint to asking for a summary dismissal, it'll be interesting to see on which side of the great divide the decision falls.
