AppleLegal
Latest
MySpace keeps Apple from Music app icon trademark
Apple's trying to file paperwork to nail down a trademark on its Music app icon, but the trademark is being blocked by a pretty unlikely source: MySpace. And it's not even related to the recent reinvention of the second-place social network, either. Back in 2008, a music service called iLike registered the mark above on the right, and the trademark office is saying that mark conflicts with the mark Apple is trying to reserve, presumably because they both use orange and two eighth notes. iLike was eventually acquired by MySpace, which means that company now owns the trademark that Apple is trying to pick up. This shouldn't be too much of a roadblock for Apple, however. It can appeal this decision, and perhaps argue that the two marks are different in some significant way. Or, it can probably license the mark from MySpace, hopefully for a nominal fee. Or, if the mark doesn't hold up at all, Apple could just redesign the icon and release a new one. Either way, this shouldn't be too much of a worry. We'll probably see a resolution in Apple's favor soon. [via Gizmodo]
Swiss Federal Railways accuses Apple of copying its clock
Switzerland's Schweizerische Bundesbahnen (Swiss Federal Railway service) has accused Apple of copying its iconic clock in the new Clock app for iPad [Google translation], introduced with iOS 6. The Hans Hilfiker-designed clock has become a symbol of Switzerland itself. The newspaper article notes that Apple Switzerland declined to comment. The clock face has been licensed elsewhere. [Via MacRumors]
Apple says it will stop e-book price fixing in Europe
In a move that looks hopeful for the American market, Apple has vowed to stop fixing e-book prices in Europe, Macworld reports. As part of the agreement, Apple will terminate the agency-pricing agreements with the five companies involved in the European antitrust suit: Hachette Livre, Harper Collins, Simon & Schuster, Penguin and MacMillan. Apple first offered to settle in April. As part of the settlement, Apple said it will allow retailers to set e-book prices in European markets for two years. Despite a partial deal being reached in the US, Apple is still part of the ongoing antitrust suit here.
Judge denies motion to lift Apple's ban on Galaxy Tab 10.1
Stay with me on this one. There's a little back-and-forth to get through. Earlier this summer, US District Judge Lucy Koh granted Apple an injunction that would ban the sale of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the US. An appeals court later affirmed the ruling. Then in August, there was confusion over the implications of an unregistered patent. To make a long, jargon-heavy story short, the jury found that it did not infringe Apple's design patent. As you'd expect, Samsung wasted not a minute in filing a motion to lift the sales ban and get the Galaxy Tab 10.1 onto US shelves. On Monday, Judge Koh denied the motion. You can read her ruling here. Apple is now expected to ask the judge to overturn the jury's decision. Oh, what a tangled web we weave.
Apple wins preliminary sales ban on Motorola phones, tablets in Germany
Apple was handed good news by a German court. The regional court of Munich has ruled that Motorola has infringed on a touchscreen patent held by Apple. The patent in question describes the "overscroll bounce" and "rubber band effect" that's such a recognizable aspect of the iPhone OS. The court identified the Motorola Milestone XT720, the Motorola DEFY, the Motorola Atrix and the Motorola XOOM as infringing devices. Motorola is not allowed to use that patent in Germany, so "...you could call it a sales ban," said Stefanie Ruhwinkel, spokeswoman for the Munich court. The finding is preliminary, so this thing will linger and fester in the courts until the End of Days. Bring a snack.
Samsung to sue Apple over iPhone 5 in US
The Korea Times notes that Samsung is prepared to sue Apple if the iPhone 5 supports LTE. The company contends that the iPhone 5 will infringe on its fourth-generation (4G) long-term evolution (LTE) connectivity patents. The newspaper quotes a senior Samsung executive as saying, "It's true that Samsung Electronics has decided to take immediate legal action against the Cupertino-based Apple." A court recently found Samsung guilty of infringing on several Apple patents, and issued the Korean company a fine of US$1.05 billion dollars. I guess some people just like to fight.
Apple-Samsung judge refuses to change sales ban hearing dates
US District Court Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple's request to move its December 6 injunction hearing to an earlier date, according to a Bloomberg report. Koh said there have been no new facts and no changes in the law, so she will adhere to the original schedule. She also said a later hearing would give Apple opportunity to broaden the list of Samsung products it wants to include in a permanent ban. As it stands, the two sides will meet on September 20 to discuss the current injunction on the Galaxy Tab 10.1. A December hearing will cover Apple's injunction request against eight Samsung smartphones.
San Jose court: iPhone owners can't sue over broken glass
In a victory for common sense, US District Judge Edward Davila threw out a class action lawsuit from a group of iPhone 4 owners claiming that Apple misrepresented the strength of the glass materials used in the phone. California resident Betsalel Williamson started the lawsuit after he knocked his brand new iPhone off the arm of a chair, "resulting in spider cracks across the back glass panel" and forcing him to get it replaced. In the ruling handed down in San Jose, Calif., this week, Judge Davila said that "it is a well known fact of life that glass can break under impact." He also ruled that the iPhone owners in the case failed to show that Apple violated any of California's consumer protection laws or breached a warranty. The judge also pointed out the obvious to the plaintiffs, stating that "a phone without a case was more vulnerable" to breaking glass. If you're in the mood for reading the details, the full ruling is embedded below. iPhone Screens
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.
Apple wants Samsung injunction hearing date moved up
Late last week, Apple asked US District Court Judge Lucy Koh to speed up the decision on its injunction request against eight Samsung devices, says a report in FOSS Patents. Koh scheduled an injunction hearing in September, but the court will discuss the current ban against the Galaxy Tab 10.1, not Apple's injunction request. The Galaxy Tab 10.1 was banned earlier this year, but the jury found that the device does not infringe on any Apple patents. Samsung wants the injunction overturned now that the jury ruled in its favor. Koh scheduled a second hearing in December to discuss Apple's injunction against Samsung, but Apple isn't pleased with that later date. Apple points out that this schedule is "asymmetrical" and asked the judge to make a decision on Apple's injunction before it considers the ban on the Galaxy Tab. Apple is likely pushing for an earlier hearing so it can ban Samsung from selling its devices during the holiday shopping season. [Via Electronista]
Samsung injunction hearing set for December 6
Judge Lucy Koh released an updated schedule for the many post-trial filings that follow the verdict in the infringement case between Apple and Samsung. According to a report in AllThingsD, both Apple and Samsung will appear in court on September 20 to discuss the current ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1. Samsung is asking the court to lift the ban now that the jury decided that the device does not infringe on Apple's design patents. The pair will meet again in court on December 6, when Koh will make a decision on Apple's injunction request. Apple filed a notice earlier this week that asked for an injunction against eight of Samsung's smartphones.
Apple strikes licensing deal with Motorola in Germany
It's a minor thing, perhaps, but Motorola and Apple seem to be coming to a limited set of terms in Germany regarding the ongoing patent battles there. Very few details have emerged, but Engadget says, "The terms seem to include only 'cellular standard-essential' patents, which means the company's claims regarding WiFi and video codecs could still be used as an avenue of attack." The agreement includes an admission by Apple of previous infringement, although German courts could also determine the outcome based on FRAND rules. No royalties have been announced, and this is but one skirmish among many. But after Apple v. Samsung, any hope of patent disputes winding down are welcome relief.
Apple produces 2010 Samsung report comparing the Galaxy S to the iPhone
On Tuesday, Apple submitted as evidence a 132-page document from Samsung that compares the iPhone to the Galaxy S. According to AllThingsD, the 2010 document lists major and minor features of the Galaxy S and points out how the Samsung phone compares to the iPhone. It also provides recommendations on how Samsung should change the Galaxy S to better compete with the iPhone. Writes John Paczkowski of AllThingsD, "In short, the evaluation report makes the case that the Galaxy (identified here as the "S1″) would be better if it behaved more like the iPhone and featured a similar user interface." In this part of the trial, Apple is trying to prove that Samsung "slavishly copied" the iPhone when the Korean company designed its Galaxy series of phones. In addition to this document, Apple also brought in several experts, including Mac icon designer Susan Kare, to testify that the design of the Galaxy S mirrors the iPhone in a way that is infringing. #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
The Sony device Samsung claims inspired the iPhone is a Walkman
Samsung is waging its legal battle against Apple in a California court and, in a move that angered Judge Lucy Koh, is sharing some of its rejected evidence with the media. Last week, the company went public with a brief that suggested Apple borrowed heavily from Sony when it designed the iPhone. As noticed by John Paczkowski of AllThingsD, the device behind this corporate intrigue is not a handset, but the Sony Walkman shown above. The leaked brief focuses on a 2006 BusinessWeek interview with Sony's designers Yujin Morisawa and Takashi Ashida that was circulated in an internal Apple communication. Apple designers allegedly read this interview and used some of Sony's principles to design the iPhone. What many people missed is the fact that the interview is about the Sony Walkman NW-A1200, and, ironically, the salient information about design is in response to a question that asked whether Sony was inspired by the iPod. As Apple 2.0's Philip Elmer-Dewitt quips at the end of his article, "Apple wasn't copying Sony, dear bloggers. Sony was copying Apple." [Via Daring Fireball] #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Opening statements delivered in Apple vs. Samsung trial
Apple and Samsung hit each other hard Tuesday during the opening statements of the patent trial between the companies, the Associated Press reported. Highlights of the first day's court session: Apple charged Samsung with choosing to copy the iPhone and iPad rather than innovate after the iPhone was announced in 2007. To counter Apple's argument, Samsung said it pours billions into research and development, pointing out that patents have been filed for rounded rectangle designs similar to Apple's. Apple designer Christopher Stringer testified about his role in creating the iPhone and iPad. Stringer has been with Apple for 17 years. After overcoming a number of obstacles to release both products, Stringer said he was upset to see Samsung's products on the market. "We've been ripped off. It's plain to see," he said. Stringer goes into detail with how products are developed, literally designing around a kitchen table. As the trial opened, a juror pleaded to be released after finding out that her employer would not continue to pay her salary while she served. The request was granted. Meanwhile, the Verge reports that Judge Lucy Koh is pretty angry with Samsung for sending the press evidence that didn't make it into the trial. Among that evidence was information showing Sony influences on iPhone prototypes. It's interesting to note as the trial moves ahead that Apple is essentially trying to avoid what happened to the Fender Stratocaster guitar, which was so influential on guitar designs that it transformed the industry -- but Fender did not pursue the copycats promptly, and by the time it did take up the cause decades later the design had already become synonymous with a generic guitar (as pointed out by Matt Panzarino). The trial will be on hiatus until Friday, when Apple senior vice president for marketing Phil Schiller is expected to testify. #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Judge: Walter Isaacson doesn't have to hand over biography notes
It's beginning to look like we'll need to change our name to "The Unofficial Apple Legal Weblog," since we have a story of one more case involving Apple. This story is in reference to a class action suit regarding alleged price fixing on ebooks by Apple. Lawyers for the plaintiffs have requested access to Steve Jobs biographer Walter Isaacson's private notes from his interviews with Jobs, but the judge in the case has ruled that Isaacson doesn't need to comply. Isaacson invoked reporter's privilege and refused to hand over source material and a list of documents and recordings involving his time with Jobs. U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote agreed on July 20 that Isaacson didn't need to comply with the request, but gave the class-action lawyers an out -- they can try again to force Isaacson to comply provided that they pass a legal test that sometimes allows disclosure of journalists' non-confidential material. One lawyer for the plaintiff, Steven Berman, argues that the reporter's privilege is moot, since Jobs never asked Isaacson for confidentiality. Berman also says that he has another source for Jobs' comments about ebooks. The Department of Justice is trying hard to knock down the time-honored reporter's privilege in a case where they're attempting to get a Wall Street Journal reporter to testify in a case against a former CIA officer. Fortunately, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is friendly towards a free press, commenting in another case that "wholesale exposure of press files ... would burden the press with heavy costs of subpoena compliance, and could otherwise impair its ability to perform its duties ... [it] would risk "the symbolic harm of making journalists appear to be an investigative arm of the judicial system, the government, or private parties." [via paidContent]
Samsung objects to "gratuitous images" of Steve Jobs in Apple's slides
If you haven't had enough of the Apple vs. Samsung battle royale, in addition to Judge Lucy Koh's ruling about iPhone prototypes yesterday, she also decreed that showing Steve Jobs in Apple's opening statement slides are "relevant to Apple's iPhone design patent and trade dress claims and is not unduly prejudicial." The five slides in question involve the announcement of the iPhone in 2007, the iPad in 2010 and Steve Jobs' patents. Samsung argued that if the court allowed Apple to use these slides that Samsung be allowed use quotes from Jobs in its arguments. Koh ruled against Samsung using the Jobs quotes against Android on July 18, saying at the time, "I really don't think this is a trial about Steve Jobs." [via FOSS Patents]
Court rules Samsung can't show Sony's influence on iPhone; Apple reveals 2005 prototype
The battle royale begins in a California courtroom today, as jury selection begins in the case of Apple vs. Samsung. As part of the last-minute legal maneuvering before the trial started, Samsung attempted to show how certain iPhone prototypes were influenced by Sony designs. However, Judge Lucy Koh ruled yesterday that Samsung's lawyers could not bring up the topic in opening arguments. AllThingsD's Ina Fried reported on the decision on the eve of the beginning of the trial. Samsung wanted to have ex-Apple designer Shin Nishibori testify in the case, although Nishibori insistence that he will not appear as a witness. Nishibori made a mockup of a Sony-inspired iPhone (nicknamed "Jony" in honor of Apple's Industrial Design Senior VP Jony Ive) during his time at Apple, and Samsung wanted to use that design as proof that the iPhone design is not unique. The Sony-like design may be a moot point anyway, as Apple revealed a design code-named "purple" (seen in the image at the top of this post) that pre-dates it by several months. Purple looks surprisingly like the iPhone 4 design -- according to court documents (PDF document), Nishibori testified in regard to the "Jony" design "that the design exercise was to be an 'enjoyable' side project and that he merely applied details, 'buttons and switches,' to express the Sony style on a model phone Apple had already developed." In case you're confused about all of the courtroom craziness that has gone on so far, Fried has produced a "cheat sheet" that will hopefully make sense the insanity surrounding the case. #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; } #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; } #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Apple says Google warned Samsung about copying Apple's work
The big trial between Apple and Samsung is slated to begin next week in the US and the two companies are filing briefs in advance to prepare for the jury part of the trial. One juicy tidbit pulled out of Apple's brief by AllThingsD reveals that Samsung was warned by Google and others that its early Galaxy devices were too similar to Apple's products. According to the brief, Google told Samsung that its prototype Galaxy Tab (P1) and Tab 10.1 (P3) were "too similar" to the iPad and ordered Samsung to make its products a "...distinguishable design vis-à-vis the iPad for the P3." Even a group of designers told Samsung that "innovation" is needed because the Galaxy S looks like it was copied from the iPhone. The group went so far as to say that "[a]ll you have to do is cover up the Samsung logo and it's difficult to find anything different from the iPhone." Earlier this week, we saw a brief from Samsung that claims the Korean company indirectly helped Apple achieve success with the iPhone, and another one that shows some cool early renderings of the iPad and a Sony-inspired iPhone. #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Apple and Google appealing dismissal of Apple versus Motorola lawsuit
Back in June, TUAW reported on the dismissal of reciprocal lawsuits brought by Apple and Motorola Mobility -- now part of Google -- against each other. At the time, it was stated that "both companies apparently failed to adequately demonstrate that injunctive relief would be appropriate, nor did they put solid justifications for damages into play." Well, after cooling down a bit, the two companies are at it again; they both filed appeals to Judge Richard Posner's dismissal on July 20, 2012. Judge Posner, author of a number of scholarly books on law and economics, is considered an antitrust law expert, and volunteered to preside over the Apple v. Motorola case because he "enjoys" patent cases. Both parties were very unhappy with Posner's decision, with FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller saying that Apple and Google are opposing every ruling that was not in their respective favor. By moving to the Federal Circuit, Apple and Motorola are hoping that part of Posner's decisions will be overturned. As Mueller notes, "given the large number of claims at issue in that action and the fact that the Federal Circuit reverses at last part of an appealed ruling in more than 40% of all cases, it would be a statistical anomaly if each and every one of Judge Posner's decisions was affirmed." [via AppleInsider] #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
