apple legal
Latest
Nokia will refuse to license 'essential' patents if Apple's nano-SIM standard is selected
The discussion over a new standard for SIMs is turning into an all-out war. Earlier this week, Apple agreed to offer its SIM patents royalty-free to competitors if two things happen. Specifically, if Apple's nano-SIM idea is adopted by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) and other companies agree to reciprocate on licensing. Nokia was not pleased with this statement and has told the ETSI that it will refuse to license essential nano-SIM patents if the standards body chooses Apple's design over a competing design proposed by Nokia, RIM and Motorola, says a report by The Verge. Nokia asserts that Apple's proposal "does not meet ETSI's technical requirements and would be inferior for consumers and the mobile industry, unnecessarily increasing the cost of mobile devices." Henry Tirri, Nokia's executive vice president and chief technology officer, adds, "We believe that Apple is mis-using the standardization process, seeking to impose its own proprietary solution on the industry and using ETSI merely to rubber stamp its proposal, rather than following established principles and practices."
Octogenarian suing Apple after walking into glass door at Apple Store
Those glass walls and doors at Apple Stores can be a hazard. Although the company installed white "crash graphics" (see photo above) on the glass walls and doors of many stores last year to prevent such an occurrence, 83 year-old Evelyn Paswell walked into the doors of the Apple Store Manhasset on Long Island and broke her nose. The octogenarian is now suing Apple for US$75,000 for medical expenses plus $1 million in punitive damages for negligence. The crash graphics were installed after several similar incidents. A video taken on St. Patrick's Day, 2010 at an undisclosed store shows a person walking right into a glass wall and falling to the ground, and a similar event happened the night before the opening of the Lincoln Park (Chicago) Apple Store in 2010. Paswall's lawsuit claims that "the defendant was negligent ... in allowing a clear, see-through glass wall and/or door to exist without proper warning." If the Manhasset store was equipped with crash graphics on the glass, that might be seen as "proper warning." We'll keep an eye on this story as it develops.
Apple says Proview is misleading courts, its customers
Apple and China-based Proview have been battling over the use of the term "iPad." Apple claims it bought the rights years ago, Proview disagrees. This week, Apple spokeswoman Carolyn Wu claims the Cupertino company was "tricked" into signing an agreement that creates questions about the term's ownership. Specifically, Apple claims Proview maneuvered the 2009 arrangement through its Taiwan arm while the trademarks in dispute belonged to its Shenzhen subsidiary. Apple further claims this move was an attempt to avoid mainland creditors, as the company is in debt by hundreds of millions of dollars.
Chinese authors suing Apple increase in number, target cash amount
In January of 2012, TUAW reported on a group of nine Chinese authors who were banding together to sue Apple for allegedly hosting pirated copies of their literary works through apps in the App Store. At that time, the nine authors were asking for total compensation in the range of US$1.88 million. Now, Physorg.com is reporting that the group, which calls itself the Writers Rights Alliance, has increased in size to a dozen authors who have raised the stakes to 23 million yuan, or about $3.5 million. When TUAW first covered the story, there were 37 works that were covered in the lawsuits. The authors alleged that Apple was hosting the pirated books on the App Store and when discovered, Apple refused to remove the books, saying that there was little or no evidence that the works were pirated. The authors complained that in some cases, over a million copies of the pirated works were downloaded without the rightful copyright owners ever receiving any compensation. Once the pirated works were finally removed from the App Store, new bogus copies often popped up. Apple spokeswoman Carolyn Wu responded to the latest lawsuit, saying that "As an IP holder ourselves, we understand the importance of protecting intellectual property and when we receive complaints we respond promptly and appropriately." TUAW will continue following this story as it develops. [via M.I.C. Gadget]
German court halts Apple's second slide-to-unlock case against Samsung
The Mannheim Court in Germany has delayed Apple's second slide-to-unlock case against Samsung, says FOSS Patents. During this pause in proceedings, the German Patent and Trademark Office is examining the validity of Apple's slide-to-unlock utility model. A utility model is a quickly-approved patent that's not presumed by the court to be valid because it hasn't been fully examined by the patent office. Now that Apple is asserting it in a lawsuit, the patent office is taking a closer look at the patent and Apple's claims. This review process takes time and other appeals could delay a final ruling in this slide-to-unlock case.
FTC Subpoenaed Apple over Google search on iOS
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission subpoenaed Apple as part of a Google antitrust inquiry says Bloomberg. The FTC asked Apple to hand over documents that detail its search agreement with Google. Google has been the default search engine for iOS since the iPhone launched in 2007. Rumors suggest Microsoft, in 2010, tried unsuccessfully to unseat Google from this position. At the heart of this investigation is the assertion from Google's competitors that the search giant used its position to favor its own businesses in search results, increase advertisement rates for its competition, and control the mobile search market.
Apple begins defense against possible ebook antitrust case
Apple is wasting no time beginning to defend itself against the possibility of a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust action alleging that the company conspired with publishers to fix ebook prices. Last week, Apple requested that a class action suit alleging price-fixing on ebooks be thrown out. Part of the suit hinges on a comment that Steve Jobs made to the Wall Street Journal's Walt Mossberg in January of 2010, saying that unhappy publishers might decide to withhold ebooks from Amazon. Lawyers in the class action suit think that Jobs's comment meant that Apple and publishers were conspiring to force Amazon to raise ebook prices. Apple's retort last week says that the lawyers "mischaracterized" the exchange, and that Jobs only meant that Apple had a different strategy in the ebook business than Amazon. Apple says that it wants to sell as many ebooks as possible, which is totally believable since the company is still a relative bit player in the ebook market. As a result, the company would not have an incentive to raise prices on ebooks. But Apple's argument fails to address accusations that Jobs schemed with publishers to slow Amazon's eventual move into the tablet market with the Kindle Fire. Apple's lawyers responded in their court filing last week by downplaying the threat of the Kindle Fire: But this allegation just strings together antitrust buzzwords.. Nor does this "Kindle theory" make sense on its own terms. For example, if Amazon was a "threat" that needed to be squelched by means of an illegal conspiracy, why would Apple offer Amazon's Kindle app on the iPad? Why would Apple conclude that conspiring to force Amazon to no longer lose money on eBooks would cripple Amazon's competitive fortunes? And why would Apple perceive the need for an illegal solution to the "Kindle threat" when it had an obvious and lawful one which it implemented – namely, introducing a multipurpose device (the iPad) whose marketing and sales success was not centered on eBook sales? There are rumors that some publishers are currently in settlement talks with the DOJ. These publishers might be exchanging damning information for a lesser settlement, which could spell trouble for both Apple and other publishers.
Department of Justice reportedly planning antitrust suit against Apple
According to a Wall Street Journal Report, the Department of Justice is threatening to sue Apple and five book publishers for artificially inflating the price of ebooks. The five book publishers include Simon & Schuster, Hachette Book Group, Pearson PLC's Penguin Group, Macmillan and HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. The investigation centers on Apple's agency model pricing for ebooks in the iBookstore. Instead of a wholesale model that Amazon was using, Apple pushed for an agency model which let publishers set book prices and Apple would take a 30 percent cut. Amazon, however, was using a wholesale model which let them sell books for $10 or less. This pricing model was upsetting to publishers who were concerned customers would get used to the low prices. Publishers used Apple's agency model agreement to strongarm Amazon into adopting the same pricing model and it agreed. As a result, ebook prices on Amazon's Kindle store increased.
Google, Motorola told to give Android data to Apple
Aww, they're so cute when they fight! No, not the fluffy kittens, I'm referring to the battles between Apple, Google and Motorola Mobility. U.S. Judge Richard A. Posner ordered Google and the soon-to-be-purchased-by-Google Motorola Mobility to hand over info about the development of the Android OS and Google's purchase of Moto to Apple. Not surprisingly, Motorola has opposed Apple's request for the information, saying that Google isn't a party to the nastiness between Apple and Motorola Mobility. In a court filing on Monday, Motorola's lawyers stated that "Google's employees and documents are not within the 'possession, custody, or control' of Motorola, and Motorola cannot force Google to produce documents of witnesses over Google's objections." Apple's attorneys fired back with "the Android/Motorola acquisition discovery is highly relevant to Apple's claims and defenses." You wacky kids! Anyway, Judge Posner has scheduled back-to-back trials before two separate juries, beginning on June 11, 2012. At the first trial, six Apple patents will be addressed, leaving three Moto patents for the second trial. TUAW will be covering the play-by-play as it happens, provided the blogger assigned to the trials can stay awake. [via BGR]
Kodak asks bankruptcy court to decide on patent dispute with Apple
Kodak is asking the bankruptcy court to make a decision about an imaging patent that's part of a lawsuit with Apple, says a report in Computerworld. The disputed patent is owned by Kodak and describes a camera that takes high quality stills and lets the user review these images on an LCD. Kodak and Apple have been fighting the case in the Western District Court of New York, but the proceedings stalled after Kodak filed for bankruptcy. Apple recently asked the court to remove this bankruptcy stay and transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Kodak, however, is in the process of selling off its assets, including the patent in this lawsuit. Apple claims Kodak should not be allowed to sell its patent portfolio until this dispute has been resolved. If Kodak can convince the Bankruptcy Court to make a decision on the patent, it can sidestep the lawsuit with Apple and sell its patent portfolio to the highest bidder. Though it doesn't have a buyer for its portfolio, online photo company Shutterfly has agreed to pay US$23.8 million for Kodak's online photo services business.
German court tosses one Apple suit, one Samsung suit
The Mannheim Regional Court was busy this morning, handing down two rulings that threw out one of Samsung's 3G/UMTS lawsuits against Apple and one of Apple's slide-to-unlock lawsuits against Samsung. This slide-to-unlock case is separate from the one Apple won earlier this week in the Munich I Regional Court against Motorola. Both companies have the option to appeal. According to FOSS Patents, there are at least 14 lawsuits between Apple and Samsung in Germany. Judges ruled on four of these lawsuits, with Samsung losing three in a row and Apple losing one. In each of these losses, the judge threw out the lawsuit.
Apple wins German photo gallery lawsuit against Motorola
Apple won a significant legal victory when a German court ruled that Motorola Mobility violates patent EP2059868, says a report at FOSS Patents. The patent details a "portable electronic device for photo management" and covers the photo gallery implementation used by Motorola on its mobile devices. Apple has the option to enforce an injunction, which would be unwelcome news for Motorola. The company would have to develop a new photo gallery that would skirt the patent. Apple could also force Motorola to recall all infringing devices on the shelves of German retail outlets and destroy all the infringing products in their possession.
Apple files a complaint against Chinese vendor over "EPAD" trademark
Apple has filed a complaint against EBox Digital Technology Product over its use of the word "EPAD," says a Computerworld report. The complaint was filed earlier this year through China's trademark office, and EBox received a copy of the complaint on Febraruy 2. At the heart of this complaint is a line of laptop luggage cases sold by EBox under the brand name EPAD. An EBox spokesperson said Apple is asking the company to give up the EPAD trademark because it closely resembles Apple's iPad."The iPad trademark is not Apple's, so now they want to take ours," said EBox's spokeswoman. "Apple has been a bully." EBox applied for the EPAD trademark in 2010 and reportedly has no plans to used the name on any electronic devices.
Apple halts iCloud push services in Germany
Apple was handed a setback in Germany recently when a court ruled in favor of Motorola in a patent infringement case involving Apple's iCloud and MobileMe push email service. A new support document on Apple's German website confirms the company is halting push email for its customers that are inside German borders. The document gives customers instructions on how to setup email to be delivered at regular intervals. The support page notes that iCloud email will resume its push behavior outside Germany, while MobileMe push email will be disabled until further notice. This change in iCloud and MobileMe is the result of a lawsuit Motorola filed against Apple in April 2011. Judge Andreas Voss of the Mannheim Regional Court ruled that Apple infringed on Motorola's European patent, EP (European Patent) 0847654 (B1). This patent describes a "multiple pager status synchronization system and method." Motorola was awarded a preliminary injunction and exercised its right to enforce the patent by putting up a 100 million euro bond. Apple will likely appeal this ruling, but until then iCloud and MobileMe push email will be unavailable to those who live in or travel to the European country. [Via Macerkopf]
Proview halts iPad sales in second Chinese city, says nationwide iPad ban would be "difficult"
The recent Chinese court ruling that Proview owns a trademark on the word iPad may prove to be a problem for Apple. Recently, officials in the Chinese province of Shijiazhuang began seizing iPads at one reseller. Now, these seizures are happening in a second province. According to the New York Times, the iPad is under temporary impoundment in the city of Xuzhou, located in Jiangsu province. Ma Dongxiao, a lawyer for Proview talked to the New York Times about these seizures and state-owned CCTV confirmed that officials are removing iPads from resellers. Ma also said Proview asked authorities in 20 Chinese cities to investigate whether iPads are still being sold. Proview is not holding back following this ruling. Besides the seizures, the company is seeking up to 10 billion yuan in monetary damages from Apple and said it would settle this dispute in or outside court if Apple wants to negotiate a deal. It also asked for an injunction that'll ban the import and export of the iPad into the country. A report from Reuters suggests that China's customs authorities won't grant this request. Chief of Proview Technology Shenzen, Yank Long-san told Reuters, "The customs have told us that it will be difficult to implement a ban because many Chinese consumers love Apple products. The sheer size of the market is very big." Rather than a nationwide injunction the company is working with local customs officials to enforce city-wide bans. It's not likely that Proview will back down easily as the company desperately needs this cash. It was delisted from the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in 2010 and owes money to banks, suppliers and its workers.
Apple to pursue legal action against bankrupt Kodak
Bankrupt Kodak has been upfront about its strategy to generate revenue from its robust patent portfolio through litigation. In the past year, Kodak has sued Apple, HTC, RIM, Samsung, and Fujifilm using various imaging recording and processing patents. Apple isn't taking this lying down and, as Bloomberg reported, Apple has asked a bankruptcy judge to allow it to sue Kodak over a patent infringement claim. Apple contends Kodak is infringing on patents that cover technology used in printers, digital cameras and digital picture frames. Apple revealed in its US Bankruptcy Court request that it intends to file an infringement complaint with the ITC and a lawsuit in the US District Court. Apple argues that bankruptcy doesn't protect a company from a patent infringement lawsuit. Kodak can ask the court to suspend the District Court case until the ITC makes a decision on the infringement, but Apple said it will go ahead with the case in the meantime.
US Dept. of Justice approves Apple's purchases of Nortel, Novell patents
Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division closed its investigations into three major acquisitions that were pending, opening the door to completion of these acquisitions by the companies involved. For Apple, the acquisition of patents from Nortel Networks Corporation and Novell Inc has been green lighted, clearing the way for the company to finalize the purchase of intellectual property. Apple, Microsoft, RIM and some other players had joined together as "Rockstar Bidco" to acquire patents at the June 2011 Nortel bankruptcy auction. Nortel had a portfolio of approximately 6,000 patents and patent applications, including many "standard essential patents" that the new owners will be able to license to other "industry participants." What makes standard essential patents so valuable is that they become part of industry standards (e.g., 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi) and must be licensed by manufacturers who wish to create compatible devices. Apple is also acquiring patents that were formerly owned by Novell and were acquired on behalf of Apple, Oracle, and EMC Corporation in April of 2011. It doesn't appear that Apple will be able to pull in license fees for these patents, as Novell had committed to cross-license the patents on a royalty-free basis for use in the "Linux system." A third part of the DOJ announcement could affect Apple indirectly. The DOJ has now cleared the way for Google to acquire Motorola Mobility, which not only manufactures smartphones and tablets but also holds a portfolio of "approximately 17,000 issued patents and 6,800 (patent) applications." Once again, there are hundreds of "standard essential patents" that Google will be able to license to other companies.
iPads seized from one Shijiazhuang, China Apple reseller
Local officials from China's Administration of Industry and Commerce (AIC) reportedly confiscated iPads from an Apple reseller in the city of Shijiazhuang. An article in the Chinese newspaper, Hebei Youth Daily, claims this seizure was the result of a recent Proview iPad trademark infringement verdict. It is not known whether the AIC acted alone in response to this judgment or at the request of a Proview official. Another report from the Sina Tech News claims AIC officials in provinces outside Hebei are also investigating the sale of the tablet device and have asked some merchants to stop selling them openly. This Sina News report also claims Proview may take a bloder step and ask the General Administration of China Customs to ban the import and export of the iPad. The case has a complicated background. According to a previous report, a Taiwanese subsidiary of Proview sold the iPad trademark to a UK company which later sold the trademark to Apple. Proview contested these transfers because it did not attend the original trademark negotiations in Taiwan. A Chinese court agreed and ruled Proview still owns its trademark on the iPad name. Apple has appealed this decision, but it could still face sanctions until a ruling is made on this appeal. [Via The Next Web and Penn-Olson]
Britain's ITV warns Apple again not to use "iTV" (Updated)
Back in August of 2010, UK commercial television network ITV balked at rumors that Apple would rebrand the Apple TV as iTV, threatening legal action. Years later, the network is at it again, this time addressing rumors that Apple's "hobby" is due for a refresh and potential re-branding. Apple has never confirmed plans for a revised Apple TV, but ITV is still prepared to protect its trademark. The Telegraph reports that the company recently wrote to Apple, warning it not to use the name for either an updated Apple TV or the much-rumored "smart television" that's supposedly in development. It makes sense for ITV to protect itself but so far it's addressing rumors. Besides, Apple and Cisco were able to work things out when Apple re-branded the iPhone operating system "iOS." Update: The Verge is reporting that ITV has not issued a new warning to Apple regarding the use of "ITV." The network told The Verge, "The Telegraph's piece is entirely speculative, and there has been no communication between ITV and Apple. ITV has no further comment on the matter."
Apple and Motorola scuffle over iCloud and push email
Motorola scored a victory against Apple today when it won a permanent injunction against the company's iCloud and MobileMe push email service. According to FOSS Patents, the injunction is "preliminarily enforceable," which means Motorola can enforce the ruling right away by posting a 100 million euro bond. Posting a bond and enforcing this ruling is risky, though. If Apple appeals and wins, then Motorola will be liable for damages from enforcing this injunction early. If enforced, Apple must disable the push email portion of its iCloud and MobileMe service. Customers in Germany affected by this injunction will have to turn off push email and configure their mail clients to pull down emails periodically. This permanent injunction resulted from a complaint filed by Motorola in April 2011. Apple has the right to contest this ruling and will likely file a formal appeal with the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court.
