apple legal
Latest
Rumor: Apple bidding for Nortel patent assets
The formerly high-flying Canadian telecommunications hardware provider Northern Telecom appears to be on its last legs, and Apple and Google are apparently among the vultures circling overhead ready to pick at the most valuable parts of the carcass. The two Silicon Valley companies are said to be among the bidders for Nortel's huge patent portfolio. Nortel is a company with a history dating back to the earliest days of the telephone, having been established in 1882 by the Bell Telephone Company of Canada to manufacture phones and network equipment north of the border. In the 1990s, Nortel had tremendous growth as it provided many of the bits and pieces that made the expansion of the internet and mobile phone networks possible. The burst of the bubble saw the rapid decline of Nortel until it finally filed for bankruptcy protection in mid-2009. Nortel has a portfolio of over 4,000 patents estimated to be worth over $1 billion. With both Apple and Google involved in patent litigation relating to their respective mobile phone efforts, the Nortel patents are likely be of great value as a defensive measure. Research in Motion and Motorola are also expected to bid on the patents in order to protect their own positions. Intellectual property battles between big companies often end up in a stalemate if both sides can conjure up sufficient patents that their opponent might be infringing on. The result is usually some sort of cross-licensing agreement that makes the lawyers wealthier and lets the companies go on their merry way. The auction of the patents is expected to be wrapped up soon. [via MacRumors]
Apple expands lawsuit against Motorola
Perhaps the only department at Apple that works longer hours than engineering these days is legal. The most recent legal dust-up in Cupertino has just expanded, as Apple has amended a patent lawsuit against Motorola to include 12 more claims. This particular fracas began in October when Motorola sued Apple, claiming infringement of 18 patents relating to hardware and services. Apple subsequently counter-sued, claiming that Motorola's Android phones infringed on a number of Apple patents, mostly covering multi-touch technology. The filing last week adds 12 more patents to the mix, including nine phone patents and three patents that cover set-top box and DVR technology. These patents will probably also get added to Apple's complaint before the International Trade Commission. While Apple has 24 patents on the table to Motorola's 18, that doesn't necessarily mean much; any number of the patents on either side could be of dubious validity. The most likely outcome is that the two sides will go back and forth filing motions for summary judgements for the next several years. At some point, shortly before either a court or ITC hearing, the lawyers will probably sit down and hammer out a cross-licensing deal that allows both sides to walk away claiming victory, so they can move on to other battles with HTC, Nokia and Microsoft. [via Electronista]
Apple kills PhotoFast 256GB MacBook Air upgrade kit
Easy come, easy go. Apple has reportedly asked (politely, we assume) PhotoFast not to sell the 256GB MacBook Air SSD upgrade kit we were so eager to get our hands on. In fact, the product page is throwing a 404 this morning. The kit looked great, and it included the 256GB upgrade chip as well as a USB 3.0 housing for the 64GB chip currently in the 11.6-inch Air. Plus, it could read and write at 250MB/s while Apple's SSD clocks in between 150MB/s and 160MB/s. PhotoFast is currently licensed with Apple to make Apple accessories through the MFi Program, a privilege that would be a bummer to lose, to say the least. Cheer up, MacBook Air users, and imagine what could have been. [Hat tip to 9to5 Mac and Engadget]
U.S. ITC will investigate Apple's patent infringement claims of Motorola
Just about a month after Apple filed patent complaints against Motorola, Bloomberg reports that the U.S. International Trade Commission is set to review the claim. Apple's complaints were filed on October 29, just a few days after Motorola sued Apple over 18 alleged patent infringements on October 6. In this case, it will be the ITC's job to determine if Motorola is indeed infringing on Apple's patents. It must also decide whether to block the import of Motorola phones made overseas running Google's Android OS. Apple was recently awarded patents for the iPhone 4's design and UI as well as the iPad's design. The specifics of each company's claims are unknown, but we'll follow this story as it develops.
Apple's exclusive digital rights to The Beatles extend into 2011
As you probably know, Apple has secured exclusive digital rights to The Beatles' catalog. But for how long? According to All Things Digital, the deal extends into 2011. EMI Music spokesman Dylan Jones told All Things D that Apple's deal reaches into 2011 and beyond January 1st. He did confirm that the exclusivity will eventually end, but he didn't say when. For the time being, distributors like Amazon, Spotify, Rhapsody and the Zune will just have to wait. Writing for All Things D, Peter Kafka wonders if the band will renew the exclusivity deal or even walk away from digital entirely when it expires. The latter seems crazy to us. Paul, Ringo et al apparently got serious about digital when Rock Band: The Beatles came out. We're betting the group has joined the digital revolution for good.
HyperMac to return as HyperJuice
As of tomorrow, November 2nd, HyperMac will stop selling MagSafe-Compatible charging cables, in compliance with a lawsuit filed by Apple. Now, the company has announced its intentions to re-brand itself "HyperJuice," though what that will entail other than a name change is unknown. Daniel Chin, President of Sanho Corporation, told Engadget that the soon-to-be HyperJuice is in "comprehensive licensing negotiations" with Apple over a "wide array of technologies and issues." HyperMac has produced a number of small, portable batteries that can provide power to a variety of Apple portable devices. When connected to a MacBook Pro with their MagSafe-like connector, the "MBP-PRO," the external batteries could be used to charge the computer's internal battery. Apple objected to sales of the devices, saying they violated patents related to MagSafe cables and other cables using a 30-pin connection. If you want one, you've got to act fast as sales will end at midnight, 00:00 U.S. Pacific Time. Good luck to the team at Sanho Corporation.
Apple joins Facebook, Google, others to combat Paul Allen's charges
Back in August, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen formally sued 11 tech companies, including Apple, over the use of technologies for which he holds the patents. Now, Apple has joined Google, Facebook, Yahoo! and others in opposing the suit. Google initially filed a motion to dismiss the claims on October 18th, stating that Allen's company, Interval Research (which ceased operation in 2000), had failed to explain exactly how Google had supposedly violated its patents. Additionally, Google claims that Interval is lumping all 11 defendants together without demonstrating any "coordinated action." Apple joined Google and others on October 21st with its own filing, stating, "Interval has sued eleven major corporations and made the same bald assertions that each defendant infringes 197 claims in four patents. As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Twombly, it is in this type of situation in which courts should use their 'power to insist upon some specificity in pleading before allowing a potentially massive factual controversy to proceed." In other words, spill the goods or move on. Allen's suit identifies four specific patents, including one that determines how websites suggest products based upon customers' recent searches, and another that lets users reading a news story quickly find related stores. We'll have more on this story as it develops.
HyperMac forced to stop selling MagSafe charging cables
A lawsuit from Apple has forced HyperMac to stop selling MagSafe-compatible charging cables as of November 2nd, 2010. HyperMac has produced a number of small, portable batteries that can provide power to a variety of Apple portable devices. When connected to a MacBook Pro with their MagSafe-like connector, the "MBP-PRO," the external batteries could be used to charge the computer's internal battery. The lawsuit claims that HyperMac violated patents related to MagSafe cables as well as other cables that use a 30-pin connection. HyperMac assembled their units using actual Apple parts. Note that HyperMac will continue to sell the batteries, though we don't see how useful they'll be without the cables. If you're looking to buy one of these, you've got until November 2nd to do so. [Via AppleInsider]
Apple trademarks "There's an app for that"
Apple has been awarded a trademark for the phrase, "There's an app for that." The tagline has been used to promote the App Store and iOS devices almost since their inception, and has really caught on. From tech articles to jokes told around the water cooler, many people have adopted the phrase. The trademark, which Apple filed for on December 4th, 2009, covers "Retail store services featuring computer software provided via the Internet and other computer and electronic communication networks; retail store services featuring computer software for use on handheld mobile digital electronic devices and other consumer electronics." Congratulations to both Apple for their new trademark, and to me for avoiding a lame "there's an app for that" joke.
Apple sues startup over "pod" name
As we've seen before, Apple is laying claim to the word "pod." This time, the target is Sector Labs (SL), who are nearly 10 years into development of their Video Pod. More accurately, Apple believes that customers will confuse SL's Video Pod for an Apple product because of the name. The company first gained the attention of Apple legal back in 2009. Still, SL's Daniel Kokin doesn't see the problem. "My team started working on the Video Pod in 2000, and it took us years to go from prototype to funded," he said. "At that time, Apple didn't even enter our minds as a competitor." He goes on to note that his company's product focuses on projection, something that Apple is not doing. This is hardly the first time Apple has asked a company or product to change their name. Remember when iLounge was iPodLounge? Or PodShow? Good luck to all parties involved.
Pop musician Lily Allen to sue Apple
After singer Lily Allen's laptop was hacked into, she turned to Apple for help in identifying the attacker. When they refused, she decided to sue Apple into helping her, according to The Sun. As The Next Web points out, the Sun's article is brief (to say the least) and the backstory -- was Allen's initial request for help refused by Apple? -- is dubious. It sounds to us like she's motivated to find the attacker, and the lawsuit is not necessarily designed to punish Apple. It seems there are 3rd-party companies that would gladly do what Allen's after, so we're not sure why she's suing Apple. Also amusing is this profile of Allen and Future Cut that Apple itself put out not too long ago, describing how they used Logic Pro to put her album together. Thanks to The Next Web for pointing that one out.
Paul Allen's company sues Apple, Google
Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen has formally sued Apple, Google and several others over the use of technologies for which he holds the patents. The Wall Street Journal was unable to reach any of the parties involved for comment, but notes that Allen has been going after companies, many of them high-profile, that he believes are using software that was developed in his Silicon Valley laboratory several years ago. The suit identifies four specific patents. Each appears to be a huge part of how contemporary e-commerce and Internet search tools work. For example, one addresses how websites suggest products based upon customers' recent searches. Another lets those reading a news story quickly find related stores, while the two others let ads and news items, among other things, flash on a computer screen adjacent to what the user is directly looking at. No specific dollar amount was identified. Allen's spokesman, David Postaman, told the Journal, "Paul thinks this is important, not just to him but to the researchers at Interval who created this technology." Others named in the suit include Ebay, Facebook, Netflix and Aol (Note: TUAW is owned by Aol). We'll keep an eye on this story and post any updates.
AT&T, Apple sued over iPhone 4 antenna issue
This just in from the Whopping & Unexpected Surprises Department: in response to the iPhone 4's apparent reception problems, a pair of Maryland residents filed suit in Maryland federal court on Wednesday. They claim that Apple and AT&T knowingly sold phones with a defective antenna design. The suit focuses on dropped calls and poor data performance, of course. Specifically it says that "Plaintiffs have experienced numerous dropped calls, and as a result, Plaintiffs are left with a device that cannot be used for the normal purpose and in the normal manner in which such devices are intended to be used." The suit also mentions that the couple cannot return their phones (they bought four) without incurring large penalties. Their backing evidence includes their own experience, of course, but also a list of related stories published on sites like Gizmodo and Boy Genius Report. We don't yet know if "stuff we saw on the web" will hold up in court. It feels like this lawsuit was inevitable, as many are unhappy after paying for something that they feel cannot reliably perform its main function. We'll follow this story and let you know how it goes. You can read the full legal filing at All Things D.
Apple, AT&T sued over iPad data plan change
When the iPad was first announced, Steve Jobs seemed very proud of the data plans his company had negotiated for the 3G model. The top-of-the-line plan featured unlimited data for for US$30 per month. A few weeks later, on June 2nd, that plan was replaced with 2GB of data for $25 per month. Customers were not happy. Today, a class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple and AT&T, claiming fraud and misrepresentation. Specifically, the plaintiffs in the nationwide suit alllege that both Apple and AT&T "deceptively promoted" that they could switch, month by month, between the unlimited plan and the 250MB plan. Now customers who opt for the unlimited plan cannot switch back to a limited plan. The whole thing smells like the old bait-and-switch, enjoyed by plaid-wearing used car salesmen everywhere. Good luck to all involved. [Via MacDailyNews]
DOJ reportedly expands Apple probe
The New York Post is reporting this week that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) is expanding its investigation of Apple in regards to iTunes and changes to the beta iPhone OS 4 SDK. As for iTunes, Apple is accused of allegedly threatening to withhold their typical promotional activities from labels who continued to offer exclusives to Amazon via their Daily Deals campaign. Additionally, the DOJ and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are negotiating which of them will launch an inquiry into a clause in the iPhone OS 4 SDK that bans the porting of software originally written for Adobe's Flash, Sun's Java or Microsoft's Silverlight/Mono to the iPhone OS. The Post cites "one Hollywood industry source" in their article, so you're free to guess who that might be. In the meantime, we'll follow this story as it develops. Here's hoping justice -- and not sour grapes -- is served. [Via Edible Apple]
Apple to trademark distinctive retail store layout
Patently Apple points out another Apple filing today, this time in reference to the retail stores. Specifically, Apple is looking to trademark the "distinctive design and layout" that they've cultivated since opening their first retail location in 2001. The filing provides two sketches -- one in full color and the other in black-and-white -- and a photo depicting the typical exterior and interior of Apple Stores. On one hand, you've got to wonder exactly how "distinctive" a retail store's interior can be. You've got counters, products, stools and a checkout/desk area. On the other hand, consider the fervor that accompanied the opening of the first Microsoft stores, which bear a striking resemblance to Apple's outlets. Not that they're targeting Microsoft specifically, but any company that would blatantly mimic their successful model. I wonder if the trademark addresses the dancing. [Via MacDailyNews]
Apple spurs an antitrust investigation
According to the New York Post, The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are negotiating which of them will launch an inquiry into a clause in the iPhone OS 4 SDK that bans the porting of software originally written for Adobe's Flash, Sun's Java or Microsoft's Silverlight/Mono to the iPhone OS. The issue at hand is this: Does the restriction kill competition by forcing developers to create applications that only run on Apple's devices rather than work with other operating systems and hardware like those from Google and RIM? Adobe had been working on a feature in Creative Suite 5 that would allow Flash applications to be ported to the iPhone. Under this rule, those apps would be rejected. This comes days after Apple published an essay from Steve Jobs explaining why his company's devices do not support Flash. In the essay, Steve said that Flash "...is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content." Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen responded in an exclusive interview with The Wall Street Journal, saying that Apple's adherence to a single platform is a detriment. He concludes that Adobe's concept is best for most developers, as it allows them to distribute apps out to many places rather than forcing them to pick one. Narayen then warned developers against the "cumbersome" nature of having two workflows, one for Apple and one for everything else, while Jobs suggested that Adobe abandon Flash and adopt open web standards like HTML5. Note that launching an inquiry does not mean the beginning of formal proceedings. Inquiries are conducted to determine if formal action should be taken. In any case, this won't be settled quickly or simply. [Via AppleInsider]
Apple has countersued Kodak
Apple filed suit against Kodak on April 15th, 2010, claiming that it has infringed on two of Apple's granted patents. This comes after Kodak filed suits against both Apple and RiM in January. The suit targets Kodak's C, M and Z series EasyShare cameras as well as the popular Zi8. Apple claims that Kodak is guilty of copying technology relating to image processing, energy management and memory design. Additionally, Apple has listed a formal ITC complaint that would prevent sales of all affected cameras if the claim is validated. This is a response to claims Kodak made in against Apple and RIM in January. Specifically, Kodak claims that Apple and RIM infringed upon Kodak's method of previewing images with the iPhone and Blackberry. An additional complaint, pointed at Apple only, addresses processing images at different resolutions. Finally, Apple is also accused of infringements on processes of software programs calling to each other. This counter-suit strategy is common and usually an effort to produce a settlement and avoid a long and costly court battle. [Via MacDailyNews]
Apple has filed for "iAds" trademark
Earlier today, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office published Apple's trademark application for "iAd," reportedly filed just two days prior to the service's announcement. The application covers Apple in pretty much all forms of advertising, including "...advertising agency services; advertising, marketing, and promotion services; advertising and marketing consultation; sales promotion services..." It goes on and on. The listing is filed under "Wares and Services." Additionally, the application lists iAds as an ASP or Application Service Provider through to "Toys," among other things, which encompasses "electronic hand-held game units." Note that no graphic or logo was included as a part of the application. If legal jargon is your thing, you can read the full application here.
ITC will investigate Apple's claims against HTC
Last month Apple announced its intention to pursue Taiwanese manufacturer HTC over patent infringements related to the iPhone UI, hardware and architecture. HTC manufactures several Google Android handsets, and even though they're not mentioned in the claim specifically, it's understood that Google's phones are the intended target. Both Google and HTC have responded with their intention to fight back, should the case progress. On Wednesday, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) agreed to review Apple's allegations, and intend to have a resolution within 45 days of the start of investigations. In related news, the ITC is also investigating claims made against Apple (and RIM) by Kodak. Kodak claims that Apple and RIM infringe upon their method of previewing images with the iPhone and Blackberry. Apple is also accused of infringements on processes of software programs calling to each other.
