court case
Latest
Google sued by Australian watchdog over location tracking
Google continues to face legal issues in the area of user privacy. Australia's competition watchdog, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), is taking the company to court over what it describes as "false or misleading representations to consumers about the personal location data Google collects, keeps and uses."
Facebook reaches settlement with company selling fake Instagram likes
Instagram has been struggling recently from an onslaught of spam comments, fake likes and fake follows. Now Facebook, which owns the service, has won a small victory against the spammers. The social media giant has settled a court case with a New Zealand company which sold fake likes on the platform.
Facebook told staff but not users about single sign-on risks, says court filing
Plaintiffs in a court case against Facebook have argued that the social network knew about the security risks that lead to a major hack in 2018 but did not warn their users about them.
Gawker settles with Hulk Hogan for a reported $31 million
Since Gawker lost its court battle with Hulk Hogan back in June and filed for bankruptcy, it's been unclear just how much the former professional wrestler would get given the massive $140 million judgment awarded him. But today, the media company's cofounder and CEO Nick Denton announced that they've settled with the celebrity for $31 million.
Online courts proposed to handle minor legal disputes in the UK
Few people like being swept up in a legal dispute. Whether it's a small disagreement or a bitter financial feud, once the courts are involved everything becomes a slow, stressful and potentially expensive mess. That's why the UK's Civil Justice Council (CJC) is proposing a new online system that would deal specifically with "low value" cases. The idea being that most of these smaller disputes could be automated or handled with minimal supervision from legal experts, making the process cheaper, faster and more convenient.
Blizzard sues Hearthstone copycat
Blizzard isn't taking kindly to a Chinese ripoff of its Hearthstone and is suing to protect its upcoming online card game. Blizzard and its Chinese partner NetEase filed a suit against mobile game Legend of Crouching Dragon and its developer Unico to the tune of $1.65 million and possible closure of the game for an infringement of intellectual rights. Legend of Crouching Dragon uses characters from Romance of the Three Kingdoms and bears a striking similarity to the design and function of Hearthstone. The mobile game has been in beta for both Android and iOS platforms.
SEC subpoenas the Rhode Island Commerce Corporation over 38 Studios lawsuit
After the last bit of immature name-calling over the 38 Studios debacle, it must be nice to finally put this whole mess to bed for good so we can... oh, wait. No, it appears that the drama regarding the dead studio continues as the Securities & Exchange Commission has issued a subpoena for the Rhode Island Commerce Corporation regarding its lawsuit against Curt Schilling and the other executives of 38 Studios pre-closure. The subpoenas request both depositions and exhibits pertaining to the ongoing court case against the management of the former studio. The RICC, formerly known as the Economic Development Corporation, was the organization responsible for selling bonds to facilitate the $75 million loan to the now-defunct gaming studio and has been under investigation by the SEC following the company's bankruptcy and dissolution. Neither the SEC nor the RICC is discussing any further details regarding the investigation.
Google on Apple v. Samsung: most infringed patents 'don't relate to the core Android operating system'
When the jury in Apple v. Samsung handed down its verdict on Friday, we watched Apple take a victory lap and heard Samsung warn of hampered competition, but one company remained conspicuously silent: Google. This weekend, though, Mountain View finally released a statement, insisting that while Samsung lost the trial, the ruling doesn't actually implicate Android. "The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims. Most of these don't relate to the core Android operating system," the company said, noting that several of these patents are being revisited by the US Patent Office. Still, buried in that statement is an implicit acknowledgement that if Samsung can't reverse the decision on appeal, innovation among Android devices might well be stifled: "The mobile industry is moving fast and all players - including newcomers - are building upon ideas that have been around for decades. We work with our partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don't want anything to limit that." Of course, Samsung has indeed said it intends to appeal (and an internal memo reported by CNET corroborates this), so it would seem that the proxy battle against Android is far from over, and the drone of legalese is sure to continue.
Schiller testifies, says Apple considered car and a camera, and Samsung's phone's a 'rip off'
Apple's Phil Schiller took the stand this afternoon, wearing a sharp suit, in Apple's ongoing case with Samsung in a California court. He revealed a few hints at Apple's iPhone development and took some solid shots at Samsung. In terms of Apple history, Schiller revealed that, before Apple began exploring the world of smartphones, it considered making a camera or a car. I'd love to see Apple make either one of those things, but of course they went with a cellphone, and the iPhone is that product. Schiller also had strong words for Samsung, reportedly saying "copy," "steal" and "rip off" to describe Samsung's work. Objections to his testimony were reportedly overridden. During Schiller's cross-examination, it sounds like Samsung tried to get him to agree that the iPhone's design wasn't entirely original, in that many of the designs included are simply functional, defined by common sense rather than Apple's design prowess. But according to the reports, Schiller didn't give much ground (and he still found room, at least, to correct the cross-examiner's pronunciation of designer Sir Jonathan Ive's last name -- it's NOT pronounced "Ivy," in case you were wondering). All in all, it sounds like Schiller is doing plenty for Apple's case in the ongoing litigation. He's starting out from a biased point, obviously, but if Apple can convince the judge in the case that Samsung did infringe on copyright, Apple's ownership of the modern smartphone design will be locked down once and for all. The AllThingsD running commentary notes that Scott Forstall followed Schiller as a witness, but didn't get a chance to say much before the lunch recess. He did recount the story of Steve Jobs barging in on his job interview with NeXT in 1992. #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
India launches antitrust investigation against Google
Google remains tied up in a censorship case with the Indian government, and things aren't looking rosy for the search giant in the interim period before its May 23rd court hearing. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Competition Commission of India is launching an antitrust investigation of Google to examine the company's alleged "discriminatory and retaliatory practices relating to AdWords." The antitrust probe follows a complaint from Consim Info Pvt. Ltd., an Indian web conglomerate which apparently requested that the Competition Commission step in to ensure fair competition in online advertising. The exact reach of this investigation is unclear; the commission will initially focus on AdWords, though it's keeping the door open for examining other Google services as deemed necessary. Hear that sigh? That, friends, is the sound of Google gearing up for one long Indian summer.
140 characters to the clink: Occupy Wall Street protester loses battle to block Twitter subpoena
In a decision that's sure to be lost on this generation of over-sharers, Occupy Wall Street protester Malcolm Harris, arrested this past October during a Brooklyn Bridge demonstration, has just lost a legal battle to block prosecutors' attempts to subpoena three month's worth of his tweets. Chalking the ruling up to Twitter's terms of service, Judge Matthew Sciarrino Jr. concluded that the posted updates belong to the social networking company under license and, therefore, are fair game for use in the case "given their relevance." Harris, as expected, is in the process of filing a motion to reargue, but let this be a fair warning to our open online culture: what happens on the internet, stays on the internet forever. So you better watch what you tweet.
Indian court drops censorship case against Microsoft, Google and Facebook still on the hook
With so many patent trolls out and about, you'd be forgiven if the Indian government's censorship case against Google, Facebook, Microsoft and other web companies slipped under your radar. Indeed, not a whole lot has happened since then, but Microsoft, at least, is making an early exit from the proceedings. Delhi High Court has dropped the outfit from the list of companies accused of failing to rid their sites of offensive material -- specifically, perceived religious attacks, or anything else that might violate local laws against inciting communal tensions. (In particular, according to a three-months-old New York Times report, technology minister Kapil Sibal, pictured above, took note of comments criticizing Sonia Gandhi, widow of the assassinated former Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi). For now, this leaves Google and Facebook to defend themselves, though the two internet giants are moving to have their cases dismissed as well. The High Court will hear those petitions on May 3, with the trial set to resume on May 23.
Court upholds Fifth Amendment, prevents forced decryption of data
When our forefathers were amending the constitution for the fifth time, they probably didn't have TrueCrypt-locked hard drives in mind. However, a ruling from the 11th Circuit Appeals Court has upheld the right of an anonymous testifier to not forcibly decrypt their data. The case relates to a Jon Doe giving evidence in exchange for immunity. The protection afforded to them under this case wouldn't extend to any other incriminating data that might be found, and as such Doe felt this could lead to violation of the fifth amendment. The validity of the prosecution's demands for the data decryption lies in what they already know, and how they knew it -- to prevent acting on hopeful hunches. The prosecutors were unable to demonstrate any knowledge of the data in question, leading the 11th Circuit to deem the request unlawful, adding that the immunity should have extended beyond just the current case. This isn't the first time we've seen this part of the constitution under the digital spotlight, and we're betting it won't be the last, either.
Bethesda vs. Interplay case finally settled
War. War never changes. And neither, it appeared, would the long-running legal dispute between Bethesda and Interplay over the rights to the Fallout IP. For years, it seems, we've been reporting on this courtroom tug-o-war between the companies which has kept the fate of Fallout Online in limbo. Well it looks like it is finally over, one way or another. An administrator on the Fallout fan site Duck and Cover says that a settlement has been reached although the details have yet to emerge to the public: Today, DAC has confirmation that a settlement has, in fact, taken place. It actually took place the day of the trial -- and had I been able to get online and sort through the documents I would have reported as much. We do not yet have the details of the settlement -- they will be announced this month (January 2012) -- but we can report that on the day of trial, the atmosphere in the court room was tense until the judge recessed. This recess was extended, and then they recessed for lunch. After the lunch recess, the court room was locked to everyone except attorneys and clients. When our source asked why this was the case, our source was told it was because they were working out a settlement. The following day, another source called the court reporter to ask what the next hearing schedule for the case was -- this source was told there was no schedule as a settlement had been reached. We'll be following this story as it develops to see how it affects the potential Fallout Online and what each studio is walking away with from this bitter dispute.
British judge doesn't like the cut of Newzbin 2's jib, orders BT to block it
Shiver-me-timbers, it looks like the movie studios' latest legal broadside just scored a direct hit against the big bad pirate ship. A UK judge has ordered telecoms giant BT to block its subscribers from visiting Newzbin 2, a site which aggregates Usenet downloads, on the simple basis that BT knows some of its customers are using the site to breach copyright law and therefore has a duty to stop them. This counts as an unprecedented victory for the Motion Picture Association, who brought the case, and it potentially arms them with a new weapon to force ISPs to block other sites in future. Could that be Newzbin 3 we spy on the horizon?
Hacker pleads guilty to AT&T iPad breach
Nearly six months after his arrest, one hacker pleaded guilty to charges that he exposed the email addresses of over 100,000 AT&T iPad 3G users. It's been a year since Daniel Spitler and his compatriot, Andrew Auernheimer, coaxed Ma-Bell servers into delivering the goods, with a brute force script they lovingly named the iPad 3G Account Slurper. The hacker's plea agreement suggests a 12 to 18-month sentence, which is a lot more lenient than the 10-year maximum we hear he could face. Spitler's collaborator is apparently still in plea negotiations with the prosecutor. Both men initially claimed they were just trying to draw attention to a security hole, but maybe next time they'll think twice before embarking on such altruistic endeavors.
The Lawbringer: Arguing about video games
Pop law abounds in The Lawbringer, your weekly dose of WoW, the law, video games and the MMO genre. Running parallel to the games we love and enjoy is a world full of rules, regulations, pitfalls and traps. How about you hang out with us as we discuss some of the more esoteric aspects of the games we love to play? One day, massively multiplayers will be center stage at the Supreme Court of the United States of America. We aren't there yet, but one day. Hell, we just got video games as a genre of entertainment on the lips of the Supreme Court justices. I'll talk about the Supreme Court case Schwarzenegger v. EMA later on, once we've got more to go on than the opening arguments, etc., and give you a rundown in the simplest terms possible about what is being argued over. For now, I'd like to talk about the language of video games being used in the case and get a little ranty about who gets to argue about video games.
Jen-Hsun Huang is 'looking forward' to court date with Intel, sees no reason to settle (video)
Sometimes companies spar out their differences behind closed doors, and sometimes they have guys like Jen-Hsun Huang at their helms and the whole world gets to know how they feel and what they intend to do about it. The Tegrasaurus Rex has taken a recent interview with Fortune magazine as an opportunity to eloquently lay out his side's case in the epic cross-licensing dispute between NVIDIA and Intel, and to let us all know that he sees "no reason" to settle with the Atom-making giant. Describing Intel's argumentation as "completely nonsense," NVIDIA's fearless leader tell us that he's eagerly anticipating the court clash scheduled for later this year. We can't yet confirm whether or not he finished it off with a "bring your popcorn" instruction, but all his recorded words await in video form just after the break.
Cheyenne Mountain Entertainment refused requested board changes
The last thing we'd heard from Cheyenne Mountain Entertainment, they were filing for Bankruptcy protection, and were attempting to sever all ties with Gary Whiting, Chairman and CEO of the company. However, according to a filing unearthed by Martuk over on the Ten Ton Hammer forums, it would appear that their motion to remove him -- and the restraining order against him -- were denied by the courts. Rumors of financial mismanagement and all manner of shenanigans by Whiting and others have been rumbling around for quite some time. Thankfully, the court did see fit to intervene insofar as to require both parties to name two people they would recommend for receivership -- in essence, someone to protect the company from any further wrongdoing. The question now becomes how this is going to play out in terms of the future for Stargate Worlds, considering what is becoming of the court battle and the seeming rancor between parties involved. We'll be sure to keep you up to date as the story progresses.
AT&T sued by Washington DC for unused balances on calling cards
Here's a superficially curious, but fundamentally quite important, bit of legal wrangling for you. Reuters is reporting that the District of Columbia has filed suit against AT&T Corp for the recovery of unused balances on calling cards purchased from the telecom giant. Estimated at somewhere between 5 and 20 percent of the overall value of the cards, the so-called breakage -- leftover credit that customers neglect to use -- has typically remained with the carrier as a sort of predictable bonus. The DC Attorney General, however, is seeking to have breakages treated as unclaimed property, which under district law means that after three years they must be returned to the state. Whichever side of the fence you sit on, the decision on this case will set a significant precedent for the future of such prepaid services.
