court
Latest
In Amazon dispute, EU Court of Justice rules that levies on blank CDs can be collected 'in some cases'
Amazon's spent quite a bit of time in court as of late; in addition to a recently settled trademark dispute with Apple, a row with an Austrian copyright collection agency is keeping the e-tailer busy. Today, the European Court of Justice ruled that, in some cases, EU countries can collect a levy on blank recording media to ensure that musicians are compensated for their work. The key phrase here is "in some cases," since establishing whether CDs, memory cards, cassette tapes and other media have been used for public consumption isn't exactly easy -- and it's not yet clear whether Amazon will have to pay the 1.9 million euros in question. The next step will be for the Austrian supreme court to decide whether it can even be determined whether Amazon customers used such blank media for anything other than home videos and mix tapes. After all, some would argue that burning a French-electro mix to torment your coworkers on a nine-hour drive is hardly a crime.
38 Studios vs. State of Rhode Island court case begins
We'll never see Project Copernicus come to light, and for some people that's the last that needs to be said about 38 Studios. For the state of Rhode Island, however, there's quite a bit more at stake, with the state alleging that 38 Studios tried to hide its financial condition and essentially defrauded the taxpayers of Rhode Island. Opening arguments have been heard today for the case, with the 14 individual defendants seeking to have the case dismissed as completely spurious. When 38 Studios folded, that left Rhode Island in the hole for a $75 million loan. The lawsuit is seeking restitution from Curt Schilling and 13 other individuals, including former members of the Rhode Island Economic Development Corp that originally supported the loan. According to the EDC's lawyers, substantial evidence exists that this loan was based upon intentional misdirection on the part of upper management, although the defense claims these allegations are ridiculous. At this point, it's up to the courts who's in the right.
Apple docked $118,000 by Chinese court for violating authors' copyrights
Apple will have to pay three Chinese authors a total of $118,000 for stocking their books in its App Store without a proper say-so, according to China Daily. A court ruled that it was Apple's job to verify that third-party uploads met copyright requirements and that it had the means to do so since all the books in question were best-sellers. Apple's attorney declined to comment, but the court also suggested that similar online retailers should learn from the case "and improve their verification system" -- bringing perhaps another headache to would-be e-book stores in that nation.
TimeGate loses SouthPeak appeal, faces $7.3M in damages
TimeGate Studios lost the latest round in court of its battle against publisher SouthPeak Interactive, which could result in the studio paying $7.35 million in damages and losing the Section 8 intellectual property. Polygon obtained the court documents that SouthPeak recently won its appeal of arbitration handled early last year.The two companies have been fighting in court since 2009, when TimeGate sued SouthPeak for embezzling royalties and SouthPeak took on Timegate for fraudulent misrepresentation in its publishing agreement.TimeGate most recently co-developed Aliens: Colonial Marines and laid off 25 employees. It is currently working on the free-to-play shooter Minimum. Meanwhile, Southpeak is busy... um, looks like it's busy making money through litigation. The publisher hasn't produced a game since Stronghold 3 in 2011 according to its own website.
Court extends claims period on $27 million EA Sports settlement
The United States Federal District Court for the Northern District of California has sent word that it has modified the settlement distribution plan and certified the ongoing lawsuit against Electronic Arts and its exclusive NFL, NCAA, and AFL licenses. Because fewer than expected claims have been filed, the court has extended the claim period from this past March to May 15, 2013.If you've already filed a claim, you're good to go, and the court says this agreement won't decrease your portion of the settlement. If you haven't filed a claim yet, aren't an EA employee, and bought a Madden NFL, NCAA Football, or Arena Football game for Xbox, Xbox 360, PlayStation 2 or 3, the GameCube, or the Wii between January 1, 2005 and June 21, 2012, you can file a claim on the website and still be eligible to receive some compensation.This decision does not mean the court has agreed to any wrongdoing on EA's part, and EA itself still denies the claims that these exclusive licenses were anything but "legal and proper," according to the notice. But EA says that it is filing this settlement "solely to eliminate the uncertainties, burden, and expense of further protracted litigation."
Aereo wins a crucial court battle, opens up partnership talks with ISPs and pay-TV providers
Something tells us the US Court of Appeals for the Second District has no intentions to kid around with its latest decision, despite it coming down on the 1st of April. In what can only be viewed as a monumental victory for Aereo, the aforesaid court has just rejected an appeal from a smattering of TV networks that are hellbent on stopping the web-streaming company from treading on their territory. For those unaware, Aereo allows users to stream OTA television networks over the web, but this here court found that the system did not infringe on the broadcasters' copyrights. Of course, a battle at the Supreme Court level is a practical certainty, so it's definitely not out of the proverbial woods just yet. That said, a separate Wall Street Journal report sheds light on ongoing discussions between the startup and some very established players in the industry -- if you can't beat 'em, join' em... right? As the story goes, AT&T, Dish Network and DirecTV have all spoken with Aereo as the company hopes to expand its footprint beyond New York City and the surrounding areas. On one hand, a mega-corp swallowing Aereo could lead to near-instant demise for its technologies, but given the right owner, it could provide the disruption the pay-TV sector so badly needs.
Japanese court declares Samsung patent invalid in another spat with Apple
Weary of the neverending legal back-and-forth between Apple and Samsung yet? No, we're not either (that's a terrible lie), and the latest exciting development comes from a courtroom in Japan, where it was decided Samsung does not hold rights to certain data transmission tech it accused Apple of pinching. So, what are the repercussions? None, really -- the status quo remains unchanged, and Apple can continue selling the products Sammy wanted off the shelf. The Times of India notes that cases in the US and South Korea over the same patent have gone one a piece, meaning Apple is up 2-1 in this particular bout. But, when you've been battling for this long, you've bound to win some, and lose just as many.
Apple ordered to pay VirnetX $363K daily in patent dispute
Here's one way to force two warring companies to hash things out. A federal judge has ordered Apple to cough up more than US$360,000 daily to VirnetX until the two can come to an agreement on the former licensing four of the latter's patents. The penalties stem from a verdict delivered in November of 2012 which found that Apple's FaceTime and iMessage infringed on four of VirnetX's patents. A jury in Texas awarded VirnetX $368.2 million in damages, and Apple can still appeal that verdict. US Circuit Judge Leonard Davis has ordered Apple to pay $330,000 in damages and $33,000 in interest to VirnetX daily for the next 45 days, or more than $16 million in total, in an effort to get the two companies to the bargaining table. Additionally, Davis is making the companies meet with a mediator in an effort to help them reach a licensing deal. If a deal can't be ironed out before the 45-day period ends, VirnetX will be able to seek a sales ban on devices it believes are in violation of its patents, which originally included the iPhone 4 and first-generation iPad.
AMD accuses former staff of giving 100,000 secret documents to NVIDIA
AMD is suing four ex-employees for allegedly taking thousands of confidential documents with them when they left the company and went to work for NVIDIA. A complaint filed to the District Court of Massachusetts reveals that AMD's former VP of Strategic Development Robert Feldstein, who was instrumental in designing graphics chips for early Xbox 360 consoles and the Wii, is among the defendants. He's accused of playing a role in the electronic transfer of over 100,000 files containing "trade secret materials relating to developing technology." AMD claims it has "forensically-recovered data" to show that external storage devices were used in the days prior to Feldstein's departure, and also that he and another senior exec, Richard Hagen, actively recruited the two other defendants to join them at NVIDIA, in violation of agreements they had signed. Of course, this is just AMD's side of the story. The company told us in a statement that it intends to "aggressively protect" its trade secrets through this litigation, so the rest will just have to play out in court.
Judge denies THQ's plan for a quick sale as Warner Bros., others show interest
Earlier this week, the various organizations to which THQ owes giant piles of money filed an objection, claiming that the developer/publisher's bankruptcy plan for a quick sale to Clearlake Capital Group was designed to minimize harm to its staff and leadership, rather than maximize its ability to pay back its debt obligations. As is the way with these sorts of things, a hearing was held yesterday to get the situation sorted, during which U.S. bankruptcy judge Mary F. Walrath concluded that THQ's plan does not allow enough time for interested parties other than Clearlake Capital Group to get properly involved in the process. Therefore, the plan is rejected. "I am not convinced that we are under the gun to have a sale process by the 15th," Walrath said during the hearing, according to Business Week. Another hearing has been scheduled for Monday, January 7. "In the meantime I think the parties need to talk."Meanwhile, five companies are in the process of due diligence, Centerview Partners banker Sam Greene testified during the hearing. Warner Bros. lawyer Howard J. Weg was also in attendance, saying that WB would be interested in further exploring THQ's available assets, should the sales period be extended.Buying up franchises from bankrupt developers is nothing new for Warner Bros., and considering how well Mortal Kombat turned out, it may not be a terrible development, should it come to pass. Imagine, for instance, a Saints Row game developed by RockSteady, or a Darksiders fighting game developed by NetherRealm Studios. Worse things have happened.
China to crackdown on trademarks following "iPad" issue
Trademarks in China are a notoriously shady business, but according to Reuters, that's something the country is trying to change. Chinese authorities will begin reviewing trademark laws in hopes to prevent so-called "malicious" registrations, or attempts to glean money from established brands. Apple recently had to deal with a similar issue in the country relating to the iPad name and eventually paid a whopping $60 million to Proview. Cupertino levied a lawsuit against the company for rights to the name, but a Chinese court rejected the claim based on the fact that Proview had owned the iPad name in China since 2000. After Apple's legal attack fell short, Proview went on the offensive and eventually scored the $60 million judgement which allowed Apple to openly sell the iPad in the country. Apple's iPad issues don't exactly fall under the umbrella of "malicious" registrations, given that Proview owned the name well in advance of Apple's tablet hitting the market, but it's a plus that China will begin keeping a closer eye on the trademark scene as a whole.
Another former Olympus executive arrested in accounting scandal
As a dreaded accounting scandal continues to drag Olympus' name through the mud, federal agents in the United States arrested yet another gentleman in connection with the firm's alleged fraud. Chan Ming Fon, a citizen of Taiwan, was reportedly arrested in Los Angeles today. As the story goes, he was a former bank executive in the company, and he received some $10 million for his assistance in keeping nearly $2 billion in losses from surfacing. Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, said the following: "As alleged, Chan Ming Fon was handsomely paid to play an international shell game with hundreds of millions of dollars of assets in order to allow Olympus to keep a massive accounting fraud going for years." But hey, troubles aside, at least we've got an E-5 sequel coming next year! Distractions! Huzzah!
EU set to charge Samsung in Apple antitrust case
The legal battle between Apple and Samsung may be winding down, but the Korean electronics maker's courtroom troubles are far from over. As Reuters reports, Joaquin Almunia, the European Commission's Vice President of Competition Policy, has revealed that the organization will soon charge Samsung for the company's use of injunctions against Apple in the region. The commission's stance is that the injunctions may have run afoul of antitrust guidelines. Once Samsung has some time to review the specific charges it will be facing, the company will have a chance to plead its case in writing and request a hearing be held. Depending on the outcome, Samsung could be fined as much as 10 percent of the company's total annual revenue. [Via: The Verge]
Former senior manager at AU Optronics found guilty of involvement in LCD price fixing
The name of Taiwanese display manufacturer AU Optronics is rarely out of the courts when LCD price fixing is involved, and now another of the company's heavyweights has been convicted for the part he played in such crimes. The US Department of Justice announced that Shiu Lung Leung, formerly a senior manager at AUO, has been found guilty for his role in a "conspiracy" which artificially raised the prices of LCD-packing gear in the US. From 2002 through to 2006, Leung is said to have been privy to secret monthly meetings with his company's competitors, where they discussed price fixing (and presumably, sinister cat stroking) in "hotel conference rooms, karaoke bars and tea rooms." Leung joins a couple of other AUO execs and many from different companies who've received similar judgments, and when sentenced, could face up to a dime in the slammer and a hefty fine -- although we doubt any of that cash will be put towards a long-overdue rebate.
Samsung drops European patent lawsuits against Apple (update: maybe not completely)
Samsung has stated that it will withdraw from its patent battles with Apple that cover infringement issues in the UK, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. Halting its injunction requests was apparently "in the interest of protecting consumer choice " and comes soon after a recent update to the Apple-Samsung court battle in the US where the judge ruled that it wouldn't be banning the sale of over 20 Samsung devices. The company added: "We strongly believe it is better when companies compete fairly in the marketplace, rather than in court." Update: Just in case you thought this saga would eventually die and be forgotten, Foss Patents has taken a slightly less optimistic perspective. He points out that although Samsung says it's dropping all its European injunction requests, such that it won't seek to ban the sale of Apple products, the company doesn't say that it'll stop pushing for financial compensation through the courts. Meanwhile, Bloomberg has updated its own article to reflect this.
US court finds Apple and LG did not infringe on Alcatel-Lucent patents
With all of these patent wars ongoing, it's actually astonishing that these companies have any time to get anything done. In fact, we often wonder how much more could be done if needless, incessant litigation weren't around to muck things up. All that aside, Apple and LG Electronics are likely celebrating a victory today, as a verdict in a San Diego courtroom has found that neither company infringed on an Alcatel-Lucent unit's patents for "electronic devices including phones and computers." The trial at hand began on November 27th, as it saw A-L accuse Apple and LG of infringing up a "video-compression technology that allows data to be sent more efficiently over communications media, including the internet and satellites, or stored on DVDs and Blu-ray Discs. Various versions of the iPhone, iPod, iPad and MacBook were named on the Apple side, while LG's Chocolate Touch VX8575, Bliss UX700, Touch AX8575, Lotus Elite LX610, Mystique UN610 and Samba LG8575 were also pinpointed. Of course, Apple can only rejoice so hard -- earlier today, it lost a patent verdict to MobileMedia.
Apple iPhone found to infringe on three MobileMedia patents in US court
Bloomberg News is reporting this morning that Apple's iPhone has been found to infringe on three MobileMedia patents in a US court. For those unaware, MobileMedia is an outfit that's owned by Sony, MPEG-LA and Nokia, being formed in early 2010 mostly as a means to enforce patents owned by the trio. Earlier this year, a court ruled that a screen rotation patent suit couldn't go to trial, with the primary issue being a question of whether the iPhone's rotation and call rejection features violated patents held by Sony and Nokia. We're learning that jurors in Wilmington, Delaware deliberated for around four hours after a weeklong trial before concluding that the trifecta of patents at hand weren't invalid. MobileMedia Chief Executive Officer Larry Horn said in a post-trial courtroom interview: "We're very pleased. We think it's justified." Of course, many would file MobileMedia into the "patent troll" category, as the firm sued Apple in 2010 contending that it infringed 14 patents in total. The case ended up going to trial after the number was carved down to three. The US patents in question are 6,070,068, 6,253,075, 6,427,078, with one of them noted for revolving around the camera's phone and the others covering "call handling and call rejection." All told, MobileMedia has a binder of around 300 patents, with an MMI spokesperson confirming to us that there are also ongoing trials with RIM (regarding 12 patents) and HTC (regarding 11 patents). Said person wouldn't comment on our questions involving the potential of future licensing agreements, and also said that there's no information to disclose just yet related to damages. We asked if the outcome here could eventually impact other Apple products, but they seemed to suggest that items like the iPod and iPad would not be directly impacted. When asked if MMI was the enforcement wing of the three owners, we were told instead that "it's a subsidiary."
Apple: We knew little of jury foreman in Samsung case
Following the massive $1.05 billion patent ruling against Samsung earlier this year, the company is understandably doing all it can to keep from having to hand the cash to Apple. One such effort involved a thorough investigation of the jury foreman of the case, Velvin Hogan, and an allegation that Apple may have known that a potential bias against Samsung would be an issue. As Ars Technica reports, Apple's official response is essentially that the company knew nearly nothing of the foreman's prior dealings. Hogan's prior business dealings led him to be sued by Seagate Technology, a company that is now partially owned by Samsung. He was forced to file bankruptcy as a result. Hogan also happens to be a patent holder himself. The foreman apparently withheld these crucial details prior to the trial and, according to other jurors, Hogan spoke at length of his own patent dealings during deliberations. Apple, for its part, knew very little of Hogan's prior business woes before or during its legal standoff with Samsung. Apple disclosed that the only portion of Hogan's history that it uncovered was that he had filed bankruptcy, but Cupertino's lawyers didn't even bother to pull the court file associated with the case. This dashes Samsung's hopes that it could prove Apple knew of the foreman's possible bias before the trial, but the company's attack on Hogan's credibility will likely remain intact.
Apple wants to add Jelly Bean, Galaxy Note 10.1 to Samsung lawsuit
When Apple won its patent case against Samsung back in August to the tune of a $1.05 billion payout, we knew it was just the beginning. Today in a San Jose, California courtroom, Apple asked Judge Lucy Koh to add Samsung's Galaxy Note 10.1 tablet and Google's Android 4.1 Jelly Bean mobile OS to the growing list of products it claims violate its patents. The lawsuit at the center of this new case was originally brought against Apple by Samsung last month and is scheduled to go to trial in 2014. In it, Samsung is seeking to prove that the iPhone 5 actually violates some of its patents. It should be noted that Judge Koh, who is presiding over this case, had originally ruled to block sales of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 but rescinded that ruling last month. The sales ban was lifted after jurors who awarded the billion-plus-dollar settlement to Apple in August found that Samsung hadn't violated the Apple patent that served as its basis. [via TechCrunch]
Apple publishes 'Samsung did not copy' statement through gritted teeth
Whatever you think of the continual legal tussles between Apple and Samsung, a UK court's decision to force the former into publicly acknowledging that the latter did not copy its design will have seemed a little egregious even to the most ardent sammy-sympathiser. Well, that post is now live -- on Apple's site at least -- and as you might expect, is studiously manicured to almost not feel like an acknowledgement at all. The opening legalese notes that Samsung did not infringe "registered design No. 0000181607-0001," before going on to point out in perfect lay-terms the positive comments Judge Colin Birss made about its own slates. While Apple does confirm that the UK decision was further upheld by the court of appeal, it is also keen to remind you that other European legal jurisdictions (namely Germany) don't share this opinion. Head to source to read the statement in full.
