court
Latest
Dutch court rules that Samsung didn't infringe on Apple multi-touch patent
Once again, a decision has been made on an Apple versus Samsung patent dispute. This time, it's a Dutch court in the Hague, ruling that Samsung does not infringe on a Cupertino patent relating to certain multi-touch commands that the Korean firm implements in some of its Galaxy phones and tablets. This isn't the first time that the Netherlands-based court has found in favor of Samsung, and Apple had already lost a preliminary injunction on this same patent last year. Reuters also reports that the Hague court's decision comes in the same week that the International Trade Commission is expected to decide about further patent disputes between the two firms, which went in favor of Apple the last time around. At the very least, this long and bumpy ride isn't over yet.
Japan court rules Apple did not infringe two Samsung patents
In the latest scuffle between Apple and Samsung, a Tokyo court has ruled that the iPhone 4 and 4S do not infringe on two of Sammy's patents. According to The Asahi Shimbun, a decision on September 14th found Apple had not violated a patent related to app downloads, as Samsung's method is different. A dispute regarding flight / airplane mode also went in Cupertino's favor on October 11th, because the technology in question was regarded by the court as incremental. Only one case against Apple remains undecided in Japan -- for a patent on using "homescreen space" -- but, as usual, don't expect that to be the last chapter in the neverending story.
Apple's struggle to keep secret documents sealed
After winning big against Samsung in a US court, Apple is now on the defensive, battling against the same court to keep its financial information secret, says a report in Ars Technica. On Tuesday, the company faced a setback in this battle when US Judge Lucy Koh refused to seal documents that contained sensitive financial information. These documents detail "unit sales, revenue, profit, profit margin and cost data" on a product-by-product basis. Though Apple does report sales by device type in its quarterly earnings, it does not break down the sales by model, nor does it reveal its device profit margins, revenue and other similar device-specific information. This financial information is required by the court to justify the billions in monetary damages that Apple is seeking. Apple claims this data should be protected as a trade secret, but Judge Koh, the media and other groups disagree. Koh argued in her denial of Apple's request that Apple "cannot both use its financial data to seek multi-billion dollar damages and insist on keeping it secret." Koh did agree to keep the documents sealed until Apple's request is heard by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Lodsys: 150 iOS developers give in to patent demands
Lodsys filed what many are calling a "patent troll" lawsuit against a number of smaller iOS developers last year, claiming that while Apple may have licensed its in-app purchase technology patents for iOS, individual developers have not, and should be held accountable for using it. Despite the fact that this seems patently absurd (pun intended), Lodsys claims that over 150 developers have licensed the technology for themselves, with the majority of them actually doing so "outside of the litigation process." The exact charges of licensing the tech aren't known, but it's rumored to be around 2.5 percent of whatever revenues are earned with in-app purchases. In other words, over 150 of the targeted developers have decided to pay licensing fees to Lodsys, rather than face the threats of legal action or further fines. Lodsys originally offered $1,000 to any developers it said had been wrongly targeted by the lawsuit, but of course that would be after costly court action due to the legal challenges. It's possible that these developers simply decided it wasn't worth the trouble fighting for their cause. Apple promised to assist these developers in court, and tried to make the case that its own licensing payment covers third-party developers. But Lodsys says separately that the issue is still "unresolved and clearly contested." Lodsys seems dedicated to going after smaller developers who lack the huge legal or monetary resources that Apple itself can use, and thus can be more easily threatened into paying out licensing fees rather than face an expensive court battle. [via GigaOm]
Children's tablet maker suing Toys R Us over Tabeo design
Currently lawsuits are all the rage in the tech industry, however it's somewhat of a sad day when the ill-effects of corporate hardball trickle down to children's toys. Nabi tablet maker Fuhu filed a lawsuit at a San Diego, California federal court claiming that mega retailer Toys R Us stole its product's trade secrets for the development of its forthcoming Tabeo tablet for children. Fuhu alleges that last year Toys R Us agreed to exclusively carry the Nabi tablet in order to gain access to confidential information before launching a tablet of its own. The partnership between the two companies ended in January and Toys R Us has since announced its plans to release its Tabeo tablet this fall. Fuhu is suing for an undisclosed sum and requesting that Toys R Us relinquish its stock of Tabeo tablets. It's too early to tell if this lawsuit will have an impact on the Tabeo's launch plans, but if Fuhu has its way, Toys R Us will receive a lump of coal and a court order this holiday season. Bah, humbug!
38 Studios loan could impact state elections
If you've started to forget about the saga of 38 Studios' collapse, rest assured that Rhode Island politicians certainly have not. With the election coming soon, many in the state are scrambling to offset the blame for the $75 million loan decision and protect their positions. The Associated Press is reporting that it's being seen as a "liability" among candidates. One candidate, Mark Binder, addressed the continued furor over the issue: "If I don't bring it up, other people bring it up. Everyone is infuriated. There's this game going on in Rhode Island right now called 'pass the blame on 38 Studios.'" While many of those directly responsible for voting the deal through have since resigned from their positions, the search to pin the fiasco on one of the state's leaders is still underway. Another 2012 candidate, Laura Pisaturo, said that the public is demanding more answers: "People read in the paper about 38 Studios and think 'we elect these people and expect they will lead and ask tough questions.'"
Judge approves settlement for Hachette, Simon & Schuster and HarperCollins in e-book lawsuit
It's a big day in the world of e-books, and not just for the crew at Amazon. Today, Judge Denise Cote approved settlement terms for three of the publishers accused by the Justice Department of price fixing. Hachette Book Group, Simon & Schuster and HarperCollins each agreed to settle with the government, rather than face trial -- as Apple, Macmillian and Penguin Group will do in June of 2013. As part of the settlement agreement, each of the publishers will be required to terminate their contracts with Apple within one week. Similarly, they will be required to end contracts with other e-book retailers where clauses exist that would hinder the seller's ability to set pricing. Further, the settling companies won't be able to form contracts for the next two years with e-book retailers that would hinder the seller's discretion to set pricing. During the settlement approval period, individuals and companies alike were given 60 days to weigh in on the matter, which included objections from the American Booksellers Association, the Authors Guild and Barnes & Noble. Ultimately, Judge Cote determined that arguments against the settlement were "insufficient" to block the approval.
Fujitsu and Acacia resolve patent disputes with settlement, keep it out of the courts
Fujitsu's bank balance may be a little lighter today, since Acacia Research Corp. has reported that subsidiaries of both companies have signed a settlement deal over patent disputes. As usual, Acacia is keeping tight-lipped about exactly what the patents cover, but a little digging on our part has revealed they are related to flash memory and RAM technologies. The agreement resolves lawsuits in the works at district courts in Texas and California, which is probably a good thing. After all, these cases can get pretty messy when they go to court.
Court lifts the curtain on iPhone, iPad US sales numbers
In the deluge of documents, inside baseball and offbeat revelations emerging from Judge Lucy Koh's courtroom as the Apple/Samsung trial proceeds, there are some genuine gems. AllThingsD's Ina Fried points out a pair of disclosures that reveal, in finer detail than either company would like, the extent of Samsung and Apple's phone and tablet sales in the USA. The numbers aren't entirely (forgive me) apples to Apples, since Samsung's phone lines are broken out by device in granular fashion and the company's sales numbers only go back to 2010 in this disclosure; Apple counts "iPhone" as one product regardless of model, and the counts go all the way to 2007. These numbers also only account for the US, so Samsung and Apple's international sales don't enter into the equation. Nevertheless, comparing Samsung's domestic phone revenue to Apple's from June 2010 to June 2012, Fried comes up with US$7.5B in revenue for Samsung, and my math shows a total of about $36B for Apple -- nearly five times as much. The higher average selling price of the iPhone contributes heavily to this disparity, as the iPhone only outsold Samsung's overall units by ~60 million to 21.25m in the same period. On the tablet side, the entire Galaxy Tab line generated $644M in domestic revenue since its introduction in late 2010. Nothing to sneeze at, certainly, but the iPad's US sales since 2010? $19 billion -- 29 times higher than Samsung's tablet number. In fact, the entire multiyear sales arc of the Galaxy Tab is eclipsed by the iPod touch, the underappreciated little sibling of the iOS product line... in the first six months of 2012 alone. ($765 million in iPod touch US sales for Q1 + Q2 2012.) Another intriguing point on the iPhone sales curve in the States is that in its best quarter to date (Q4 2011, immediately following the introduction of the iPhone 4S) Apple sold 15 million iPhones accounting for revenue of about $9.4 billion. That one quarter alone surpassed the totals for the entire 2010 calendar year (14M units, $8B revenue). Meanwhile, 2012 is still tracking ahead of 2011, and September 12 is getting closer and closer. Photo by kasia | flickr cc #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Apple, Samsung reveal sales data to the court, boast of millions served
Have a smartphone from Seoul or Cupertino riding in the pocket of your jeans? You aren't the only one. New documents filed in Samsung and Apple's ongoing legal battle reveal specific sales data going back several years, confirming something we always knew to be true: there are a lot of devices out there. Samsung's filing reveals that it has sold 21.25 million "accused" phones and 1.4 million tablets from June 2010 to June of this year, and further breaks down the data by device and, in some cases, carrier. The Galaxy S II, for instance, takes the lion's share of US sales with over 4.1 million units sold between all models and carriers. The Epic 4G makes an appearance at 1.89 million sold, and the Captivate totals in at 1.39 million. Finally, the Samsung Prevail lives up to its moniker by netting 2.25 million in sales, lagging only behind the Galaxy S II -- though its $180 asking price brought in significantly less revenue per unit. Apple's charts are a bit less specific, detailing the total sales of its iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch lines rather than the sales of each specific hardware iteration -- though where it falters in detail it makes up in numbers. U.S. consumers have snatched up 85 million iPhones since 2007, alongside 34 million iPads and 46 million iPod touch devices -- bringing in almost $80 billion in revenue, collectively. Puts those quarterly reports into perspective, doesn't it? Check out both charts in full at the source link below.
Rhode Island possesses 38 Studios' games, looks to sell
While 38 Studios is finished, its employees laid off, and its projects canceled, there's really only one thing left to be done: figure out what to do with the leftovers. The court granted the state of Rhode Island all of 38 Studios' assets, including rights to its single-player RPG and the unfinished Project Copernicus. The Rhode Island Economic Development Corp said that it will attempt to sell these assets to recoup as much of the loan made to the studio as possible. This may be a slight blessing in disguise for fans of the studio's projects, as the move was made to keep the intellectual property intact instead of having it be lost due to the company's dismantling. The games are being transferred to servers for safe-keeping and constitute a majority of the studio's remaining net worth.
Apple seizes on Samsung internal document as proof of mimicry
As much as Apple would love for Kwon Oh-hyun to turn up at court and tearfully confess to being a copycat, that's probably not going to happen. Instead, Cupertino's lawyers are burrowing through Samsung's history in search of a legal smoking gun, and one of their latest submissions has been presented as just that. It's a 132-page document written in 2010 by Sammy engineers that directly compares the iPhone against the Galaxy S and makes recommendations about how the latter should be more like the former. The excerpt shown above, which focuses on the aesthetics of icons on the rival handsets, even appears to contain advice about how Samsung should copy Apple without appearing to copy them so much, whereas the full document embedded after the break reveals how all-encompassing the internal guidance was. On the flip-side, Samsung may well argue that any responsible company should compare itself to its competition in this manner, and you can bet there's an army of lawyers beavering away right now to make that sound convincing. [Thanks, Alex]
Federal appeals court says warrantless wiretapping is legal
A federal appeals court has ruled today that the US government can tap into Americans' communications without worrying over frivolous things like "being sued" by its people. In what most sane civilians will probably see as a depressing loss of protection, a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that citizens can sue the United States for damages stemming from the use of information collected via wiretap, but not for the collection of information itself. In typical pass-the-buck fashion, Wired reports that Judge Michael Daly Hawkins and Judge Harry Pregerson added the following: "Although such a structure may seem anomalous and even unfair, the policy judgment is one for Congress, not the courts." Alrighty. For those unaware, the back and forth surrounding this issue extends back to Congress' authorization of the Bush spy program in 2008, and more specifically, a pair of US lawyers and the now-defunct al-Haramain Islamic Foundation -- a group that was granted over $2.5 million combined in legal fees after proving that they were spied on sans warrants. The full report can be found in the PDF below.
Apple wins 'EU-wide' injunction against Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7, denied on 10.1 ban
Word around the mulberry bush is that Apple has just won itself a Europe-wide injunction against the sale of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7, in case anyone still wanted to buy that tablet now that the Nexus 7 is out. The decision was taken in-between beer courses at the appeals court in Dusseldorf, but it didn't all go Apple's way -- Cupertino's request to have the re-designed Galaxy Tab 10.1 (aka the 10.1N) banned too was rejected, having already been turned down at preliminary hearing back in February. The Tab 7.7 apparently infringes Apple patents that date from 2004 and, such is the power of one little German town, cannot technically be sold anywhere in the EU -- although other countries may choose to ignore the ruling and it's probably only a matter of time before a 7.7N comes out anyway. In contrast, the failed claim against the 10-inch slate hinged on a "generic design patent," which a British judge has also vehemently dismissed. Glossing over the 7.7 decision, Samsung says it "welcomes the court's ruling" with regard to the 10.1N and accuses Apple of using "legal claims" to restrict "design innovation and progress in the industry."
Proview sued by its iPad court case law firm, owes at least 2.4 million dollars in legal fees
Guess who hasn't yet gotten its share of Proview's recently acquired $60 million? Ironically, it's the lawyers that helped it win the iPad trademark dispute in China. According to Sina Tech, Grandall Law Firm confirmed that its shady client refused to pay up the promised 4 percent of Apple's settlement fee, which equates to $2.4 million. While acknowledging their contractual arrangement (wherein the law firm covers the legal fees in advance, and then expect the client to pay up after winning the case), Proview founder Yang Rongshan told Sina Tech that Grandall's behavior is "nonsense," and that his company isn't obliged to pay back immediately as it isn't under normal operation right now. However, Yang promises Proview won't "pass the buck." We shall see about that -- maybe he could spend some yuans on buying Grandall a few new iPads, at least.
Apple to appeal court order to publish statement about Samsung
Apple is not planning to simply give in to a UK judge's orders that it should acknowledge on its website that Samsung didn't copy the iPad. Apple plans to appeal the decision, and the motion will be heard in a UK court of appeals. The judge who had issued the ruling in the first place (and said that Galaxy Tab wasn't as "cool" as the iPad) allowed the appeal to be filed. [Via MacNN] #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
UK judge forces Apple to state on its site that Samsung didn't copy the iPad
Apple is being forced by a British judge to state explicitly that Samsung didn't copy its iPad design. According to Bloomberg, Judge Colin Birss said that Apple has to post a notice both on its website and several British newspapers and magazines, to help correct the "damaging impression the South Korea-based company was copying Apple's product." The online part will reportedly stay there for six months. Apple lost its case against Samsung in the UK earlier this month, with the same judge awkwardly branding the 10-inch Android tablet "not as cool" as the iPad.
German court dismisses Apple design claim against Motorola Xoom
A German court has ruled that Motorola's Xoom tablet does not infringe on Apple's patents, says an Associated Press report. In its case, Apple argued that the design of the Motorola Xoom too closely resembled the Apple iPad. A judge did not agree with Apple and ruled against this claim. It was a no-win situation for both companies as the judge also dismissed a counter-suit by Motorola. In its suit, Motorola claimed that Apple's design patent for the iPad is invalid. In the end, Apple shouldn't be overly disappointed. It can't ban the Xoom, but its design patent remains intact. As it stands, the two companies will share in the court costs as neither party was victorious. Both companies have 30 days to appeal these rulings.
German court rules Motorola Xoom doesn't violate Apple's iPad design patent
Apple filed a stealth lawsuit last summer alleging that the Motorola Xoom violated the design patent that underpins the iPad. While Apple has had some success leveling its big patent gun against Samsung, the same can't be said for Motorola: a German court just declared that the reference Android tablet doesn't infringe on Apple's design claim. The ruling isn't a complete win for Motorola, however, as the court wouldn't invalidate the patent -- it could theoretically be leveled against other tablets in the future. The loss will still sting for Apple, which now has to resort to a multi-touch patent claim (among others) if it wants to make Motorola feel the heat in Mannheim.
UK Judge says Galaxy Tab 'not as cool' as iPad, awards Samsung win in design suit
How's that for the ultimate backhanded legal award? A judge in the UK handed a win to Samsung in an intellectual property dispute, calling the Galaxy Tab "not as cool" as the iPad, and therefore not likely to get confused with Apple's tablets. Adding insult to lawsuit win, Judge Colin Birss said that Samsung's slates "do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design." The Galaxy Tabs are distinct from the iPad given their thinner form factors and the "details" on the backs of the devices, according to the judge. If Apple's not happy with his too-cool-for-suit ruling, he also gave Cupertino 21 days to appeal.
