dismissal
Latest
Felony charges dropped after officer admits faking body cam video
Police body-cam footage is supposed to be an objective account of what happens during a traffic stop or whatever's taking place when an officer's device is activated. The emphasis is on the "supposed to be." Recently, a Colorado case was dismissed after it was discovered that police officer Seth Jensen allegedly recreated the search of Joseph Cajar's vehicle after his November 2016 arrest, according to local publication The Pueblo Chieftain.
Judge dismisses Apple lawsuit versus Motorola over standards-based patents
Apple may have just learned a lesson about all-or-nothing gambles. Judge Crabb has dismissed the company's lawsuit against Motorola over fair royalties for standards-based patents after the firm said it would only accept court-dictated payouts to Motorola of less than $1 per iPhone. To say that Crabb isn't eager to be used as leverage for a discount is an understatement -- she flipped from leaning towards a trial just days earlier to preventing Apple from suing over the same dispute unless it wins an appeal. The decision doesn't represent the first time the Cupertino team has had a lawsuit tossed this year, although it comes as Motorola has faced its own share of legal setbacks; the two parties are still very much in a stalemate. All we know for certain is that any royalty decision will have to come through either a (currently unlikely) settlement or through a separate trial.
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.
Japan court rules Samsung's Galaxy phones, tablet do not infringe on an Apple patent
Samsung may have lost a billion dollar round here in the US, but it appears to have scored a victory in its patent battle against Apple in Japan today. Reuters and Bloomberg report a judge there decided its Galaxy smartphones and tablets did not infringe on an Apple patent. Apple sued Samsung there in September of last year, however the Tokyo District Court has ruled Samsung did not violate a patent that covered syncing music and video data with a PC. According to The Yomiuri Shinbun, presiding judge Tamotsu Shoji dismissed the claim, saying Samsung's implementation of this specific technology was not covered by the scope of Apple's patent and, Bloomberg reports, ordered Apple to pay the costs of the lawsuit. Just as we're seeing in US District Court in California however, one judgement doesn't mean the seemingly never-ending battle is over however because Apple may be able to appeal this decision to a higher court. There are also other cases ongoing, which The Sankei Shimbun reports includes one focusing on the infamous bounce-back patent, so as usual, stay tuned for further updates.
Judge dismisses Apple vs. Motorola in its entirety, companies unable to prove damages
After tentatively shutting down (and reviving) Apple and Motorola's legal spat, Judge Richard Posner has put the lid on the case once and for all, dismissing it in its entirety this evening. Neither company was able to satisfy the Judge's call for proof of damages, causing him to dismiss the case and block both firms from refiling claims. "It would be ridiculous to dismiss a suit for failure to prove damages and allow the plaintiff to refile the suit so that he could have a second chance to prove damages." Posner said, "This case is therefore dismissed with prejudice; a separate order to that effect is being entered today." Posner's dismissal with prejudice means that Apple and Motorola's claims cannot be brought before the court again. Guess they'll have to find something else to fight over, eh? Check out the Judge's full opinion after the break.
Judge puts the kibosh on one Apple vs. Motorola patent trial (maybe, tune in next week)
In an (all too rare, if you ask us) occurrence, US Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner has tentatively decided to dismiss an Apple patent infringement case against Motorola. Both sides were seeking damages in the case, and the decision to dismiss it "with prejudice" would mean neither side could refile these claims again. According to his ruling in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, neither side could credibly establish its damages so he's putting a stop to things before it ever goes in front of a jury. That said, he will issue a more in depth ruling next week and noted that he could still change his mind. For our sanity alone we hope he does not, although it ultimately won't matter much with so many other smartphone patent lawsuits involving these companies filling up dockets in courts around the globe.
2009 lawsuit against Final Fantasy XI dismissed
If you're a longtime player of Final Fantasy XI, you might have some problems with the way that the game's been handled over the years. Those problems are usually complaints about issues such as balance or the way that the game has handled updates, though, and they certainly don't extend to legal action. Yet back in 2009, Esther Leong filed suit against Square-Enix for fraudulent practices and deceptive advertising because of the game's monthly subscription fee. The claim was seeking over five million dollars in damages on behalf of all Final Fantasy XI players, which is probably a bit more than you seek when you feel your White Mage is underpowered. The 9th District Circuit Court of Appeals has officially dismissed the case, ending its progression for good and establishing a precedent that most likely won't find itself under heavy contest. A deputy general counsel for Square-Enix had called the suit "baseless" when it was first filed, due in no small part to the game's transparent statement that players would be required to pay a subscription fee.
Federal judge dismisses class-action suit against Sony, 'Other OS' feature remains dormant
Last year, a group of disgruntled gamers filed a class-action lawsuit against Sony over its decision to remove the "Install Other OS" feature from its PS3 firmware. Last week, though, their case was dismissed by US District Judge Richard Seeborg, on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to actually state a claim. In a ruling issued Thursday, Seeborg said he sympathized with the gamers' gripes, but ultimately determined that they had failed to demonstrate any legal entitlement to the feature, thereby neutering their arguments. "The dismay and frustration at least some PS3 owners likely experienced when Sony made the decision to limit access to the PSN service to those who were [un]willing to disable the Other OS feature on their machines was no doubt genuine and understandable," Seeborg wrote. "As a matter of providing customer satisfaction and building loyalty, it may have been questionable." He went on, however, to point out that the users "have failed to allege facts or articulate a theory on which Sony may be held liable" post-PS3 purchase, effectively ending the litigation.
Voltage Pictures dismisses 90 percent of defendants in Hurt Locker file-sharing lawsuit
That record-breaking Hurt Locker lawsuit may not be so impressive after all, now that Voltage Pictures has slashed a major chunk of defendants from its file-sharing complaint. Last week, the company voluntarily dismissed about 90 percent of the 24,583 defendants originally named in the suit, according to documents filed with the US District Court for the District of Columbia. The dismissals were made without prejudice, meaning they could theoretically be re-targeted in the future, though the number of those that reached settlements with Voltage remains unclear. The company also identified some of the alleged file-sharers by name, but acknowledged that 2,278 IP addresses remain anonymous. For more details, check out the coverage from TorrentFreak, where you'll find the full list of dismissed IP addresses, along with the recently-named defendants.
iCloud Communications drops lawsuit against Apple, decides to change name instead
iCloud Communications seemed mighty confident back in June, when it filed a lawsuit against Apple over the name of Cupertino's online storage service. But the Arizona-based company has now dropped the suit altogether, opting to change its own name, instead. On Thursday, the VoIP provider filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with a US District Court, effectively bringing an end to litigation. CNET is also reporting that the company appears to have changed its name to Clear Digital Communications -- a firm that, according to its Facebook page, is located at iCloud's exact same Phoenix address. A wall post from last month, moreover, reads, "iCloud is now Clear Digital Communications," while iCloud's site, Geticloud.com, now displays a message confirming that "this website is coming soon." Neither Apple nor the ostensibly erstwhile iCloud have commented on the development, but it certainly looks like the clouds of controversy have cleared away.
Sprint fires employee who leaked weak EVO 4G sales numbers
You know the backstory by now: Sprint boasted that the EVO 4G was its fastest selling phone ever a couple of days after hitting the American market, before abruptly correcting itself and admitting that the EVO's sales were in fact in line with those achieved by the Pre last summer. What you, and we, didn't know till now, however, is that Sprint's self-correction was sparked off by an employee with a curious mind and posting privileges over on the xda-developers forum. On June 6, according to MobileCrunch, this unnamed hero of truthiness browsed Sprint's internal inventory system and nailed down a figure of 65,500 sold units from Sprint's own stores -- a stat far south from what Sprint would announce a day later. That number ultimately found its way onto the message board, and though it obviously shouldn't be taken as authoritative (or exhaustive), it was enough to get Sprint to hit the auto-correct button and part ways with the activist member of staff. Harsh. [Thanks, Carol]
Legal action between ZAM and Curse results in dismissal
So remember when Curse introduced their database last year called WoWDB, and we pointed out that it bore a strong resemblance to that other popular WoW database, Wowhead? Turns out ZAM, the owners of Wowhead after the acquisition a little while ago, agreed: completely under the radar last May, they filed a lawsuit for copyright infringment to the tune of no less than $1.5 million. ZAM says in the suit, copies of which we've obtained, that they've "expended substantial resources to maintain, update, and promote use of the WOWHEAD website so that it would become... one of the most recognized, and utilized websites designed to attract individuals" who play World of Warcraft. They claimed that WoWDB stole their look and layout purposely to create confusion among customers. This story wasn't reported in the WoW community at the time -- we hadn't heard about it at all until now.And then, in January of this year, the case was dismissed completely by a judge. We've also seen a copy of the order for dismissal, and from what it says, both sides wanted out: "Pursuant to the parties' stipulation for dismissal, the court hereby dismisses the above-captioned action without prejudice." We don't have any information, however, why the case was suddenly dismissed, but there may have been an agreement made between the two parties -- either money changed hands or WoWDB offered to change its look (as you can see, there's still many similarities between the two sites). Or, as a third option, ZAM just decided it wasn't worth fighting -- according to the comments and activity on both sites, WoWDB doesn't seem to be a serious threat to Wowhead.We've contacted both sides for comment, and we'll let you know if we hear anything from either one. On the front of it, this looks like ZAM was merely covering themselves -- they filed suit just in case, but never found cause to follow through. But there may be some other agreement between these two companies that lead to the case's dismissal.
Judge won't dismiss Apple/AT&T suit
Northern California District Judge James Ware rejected arguments for dismissal in a class-action case surrounding Apple and AT&T's exclusivity deal for the iPhone. The lawsuit alleges Apple unfairly maintains exclusivity with AT&T, preventing owners from unlocking and jailbreaking their handsets. It also argues that both companies disguised some post-sale costs of ownership. Ware dismissed Apple's and AT&T's requests for dismissal -- a normal, routine part of the lawsuit process -- ruling they either weren't lawfully arguable or they didn't address the nature of the lawsuit. Apple said that since customers were still under the terms of their two-year contract, they couldn't legally argue the status of that contract: Ware said that wasn't true. The company also said that they have since added support for third-party applications, but Ware said that wasn't the whole story, since Apple knowingly limits access to certain areas where it has a "financial interest." All parties in the case will next meet November 17, where the court will try to find out more information about the nature of the deal between Apple and AT&T, including the exact duration of their exclusivity agreement. [Via Macsimum News and AppleInsider.]
