lawsuits
Latest
Chinese official says Proview owns iPad trademark in China, court battle continues
Who knew some funky capitalization could cause so much trouble? Proview -- the purveyor of that 90s-era all-in-one called the iPAD -- hasn't let up in its fight to wrestle the rights to the iPad name from iPad maker Apple. The legal antics started in China, where Proview temporarily managed to get Apple's tablet booted off store shelves before being rebuffed by a Shanghai court -- after which the company promptly brought the case stateside. It's been all quiet on the iPad trademark front for a solid month now, but a report from All Things D indicates that the squabble is still going strong. Today the Chinese vice minister for the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) declared that Proview is, in fact, the rightful owner of the iPad trademark. The SAIC has so far kept mum about the iPad trademark spat, so its decision to break that silence is sure to carry some weight when it comes time for the Chinese higher court to hand down its verdict.
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.
Ask Massively: Thieving on the fast track edition
One of our readers was kind enough to point us to two sites that, once again, were stealing our posts without crediting our authors or anything like that. (I don't mean "this post looks suspiciously similar"; I mean abusing copy and paste.) Unfortunately, while we're aware of these things, there's not a whole lot we can do other than request that the sites get taken down. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't, but it's all we can do. I guess it's nice to be good enough that your work is worth stealing without credit? That's something. This week's installment of Ask Massively isn't going to focus on that, however. Instead, we're going to focus on the recent spate of MMO litigation and the potential for a boxed RIFT expansion. If you have a question you'd like to see answered in a future installment of Ask Massively, mail it along to ask@massively.com or leave a comment in the field below. Questions may be edited slightly for clarity and/or brevity.
Bethesda and Interplay settle Fallout MMO lawsuits, Interplay's rights revoked
Bethesda and Interplay have been embroiled in a legal battle for quite some time now, arguing over whether or not Interplay had the rights to create a Fallout MMO. Well, that lawsuit has finally been settled and it appears that Bethesda has come out on top. In a press release today, Bethesda announced that "under the terms of the settlement, the license granted to Interplay to develop the Fallout MMO is null and void, and all rights granted to Interplay to develop a Fallout MMO revert back to Bethesda, effective immediately." Bethesda fails to make any mention of whether or not the studio will use its freshly re-acquired rights in order to actually make a Fallout MMO, however, so the future of the online wasteland remains in flux. [Source: Bethesda Game Studios press release]
Elmer-DeWitt: Apple in "no hurry" to settle iPhone patent lawsuits
To Apple-watchers -- in particular tech bloggers -- it seems like Apple is taking forever to settle the lawsuits that are pending against Samsung and other smartphone manufacturers for allegedly infringing on the company's intellectual property. On Fortune's Apple 2.0 site today, long-time Apple analyst Philip Elmer-DeWitt explains why a slow, measured march through the patent courts of the world might work out to the company's advantage. Elmer-DeWitt cites a recent analysis by Deutsche Bank's Chris Whitmore that outlines four possible outcomes to Apple's legal attack against the Android ecosystem: A settlement, with a per-unit license fee paid to Apple; a "more favorable outcome" where Apple is able to have certain features removed from Android handset or can limit the distribution of Android phones, resulting in capturing 25 percent of Android's future market share; neutral with no winner; and Apple loses and must pay a counter claim to Android manufacturers. As Elmer-DeWitt notes, Whitmore apparently doesn't think outcomes 3 and 4 are very likely, as he spends the majority of his analysis trying to figure out just how much Apple could reap from the first two outcomes. Whitmore thinks that a license fee could cost competitors about US$10 per handset, which would add about $35 to the value of each share of Apple stock. However, if Apple holds out and fights for outcome 2, it could easily a growth in share price closer to $260 per share. That's why Whitmore believes that "Apple is unlikely to settle cheaply." His advice to investors? Hold tight and let the legal drama play out, as investors are "gaining exposure to a potentially very lucrative favorable IP outcome for little or no cost."
Telecoms win immunity in wiretapping case, US court approves separate suit against the government
Looks like a case of good news-bad news for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in its fight against warrantless wiretapping. A US appeals court upheld a 2008 ruling, granting telecoms such as AT&T, Verizon and Sprint immunity for cooperating with the government in its surveillance activities. Still, Judge Margaret McKeown of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals insists that immunity only applies to telecoms, not the government, and that "the federal courts remain a forum to consider the constitutionality of the wiretapping scheme and other claims." Indeed, while the 9th Circuit upheld immunity for telecoms, it also gave the go-ahead for a separate suit against the NSA, former president George W. Bush, senior members of the Bush administration and President Obama for using AT&T's network to conduct "an unprecedented suspicionless general search," according to the filing. The court's decision to allow this suit to proceed marks a reversal of an earlier ruling, in which a lower court said the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to pursue the case. [Image courtesy PBS]
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.
Sprint sues Time Warner, Comcast, Cable One and Cox for infringing twelve digital phone patents
Sprint's lawyers have been hanging out with nothing to do for a few days, so it's time for them to get back to work. The Now Network is now focusing its sights on Time Warner, Comcast, Cable One and Cox, slapping each one with a separate lawsuit claiming they have been infringing on up to twelve of their patents. The technology the companies have been using, Sprint states, relates to the transmission of voice data packets and was patented in the 1990s. Interestingly enough, several of these patents were the subject of its 2007 infringement case against Vonage, in which the VoIP company was ordered to fork over $80 million. In the filings, Sprint mentioned that the four entities "have realized the great value in this technology and have misappropriated it without Sprint's permission." Our world may be frightening and confusing, but it sure can be lucrative at times. And let's face it -- Sprint has quite a few bills to pay over the next couple years.
AT&T, Sprint and C Spire halt suits over T-Mobile acquisition, wireless competition to die another day
It's never nice to beat a dead horse when it's down and the same seems to be true for the litigious mudslinging Ma Bell's had to endure. Now that the nation's second largest carrier has been granted a stay in its pending and publicly messy T-Mobile acquisition, vocal opponents like Sprint and C Spire are withdrawing their respective suits (and fangs) to block the merger for the time being. But don't take this latest courtroom move as a supportive change of heart -- both wireless companies will likely lawyer up again in the new year when these M&A wheels begin to roll anew. So while this potential AT&T&T deal appears to be dead in the water, there's always a chance it'll resurface with an extra face.
Academic talks MMO legalese and virtual property rights
Virtual item ownership has been a hot topic in MMO circles for a number of years now. Every so often, an academic will publish a paper regarding the legal and societal implications of trading real currency for fake goods, and the latest such academic is Rutgers University law professor Greg Lastowka. Lastowka examines a number of high-profile virtual goods disputes (including one that ended with the real-world stabbing death of a virtual thief who sold a rare sword after "borrowing" it from a friend). The piece also provides some interesting food for thought in the form of nightmare legal scenarios run amok (nerf patch lawsuits and legal action for server shutdowns are just two examples). You can read the full article text at Gamasutra.
LG seeks ban on South Korean BMW and Audi sales, sticks out its LED lit tongue at Osram
Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where we all just got along, people worked for the thrill of it, and knowledge was free? Yeah, fat chance dreamers. 'Sue', our new millennium's most oft-used verb, is getting some heavy play at the hands of the tech industry. The latest court room combatants? Why, that'd be LG Group and Osram. You see, once upon a time LG was late to the LED patent game, and was content to fork over the cash to Osram for use of its tech. Skip to now, and the electronics giant's claiming it can get its lighting goods elsewhere, picking from a plethora of relevant IP-holding companies and combining that with its own patents. Despite having already countersued Osram in July to prevent the import of that company's allegedly infringing products into South Korea, LG's gathered its legal arsenal once again to block the sale of Audis and BMWs throughout the entire country -- cars that include Osram's LED tech. It's hard to imagine the courts would grant such a wide-sweeping ban on major auto players' bread-and-butter. And all grandstanding aside, it's more likely the two fisticuffing parties will come to some sort of revised financial agreement.
Rovi hits Hulu with patent infringement lawsuit
Mo money, mo problems, right Hulu? Seems it, considering the newly up-for-sale content hub has just been slapped with a patent infringement suit. This latest bit of intellectual property beef centers on the online content provider's alleged unlicensed use of Rovi's electronic program guide technology. According to Reuters, the company, which currently powers the streaming likes of Blockbuster On Demand and CinemaNow, is seeking financial compensation for potential "lost license revenue and treble damages," potentially tripling any future settlement award. While Hulu has yet to issue a statement on the matter, we'd be willing to bet those takeover talks are taking a backseat until this gets sorted.
Should Apple win current legal battles, payoff would be huge
Bernstein's Toni Sacconaghi believes that Apple is confident it will win current legal battles with HTC and Samsung, and is therefore in for the long haul. Apple has "more to lose" than its rivals, Sacconaghi notes, and a whole lot to win. Philip Elmer-Dewitt has highlighted the most interesting notes from Sacconaghi's statement, including: We anticipate that Apple will push its legal claims hard and unrelentingly and believe that the company's key goal is to upend Android's momentum by forcing a work around on key essential features which, if successful, could have huge, positive financial implications for Apple. Should Apple prevail in forcing Android to rework some of its functionality, resulting in market share shifts, it could have huge, positive financial implications for Apple...a 10 percentage point shift in smartphone market share from Android to Apple...is worth an estimated $30B+ in annual revenue and $10+ in annual EPS to Apple. That's a lot of dough. Steve Jobs has long said that Apple takes its patents seriously, which Tim Cook recently reiterated: "We have a very simple view: we love competition, but we want people to invent their own stuff. And we're going to make sure we defend our portfolio."
CE-Oh no he didn't!: Google's Eric Schmidt says competitors are 'responding with lawsuits' instead of innovation
Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt may have primarily been at Google's Mobile Revolution conference in Tokyo to talk about the company's ambitious goals for Asia, but it turns out he was also quite ready to discuss the myriad of patent lawsuits swirling around the mobile industry these days -- or "legal fun," as Schmidt put it. While not directly referring to any company by name, Schmidt said that because of Google's success with Android, "competitors are responding with lawsuits as they cannot respond through innovations," although he added that he's "not too worried about this." Schmidt did specifically comment on HTC's current situation, though, and said that "we will make sure they don't lose" in response to a question about whether Google would help foot HTC's legal bills if it lost its case before ITC.
Microsoft and Wistron come to terms in royalty agreement, Android and Chrome OS now targeted
We're seeing a heavy surge in Microsoft's relentless pursuit of licensing deals in light of recent patent-infringement claims. Wistron Corp, a spinoff of Acer, is the latest company to make an agreement with Microsoft in a string of lawsuits and royalty clashes that's spanned the course of two months. While we've seen Android suppliers such as Itronix and Velocity Micro come to agreements with the folks in Redmond, as well as others like Motorola and Barnes & Noble becoming courtroom fodder, this is the first time Chrome OS has been targeted. Wistron's an ODM (original design manufacturer) that supplies other companies with computers, tablets and e-readers using either Google OS, so it's not necessarily a surprise that it signed up for the Microsoft lawsuit prevention plan. Scant details are available aside from the fact that royalties will be collected as a result. Now that Chrome is involved, it not only shows that Team Ballmer isn't backing down, it appears to have even more companies in its crosshairs -- we just wonder who's next on the list. Full (albeit brief) PR after the break.
Apple sues Samsung again for copying the iPhone's design, this time in South Korea
As if Apple and Samsung's patent infringement catfight weren't distracting enough, Apple is recreating the legal spectacle in Samsung's home country of South Korea. Apple just filed a suit against Samsung Electronics in Seoul Central District Court, with Cupertino alleging that the Samsung Galaxy S copies the third-generation iPhone, according to a report from the online news site, MoneyToday. That closely matches the claims Apple made when it it sued Samsung back in April for "slavishly" copying the iPhone and iPad. Since then, Apple's expanded its case to include additional Samsung devices, including the Droid Charge, Infuse 4G, Nexus S 4G, Galaxy Tab 10.1, Galaxy S II, and a handful of others. Meanwhile, Samsung has attempted (in vain) to subpoena prototypes of Apple's next-gen iPhone and iPad. We wouldn't be surprised if Samsung abandoned its efforts to peek Apple's forthcoming products, but if this is, indeed, destined to be a case of déjà vu, Samsung might well strike back with a suit of its own.
iOS developers hit by patent infringement complaints for using in-app purchase
This morning, several iOS developers have tweeted that they have been served with papers regarding their applications' use of in-app purchases. PCalc Lite developer James Thomson tweeted that he received a FedEx package of legal papers this morning. Thomson lives in Scotland. As Thomson clarifies, he hasn't been sued yet, but he's "been told that I am infringing their patent, they want me to license it, and I have 21 days." Chicago-based developer Patrick McCarron confirmed that he too had met with identical circumstances. Both developers have declined to name the party of the complaint, and both will be consulting with Apple, whose in-app purchase mechanism they are using, before making any further statements. Thomson told John Siracusa it was not MacroSolve, a company that has been increasing its enforcement of patents around mobile tech. In-App purchase is the mechanism by which applications can offer upgrades and extended features to customers from inside the application, creating an extended revenue flow after the initial software purchase. Many developers use this feature to provide free-to-paid pathways or to offer upgrades, subscriptions and booster packs. More as this develops. If you are an independent developer served with a similar complaint and would like to discuss it with TUAW, please contact us here. Update: MacRumors suggests this is Lodsys, based on previous claims against some pretty large printer companies and a conversation with developer Rob Gloess over a potential lawsuit surrounding an "upgrade" button in his apps. But the Lodsys patents appear to target "upgrade" mechanisms, not in-app purchases. Of course, the meaning of an in-app purchase to enable certain features or add-ons could be construed as an "upgrade." Still, we as yet have no confirmation that Lodsys is behind the current notices being sent out, but we have reached out to them for comment. Update 2: Both MacRumors and Macworld are reporting independent verification of these claims coming from Lodsys. Well, Lodsys, good luck with that. If you think Apple will roll over and let you scuttle the App Store, you haven't been reading the news for the past several years. Update 3: Nilay Patel tweets that he believes patent portfolio kingpins Intellectual Ventures may be behind this. His tweet: " The patent was assigned to Ferrara Ethereal LLC, which is an IV shell company. They must have given some enforcement rights to Lodsys." It just keeps getting better, doesn't it?
Apple wins first round in patent fight with Nokia
A Judge with the International Trade Commission in Washington has sided with Apple in a dispute Nokia brought claiming the iPhone was violating key patents. Bloomberg News and other wire services report that the ITC has found that Apple isn't violating 5 Nokia patents. Nokia had asked the Commission to bar the sale of the iPhone. Apple doesn't have any comment on the decision today and a Nokia spokesperson in Finland says the company does not agree there has been no violation. The patents in question are related to cameras, battery life, messaging, speakers and the touch screen. Apple has brought its own patent action against Nokia. Another Judge is expected to have a decision on that issue in June. Today's findings by the ITC Judge are subject to review by the six member Commission.
Wintek workers still experience effects from n-hexane exposure, Apple issues a report
It's been a few months since we checked in on the workers at Wintek, where they manufacture touchscreens for the likes of Apple. As you might remember, the former company was facing a lawsuit for chemical poisoning that occurred between May 2008 to August 2009 when the company substituted alcohol for n-hexane in the manufacturing process. Both Apple and Wintek maintain that ultimately a total of 137 people had been hospitalized, and all have recovered -- but as Reuters points out, daily exposure to the chemical has been known to cause "long-term and possibly irreversible nerve damage," and Wintek employees have maintained that the company has left them holding the bag for symptoms that could very well flare up again in the future (or, in some cases, never really went away). "We are unable to cope with the medical costs of treatment in the future," said Guo Ruiqiang, a worker at the plant. "We can only stay in the factory and see what happens. We just feel very helpless now." For Apple's part, the company has mandated that Wintek "work with a consultant to improve their Environmental Health and Safety processes and management systems" in anticipation of a complete reaudit of the facility in 2011. [Warning: PDF More Coverage link]
Eighth Circuit declares RAZR a computer under federal law
There's little doubt that today's smartphones are pocketable computers -- they're equally or more powerful than the desktop PCs of yesteryear -- but what about dumbphones? Well, in US v. Kramer, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals just held that a Motorola Motorazr V3 fits the federal statutory definition for a computer -- and quoted Woz in the opinion: "Everything has a computer in it nowadays." Seems a bit silly to call a RAZR a computer, but courts can only interpret existing laws, not make new ones -- and US law says a computer is "an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions." Because this was the first time a federal appeals court had ruled on the issue, the Eighth Circuit set a precedent that other courts are likely to follow. And yes, the court is aware such a definition may include microwaves and coffee makers, and informed Congress that it should change the law if it doesn't like it. Regardless of whether you agree, this interpretation added some jail time for a guy who pled guilty to trying to engage in sexual activity with a minor, so the mild absurdity of it all is fine by us. Somewhere Chris Hansen is smiling.
