lawsuits
Latest
RIP Think Secret
Always provocative, sometimes right, often wrong, Think Secret was our scandalous favorite rumors site and now it is gone. According to the Settlement page listed at their site, Apple and Think Secret have ended their lawsuit and Nick Ciarelli has shut down the site.Goodbye Think Secret, we'll miss you.Thanks everyone who sent this in.
Microsoft hit with $2.4 million copyright suit in the Philippines
In an unusual situation for a company so vocal about protecting intellectual property rights, Microsoft is being sued for allegedly distributing material copyrighted by a Philippine college -- despite the fact that the material in question seems to have only been given to fellow educational professionals. Southeastern College in Pasay City is suing Microsoft and Microsoft Philippines for 100 million Filipino pesos ($2.4 million) for handing out at least 700 CDs in 2005 and 2006 containing the 379-page "SEC Microsoft Office XP Manual," which had been copyrighted by SEC director Conrad Mañalac in 2005 (although work on it reportedly began in 1999). Apparently 10,000 copies of this same manual had previously been licensed from the school by the company in 2004, and retitled for use in a program to train high school teachers. For its part, Microsoft Philippines denies having "improperly distributed additional copies of the curriculum," although it's a little unclear what the company's actual position is, with the following statement -- emailed to the Inquirer.net -- seeming to indicate that the primary concern right now is protecting the mothership: "They brought this matter to our attention a year ago and we worked hard to resolve it, but without success. For all intents and purposes, this is a purely local matter which does not involve Microsoft Corporation." Um, okay, whatever you say. We'll be interested to see if / how Redmond responds to this one...[Thanks, Mark]Read - Microsoft suedRead - Microsoft issues response
Man sues MS for Xbox Live consumer fraud
A Georgian (the state, not the country) by the name of Francisco Garcia is suing Microsoft over alleged consumer fraud related to Xbox Live. The story? It seems Garcia'a son Silvario used his father's debit card in October of 2005 to sign up for Xbox Live. Garcia, apparently, was unaware of this until the account was automatically renewed a year later. The resulting charge caused Garcia's account to overdraft, imposing a $35 fee. Microsoft has since refunded the subscription fee, though the company did not pay the overdraft fee. Garcia is suing on the grounds that Microsoft broke Georgia law when the company allowed a minor to enter into a contractual relationship using his debit card. Garcia is pressing to have the suit opened to all Georgia Xbox Live customers in similar situations. Microsoft is asking that the case be dismissed, noting that they have proof that Garcia's son misrepresented his age when signing up for the service in the first place. But then we all knew Microsoft would say that. That's why you have to agree to the Terms of Service, kiddies. There's a reason your faced with a wall of text and a big, shiny "Agree" button when you sign up for Xbox Live. Garcia is asking for unspecified damages (at least $35 we're fairly certain), but we have a feeling this isn't going anywhere.[Via Joystiq]
New iPhone class action filed in NY over iPhone SIM lock-in, international roaming fees
You know what they say: let the good times class action lawsuits roll! Or something like that. The latest in what I'm sure is to be a long list of iPhone-related class action lawsuits was filed in New York today over the iPhone's SIM card lock-in, as well as what the plaintiff alleges is Apple withholding of information on roaming data charges. The plaintiff, Herbert H. Kliegerman, wants the iPhone unlock code, and he also wants to restrain Apple from selling iPhones without disclosing both that the included SIM cards are locked to AT&T, and that users could incur roaming data charges when traveling internationally. We have a PDF of the lawsuit (sent to us directly by the plaintiff), but considering the facts that: Kliegerman's complaints seem to have much more to do with AT&T's practices than Apple's US SIM cards, to my knowledge, are always locked to their particular provider, meaning travelers have always had to purchase some kind of other phone service or an international SIM There's plenty of information available at AT&T's site about their international roaming practices, as well as extra plan options to provide for international calls and data usage I don't think Kliegerman has much of a leg to stand on. Plus, he sent this to us himself, which reeks of digging for 15 seconds in the spotlight - but who am I to shoot down his hopes? Anyone, particularly those who travel and know more about US mobile phone company practices, care to place some bets as to how far he'll get with this?
MS blames Xbox "abuse" for deadly fire
Microsoft has now officially responded to an Illinois family's lawsuit in which a fire was allegedly caused by a faulty Xbox console in December of 2004. The fire resulted in the death of an infant, Wade Kline. According to the lawsuit, the fire was caused by an overheating power supply, which became so hot as to start the deadly fire. Microsoft, in response, has stated that the fire was wholly the responsibility of the family, and that it was the result of "misuse or abuse" of the console in question. Furthermore, Microsoft claims that the fire was the result of an "obvious" condition of which the family was aware. Considering Microsoft did not recall power cords until February of 2005 (on account of fire concerns) we're not sure to what obvious condition Microsoft is referring. Microsoft is asking that the case be dismissed and that the Kline family pay the company's legal fees.[Via Joystiq]
Let the iPhone class-action lawsuits begin
I hope somebody somewhere made a bit of cash from betting on when the first iPhone class-action lawsuit would appear, cuz this one gets us off to a strong start: Gizmodo is reporting that Jose Trujillo has filed a lawsuit over one of the most hotly debated un-features of the iPhone: its non-removable battery. Quoting from the lawsuit:The battery enclosed in the iPhone can only be charged approximately 300 times before it will be in need of replacement, necessitating a new battery annually for owners of the iPhone.How anyone could think the iPhone battery's longevity could be any different from the plethora of other Lithium ion-based devices we've been living with for so long is beyond me (especially since it's been officially put to rest time and time again), but I guess in today's world, someone had to fill the village idiot's shoes by using lies and mis-information to bring a lawsuit against this moment's hot new gadget. Anyone want to place bets on just how far this might get?[via The iPod Observer]
Legal rumblings: Microsoft sues Immersion
In an interesting twist of fate, Microsoft has filed suit against Immersion, makers of rumble technology used in game peripherals. If the name Immersion rings a bell, it's because the company filed suit against both Microsoft and Sony in 2002 for patent infringement. Immersion and Microsoft reached a settlement in 2003, in which Microsoft paid $26 million to Immersion for licensing rights and a stake in the company.Apparently, another part of the settlement also stated that Immersion would pay Microsoft "based on certain business and IP licensing arrangements." We're not exactly sure what those arrangements are, but according to Microsoft, Immersion is not living up to its end of the bargain. Hence, a suit has been filed.Microsoft suing Immersion ... what's next, dogs and cats living together?[Via Joystiq]
Sprint rumored to be considering Vonage purchase
At the same time that embattled VoIP provider Vonage attempts to reorganize and cut costs during the company's darkest hour, rumors are beginning to fly that an acquisition may be imminent, and at the top of the list of potential buyers is none other than Sprint-Nextel. You see, not only does Vonage need to litigate its way out of the Verizon mess, it's facing yet another potential setback in September (if it even lasts that long) when an infringement lawsuit brought by Sprint is scheduled to begin. So even if Vonage manages to to fight off the impending permanent injunction, Sprint is waiting in line to take a bite as well, and now Light Reading is reporting that company execs may decide that the best way to settle this dispute is to simply sell Sprint the keys to the office. Now it's pretty obvious why Vonage would want to cash out and dump its mess on another firm, but what does Sprint have to gain from such a deal? It's not clear why the wireless carrier would want to get into the internet telephony game at this point, and even if it did, the court may soon rule that in effect, Vonage doesn't even have anything worth selling -- except maybe its customer list. Obviously we'll be keeping our eye on this, because we have to admit, Vonage is a lot more fun to cover now than it used to be.[Thanks, Travis]
Vonage shakeup: CEO resigns, cost-cutting announced
In a series of events meant to stir things up at a company that many analysts have already written of as dead, Vonage CEO Michael Snyder has resigned on the same day that the pioneering VoIP provider announced a series of cost-cutting maneuvers, including operations consolidation, a reduction in marketing, and predictably, layoffs. Formerly president of ADT, Snyder led the company since February of last year, when he replaced founder and current Chairman of the Board Jeffrey Citron in that role -- the same man who will once again hold the CEO title while replacements are scouted. The shakeup seems to have buoyed investor confidence somewhat following the courtroom setbacks in that Verizon patent suit, with Vonage shares up as much as 13 cents in premarket trading; however, it's a rather hollow victory when you consider that the ~$3.00 stock went for as much as $17.88 this time last year. So while it's good to see Vonage making some proactive moves in the face of what can only be considered a deathwatch, there's only so much the company can do to affect its own fate, and at this point we could be just a ruling or two away from the end.[Photo courtesy of CNET]
Miis vs. Meez vs. WeeMees: most disturbing conflict ever
A whole lot of people want to get a piece of the lucrative "bobble-headed cartoonish humanlike thing with a totally emasculating name" industry. Clickable Culture brings us the saga of Miis, WeeMees, and Meez, three almost-identical takes on almost-identical things with almost-identical names. Back in November, WeeWorld even sued Nintendo over their Miis, but has unsuccessfully tried to bail on the suit when it looked like Nintendo would win. Can't we/Wii/WeeMee/Meez all just get along?More importantly, why would anyone want to create a WeeMee -- which begins life as a creepy, hairless alien with a "fig leaf" covering its crotch?
Apple versus Microsoft
So what's the real difference between Apple and Microsoft? Microsoft tries to bribe bloggers. Apple sues them. It would be hard to come up with a joke as odd as this real-life situation. Someone posted a link to a site that used iPhone screen shots to skin Windows Mobile phones. Let me repeat. It was a link to an external site. He received a cease and desist order from Apple's lawyers. "It has come to our attention that you have posted a screenshot of Apple's new iPhone and links that facilitate the installation of that screenshot on a PocketPC device...While we appreciate your interest in the iPhone, the icons and screenshot displayed on your website are copyrighted by Apple, and copyright law explicitly prohibits unauthorized display and distribution of copyrighted works. Apple therefore demands that you remove this screenshot from your website and refrain from facilitating the further dissemination of Apple's copyrighted material by removing the link to http://forum.xda-developers.com, where said icons and screenshot are being distributed." Between an Acer Ferrari and a cease-and-desist letter? I'd prefer the Acer, thank you very much.
Apple says Cisco lawsuit is "silly"
Oh no they didn't! By now you already know it's on, and the latest round in the iPhone v. iPhone dance-off comes from Apple spokesman Steve Dowling, who was quoted as saying the Cisco lawsuit is "silly" and that several companies are already using the term iPhone for VoIP products. He called Cisco's trademark "tenuous at best" and noted his company was the first to ever use the name for a cellphone. He goes on to boast that Cisco is gonna totally get served: "if Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we're very confident we'll prevail." Oh yeah -- Apple to Cisco: let's see you dance, sucka!
Class action lawsuits filed against Apple
Just when you think Apple's financial woes have begun to recede, Forbes.com alerts us to a slew of recently filed class action lawsuits that all have the big fruit in their sights. First up is yet another complaint alleging that Apple has created a monopoly by tying iTS purchases to the iPod and only the iPod. Even though suits like this have come and gone, the court has interestingly denied Apple's motion to dismiss. Next in line is a suit over the MacBook's iBook G4's "abnormally high rate" of logic board failure. This suit was filed Nov. 7th, and Apple still has time to respond. A third suit is coming from PhatRat Technology LLC, who is calling patent infringement on the Nike+iPod product. A response from Apple is still pending here as well. Last (though possibly not least?) is a securities class action suit against the company and "certain current and former officers and directors" over all this backdated stock option grant business. That's about everything Forbes has on the Apple lawsuit list for now. Think it's still worth it to wish Apple a happy new year?
Patent troll going after AMD for infringement
"Those who can, do; those who can't, sue." Although the original version of this phrase is (unfairly) used to describe teachers, we think that it does a nice job summing up the current state of the consumer electronics industry as well; it seems that nary a week goes by these days without some "intellectual property firm" crying patent infringement against a company that actually makes something, and this time around it's silicon powerhouse AMD being taken to the mat by lawsuit-happy Opti Inc. According to Reg Hardware, do-nothing Opti is suing AMD for violating three of its patents covering "Predictive Snooping of Cache Memory for Master-Initiated Accesses," and is hoping that a jury will decide to ban the sale of those chips which supposedly employ this arcane technology. As a bit of background, Opti started out as a chip developer itself before selling most of its assets to another company called Opti Technologies (no relation); after the sale, Opti Inc. was de-listed from NASDAQ due to a business plan that hinged on "pursuing license revenues from companies we believe are infringing Opti's patents." While it's tempting to dismiss this suit as yet another baseless gold-digging scheme, Opti -- like NTP -- does have a history of prying cash away from big ballers in the industry: in late 2004, the company accused NVIDIA of violating these same patents, and was able to wrest somewhere around $7 million from the graphics powerhouse. Sadly, with Transmeta suing Intel, SGI suing ATI, and now Opti targeting AMD, it looks like most of the PCs we buy next year will be labeled Via Inside.Read- Opti vs. AMDRead- Opti vs. NVIDIA
Pioneer suing Samsung over...well, you know the drill by now
We'd like to take a moment to extend a hearty congratulations to consumer electronics stalwart Pioneer upon its very first entry into the ugly world of patent litigation. The Japanese manufacturer is suing Korea's Samsung Electronics and Samsung SDI -- no stranger to IP lawsuits, as it's also embroiled in disputes with Panasonic and Fujitsu -- for infringement of proprietary technology related to the production of plasma displays. Specifically, Pioneer claims that Samsung is violating patents pertaining to electrode configuration boosting display quality and a manufacturing step that increases display brightness -- pretty serious stuff, we know. For its part, Samsung says that it's planning to file a counter-suit, although this one may be just for posturing, as the company has apparently been in talks with Pioneer since April of last year concerning possible licensing agreements. Reuters points out that this move is the latest in a trend of aggressive intellectual property protection on the part of Japanese firms regarding potential infringement by their Asian rivals, with Panasonic and LG having recently settled a similar PDP-based brouhaha. We'll keep you posted on this one as it slowly winds its way through the courts, but at the very least it seems that investors aren't too concerned with Samsung's culpability here: Pioneer shares gained 0.72% on the news, while Samsung stock actually rose even more, by a total of 2.77%.
SanDisk MP3 seizure at IFA overturned
Just a few days back, Sansa-manufacturer SanDisk was shot down by Sisvel and forced to take down its displays at Berlin's IFA expo, but it seems that some fast-acting (and talking) lawyers have somehow reversed the decision just in time for SanDisk to show their products on the final day of the show. Tangled in lawsuits concerning MP3 patent violations, the company still insists its playback technology isn't infringing on any patents, but Sisvel maintains its insistence that SanDisk should be included in the nearly 600 companies that pay royalties to the licensing firm. Apparently SanDisk wasn't the only company forced to put its show on hiatus, as 19 other outfits had products unexpectedly seized for "similar violations." Sisvel isn't going down without a fight, however, as it has already filed an appeal to have the reversed order un-reversed -- while it may seem a bit redundant (to say the least), it's certainly not out of character for the sue-happy Sisvel, who proudly joins the growing list of "you've got to be kidding me" lawsuits.
Apple settles iTunes UI lawsuit
Someone at Apple has had to keep the checkbook on call lately. After forking over $100m to Creative for an iPod UI patent spat, Apple has just settled a second lawsuit, this time over various basic elements of the iTunes UI and functionality. We reported this way back in June of '05 when Contois Music Technology originally filed their lawsuit alleging that Apple employees witnessed some of their features at a mid-90's trade show, then promptly ripped them off. The list of duplicated features includes sorting music by genre, artist and album, as well as moving music to a portable device. This time around, details of the settlement weren't disclosed, so it's anybody's guess as to how much they had to dig out of the couch cushions. Engadget hit it on the head: patent lawsuits are an ugly, expensive beasts, and Apple probably moved quickly to simply settle and walk away to fight another day. After all, it can't be easy being such a large target on top of the coveted DAP industry - especially when you might have stepped on someone else's toes to get there.
SanDisk busted at IFA, forced to take down display DAPs
Now we've never actually manufactured a product ourselves, but if we had, and we were showing off said product at a major European trade show, we'd be mighty embarrassed if a bunch of lawyer-types showed up at our expensive booth and told us to stash the goods out of public view. Well apparently that's exactly what happened to Sansa-manufacturer SanDisk over the weekend at Berlin's IFA exhibition, after an Italian patent management company called Sisvel convinced a German prosecutor to issue an injunction against the US's number two DAP seller. No surprises here, but the beef that Sisvel has with SanDisk centers around certain MPEG audio patents that many big-name companies -- including Apple, Archos, and Creative, to name just three of over 600 -- have taken seriously enough to license, with SanDisk being the one notable exception. SanDisk and Sisvel are already locked in heated legal battles in several large countries, and until the courts pick a winner or SanDisk decides to pay up, Sisvel wants to make sure that they can only show pictures of their products at events like IFA -- not exactly the best way to impress potential buyers. If we were SanDisk in this situation, we might take a page out of iPod Shuffle knockoff manufacturer Luxpro's book -- you know, the ripoff artists who got busted by Apple legal at CeBIT -- and comply just long enough for the hired guns to leave the building, followed by a mad dash to put the players back up on their displays and put our big fake sales grins back on our faces.
Apple pays $100m to Creative in patent lawsuit settlement
Remember all that talk of Creative beating Apple to the punch with patenting various elements of the iPod's UI? Today these talks came to an end, with Apple whipping out the checkbook, and Creative (I'm assuming) throwing a party. That's right: Apple has shelled out USD $100 million to Creative for "a paid-up license to use Creative's recently awarded patent in all Apple products." Fortunately, Apple might be able to get some of that cash back if Creative is successful in suing their way to profitability licensing their patents to anyone else.There is yet another bright side for Apple, however: Creative has also hopped on board the 'Made for iPod' program, and has a slew of accessories on the way for everyone's favorite little DAP, such as speaker systems, headphones and a family of X-Fi 'audio enhancement products.'Isn't it great when everyone can just get along and play nicely together - especially when $100m says so? Check out Apple's press release for the rest of the details on the settlement.[via MacMinute]
Dell facing slew of Chinese lawsuits over CPU switcheroo
What a difference an "E" makes. Chinese owners of Dell's Inspiron 640m laptop are apparently furious over the fact that the company misleadingly equipped their new machines with Intel's Core Duo T2300E processor instead of the T2300 chip that had been advertised, and are lining up to sue over the alleged defrauding, according to news site China Daily. Since the only real difference between the T2300 and T2300E is the former's support for Intel's Virtualization Technology, the average consumer probably wouldn't even be affected by the cheaper processor, but customers are still understandably peeved that they're not getting all the functionality they paid for. The discrepancy was first discovered in early June by a single owner, who by way of an online bulletin board, learned that hundreds of other unhappy customers were afflicted with the same problem. The owner filed suit against Dell in late July after having apparently been rebuffed in an attempt to get the CPU swapped out (""I tried to negotiate with Dell and simply asked them to change the CPU, but they said there was no difference between the two and it was unnecessary to change," claims the owner); now 19 more customers have joined together for their own class-action suit, with many more waiting in the wings, according to lawyers handling the cases. For its part, Dell claims the mix-up stems from a failure to update its Chinese marketing materials, and has issued affected customers both an apology and an offer to refund the full price of returned machines -- but at this point, that doesn't seem to be enough for many of the folks involved. It's unfortunate that it took a big public stink for Dell to own up to its mistake and attempt a resolution, but as with the just-announced, historic battery recall, this incident proves just how powerful a determined group of individuals can be.Read- Chinese lawsuits [Via Ars Technica]Read- Dell's response
