lawyers
Latest
Judge refuses to block the release of ‘The Laundromat’ on Netflix
A judge in Connecticut has refused to block the release of The Laundromat, which arrived on Netflix today. Earlier this week, the lawyers portrayed in the film filed a defamation claim, arguing that the movie unfairly cast them in a negative light. As Deadline reports, Judge Janet Bond Arterton has refused to issue the injunction, but only because Arterton says the Connecticut court had no jurisdiction over the issue. Instead, the case will be transferred to California.
Copyright troll lawyer is finally disbarred for fraud
While it is illegal to download copyrighted files from file-sharing sites, it is also against the law to extort downloaders. John L. Steele, a Chicago lawyer who pled guilty to perjury, fraud and money laundering resulting from alleged "honeypot" schemes, has just been disbarred by an Illinois court. Both Steele and his law partner, Paul Hasmeier, were indicted last March for uploading porn videos that they acquired through sham companies in the West Indies and then suing whomever downloaded them, resulting in a staggering $6 million in settlement fees. That's quite a honeypot.
Lawyer in copyright-trolling porn shakedown pleads guilty
Copyright issues typically follow big companies legally challenging folks who upload protected content without their say-so. But the two lawyers behind Prenda Law took file-sharing infringement to a bizarre level when they uploaded porn videos and laid in wait to sue anyone who downloaded them, raking in an incredible $6 million in extracted settlement fees. Both John Steele and Paul Hasmeier were indicted in mid-December for perjury, fraud and money laundering, and yesterday Steele pled guilty to the latter two. A porn troll has fallen.
New Media Rights: You gotta fight for your right to be an indie developer
Imagine you're a game developer, working on an independent project for two years. You spend $10,000 of your own savings on assets, artists and sound designers, and finally you release the game for $0.99, expecting to break even, maybe, in a few years. Three months after launch, you get a letter from a lawyer yelling at you in all capital letters, alleging you've violated federal statutes and if you don't take your game down immediately, you'll be sued for everything you're worth, and your friends and family are going down with you.What would you do?This is the cautionary tale that Shaun Spalding, the Assistant Director of New Media Rights, tells us as an introduction to what his group can do for independent developers at all levels. In this situation, "You'd freak out, right?" Spalding says. "The problem is, a lot of times these letters are completely bogus, or overreaching and deceptive."New Media Rights helps independent developers, filmmakers and startups sort through the BS, and offers professional legal assistance on a range of issues that they face every day. These are services that usually cost $300 to $500 an hour – and New Media Rights does it all for free.
Samsung: 'Lawyers didn't design the Galaxy S III'
Samsung design VP Chang Dong-hoon has refuted accusations that the Galaxy S III was designed "by lawyers." Responding to the reports that stated the new handset was tweaked to circumvent deliberate trade dress claims made by Cupertino in its lawsuit, he said that the redesign is part of the company's five-year plan rather than a sudden change. He went on to say that the flagship went through hundreds of iterations before the team alighted upon the model that will shortly make its way into sweaty palms all over the world.
Portions of Twinity virtual world taken offline
Twinity users are experiencing a bit of lawyerly inconvenience according to virtual world blogger Tateru Nino. Portions of the Metaversum GmbH sim have been taken offline for unspecified reasons, and Nino speculates that "someone's team of undead zombie lawyers woke up and started asserting intellectual property rights and licensing restrictions." The Twinity project makes use of both Google Maps and 3-D data to recreate cities like Singapore, London, Miami, and New York, but patrons will need to put their online party plans on hold for the time being. Twinity's dev team posted a cryptic explanation, along with its intent to "try to reactivate the cities in the future."
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.
Apple could face huge potential loss if Motorola wins in German court
So far, Apple has been faring pretty well on the various patent disputes it's currently fighting against Samsung and other companies, but Apple's own lawyers agree that stakes are higher than usual in a German case that Motorola has filed against the company. If a German court upholds the order that's trying to halt sales of Apple products in that country because of the patent dispute, Apple says it might lose as much as US$2.7 billion in potential sales. Apple's legal team is arguing that if the order does indeed go through, Motorola should have to put that money up in a bond while the case is still under investigation by the courts. But a lot of this is legal posturing -- as the judge in the hearing says, he's "not yet entirely sure that amount adequately mirrors the commercial value of this dispute." Obviously Apple wants the bond to be as high as possible; if Motorola flinches and can't put up the bond when asked, the case could be weakened. At any rate, there's plenty of time to decide, since the court's ruling isn't due until February 3. It seems unlikely that Motorola could stop Apple's sales in Germany completely, but it sounds like if Motorola pushes to do so, Apple will try to make it pay.
Samsung modifies Galaxy smartphones to satisfy Dutch court, plans to resume sales soon
Earlier this summer, a judge in The Netherlands ruled to ban sales of Samsung Galaxy S, S II and Ace smartphones, stating that the devices violated an Apple patent which deals with a "method of scrolling." Well, nearly two months have passed, and Samsung is just now getting around to releasing "upgraded" versions of the affected devices, presumably implementing a non-infringing scroll tool. A Samsung spokesman told Reuters that the three phones will "shortly be available for sale," neglecting to provide an exact release date -- so we wouldn't suggest lining up to get your Galaxy S II fix just yet. This small victory is only the latest in the Apple / Samsung lawsuit saga, which has created quite a stir in a handful of courts around the world. We have yet to hear about a solution to the Galaxy Tab 10.1 ban in Australia, for example, where fingers are being pointed in every direction.
Activision wins ruling, regains control of ModernWarfare3.com
The issue of the web domain ModernWarfare3.com, originally spotted thanks to a (presumably unofficial) Battlefield 3 promotion and later outed by DNS service GoDaddy, has been settled. You guessed it: Activision and its lawyers have prevailed. The National Arbitration Forum has decided unanimously in favor of the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 publisher, saying that the three criteria necessary for a domain name transfer (that the name is confusing, the holder has no real interest in the domain name, and the name is "being used in bad faith") have all been met. The three-member panel has ordered that the domain name be transferred back to Activision. Currently, the domain name appears to be offline, but we presume it'll redirect right into the official Modern Warfare 3 site as soon as Activision is done. Too bad for Battlefield 3 fan and Florida resident Anthony Abraham, who tried to argue both fair use, and that the term "modern warfare" was generic enough to have a life outside of the video game world. Hopefully he's still got ElderScrolls5.com sitting in his back pocket, just waiting for a competitor to promote.
Netherlands judge rules that Samsung Galaxy S, S II violate Apple patents, bans sales (updated)
A judge in The Hague just issued a ruling in Apple's patent infringement case against Samsung, prohibiting "the marketing of Samsung smartphones Galaxy S, S II and Ace for violation of Apple Inc. EP 2,059,868." In an official press release, the court explains that The Hague judge ruled to "ban trading of Samsung smartphones Galaxy S, S II and Ace," adding that Samsung also violated other did not violate Apple patents with its Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1v. The judge determined that Samsung violated patent 2,059,868, which deals with "method of scrolling," but did not infringe 2,098,948 for "recording a flag in connection with multiple screen taps," or 1,964,022, which relates to dragging a slider to unlock the phone. We haven't been able to confirm, but from an online translation it appears that The ban will remain in effect through begin on October 13th. Hit up the source link for the full 65-page verdict (in Dutch). Update: A dutch IP attorney has pointed out that the judge has ruled patent 1,964,022 to be null and void, meaning Apple can no longer make claims in the Netherlands based on this patent. The judge also found that Samsung did not infringe on patent 2,098,948. The infringement of 2,059,868 does not affect the Galaxy Tab 10.1. (Correction: the main patent in question is 2,059,868 not 2,058,868.) Update 2: According to Tweakers.net, Samsung says that it will replace the software that infringes on Apple's patent (the Gallery application, specifically), which should allow it to continue to sell the phones. Notably, that Gallery application is the standard Android one used in Android 2.3, which also explains why the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is not affected by this ruling. Less clear is what the ruling means for other Android phones that use the same application. Update 3: Samsung Mobile's Kim Titus released the following statement: Today's ruling is an affirmation that the GALAXY range of products is innovative and distinctive. With regard to the single infringement cited in the ruling, we will take all possible measures including legal action to ensure that there is no disruption in the availability of our GALAXY smartphones to Dutch consumers. This ruling is not expected to affect sales in other European markets. Samsung has a proud history of innovation in the mobile industry. We will continue our plans to introduce new products and technologies that meet and exceed consumer expectations. And we will defend our intellectual property rights through the ongoing legal proceedings around the world. [Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
Minecraft studio threatened with suit by Bethesda over 'Scrolls' title
Not exactly unexpectedly, about four hours ago Markus "Notch" Persson -- creator of Minecraft and head of Mojang Specifications -- received a letter from a Swedish law firm representing Bethesda Softworks. It claimed that his company's trademark of the word "Scrolls" for use with a currently-in-development game was infringing on Bethesda's own trademark, "The Elder Scrolls," and requested "a pile of money up front" before things could proceed. But Notch could've guessed it was coming. Writing on his Tumblr page, Notch explains that "about half a year ago," his company's legal team suggested registering "Minecraft" as a trademark. In the process, Mojang also filed to register "Scrolls," killing two birds with one stone. Notch writes that "A while later, out of the blue, we got contacted by Bethesda's lawyers. They wanted to know more about the 'Scrolls' trademark we were applying for, and claimed it conflicted with their existing trademark 'The Elder Scrolls.'" At the time, Mojang responded by offering what Notch calls a compromise: "We'd agree to never put any words in front of 'Scrolls,' and instead call sequels and other things something along the lines of 'Scrolls - The Banana Expansion.'" In his piece, he says that he's not sure if Mojang ever heard back. Fast-forward to this afternoon, and a "15-page letter" from a Swedish law firm, on behalf of Bethesda, arrives for Notch (pictured above). He says it's threatening a lawsuit if Mojang refuses "to stop using the name 'Scrolls,'" and that Bethesda will sue should that be necessary. Regardless of the current situation, Notch notes at the top of his piece, "I love Bethesda. I assume this nonsense is partly just their lawyers being lawyers, and a result of trademark law being the way it is." Here's hoping that compromise works out, and Notch is somehow legally bound to name the first Scrolls DLC "The Banana Expansion." Update: This piece was originally headlined "Minecraft studio being sued by Bethesda over 'Scrolls' title," and has since been amended to more accurately reflect the situation.
New York Times, OpinionLab sue Lodsys seeking declaratory judgement
Indie developers turned to the Web hours after receiving warning letters from Lodsys last month, but larger devs took a more traditional approach, leaving the communication and finger-pointing to lawyers instead. Two such companies, the New York Times and OpinionLabs, came to light after filing suit against the patent troll yesterday, seeking declaratory judgements to invalidate Lodsys's patents. A nine-page complaint filed by NYT lists four Lodsys patents, including 7,222,078, which had previously been used to target smaller developers. NYT's ad click-through system and OpinionLabs' surveys were both also targeted, and if the suits are successful, Lodsys would be responsible for all legal expenses, and wouldn't be allowed to collect on its patents in the future. We spoke with Julie Samuels of the EFF, who explained that filing for a declaratory judgment could theoretically enable NYT and OpinionLabs to have trials held in California and Illinois, where the declaratory judgments were filed, instead of the Eastern District of Texas -- the notoriously plaintiff-friendly court where Lodsys filed its suit against seven devs on May 31st. Other devs who received letters but have not yet been sued can also do the same. The suits brought by NYT and OpinionLabs formally call the validity of Lodsys's patents into question, but unfortunately don't change the game for devs Lodsys already sued, who would still be responsible for licensing fees and other damages if the court determines the patents to be valid (and their apps to be infringing).
Lodsys hits devs with lawsuit, $1,000 offer, and 1,000 words of eloquent prose
Are you sick of hearing from Lodsys? We know devs are, but the rather outspoken patent troll is at it again, hitting the blog to defend its good name. Hidden among today's posts is an announcement that the firm is taking the next steps with its accusations, filing a lawsuit against some of the developers it previously targeted and, get this, blaming Apple. It explains: "Lodsys chose to move its litigation timing to an earlier date than originally planned, in response to Apple's threat, in order to preserve its legal options." We're not sure which developers are targeted by this suit, specifically, but the firm has promised a $1,000 payment to each dev, "if it turns out that the scope of Apple's existing license rights apply to fully license you with respect to our claim relating to your App on Apple iOS." Devs may be tempted to spend that promised gift on a well-deserved vacation (or a WWDC conference pass), but with layers of LLCs protecting the man behind the curtain at Lodsys, we wouldn't be surprised it the firm disappeared before anyone sees a cent (or 99) of payment. Unfortunately, it appears that the saga continues, so if you've had enough of the patent troll, feel free to enjoy the rest of our content, Lodsys free. [Thanks, Andrew] Update: We've been told that the list of devs named in the lawsuit include: Combay, Iconfactory, Illusion Labs, Shovelmate, Quickoffice, Richard Shinderman, and Wulven Game Studios.
Lodsys shifts in-app purchasing target to Android devs following Apple response
We figured Apple's firm response to Lodsys earlier this week regarding its claims against iOS devs would prompt the patent holder to move on to its next target, and sure enough, it looks as if said target has been selected. Unfortunately, a group of Android app devs have now found themselves in the Texas-based company's crosshairs, which is citing the same patent infringement that Apple recently addressed, relating specifically to in-app upgrade purchases. As was the case with the last round of letters, Lodsys is demanding licensing fees from small, individual developers, who don't have the resources to fight back. Lodsys appears to be maintaining its trend of ignoring media requests, so we're keeping an eye on the patent troll's blog to see if anyone comes up to the surface to defend this latest round of allegations. In the meantime, plugging your ears while humming and ignoring the mailman might not be such a bad idea... you know, if you do this kind of thing for a living.
Apple responds to Lodsys infringement accusations, says developers are not responsible
Apple has responded to developers targeted by Lodsys, a patent holding firm that accused iOS devs of infringing on its intellectual property covering in-app upgrade purchases. In a letter from Apple dated today, the company claims that Lodsys's accusations are baseless, and explains that devs, or "App Makers," are "entitled to use this technology free from any infringement claims by Lodsys," because Apple has already licensed the technology on their behalf. Apple's response is firm, and as expected, the company is in full support of developers. Jump past the break for the full letter from Apple legal.
Lodsys vs. Apple Devs: EFF helps us dig deeper
The developers targeted by Lodsys's patent infringement accusations last week have been in a sleepless holding pattern, awaiting response from Apple before making their next moves. Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) staff attorney Julie Samuels says that Apple legal is likely hard at work reviewing the patent in question, however, and should be in touch soon. Though it's very unlikely that Cupertino won't offer assistance, devs will also be able to turn to EFF for advice, where they may even be paired with pro bono patent attorneys. Besides offering this bit of good news, Samuels was able to help us dig deeper into Lodsys, and the dirty business of patent suits. To get some perspective, we reached out to Lodsys CEO Mark Small and EFF (which tends to side with developers). We have yet to hear back from Mr. Small, but EFF was kind enough to give us its take on the situation. Click through for the full rundown.
Lodsys comments on iOS patent infringement, receives hate mail, death threats
We'd typically expect a plaintiff to remain mum with legal action pending, but in a bizarre twist, Lodsys has taken to its blog to defend its reputation -- or something. You may recall the patent holding firm's letter, sent to individual Apple iOS developers last week demanding licensing fees for a somewhat-obscure patent. Understandably, the letters and related coverage prompted a negative response from developers and supporters. Posts to the Lodsys blog may be in response to inappropriate emails received over the weekend, which include death threats and "hateful bile" sent to Mark Small, the firm's CEO. Click on through for full details.
Lodsys warns iOS devs, alleges in-app purchases infringe its patent
A handful of iOS developers received letters this week from a patent holding firm claiming that their applications that offer in-app purchases infringe on the firm's intellectual property (IP). The letter threatens legal action if developers don't license the patent within 21 days. Lodsys, the firm in question, has apparently patented a system that collects usage data and facilitates feedback between a customer and vendor, though it doesn't address financial transactions specifically. The allegedly infringing applications use Apple's in-app purchase tool to encourage users to upgrade to a paid version after downloading a free app. Though it's possible that Lodsys has sent a similar warning to Apple, only individual developers confirmed receiving the document. This makes us wonder if the company is skipping the well-armed big target in favor of the little guys. Several developers posted on Twitter after receiving the letters, including Patrick McCarron (Shanghai for iPad), James Thomson (PCalc), and Matt Braun (MASH). They're understandably unwilling to share too many details at this point -- even though Apple developed the framework, developers could still be liable. Lodsys appears to be in the business of launching suits referencing U.S. patent 7,222,078, having gone after Canon, HP, Samsung, and other giants earlier this year. As the developers that have come to light so far are independent, with limited budgets, some have reached out to Apple legal for assistance, and are awaiting response. We aren't seeing the connection between the patent and in-app purchases, though that's ultimately up to a federal court to determine, if the firm even files a lawsuit. Drama in its finest form, folks.
Apple sues Samsung for 'copying' the iPhone and iPad
Whoa! In the world of big-time lawsuits, this must be just about the biggest. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Apple has sued Samsung Electronics for copying "the look and feel" of its iPad tablet and iPhone smartphone. This relates to the Samsung Galaxy S 4G, which bears more than a passing resemblance to the iPhone 3G / 3GS models, and the slightly less obvious Epic 4G, Nexus S, and Galaxy Tab (presumably the older 7-inch model, since the newer ones aren't out yet) devices. The claim for intellectual property infringement is phrased as follows: "Rather than innovate and develop its own technology and a unique Samsung style for its smart phone products and computer tablets, Samsung chose to copy Apple's technology, user interface and innovative style in these infringing products." The lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California on Friday and seeks injunctions against Samsung, damages (both actual and punitive), and a finding that the infringement was willful. Lest we forget, the rarest outcome in such legal tussles is for an actual judgment to actually be handed down, so the greatest likelihood is that this will just lead to another round of grudging handshakes and licensing going one way with money going the other way, but still, it's fun to see the big dogs barking at each other. Another aspect to these proceedings that shouldn't be overlooked is that, on the software front, they boil down to iOS versus Android (again). When Apple calls Samsung uninventive in its user interface, it's talking more about Android's perceived imitation of the iPhone's interface than whatever TouchWiz tweaks Samsung has slapped on top. And hey, if you're going to sue Google indirectly, you can't leave a major player like Samsung outside the courtroom, it just wouldn't be fair.
