Legal
Latest
Judges have more discretion to punish patent trolls, but they probably won't
The US Supreme Court just gave judges a little more leverage to punish patent trolls: it defined the word "exceptional." A provision of federal patent law hinged on the definition of the word, stating that the court could charge a lawsuit's losing party with the winner's attorney fees in "exceptional cases." It sounds straightforward: if a lawsuit is obviously frivolous, the patent troll pays its victim's costs. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court said, precedent from a previous case left the rule with "an inflexible framework onto statutory text that is inherently flexible." In other words, it was too difficult to define exactly how exceptional a case was, making it nearly impossible to implement punitive fee-shifting.
Mt. Gox settles class-action lawsuit by turning customer creditors into owners
More good news for those who entrusted Bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox with their cryptocurrency. After filing for bankruptcy earlier this year, Mt. Gox found some 200,000 Bitcoins last month, and today it has tentatively settled its class-action lawsuit in the US. In exchange for dropping the case, customers will become part owners in the new Mt. Gox -- a group of investors is set to purchase and revive the failed exchange -- to the tune of 16.5 percent. Additionally, class members get to split up those rediscovered Bitcoins and another $20 million currently being held by Mt. Gox's bankruptcy administrator. The settlement, naturally, is contingent upon both the US court agreeing to the terms and a Japanese bankruptcy court approving the deal for Mt. Gox's sale. And, bear in mind that US beneficiaries of the settlement don't get priority over anyone else, nor do they get the full ownership stake in the new Mt. Gox. The settlement terms would apply to creditors throughout the world, and the benefits of the deal will be shared equally amongst them. Mt. Gox is dead. Long live Mt. Gox. [Image Credit: AP Photo/Shizuo Kambayashi]
Apple and others reach settlement agreement in anti-poaching class action suit
The anti-poaching class action lawsuit that embroiled a number of high profile tech companies has come to an end. The New York Times reports that Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe all reached settlement agreements with the plaintiffs party to the dispute. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed, but the plaintiffs had argued that the lost wages added up to $3 billion. Three smaller settlements with other defendants, which included Lucasfilm, Pixar and Intuit, were reached last year for $20 million. "This is an excellent resolution of the case that will benefit class members," Kelly M. Dermody, a lawyer at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, the plaintiffs' legal team, said in a statement. "We look forward to presenting it to the court and making the terms available." If you recall, Apple and slew of other tech companies entered into anti-poaching agreements from 2005 through 2009 whereby parties to the agreement all agreed not to recruit employees from one another. The class action suit was subsequently brought forth by five software engineers in 2011 who alleged that the anti-poaching agreements minimized their job prospects and ultimately worked to compress employee salary rates in Silicon Valley. The lawsuit made headlines many times over, often because filed court documents relayed interesting email exchanges between some of tech's most high-powered executives. For instance, some emails revealed that Steve Jobs at one point intimated that Apple might sue Palm if Palm didn't agree to stop recruiting Apple employees. In another instance, emails revealed that Steve Jobs angrily called Google co-founder Sergey Brin over Google's efforts to recruit Safari employees.
Google offered to help Samsung with Apple patent battle costs
Confirming what a lot of us thought already, Google is more than a little interested in Apple and Samsung's continuing court battle. New evidence revealed by Apple's lawyers outlines emails from Google that offered to foot some of the damages (if Samsung lost), as well as cover part of the legal costs in the current trial. This would cover two of the five patents that Apple is fighting over. Google lawyer James Maccoun confirmed that it would help Samsung as part of the Mobile Application Distribution Agreement, the framework that allows Samsung to use Google-made apps on its Android devices. According to Maccoun's taped deposition: "As I read it, Google's essentially offering to defend Samsung to the MADA and does offer to defend some [patent] claims."
What you need to know about Aereo's battle with broadcast television
Today, the United States Supreme Court will spend one hour hearing the latest arguments in an old, important debate that affects everyone watching television in the US: Who owns the airwaves? ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and others use the broadcast frequencies our TV antennas pick up; the government regulates those frequencies; and cable companies pay broadcasters to re-broadcast those frequencies. But the answer to who owns them remains nebulous. That is at the heart of today's case -- "American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., et al. v. Aereo, Inc." -- being decided by the highest court in the United States. And the decision stands to leave a massive impact on how Americans consume television, regardless of which side wins.
Elder Scrolls Online accidentally bans legitimate accounts
Mark this down in the "oops!" category: ZeniMax admitted that it got a little too zealous in its war against EULA breakers in Elder Scrolls Online by accidentally banning some players who had done no wrong. "As part of our continuing effort to combat gold spammers, botters and exploiters, we recently banned a number of accounts," the studio posted. "After several players appealed, we were able to investigate the matter further and discovered some legitimate accounts got caught up in the sweep. We unbanned accounts last night, and have email responses going out for those affected from our support group. It is never our intention for legitimate players to be harmed as we work to keep your game free of cheaters, and we sincerely apologize for the mistake." ZeniMax also said that this past week's maintenance accidentally deleted some characters' bank expansions and the items held inside of them. The studio put up a process how to regain those slots and items if it happened to you.
Ahead of Supreme Court trial, Aereo opens lobbying and advocacy site
The United States Department of Justice says that streaming TV service Aereo is violating copyright law. Aereo, unsurprisingly, disagrees. In five days, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments from both sides. The former has already made its case to the Supreme Court in a filing; today, Aereo fights back with its own lobbying effort: a website named "Protect My Antenna" that both makes arguments for Aereo's position and compiles various legal documents for the public to read. "We remain steadfast in our conviction that Aereo's cloud-based antenna and DVR technology falls squarely within the law," Aereo CEO Chet Kanojia said in an email to users announcing the site.
Before the iPhone was announced, Android didn't support touchscreen input
Ahead of Apple revealing its first smartphone, Google's plans for Android back in 2006 involved physical keys for control and no touchscreen input support. Revealed in court documents from the ensuing Apple-Samsung legal fray, the early specification says that "the product [Android] was designed with the presence of discrete physical buttons as an assumption. However, there is nothing fundamental in the product's architecture that prevents the support of touchscreen in the future." (The above render is from Google's initial SDK, but by then, touchscreen integration was now part of the official spec.) In this 2006 documentation, many of the Android staples (both in software and hardware) get a mention, including removable storage, third-party application support, widgets, notifications and all those Google services. Between the announcement of the iPhone and finalizing Android's software requirements, touchscreen input was not only supported -- multi-input touch was required, and our phones were never the same again.
Apple refuses to join Intellectual Ventures' new patent acquisition fund
Intellectual Ventures is a patent holding company that's often referenced as an example of widescale and aggressive patent trolling. Co-founded by former Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold, Intellectual Ventures likes to spin its business model as creating a net benefit for the tech industry, a position which of course has earned the company more than its fair share of detractors. To put the scale of Intellectual Ventures into perspective, the company currently boasts more than 70,000 patents in its portfolio. While Apple, not to mention a slew of other tech companies, are already investors in the company, Reuters reports that the good folks over in Cupertino recently declined an offer to join Microsoft, Sony, and others to join Intellectual Ventures' most recent acquisition fund which reportedly seeks to raise $3 billion to further future patent acquisition sprees. Last year IV curtailed patent acquisitions as it sought new investors, and IV now is ramping up, say three sources familiar with IV's activity in the patent market. "Microsoft and Sony's investments give IV a fresh war chest to buy new patents," said Kevin Jakel, chief executive of Unified Patents, which advises tech companies on alternatives to patent aggregators like IV. But Apple and Intel's decision is significant because the biggest tech companies have supported IV in the past. "This would be a dramatic departure," Jakel said. In recent months, Apple has become noticeably more vocal in denouncing patent trolls. This past February we reported that Apple, since 2009, has been the target of over 190 patent infringement lawsuits from non practicing entities. What's more, Apple recently revealed that they employ two attorneys "just to respond to letters that demand royalties."
According to Samsung, Apple is a slouchy, cool dude
We've heard plenty of internal tidbits about Apple's interworkings thanks to the company's current litigation, but tasty details about Samsung's laundry have been a bit slower to surface. Today brings a humorous look inside Samsung's walls thanks to a company-made slideshow that has been submitted as evidence. The presentation casts stock photo actors to play the roles of each of Samsung's competitors, and it's good for a chuckle or two. First we have Google as the regular young professional, Nokia as the old-but-still-with-it patriarch, Sony-Ericsson as a MySpace model who didn't shower today, and of course Apple as the young dude who doesn't care that his chair is way too low. Samsung is portrayed as a straight-faced, white collar board room king, and then the slide asks who Samsung should really be. The slides were definitely whipped up in short order, and the photos are pretty standard stock fare, but I have to admit I find it pretty funny that the Apple dude is the only one who doesn't seem to give a damn about the camera. He's kicking back with his whatever-it-is-he's-holding and definitely has good taste in art, as evidenced by that painting on the wall. [via Vox]
Apple, April 2013: 'Consumers want what we don't have'
The ongoing Apple-Samsung trial is unearthing some interesting behind-closed-door secrets on both sides. Something we hadn't seen in the preceding legal tussles however, and presented by Recode, was a handful of slides from an Apple internal meeting in April 2013 regarding its plans for 2014. Alongside the slowing growth of iPhone sales, the research noted that overall smartphone growth was from cheap and large (well, larger than the current iPhone) devices -- both of which Apple had nothing to compete with. As the slide put it: "Consumers want what we don't have." The slide also includes some other reasons for concern, including the carriers' "strong interest in capping iPhone" sales because of its already-high market share, a tough subsidy premium and some (not mentioned) "unfriendly" policies -- consider that lack of carrier-sanctioned bloatware on your iPhone. Apple also admitted that the mobile competition had also "drastically improved their hardware and in some cases their ecosystems," while at the same time, some Android phone-makers were spending "obscene" sums on advertising or carriers to gain traction. Now, which company could Apple possibly mean?
Apple files motion protesting Samsung assertion that Apple doesn't practice patents at issue
Apple and Samsung have only been at it for a day and already the two companies are squabbling. In a motion filed earlier this afternoon, Apple expressed displeasure with the fact that Samsung, during its opening argument, asserted that Apple doesn't practice the patents it's asserting against the Korean tech giant. Consequently, Apple filed a motion seeking permission from the court to present evidence and testimony which would serve to prove that Apple "has practiced and continues to practice the '414, '172, and '959 patents." In the interest of clarification the aforementioned patents relate to Asynchronous data synchronization, predictive typing, and unified search, respectively. Apple's motion reads in part: During opening statements, Samsung's counsel repeatedly made irrelevant, misleading, and even untrue statements that have undoubtedly caused the jury to form impressions that are highly prejudicial to Apple. Over and over again, Samsung's counsel represented that Apple has never practiced the '414, '172, and '959 patents-even though, as Samsung knows, Apple has sold and continues to sell products that use each of Apple's asserted patents. The Court's order limiting Apple's ability to contend that it practices the '414, '172, and '959 patents at trial does not (and cannot) permit Samsung to affirmatively present false factual statements to the jury; but now that Samsung has done precisely that, Apple should be permitted to respond with testimony and evidence demonstrating that Apple practices those patents. What's more, Apple wants Judge Lucy Koh to instruct the jury that whether or not a party practices an asserted patent is irrelevant towards the issues of patent infringement and validity. Apple's motion also seeks a revised jury instruction in the wake of Samsung mentioning the injunctive relief Apple is seeking. Apple contends that in referencing the idea of a permanent injunction, Samsung is prejudicing the jury. Permanent injunctive relief is an equitable remedy for the Court-and the Court alone-to decide following the jury's verdict. Samsung is asking the jurors to decide this case based on the consequences of their verdict, not the facts or the law. Samsung's statement risks that the jury will think that Apple is not entitled to damages or, even worse, that it should find no liability to avoid the possibility of an injunction. It is an improper invitation to jury nullification. Koh subsequently ordered Samsung to file a response to Apple's motion by 6:00 PM today. A determinative judgement on the motion should be coming soon. I''ve uploaded Apple's motion to Scribd, along with a transcript of Samsung's opening statement which contains a number of excerpts Apple took umbrage with. Apple Uses Patents And here's the transcript of Samsung's opening statement. Transcript Opening Statments
Apple/Samsung trial, day 1: Phil Schiller was extremely concerned with Samsung's advertising efforts
Day 1 of Apple and Samsung's second California trial is now in the books. On Tuesday, both Apple and Samsung presented their opening arguments, with both sides naturally presenting vastly different takes on the smartphone revolution. Apple of course contends that Samsung piggy-backed off of its hard work, blatantly copying many of Apple's design decisions and patented technologies. Attorney Harold McElhinny, representing Apple via the law firm Morrison Foerster, said that Samsung's products may very well infringe upon 50 of Apple's patents, but asserting every patent wouldn't be feasible. So instead, McElhinny articulated that Apple decided to assert 5 patents that together were infringed by 37 million Samsung phone and tablet sales. While much has been made of Google taking a more prominent role in this second trial, McElhinny emphasized that "It's Samsung, not Google selling these phones. It's Samsung making these things, and infringing." All told, Apple is seeking $2 billion in damages, a lofty figure that many in the tech/legal realm seem to agree is rather excessive. Addressing this very point, McElhinny reportedly said during opening arguments that "the reason the damages are high are because the scope of Samsung's infringement was massive." Most notable from Tuesday's proceedings is that Apple's Phil Schiller took the stand where we learned that Apple's marketing chief was keenly aware of and concerned with a January 2013 Wall Street Journal article titled, "Has Apple Lost Its Cool to Samsung?" Following the publication of that article, Schiller reportedly sent an email to Apple's ad agency stating that "We have a ton of work to do to turn this around." Also of note is that Samsung, when cross-examining Schiller, noted that Apple's marketing chief was "obsessed" Samsung's youth-based advertising efforts, even going so far as to tell Tim Cook that Apple should consider a new ad firm. Apple of course kept its ad agency -- TBWA\Chiat\Day -- and over the last few months we've some of the best Apple ads we've seen in some time. Court proceedings will resume this coming Friday.
Judge Cote grants class action status to consumers in e-book lawsuit
Reuters is reporting that a federal judge has given consumers the go-ahead to proceed with a class action lawsuit against Apple for colluding with a number of publishing houses to raise the price of e-books. U.S. District Judge Denise Cote said the plaintiffs had "more than met their burden" to allow them to sue as a group. She rejected Apple's contentions that the claims were too different from each other, or that some plaintiffs were not harmed because some e-book prices fell. "This is a paradigmatic antitrust class action," wrote Cote, who has scheduled a trial later this year to determine damages, which could reach hundreds of millions of dollars. Of course, Apple's ongoing e-book price fixing saga with the US Justice Department and U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in particular is not without its fair share of controversy. Recall that Apple expressed major reservations about Cote choosing Michael Bromwich to serve as the company''s external anti-trust compliance monitor, even attempting, albeit unsuccessfully, to remove him. What's more, those who feel Apple has been getting a raw deal in all of this have pointed out that Cote, in the past, has been accused of pre-determining which side she favors in a legal dispute. That said, it's worth pointing out that the Reuters report relays that Cote this past Friday "denied Apple's motion to exclude the opinions of Apple's two damages" while at the same time deciding to throw "out the opinions of Apple's two damages experts, saying they were not based on 'rigorous application of economic methods.'" And speaking of economics, and with respect to Cote's statement that Apple's e-book saga represents a "paradigmatic antitrust class action", two Professors of Economics earlier this month published a 30-page amici curiae brief articulating that Judge Cote's ruling in favor of the US Justice Department was completely misguided and belied a fundamental lack of understanding of economics. The brief, put together by Bradford Cornell from CalTech and Janusz Ordover of NYU, reads in part: Efficient markets depend on firms acting in their independent business interests. In this case, the District Court's failure to consider the economics of the vertical agreements between Apple and the Publisher Defendants led it to infer that Apple facilitated and participated in a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy. The District Court never considered evidence and economic reasoning that the vertical agreements were in Apple's independent business interest in entering e-book retailing, wholly apart from any horizontal conspiracy. The provisions of the agreements at issue-agency, 'most-favored-nation' (MFN) clauses, and price caps-can be instrumental in facilitating new entry, particularly into markets with an entrenched, dominant firm. In this case, the District Court disregarded economic evidence and reasoning that these provisions served Apple's independent business interest in entering the e-book market, where Amazon was a near-monopolist. The District Court also ignored economic evidence and reasoning suggesting that Apple's entry into e-book retailing, and not the MFNs, allowed the Publisher Defendants to persuade Amazon to switch from a wholesale to an agency business model. The District Court also erred in equating price increases for some e-books with harm to competition. Apple's entry into the e-book retail market dramatically increased competition by diminishing Amazon's power as a retail monopolist (and its ability to pursue a "loss-leader" strategy that inefficiently priced e-books below their acquisition cost). That increased competition gave publishers more bargaining power, thereby bringing ebook pricing closer to competitive levels. These errors threaten to chill competition by discouraging the use of common vertical contracting techniques that are often essential to facilitating the expensive and risky investments needed for entry into highly concentrated markets. Our antitrust laws should encourage, not penalize, vertical contracting arrangements that facilitate entry and enhance competition.
Primer on Apple vs. Samsung Part II
Apple and Samsung's second major patent trial gets underway in California today. While the parties involved remain the same, the products and patents at issue are substantially different. Undoubtedly, in the coming weeks we'll be inundated with day-to-day reports relaying the latest news from the courtroom. To help provide a little bit of context to the legal proceedings, below is a breakdown of the patents and products at issue, along with information detailing how Apple and Samsung's second legal case differs from the first. What this case isn't about In stark contrast to Apple and Samsung's first trial, the second trial does not involve any design patents which can encompass the physical design of a product as well as certain software aesthetics. Remember all the talk about the iPad's rounded corners and iOS's grid layout? There will be no such discussion this time around. Design patents aside, it's worth noting that a number of important utility patents Apple asserted during the first trial -- inertial scrolling, multi-touch navigation, and tap to zoom -- will not be at issue during the second trial. What this case is about After a few months of narrowing down the number of patents to be asserted at trial, Apple will be asserting 5 of its patents against Samsung while Samsung will be asserting just two patents against Apple. Apple's accused products Samsung alleges that these Apple products infringe upon their patents: the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPad 2, iPad 3, iPad 4, along with the 4th and 5th generation iPod Touch. Samsung's accused products Apple meanwhile claims that the following Samsung products infringe upon their patents: the Samsung Galaxy S II, S III, Galaxy Note, Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Note II, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S II Skyrocket, Galaxy Tab 2 10.1, and the Samsung Stratosphere. Note that Apple had tried to include the Galaxy S 4 but the court didn't allow it. Apple's asserted patents '647 patent, claim 9 - Data Tapping This patent details a method by which a device detects certain types of data -- i.e dates, URLs, email addresses, phone numbers -- and subsequently presenting users with a pop-up menu which enables then to perform a clickable action. As a simple example, you receive a text message asking for plans "next Friday." Your device recognizes the data structure and enables you to tap on the 'next Friday' string to create a calendar event for that day. Or, let's say, you receive an email with an embedded phone number. Your device recognizes that the string is likely a phone number and lets you tap on it to initiate a phone call. Note that Apple has wielded this patent before, successfully asserting it against HTC to secure a ban on the sale of select HTC Android devices before the US International Trade Commission (ITC). This patent was initially filed in 1996 and expires in 2016. '959 patent, claim 25 - Unified Search This patent details a method for locating information from a number of sources all at once, including the Internet and local storage. This feature is often referred to as Unified Search. While Apple initially asserted this patent against versions of Android's Quick Search Box, it has also accused the Google Now search app of infringing the patent as well. '721 patent, claim 8 - Slide to Unlock This '721 patent is rather straight forward and covers a process by which a device allows a user to unlock a device by pressing on a predefined location and continuously dragging an input (i.e fingers) along a set path that corresponds to an unlock image. Claim 8 of the patent specifically covers a display with "with visual cues" that lets a user know in which direction he/she should move to unlock the device. This patent was filed in December of 2005, shortly after Apple began working on the iPhone project in complete secrecy. '414 patent, claim 20 - Asynchronous data synchronization This patent details a process by which two devices -- say a smartphone and a desktop computer -- can synchronize data while simultaneously allowing other processes to run. The patent summary reads in part: This description relates to systems, methods and computer readable media which allow for synchronization tasks and non-synchronization tasks to be executed concurrently. ... In at least certain embodiments, a method as described herein allows a user to operate both a host and a device while the two systems are performing synchronization operations. Hence, for example, a user may manipulate or view a calendar while a synchronization operation, which synchronizes structured data from, for example, the calendar or other databases such as a contact database, is being performed. '172 patent, claim 18 - GUI for providing word recommendations This patent covers a system and interface for offering word recommendations while a user is typing on a device. The user can then accept the recommendation or ignore it depending on the gesture performed. Samsung's asserted patents Samsung in recent weeks narrowed its portfolio of asserted patents from four down to two. In doing so, Samsung removed two standards-based patents from the suit. Samsung's remaining patents are as follows: '449 patent, claim 27 - "Apparatus for recording and reproducing digital image and speech." '239 patent, claims 15 - "Remote video transmission system." This patent may have implications with respect to Apple's FaceTime feature. It's worth mentioning that this particular patent was acquired by Samsung in October of 2011, about six months after Apple initially initiated its litigation against Samsung for patent infringement. Procedural information Apple will present its evidence and witnesses first, after which Samsung will be given the opportunity to refute and cross-examine. Following that Samsung will trot out its own evidence and list of witnesses. As for the jury and its mission to render a ruling, they will first be tasked with determining whether or not a device infringed the claims of a patent and whether or not the patent itself is valid. If a device is found to be infringing, the jury will then determine if the infringement was willful and ultimately come up with a damages award. Note that with respect to Apple's '172 patent, Judge Lucy Koh has already found that the Samsung Admire, Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Note (excluding one release), Galaxy SII (excluding one release), Galaxy SII Epic 4G Touch (excluding one release), Galaxy SII Skyrocket (excluding one release) and Stratosphere infringe claim 18 of the '172 patent. That said, the jury with respect to the '172 patent will only need to determine whether claim 18 of the '172 patent is valid. As for familiar faces who may show up in the courtroom, Phil Schiller is all but a guarantee while Scott Forstall and Andy Rubin may be called to testify as well. Let the games begin.
BlackBerry successfully prevents Apple from hiring top executive... for now
It looks like we may have a Mark Papermaster scenario on our hands. iMore reports that Apple is facing a legal battle from BlackBerry over its attempt to hire Sebastien Marineau-Mes as the company's VP of Core OS. While at BlackBerry, Marineau-Mes was a SVP of Software. According to reports, Marineau-Mes accepted an offer from Apple in December whereupon he gave BlackBerry two months notice. There was a slight hiccup, however. In October of 2013, Marineau-Mes was promoted to a new role as executive VP of platform Development (EVP) whereupon his new contract explicitly stated that he was to provide BlackBerry with six months notice should he decide to leave the company. Not content to see a top executive break terms of a contract, only to jump ship to a competitor, BlackBerry initiated a legal action against the move. iMore was able to obtain a statement from BlackBerry on the matter which reads: BlackBerry will not stand by while a former employee violates his employment contract. It is unfortunate that we had to take this step, but we will do whatever is necessary to ensure that employees honor the agreements they make with us. When we enter into an agreement with an employee, as we have with Mr. Marineau, we expect him to honor his commitment just as he would expect that we will honor ours. We are pleased that the court has endorsed our position and ruled that the employee contract and its terms are valid. Marineau-Mes, court filings show, argued that the contract provision at issue is unenforceable, while also contending that he never assumed the role of BlackBerry EVP. The court, however, didn't buy this argument, noting that Marineau-Mes did see a salary increase following the promotion. Insofar as the failure to announce the promotion is concerned, the record discloses that both BlackBerry and Marineau-Mes agreed that it would be wise to delay the announcement of his promotion given the fact that a promotion freeze was in place. However, Tear, Marineau-Mes' superior, clearly confirmed and congratulated Marineau-Mes on the promotion, which was approved by the Board. Internal emails further confirm that the promotion took place. Marineau-Mes' own evidence at his cross examination confirms that through the fall of 2013 he continued to be an important part of the BlackBerry team, participating in critical discussions concerning the company's future. All that being said, The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that Marineau-Mes will not be able to join Apple until June 23, 2014. It'll be interesting to see if Apple looks elsewhere to fill the position or if it will patiently wait about three more months. Given the prominence of the position, I can't imagine that time is of such an issue that Apple wouldn't decide to wait a few months.
Steve Jobs wasn't even okay with Google hiring former Apple engineers
Earlier this week, PandoDaily released a treasure trove of information pertaining to the anti-poaching agreements many top Silicon Valley tech firms entered into a few years back, including an email showing showing that Steve Jobs angrily called Google co-founder Sergey Brin over Google's attempt to hire an engineer from Apple's Safari team. Indeed, it largely appears that many top executives from firms like Intel, Google, and Apple were all party to tacit agreements not to directly solicit employees from each other. In looking over some of the publicly filed legal documents in the case, we happened to stumble upon this email thread which seems to indicate that Steve Jobs wasn't even on-board with Google hiring engineers who no longer worked at Apple. The emails below involve Steve Jobs, Jean-Marie Hullot (a former NeXT employee who worked as the CTO of Apple's Application Division from 2001 through 2005), and Alan Eustace who currently works as Google's Sr. VP of Knowledge (i.e Search). Previously, Eustace worked as Google's Senior VP of Engineering and Research. The context of these emails isn't entirely clear as Hullot never worked at Google, but it appears that Hullot may have been interested in joining Google with some of his trusted former Apple employees back in mid-2006. The email string shows that Steve Jobs, in corresponding with Eustace via email in April of 2006, "strongly preferred" that Google not hire Apple engineers who had left the company in December of 2005. I've since reached out to Hullot to confirm if he was, in fact, contemplating joining Google in 2006, which would of course help contextualize the email exchanges below. On April 25, 2006, Alan Eustace wrote the following email to Jobs: Steve, Jean-Marie would like to hire 4 people that used to work for him at Apple in Paris. Three left in Apple in December, and one gave notice in December, but was encouraged to complete his current assignment, which he agreed to do. Jean-Marie did not believe that you would object to his hiring these specific people, as long as we don't hire anyone else from Apple in Paris, but I wanted to confirm this with you, before I open the office, or any of these people start. Are you OK with this? If not, I'm willing to cancel the entire thing. If you are OK with it, I'll make sure to run the project area by you to make sure that there are no conflicts of interest with work that they did at Apple. Alan Jobs responded the next day: Alan, We'd strongly prefer that you not hire these guys. Steve. The following day, Eustace wrote the following to Hullot: Jean-Marie, Steve is opposed to Google hiring these engineers. He didn't say why, and I don't think it is appropriate for me to go back for clarification. I can't risk our relationship with Apple to make this happen over his objections. If you have any good ideas (or even bad ones), please let me know. right now, it looks like if you want to keep this great team together, it will have to be at another company. Alan Adding a bit more context to these emails, a 2008 article from TechCrunch details that Hullot and other members from Apple's Paris engineering team were actually given pink slips. Hullot and much of the Paris engineering office was let go from Apple in 2006 after Hullot reportedly lost an internal political battle over the direction of the iPhone. But under French law, laid off workers can receive 80% pay for up to 18 months after losing their jobs, directly from the government. Hullot kept five of his top engineers to work on fotonauts, while the French government paid their wages. Not surprisingly, many of the software engineers currently at fotonauts, where Hullot is now CEO, are former Apple engineers. Update: PandoDaily has since published a story adding even more context to the story. As it turns out, Google was hoping to open up an engineering center in Paris. In one of the first emails sent to Jobs on the matter, Alan Eustace wrote: Steve, Google would like to make an offer to Jean-Marie Hullot to run a small engineering center in Paris. Bill [Campbell], Larry [Page], Sergey [Brin] and Jean-Marie believe it is important to get your blessing before moving forward with this offer. Jean-Marie has worked very hard to leave Apple on the best possible terms, and has agreed to abide by the terms of his non-solicit and non-compete clauses. He loves Apple, and would not do anything to hurt you or the company. Google's relationship with Apple is extremely important to us. If that relationship is any way threatened by this hire, please let me know and we will pass on this opportunity. Alan Eustace SVP, Engineering Google, Inc. While Jobs' initial response seemed to indicate that he was okay with this so long as Google's engineering center didn't relate to "cell phone handsets", he ultimately was reluctant to give the hiring his blessing. A final email from Eustace to Jobs makes it overtly apparent that keeping Jobs happy was of utmost importance to Google. Steve, Based on your strong preference that we not hire the ex-Apple engineers, Jean-Marie and I decided not to open a Google Paris engineering center. I appreciate your input into this decision, and your continued support of the Google/Apple partnership. Lastly, I've uploaded the pertinent Steve Jobs email string to Scribd, which can be viewed below. Steve Jobs hiring
3D Realms responds to Gearbox, claims it owns Duke Nukem trademark
3D Realms isn't backing down from its most recent legal dispute with Gearbox, after the studio asserted it has the rights to develop its Duke Nukem game, and more than that, it has the sole rights to the Duke Nukem trademark. Following 3D Realms' tease of Duke Nukem: Mass Destruction, Gearbox announced it's suing the developer over unauthorized use of the Duke Nukem property and a violation of trademarks. In its complaint, Gearbox said 3D Realms sold the franchise rights to Gearbox in 2010 but then "sought to privately convince others that the sale never happened." 3D Realms filed its response to Gearbox last week, and the now Interceptor-owned studio provided Polygon with the following statement explaining its position: "On March 17, 2014, 3D Realms filed its answer to the complaint by Gearbox Software in Dallas, Texas. 3DR denies all allegations set forth in the complaint. In its answer, 3DR has submitted evidence showing that Gearbox at no point intended to enter into good faith negotiations but instead sought to force former owners, Scott Miller and George Broussard, to improperly surrender what rightfully belonged to 3DR. "It is our position that 3DR retains the right to develop the tentatively titled "Duke Nukem Survivor" game for specific platforms. This game was previously licensed for development to Interceptor Entertainment. Furthermore, it is our position that the Trademark for "Duke Nukem" was never assigned to Gearbox, but remains the sole property of 3DR." A spokesperson for Interceptor Entertainment explained "Duke Nukem Survivor" is the tentative title for Duke Nukem: Mass Destruction. Interceptor provided its own statement to Polygon, adding that "It's unfortunate that Gearbox has shown no intention of finding a peaceful solution with us. We will however continue to work towards a solution." Last month's legal action comes five months after 3D Realms and Gearbox's last dispute. 3D Realms filed a lawsuit against Gearbox in June 2013 over unpaid royalties from Duke Nukem Forever, only to withdraw it three months later after reviewing the evidence. [Image: Interceptor Entertainment]
Senator who crusaded against game violence arrested on corruption charges
California state senator Leland Yee, a Democrat best known in gamer circles for authoring Assembly Bill 1179 that sought to prevent the sale of violent titles to minors, has been arrested on public corruption charges. SFGate reports that the predawn raid of Yee's San Francisco office involved hundreds of federal and local authorities. The ongoing investigation also "targeted notorious former gangster Raymond 'Shrimp Boy' Chow who was once sentenced to 25 years in prison on gun charges." Senator Yee was previously arrested for shoplifting a bottle of suntan oil and was twice stopped by San Francisco police officers who suspected him of "cruising the Mission District in search of prostitutes." Yee made headlines in the wake of the 2013 Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting by telling gamers to shut the heck up. "Gamers have got to just quiet down. Gamers have no credibility in this argument," he said. "This is all about their lust for violence and the industry's lust for money. This is a billion-dollar industry. This is about their self-interest."
Emails reveal that Steve Jobs angrily called Sergey Brin over Google's recruitment of Apple's Safari team
During a period spanning 2005 through 2009, Apple and several other high-profile tech companies effectively signed off on anti-poaching agreements, whereby they agreed not to recruit employees from one another. The participants included Apple, Google, Adobe, Intuit, Lucasfilm, Pixar, and Intel. News of these agreements first made headlines back in 2010 when the aforementioned companies settled a lawsuit on the matter brought on by the US Justice Department. In 2011, the story made headlines once more when a group of software engineers filed a class action lawsuit against those same companies alleging that the anti-poaching agreements operated to limit their negotiation power, ultimately resulting in lower salaries. In the most recent peek into the backhanded deals that once limited employee mobility in Silicon Valley, PandoDaily this weekend published a boatload of new information about the case along with a number of emails demonstrating that Steve Jobs was none too thrilled with Google's efforts to recruit Apple engineers. Steve Jobs angrily calls Sergey Brin On February 13, 2005, Google co-founder Sergey Brin fired off the following email regarding an "irate" phone call he received from Steve Jobs regarding Google aggressively recruiting Apple's Safari team. In truth, court documents show that Google was primarily interested in a star engineer on Apple's Safari team. A few days later, Brin sent the following email to a few Google employees, including former Google and current Apple board member Bill Campbell. The email relays another "irate" phone call Jobs made to Brin. So I got another irate call from jobs today. I don't think we should let that determine our hiring strategy but thought I would let you know. Basically, he said "if you hire a single one of these people that means war." I said I could not promise any outcome but I would discuss it with the executive team again. I asked if he expected us to withdraw offers and he said yes. In reviewing the data below again, I do think this could be treated as not just an employee referral since he referred essentially a whole team. So a compromise would be to continue with the offer we have made to REDACTED but not to make offers to any of the others unless they get permission from Apple. In any case, let's not make any new offers or contact new people at Apple until we have had a chance to discuss. -- Sergey Notably, court documents reveal that Apple and Google's anti-poaching agreement with one another went into effect on March 6, 2005, not too long after these emails were exchanged. Note that in late February of 2005, Apple VP of Human Resources Danielle Lambert sent the following email to Apple's recruiting group. Please add Google to your "hands-off" list. We recently agreed not to recruit from one another so if you hear of any recruiting they are doing against us, please be sure to let me know. Please also be sure to honor our side of the deal. The deals agreed to by the companies involved worked as follows: Hiring employees who independently expressed interest in a position was okay. Cold calling employees at other companies, however, was not allowed. Particularly interesting is that the anti-poaching agreements in question encompass many more companies than previously publicized. For instance, some of the other companies that appeared on Google's "Do Not Cold Call" list included Paypal, Comcast, and Genentech. With respect to Apple, their "Do Not Cold Call" list, as of July 2009, mentioned upwards of 27 companies, including Microsoft, AMD, Foxconn, Nvidia, Best Buy, Mac Zone, and more. This trial is certainly bound to get more interesting as it adds even more details to what is already a rather intriguing case. You might recall that previous documents brought to light relay that Jobs in 2007 threatened then Palm CEO Ed Colligan with legal action if Palm didn't agree to stop recruiting Apple employees. Further, Jobs in 2007 emailed Eric Schmidt -- who at that time was Google's CEO -- asking that Google's recruiting department stop recruiting an Apple engineer. Schmidt's response promised that he would "get this stopped." Lastly, make sure to head on over to PandoDaily for the full run down of just how deep and broad these anti-poaching agreements ran.
