Legal
Latest
Bay Area tech company caught paying imported workers $1.21 per hour
Ever heard of Electronics for Imaging? We hadn't either until this morning, but it's apparently a multimillion dollar, multinational, public corporation based out of Fremont, California. And the United States Department of Labor just caught EFI red-handed in an investigation, which found that "about eight employees" were flown in from India to work 120-hour weeks for $1.21 per hour. EFI apparently thought it was okay to pay the employees the same wages they'd be paid in India (in Indian rupees). Here's the unbelievably crazy sounding quote EFI gave to NBC's Bay Area affiliate: "We unintentionally overlooked laws that require even foreign employees to be paid based on local US standards." Just so we're clear: is there anyone reading this who doesn't know that any person working in the United States is legally required to be compensated according to United States laws?
Battlefield 4 class action lawsuit dismissed on 'puffery'
No, not puffinry. Puffery. A class action lawsuit levied against Electronic Arts for allegedly misleading investors over the performance of Battlefield 4 was dismissed this week, with U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Judge Susan Illston labeling the publisher's promises as pre-release "puffery," rather than intentionally misleading hype. The lawsuit was filed late last year, accusing Electronic Arts of misrepresenting "the development and sales of the Company's Battlefield 4 video game and the game's impact on EA's revenue and projects moving forward." Battlefield 4 suffered numerous issues upon its launch in November, leaving many players unable to access its online multiplayer component. Fixes arrived months after the game's initial release, leading EA CEO Andrew Wilson to later describe the debacle as "unacceptable." EA argued that its pre-release statements had no direct bearing on the plaintiffs' decisions to purchase company stock. In addition, the publisher noted that five of the eight company-issued statements labeled as misleading in the suit were made after plaintiffs had already purchased EA stock. "Defendant [CFO Blake] Jorgensen's Oct. 29, 2013 statement comparing 'BF4' to a World Series ace pitcher is puffery," Judge Illston wrote. "Defendant Wilson's Oct. 29, 2013 statement explaining that EA 'worked more closely with Microsoft and Sony throughout the entire process' resulting in a 'launch slate of games that are the best transition games that I've ever seen come out of this company' is an inactionable opinion, as well as a vague statement of corporate optimism." Illston's response does not represent a total dismissal of the case. Lead plaintiffs Ryan Kelly and Louis Mastro must revise their statements by November 3 to continue the suit. [Image: Getty]
Apple and GT Advanced agree to part ways
Apple and sapphire supplier GT Advanced Technologies have reached an agreement that severs the ties between the two companies. GT Advanced's lawyer Luc Despins told a bankruptcy court that the two companies have agreed to an "amicable parting of the ways." Under the agreement, GT Advanced would reveal additional details about its bankruptcy, but Apple's contracts with GT would remain sealed and other documents between the two companies would be destroyed. GT Advanced also will be allowed to sell the sapphire furnaces and other assets in its Mesa, Arizona sapphire facility to satisfy its debt. The final amount Apple will receive as part of this settlement was not disclosed. The assistant attorney general of New Hampshire and other lawyers reportedly scoffed at the secrecy clause of the agreement, arguing that creditors and laid off workers have the right to know what happened to the company. According to a report in Reuters, GT Advanced's bankruptcy centers on the November 2013 agreement it signed with Apple to provide sapphire screen displays for the company's future mobile devices. The settlement is subject to approval by Judge Henry Boroff, who earlier approved GT Advanced's plan to close its sapphire facility. A court approval hearing is scheduled for November.
Posting revenge porn could soon become a serious criminal offence
The posting of 'revenge porn' may become unequivocally illegal in England and Wales soon, after the House of Lords agreed yesterday the law should be amended to specifically include the practice. Currently, anyone that shares explicit images to humiliate a former partner can be prosecuted under sex offense laws -- something the Crown Prosecution Service was keen to highlight in new guidance released a few weeks ago. To deal with the growing problem more directly, however, the Lords' amendment would consider the sharing of such images a serious criminal offense in its own right, carrying a maximum prison sentence of two years. Should MPs in the House of Commons approve the amendment, perpetrators would be more easily punishable, and victims would have stronger grounds to demand the removal of any published images. Clarifying the law with regards to revenge porn isn't the only crackdown on bad internet behaviour currently under consideration, as the UK Justice Secretary recently called for the maximum prison sentence for serious trolls to be increased from six months to two years.
Seldon Crisis removes Asimov references following IP dispute
The sci-fi sandbox Seldon Crisis initially tried to draw attention to itself through copious amounts of name-dropping with revered author Isaac Asimov, although it turns out that this marketing plan may have backfired. Its Kickstarter campaign has been canceled, with page saying the game is "the subject of an intellectual property dispute." The team attempted to clarify the situation with a post earlier this week: "We were/are speaking with the Asimov estate regarding a partnership, but until those talks are concluded we were asked to not mention certain elements of his novels. This is completely understandable (copyright law demands holders actively protect their copyright or they can lose it). We have taken the necessary measures to fully comply with what has been stated." In the meantime, Seldon Crisis' fundraising efforts have moved over to Indiegogo, where the team is attempting to rake in £250,000 over the next month.
Apple set to go to trial in November over FairPlay DRM and iTunes lock-in
The year isn't 2007 so you might be surprised to learn that Apple, in 2014, still has a pending legal class action suit regarding iPods and the FairPlay DRM that used to shroud every song sold on iTunes. The lawsuit dates all the way back to 2004 and alleges that Apple in the mid-2000s illegally used DRM to lock in users to the Apple ecosystem by making the cost of switching prohibitively high. The plaintiffs in the case are seeking $350 million in damages. Ars Technica reports: Last week, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers gave the green light (PDF) to sending a long-running antitrust lawsuit against Apple to trial. Plaintiffs in the case say that Apple used its FairPlay DRM system to "lock in" its customers and make it costly to switch to technology built by competitors, like Real Networks. They describe how Apple kept updating iTunes to make sure songs bought from Real's competing digital music store couldn't be used on iPods. As a result of this lock-in, Apple was able to overcharge its customers to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. With Judge Rogers finding Apple's recent effort to have the case dismissed unpersuasive, the case is slated to go to trial on November 17.
Singapore gambling law may put MMO lockboxes at risk
A proposed remote gambling bill in Singapore may put MMOs that use lockbox systems, as well as players who purchase lockboxes with real-world money, in danger of being prosecuted or being run out of town. According to Games in Asia, the law's broad definitions of what consitutes remote gambling may impact freemium and free-to-play MMOs: "This, according to Stamford Law, will 'outlaw the freemium model where monetization is primarily via in-app purchases,' and does not specify from whom the purchases of virtual objects are made. This means that both game developers, who sell in-app purchases, and players, who make these in-app purchases, can be persecuted [sic]." The bill will come under additional scrutiny this week. If the language isn't changed, then even foreign developers can be charged for advertising or operating an MMO in the country with real money-infused "games of chance."
Kickstarter changes terms regarding unfinished projects
Kickstarter updated its terms of use late last week, mostly cleaning up the site's fine-print language to better spell out the relationship between project creators and backers. It will remain hands-off while project leads enter agreements with their supporters, which worked well for the funding platform to this point, as it reached $1 billion in pledges in March. Those contracts are the focus of the revised terms, as Kickstarter is now emphasizing the actions creators must take if they fail to live up to their word as well as the potential consequences if they walk away. The boldest inclusion stressed that creators who are unable to satisfy the terms "may be subject to legal action by backers." While Kickstarter still won't involve itself in the proceedings, this opens a clearer lane for possible lawsuits from project backers should creators fail to live up to their agreement or offer alternative solutions.
The Daily Grind: Who gets your MMO accounts when you die?
Last month, Delaware became the first US state to pass a broad law to ensure that families can access their deceased relatives' digital assets. In most states, though, your spouse can't even log into your Facebook account to delete it if you kick the bucket. And that makes me wonder about MMOs. It might be macabre, but I actually maintain a document that tells my survivors how to distribute my digital property, including my MMO accounts and characters, usually to guildies who will appreciate them and/or leave my characters dancing naked on a mailbox forever in tribute. Does anyone else do this? Do you have a plan for how to divvy up your MMO accounts and such when you die? Every morning, the Massively bloggers probe the minds of their readers with deep, thought-provoking questions about that most serious of topics: massively online gaming. We crave your opinions, so grab your caffeinated beverage of choice and chime in on today's Daily Grind!
You got served ... on Facebook :(
It's made you distrustful and toyed with your emotions and now a Staten Island Support Magistrate has deemed Facebook an acceptable vehicle for your legal woes. According to the New York Post, Gregory Gliedman ruled that Noel Biscocho could use the social network to serve his ex, Anna Maria Antigua, with a legal notice that he no longer wishes to pay child support for their 21-year-old son. The ruling reportedly came after Biscocho attempted to reach Antigua multiple times in the real world. And here we thought breaking up via text message was bad. [Image credit: Peter Dazeley / Getty]
Judge allows Apple class action lawsuit over Breaking Bad "Season Pass" to continue
Last September, Apple was hit with a class action lawsuit after one user discovered that the US$22.99 he shelled out via iTunes for a "Season Pass" of Breaking Bad season 5 only covered the season's first 8 episodes. In light of that, Apple did the right thing and told affected users that they'd be entitled to a full $22.99 refund. Nonetheless, a judge this week issued a ruling allowing the lawsuit to proceed with the plaintiff asserting a claim of false advertising -- which, in my opinion, is exceedingly bizarre given that A.) there are no damages to speak of and B.) the root of the problem lies with AMC and Sony, not Apple. Here's a brief recap of how this problem came to be. As a Breaking Bad fan who was borderline-obsessed with the show, I'll proudly admit that I've listened to every episode of the official Breaking Bad podcast -- all 62 episodes. As a result, I know a thing or two about a thing or two and distinctly recall show creator Vince Gilligan saying that the final 16 episodes were meant, in his eyes and in the eyes of the writing staff, to comprise a single season. At the same time, Gilligan didn't want to rush to finish his masterpiece too quickly. Figuring out how to end the Emmy award-winning show was no small task, and Gilligan and his team wanted to take their time with the final eight episodes to ensure that they were befitting of the series. Hence, there was a production delay between filming the first eight and second eight episodes. Looking to capitalize on the delay, the decision to treat the final 16 episodes as two distinct seasons was made by AMC and Sony, not Apple. Specifically, the "Breaking Bad" listings on iTunes were based on how Sony wanted them viewed. What's also strange is that the plaintiff in the original lawsuit wasn't suing for millions, but rather just for $20, just a simple refund. And yet, with Apple granting refunds to affected users who felt duped, the lawsuit is slogging on regardless. via Gigaom
Sega pins Aliens: Colonial Marines marketing mishaps on Gearbox
After Aliens: Colonial Marines publisher Sega moved to settle a class-action lawsuit to the tune of $1.25 million in August for alleged false advertising for the game, it shifted the blame for the game's marketing issues to Gearbox Software, according to court documents obtained by Game Informer. Internal emails from Gearbox and Sega representatives cite examples of the former revealing information about the game without the consent of the publisher. One such email refers to a New York Comic Con panel in October 2012, in which Gearbox CEO Randy Pitchford firmly states that a Wii U version of Aliens: Colonial Marines would launch in February 2013 alongside the other versions of the game. Emails within Sega stated that "no-one on the call was aware" of the Wii U version, and that it's "not been picked up so far." Of course, the game missed its Wii U launch window before Sega confirmed in March 2013 that it was no longer in development.
Judge rebuffs Apple's effort to secure sales ban on infringing Samsung products
Samsung and Apple may have settled all of their international legal disputes, but the two tech giants are still busy duking it out here in the States. The latest news from the ongoing Apple/Samsung legal saga is that Judge Lucy Koh recently rejected Apple's efforts to secure a product ban against Samsung smartphones. A report from Bloomberg adds that Apple's attempt to attain an injunction was rebuffed even after Apple proffered a "narrowly tailored" ban to the Court. Apple tried to make its latest sales ban request more viable by targeting specific infringing features in nine Samsung devices, and by offering what it called a "sunset period" to give its Suwon, South Korea-based competitor a chance to design around the features before any ban was enforced, according to a court filing. To date, Apple has successfully litigated two patent infringement cases against Samsung, netting over $1 billion in damages in the process. With Samsung appealing, however, Apple hasn't yet received a dime from Samsung. On top of that, Apple's efforts to secure a product ban against Samsung products that are selling well hasn't yet been successful in the long run.
Report: Capcom aims patent infringment suit at Koei Tecmo
Capcom has filed suit against Koei Tecmo alleging that the Dynasty Warriors publisher infringed on key Capcom patents in recent games, according to a Sankei report translated by Siliconera. The patent in question refers to backwards compatible content being transferred from a game to its predecessor. Imagine the Genesis-era Sonic & Knuckles cartridges. If you connect one to a Sonic 2 cartridge, you can play as Knuckles in the older game, despite his first appearance coming well after Sonic 2 hit store shelves. A more recent, topical example would be Dynasty Warriors 8: Xtreme Legends, a standalone expansion that could be linked with the original Dynasty Warriors 8 to add additional stages and characters to the older musou brawler. Capcom's suit alleges that 50 Koei Tecmo games are in violation of the patent. The Street Fighter publisher is seeking 980 million yen (about $9.4 million) in restitution as well as a temporary ban on sales of several Koei Tecmo games. [Image: Koei Tecmo]
Judge refuses to invalidate Apple patents
In the continuing legal tangle between Samsung and Apple, a federal judge has denied Samsung's request to invalidate a pair of patents related to the iPhone's slide-to-unlock feature and unified search, Mac Observer reports. Both patents are part of Apple's infringement cases against Samsung, which have thus far swung firmly in Apple's favor, to the tune of over US$1 billion across both rulings. Samsung's argument for tossing these two specific patents is based on the idea that a software feature which mimics a real-world idea -- like sliding something open, for example -- can't be patented. However, the judge's ruling on the matter has little to do with the patents themselves, but rather hinges on the fact that Samsung is bringing it up so late in the game. Either way, the denial is good news for Apple, though the courtroom drama is likely far from over.
Oakland's 80-year pinball prohibition ends
Oakland, California, has lifted its long-standing ban on pinball machines, making it legal to play pinball in the city for the first time in almost 80 years. Oakland's ban stretches back to the 1930s, when several cities in the United States adopted laws restricting the sale and public display of pinball machines due to their ties to illegal gambling. The former game of chance evolved into a skill-based challenge with the introduction of flippers, however, leading many cities to rescind their pinball bans in the 1970s. Pinball manufacturer Stern commemorates the end of Oakland's ban with an Iron Man table tournament taking place at RadioShack's Fruitvale Station store over the next month. Pinball players have 30 days to rack up a high score on the newly installed machine, and the top 16 players will compete in a final tournament round on September 20. [Image: Stern]
The Daily Grind: Are MMO mods and emulators on their way out?
We don't talk about emulators on Massively often because we're forbidden to encourage illegal activities or link or name specific emulators save those rare few publicly sanctioned by studios (so please don't). In fact, we've written before that emulators are a frustrating topic for many of our writers since gamers pour boatloads of creativity and technical skill into both legal and illegal emulators for games dead and alive, creativity that we can't write about even when we'd like to. I can't be the only one who's wondered whether legit modders and underworld emulator coders are abandoning their craft in favor of more legal ventures, however. There might be more sunsetted MMOs, moddable UIs, and calls for "classic" game versions than ever, but the rise of low-risk crowdfunding, easy Steam greenlighting, and modular multiplayer titles that encourage customization makes me suspect that people who once modded shady MMO emulators or built interfaces for the masses are being lured away to work on something more legitimate or profitable or resume-worthy. What do you think? Are emulators and modding going out of fashion? (Please don't link to anything illegal!) Every morning, the Massively bloggers probe the minds of their readers with deep, thought-provoking questions about that most serious of topics: massively online gaming. We crave your opinions, so grab your caffeinated beverage of choice and chime in on today's Daily Grind!
Bungie ordered to recoup Marty O'Donnell's founders' stock
A court-appointed arbitrator has ruled that Bungie must return the founders' stock it stripped from former Halo composer Marty O'Donnell following his contentious dismissal earlier this year, reports VentureBeat. As our readers are no doubt aware, founders' stock in Bungie is now quite valuable, following the lengthy string of successes the developer has had since it launched Halo on the original Xbox all those years ago. With the upcoming debut of the highly-anticipated, open-universe shooter Destiny, O'Donnell's stock is likely to grow even more valuable. Unfortunately for O'Donnell, despite this ruling, the legal red tape has yet to be cleared away. Bungie can still file an appeal against the arbitration and until a final order is issued O'Donnell isn't in the clear. This ruling marks the second time an official has sided with O'Donnell in the recent past. About a month ago, O'Donnell was awarded a little over $95,000 that a court ruled was owed the composer as unpaid wages and overtime compensation. [Image: Bungie]
Shareholder sues Apple directors and estate of Steve Jobs over anti-poaching agreements
Patently Apple directs us to a rather ridiculous class action lawsuit filed by an Apple shareholder against Apple directors and the estate of Steve Jobs. The lawsuit stems from the no-poaching agreements Apple tacitly entered into with a number of other big-time tech companies in the mid-2000s. While the actual Silicon Valley employees affected by the allegations are already engaged in a class action suit against Apple and others, this particular suit is bizarre to the extent that the plaintiff has no connection to any party involved, save for his collection of Apple shares. The lawsuit reads in part: This is a shareholder derivative action seeking to remedy the wrongdoing committed by Apple's senior directors and officers who have caused millions of dollars in damages to Apple and its shareholders. Plaintiff asserts claims under federal law for violations of Section 14(a) of the SEC Act of 1934... and under state law for breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, corporate waste, and breach of the duty of honest services. As opposed to affected class members currently involved in ongoing litigation over the very same matter, it's a strain to comprehend just where the plaintiff's damages lie. Apple's stock is near an all-time high and the Apple brand is no more tarnished than it's been by any other lawsuit. I wouldn't be surprised to see this case dismissed rather quickly. AppleInsider has posted the full 77 page complaint which you can view below. Shareholder Derivative Complaint
Judge Lucy Koh rejects proposed settlement stemming from Apple's anti-poaching class action lawsuit
Judge Lucy Koh today rejected a proposed settlement agreement that Apple and a number of other prominent high-tech companies entered into as a result of a class-action suit stemming from anti-poaching agreements entered into during the mid-2000s. Under terms of the initial settlement agreement, Apple, along with Adobe, Google, and Intel, agreed to collectively fork over approximately $324 million to members of the class. In a ruling on the matter issued earlier today, Koh argues that the proposed figure is far too low. Koh's ruling, which MacRumors uploaded here, reads in part: The Court finds the total settlement amount falls below the range of reasonableness. The Court is concerned that Class members recover less on a proportional basis from the instant settlement with the Remaining Defendants than from the Settled Defendants a year ago, despite the fact that the case has progressed consistently in the Class's favor since then. Counsel's sole explanation for this reduced figure is that there are weaknesses in Plaintiff's case such that the Class faces a substantial risk of non-recovery. However, that risk existed and was even greater when Plaintiffs settled with the Settled Defendants a year ago, when class certification had been denied. While $324 million certainly sounds like a lot, once lawyers get their cut, administrative fees are taken care of, and the remaining pot is divided up amongst the plaintiffs, each member of the class would only be eligible to receive $3,573. With plaintiffs initially seeking $3 billion, Koh indicated about six weeks ago that she wasn't sure the proposed settlement was "fair to the class." With her recent ruling now in the books, Koh articulates that "the remaining defendants should, at a minimum, pay their fair share as compared to the settled defendants..."
