Legal
Latest
Apple and Samsung agree to drop legal disputes in all jurisdictions outside the U.S.
It's increasingly starting to look that Apple's obsession with taking Samsung to task for allegedly copying the iPhone may be starting to wane. Originally reported by Bloomberg, news broke on Tuesday evening that Apple and Samsung have agreed to end all of their legal disputes in all jurisdictions save for the United States. While Apple's legal battle in the U.S. has garnered the most attention, Apple and Samsung have been duking it out in jurisdictions across the globe for over three years now. With only the U.S. in play now, legal claims have been dropped in the following countries: Australia, Japan, France, Italy, South Korea, the Netherlands, the U.K., and Germany. A joint statement from Apple and Samsung reads in part: Apple and Samsung have agreed to drop all litigation between the two companies outside the United States. This agreement does not involve any licensing arrangements, and the companies are continuing to pursue the existing cases in U.S. courts. Overall, the announcement lends itself towards the belief that the worst of the legal battles between the two companies is behind us. Recall that Apple has already taken Samsung to court twice in the U.S., emerging victorious in both instances. In August of 2012, Apple was awarded nearly $1 billion in damages. This past summer, a jury awarded Apple $120 million in damages. Note, though, that with both cases winding their way through the appeals process, Samsung has yet to actually hand over a dime to Apple. Despite legal posturing from both companies, court documents have revealed that Apple and Samsung have engaged in high level settlement talks in the past. Ultimately, though, the companies were unable to reach mutually agreeable terms with respect to royalty rates.
Artist sues pet toy company over Angry Birds licensing profits
Seattle artist Juli Adams has filed suit against pet product manufacturer Hartz, alleging that the company denied her profits when it ditched her trademarked "Angry Birds" toy line in favor of licensed products based on Rovio's mobile hit Angry Birds. Adams' own "Angry Birds" lineup of catnip-filled toys predates Rovio's franchise, originally launching in partnership with Hartz in November 2006. As part of the agreement, Hartz received limited licensing rights, allowing it to sell the toys in pet stores while forbidding the licensing of Adams' intellectual property to third parties. Adams retained full intellectual property rights in the partnership. After the Angry Birds mobile game debuted in 2009, Hartz began distributing Rovio-licensed toys while its partnership with Adams was still in effect. Adams' representing attorney Anthony Shapiro claims that Hartz subsequently earned "tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars from sales of the Angry Birds pet toys," without legal property rights to the trademark. The suit alleges that Hartz later informed Adams that she could no longer use the "Angry Birds" name due to a licensing conflict. While Rovio had trademarked the Angry Birds name for licensed children's toys, clothing and other products, it specifically excluded pet toys from its attempted trademarks, deferring to Hartz' trademark that it established in partnership with Adams. Hartz is the sole named defendant in Adams' case; Rovio is not targeted in the suit. Adams' complaint seeks "disgorgement of all of Hartz's ill-gotten gains, a reasonable royalty as owed to her under the Agreement, and an accounting, as well as a return of her Intellectual Property, including all associated trademarks and copyright registrations for 'Angry Birds' pet toys." [Image: Hartz / Adams / Rovio]
FTC busts up $275 million credit card scam, sues the folks behind it
The folks down at the Federal Trade Commission are busy helping all of us these days, whether they're weighing in on patent disputes or forcing firms to help cover your child's lack of parental supervision. Today, the FTC charged several companies and individuals with participation in an elaborate shell game from 2010 that was really just a $275 million dollar credit card scam. According to a separate, ongoing lawsuit filed by the Commission, a company called I Works did the stealing, but wouldn't have been able to take $26 million of the total without the aid of the defendants in this new lawsuit.
Former Silicon Knights dev sentenced in child pornography case
Former Precursor Games and Silicon Knights designer Ken McCulloch was sentenced this week in an Ontario Court of Justice in St. Catharines, Canada on child pornography charges. Judge Joseph Nadel sentenced McCulloch to 12 months of time served; McCulloch has been jailed since his arrest in late June 2013, after he pleaded guilty to making child pornography available. According to The Welland Tribune, Niagara Regional Police also charged McCulloch with sexual assault, forcible confinement and sexual interference during his time in jail in the past year. McCulloch will remain in custody, returning to court on August 26 to answer to those charges. As a result of the initial sentencing, McCulloch will be added to the provincial sex offender registry for the next 20 years. Judge Nadel also ordered McCulloch to stay away from any child under the age of 16 and from schools, parks, recreation centers and public pools for 10 years.
Diesel jeans files opposition to Dieselstormers trademark
Lawyers representing the Diesel fashion brand have filed legal opposition to attempts by Germany's Black Forest Games to trademark "Dieselstormers" as the title of an upcoming run and gun shooter. According to Diesel representatives, the game's title could cause confusion in consumers. Despite Diesel being known almost exclusively for its clothing (and its jeans in particular), the company holds a trademark over the term "Diesel" in numerous miscellaneous fields including video games. While this trademark squabble awaits an official ruling, Black Forest Games remains confident that Diesel has no case. "In all probability an understanding will be reached as Black Forest have no intent to create clothing under the Dieselstormers brand - and the "Diesel" part of Dieselstormers refers to the liquid fuel type of the same name and is not a parody of the fashion brand," reads an official statement from Black Forest. [Image: Black Forest Games]
Judge Denise Cote isn't happy with Apple's $450 million e-book settlement agreement
Apple agreed two weeks ago to a conditional $450 million settlement with plaintiffs over allegations that it colluded with book publishers to artificially raise the price of e-books. Under terms of the settlement, Apple will only have to pay the full amount if its appeal of U.S. District Judge Denise Cote's original ruling proves unsuccessful. The $450 million figure is of course much lower than the $840 million originally sought by plaintiffs, but hey, it's why it's called a settlement. But, surprise surprise, there's one person who seems to have a problem with the settlement agreement -- Judge Denise Cote. Last week, Cote explained during a teleconference that she found the settlement agreement troubling. Why? Because if her original decision is partially reversed or if a new trial is warranted, Apple will only have to fork over $70 million. If the decision is reversed outright, Apple won't be on the hook for anything at all. Cote also added that she's not too thrilled that Apple's potential $450 million settlement payout isn't subject to interest during the appeals process. Reuters reports: Speaking on a teleconference, Cote questioned if that would be fair and what might happen if the appeals court reversed her ruling on a minor issue. She also took issue with the lack of any requirement for Apple to pay interest while the appeals go forward. "I'm concerned about the terms of the settlement," she said. What really seems to be the issue here, I think, is that Cote seemingly has a personal vendetta against Apple. Cote's stance on Apple's alleged culpability is clear and her behavior during the e-book trial, I think, reflected an overwhelming amount of anti-Apple bias. So more than being worried about her ruling being overturned on a technicality, she seems troubled by the fact that Apple won't be punished to the extent she was hoping. If attorneys for 33 U.S. states deemed the settlement agreement to be fair, it shouldn't really matter if Cote herself is troubled by it. If Cote's decision is outright overturned, why then should Apple still be on the hook for damages? It's really a bizarre thing for Cote to be "troubled" by and hardly the response one would expect from a truly impartial adjudicator.
EU gives the green light to Apple's $3 billion acquisition of Beats
Apple's $3 billion acquisition of Beats was just approved by EU antitrust regulators, Engadget reported earlier today. A press release on the matter relayed that Beats coming under the Apple umbrella doesn't raise any anti-competitive concerns -- with respect to headphones -- because "the combined market share of Apple and Beats Electronics is low. In addition, Apple and Beats Electronics are not close competitors because the headphones they sell differ markedly in functionality and design. Moreover, even after the transaction, a large number of global competitors such as Bose, Sennheiser and Sony would remain. With respect to streaming music services, the Commission wrote that anti-competitive concerns are non-existent given the large number of competitors in the space. The Commission also concluded that the transaction would not give Apple the ability and incentive to shut out competing streaming services from access to iOS, Apple's operating system for mobile devices. It based this conclusion, amongst others, on the fact that Apple was already active in the distribution of digital music before the merger. Hence, the merger would not change Apple's ability or incentive to block access to its iOS. The deal still has to be given the green light by US regulators, but that will likely be a formality. Tim Cook noted during Apple's earnings conference call last week that Apple expects the deal to be officially finalized later this quarter. And speaking of Beats, the company late last week was hit with a patent infringement suit from none other than Bose. The suit alleges that Beats' line of noise-cancelling headphones infringes upon a number of Bose patents.
Dungeon Fighter Online thieves go to jail
A pair of cyber-thieves have been sentenced to two years of prison time in China for stealing from another player in Dungeon Fighter Online. The unemployed thieves stole the login and password of a player, accessed his account, and sold off his inventory to the tune of $6,405. They were caught soon after and will face not only jail but fines for the crime. Late last year 10 Chinese thieves were caught stealing World of Warcraft accounts and selling players' possessions. They too received about two years in jail and had to cough up fines. [Thanks to Hagu for the tip!]
Bose files patent infringement lawsuit against Beats over headphone noise cancellation
According to TechCrunch and CNBC, Bose today filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Beats Electronics in the US District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint, embedded below, accuses Beats of infringing several patents related to noise-cancellation technology used in headphones. Apple is in the process of acquiring Beats Electronics in a $3 billion deal that is expected to close in September of this year. Bose v. Beats Civil Complaint
UK politician calls for in-game thieves to be prosecuted like real criminals
In some of the most popular multiplayer role-playing games, like World of Warcraft (the NSA's favorite), in-game characters and items can change hands for substantial amounts of real money. So when a gamer is relieved of valuable loot or accounts by scammers or thieves, should these online opportunists be considered criminals? It's a question one UK politician wanted to address in Parliament yesterday, as he called for real-world sentences to be handed out for these virtual crimes. The politician, a WoW player himself, requested the UK Justice Minister accelerate legislation to that effect, arguing that gamers are entitled to the same amount of legal protection. He added that only serious and/or serial offenders be targeted, though, rather than throwing the book at anyone who's committed a minor indiscretion. The Justice Minister did say online fraud or theft can carry severe sentences, but that it's ultimately up to courts to decide on the punishment.
YouTube star sued for copyright to the tune of $150,000 per song
Most YouTubers just get a takedown notice if someone reports them using copyrighted tunes with their videos. But when that user is a huge star on the video portal like make-up guru Michelle Phan, who has almost 7 million subscribers and was even featured on YouTube's TV ad campaign, then things get a bit more intense. Electronic dance record label Ultra Music (home to Deadmau5 and other popular artists of the genre) just slapped Phan with a copyright infringement lawsuit, which accuses her of using 50 tracks released under the company without permission. Ultra wants Phan to pay $150,000 for each instance, claiming she profited from its artists' music, most likely because 1.) she's a YouTube partner, and 2.) the fame she gained on the website eventually led to lucrative deals with cosmetics companies Lancôme and L'Oreal.
Apple conditionally agrees to $450 million settlement in e-book price fixing suit
Apple's ongoing e-book antitrust saga has been nothing short of a headache. Accused of colluding with publishers to artificially raise the price of e-books, Apple had the opportunity to settle the matter early on and avoid a trial altogether. But as Tim Cook explained, Apple felt it did nothing wrong and wasn't going to cop to something it didn't do. For Apple, it was a matter of principle. And now that principled stance looks like it's going to cost Apple to the tune of almost half a billion dollars. Reuters reports that Apple yesterday agreed to pay a cool $450 million to consumers and States in order to settle class action charges stemming from alleged price fixing. That's a lot of dough, but still decidedly less than the $840 million plaintiffs were seeking. The hefty payout, however, is contingent upon the outcome of Apple's current appeal. The settlement, which would provide $400 million for consumers, is conditioned on the outcome of a pending appeal of a New York federal judge's ruling last year that Apple was liable for violating antitrust laws. A ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York reversing the judge could, under the settlement, [would] either reduce the amount Apple pays to $70 million, with $50 million for consumers, or eliminate payments altogether. Apple's statement regarding its potential payout reads as follows: Apple did not conspire to fix ebook pricing, and we will continue to fight those allegations on appeal. We did nothing wrong and we believe a fair assessment of the facts will show it. The iBooks Store has been good for consumers and the publishing industry as a whole, from well-known authors to first-time novelists. As we wait for the court to hear our appeal, we have agreed to a settlement which is contingent on the outcome of the appeal. If we are vindicated by the appeals court, no settlement will be paid. Of course, Apple certainly has money to spare (and then some), but one can only imagine that they'd like to put this whole e-book price fixing scandal behind them once and for all. Recall that Apple's trial with the DOJ last year resulted in Judge Denise Cote assigning Apple an external monitor who Apple quickly accused of overstepping his bounds and charging exorbitant fees.
Beats sues Chinese counterfeiters alleging losses of billions of dollars
Beats Electronics -- soon to be under the Apple umbrella if all goes according to plan -- is suing Chinese counterfeiters for illegally manufacturing and selling fake Beats headphones and accessories. According to the lawsuit, the defendants at issue work in concert to create hundreds, if not thousands, of websites which purport to sell authentic Beats products. In doing so, these websites typically display Beats trademarks along with copyrighted images and product descriptions to help convince visitors that everything is above board. As a result, average visitors have a tough time differentiating the fake websites from those which are actually authorized to sell Beats products. The Defendant Internet Stores share unique identifiers, such as website design and similarities of the Counterfeit Beats Products offered for sale, establishing a logical relationship between them and suggesting that Defendants' counterfeiting operation arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. Defendants attempt to avoid liability by going to great lengths to conceal both their identities and the full scope and interworking of their counterfeiting operation. Beats is forced to file these actions to combat Defendants' unauthorized counterfeiting of the registered Beats trademarks, as well as to protect unknowing consumers from purchasing Counterfeit Beats Products over the Internet. As for the defendants at issue, the complaint notes that while they reside in China, they conduct business throughout the state of Illinois. Impressively, and pointing to the large scale nature of the counterfeiting operation, Beats claims that the collection of websites selling counterfeit Beats products receive tens of millions of visitors each year and can generate upwards of $135 billion in annual online sales. As a quick example, this representative website is full of counterfeit Beats products, with some items that might typically cost $300 available for just $5. You might also notice that the design of the website itself appears to be lifted directly from Amazon. Apple itself has a long history of dealing with Chinese counterfeiters, going all the way back to the days when the iPod reigned supreme. But Apple-oriented counterfeiting truly exploded once the iPhone took off, prompting Apple in 2008 to organize its own security team to help stem the proliferation of counterfeit iPod and iPhones. On this topic, CNN reported the following a few years ago: Members of Apple's recently formed global security team were recruited from Pfizer after they executed a series of crackdowns on counterfeit Viagra production in Asia, the report says. John Theriault, formerly Pfizer's security chief and, before that, a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, leads Apple's global security unit. Don Shruhan, who worked for Theriault at Pfizer, is now a director on Apple's security team in Hong Kong. Shruhan told the Beijing embassy official that his group at Pfizer spent five years planning raids on counterfeit drug rings, the cable says. He said he's "afraid" of the volume of imitation Apple products being produced in China and about the inexperience of Apple's lawyers in dealing with Chinese authorities, the report says. Theriault, if the name sounds familiar, stepped down from his position at Apple following a lost iPhone 4s investigation that wasn't handled as well as it should have been, which is to say that Apple security personnel impersonated San Francisco police officers. In any event, one can only assume that Apple's experience and expertise in battling counterfeit products will help Beats do the same.
Apple found not guilty in lawsuit over video streaming
The patent infringement lawsuit began in 2010, when a Israel-based company called Emblaze went after Apple. The patent in question related to real-time broadcasting and Emblaze claimed that Apple was using the technology without a license. Friday, according to Bloomberg News, a jury swiftly rendered a "not guilty" verdict. Emblaze claimed that Apple pushed organizations like Major League Baseball (for MLB At Bat) and ESPN to use Apple streaming technology, which Emblaze claimed to own. The jury found that the preponderance of evidence didn't prove that Apple infringed on the Emblaze patent. Apple attorney Mark Fowler told the jury that Emblaze was an example of a failed company that targeted Apple due to its success. The case was heard in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose, California. The trial began on July 1.
Sins of a Solar Empire dev discusses 'Rebellion' lawsuit
Following two years of legal battles, Ironclad Studios has been granted the right to use the word "Rebellion" in the title of its latest space exploration epic, a decision it hopes will set a precedent for the increasingly litigious gaming industry. "Rebellion Developments [developer of Alien vs Predator] and its founders (Chris and Jason Kingsley) have aggressively opposed or petitioned to cancel trademarks containing the word 'Rebellion' and have been very successful in preventing third party use of the word 'Rebellion' in conjunction with video-games in the U.S. and Europe," Ironclad stated in a recent blog entry. In court, Rebellion attempted to argue that the title Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion was an attempt by Ironclad to trade on Rebellion's success as a developer, but Judge Victoria Roberts saw things differently. "...Defendants' use of REBELLION is expressive speech and is protected under the First Amendment," Roberts stated in her judgement. "Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the Rogers test; they cannot establish that REBELLION has no artistic relevance to Defendants' computer game, or that it is explicitly misleading as to source or content. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED." Though this is good news, Ironclad isn't out of the woods just yet. The studio recently learned that Rebellion has filed to oppose Ironclad's trademark in Canada, and there have been "unconfirmed reports that [Rebellion] issued a cease and desist order to our partner in the United Kingdom." [Image: Stardock]
FTC sues Amazon over in-app purchase practices
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has sued online retailer Amazon for refusing to change its framework for purchases made within its hosted mobile apps, according to a Reuters report. The lawsuit is an expected result of Amazon's denial of FTC-issued requests to change its in-app purchase policies. To meet FTC guidelines, Amazon would need to add another layer of password protection and overhaul its refund policies in order to curb in-app purchases made by children without parental permission. In a recent letter to the FTC, Amazon noted that it prefers to "defend our approach in court," rather than change its policies. The FTC's lawsuit seeks refunds for affected customers and a ban on unlimited purchases within Amazon apps. Apple issued more than $32.5 million in refunds to App Store customers following a similar FTC complaint earlier this year. [Image: Amazon]
Ubisoft emerges unscathed by DRM patent infringement lawsuit
A United States District Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Ubisoft which claims that the publisher violated patents held by Digital Reg of Texas in the design of its infamous uPlay DRM software. Initially filed in 2012, the lawsuit alleges that Ubisoft (alongside other companies such as EA, Valve and Flash creator Adobe) violated six patents held by Digital Reg relating to remotely tracking access to software after distribution and post-distribution security, among other typical functions of digital rights management software. Judge Claudia Wilken dismissed the case against Ubisoft for "numerous reasons," among them an agreement between Digital Reg and Valve covering third-party use of the DRM patents in question. According to Wilken, Ubisoft's alleged infringement was nullified under the terms of that accord. Despite this victory, uPlay remains a controversial component of Ubisoft games. As recently as two months ago, the uPlay system was preventing legitimate owners of the PC version of Watch Dogs from playing the open-world hacking adventure. [Image: Ubisoft]
Lindsay Lohan sues Rockstar over GTA 5 character likeness
Following months of idle threats, actress Lindsay Lohan has officially filed a lawsuit against Rockstar Games, alleging that the Grand Theft Auto 5 creators borrowed her likeness for the character of Lacey Jonas. According to the suit, Lohan's virtual doppelganger mirrors the actress' struggles with the paparazzi, while also depicting her voice, image and personal style. Further, the suit points out that Rockstar included an in-game spoof of the famous Chateau Marmont in West Hollywood, a hotel where Lohan herself lived for several months. Lacey Jonas is an "unequivocal" reference to Lohan, the suit claims, before asking for unspecified damages. Not mentioned in the suit are Lohan's recent financial woes, rumored drug abuse or her longstanding reputation as an unreliable actress, all of which has caused her stock to plummet among Hollywood studios over the past decade. Nor does the suit mention that Grand Theft Auto 5 ranks among the most successful game releases of all time, having earned over $800 million dollars on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 alone (and with more money to come from imminent PlayStation 4, PC and Xbox One versions). Then, of course, there's the legally-protected concept of "satire" to discuss - but we're sure a judge will cover all of these bases once this lawsuit finds its way into a courtroom. [Image: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department]
Irish court ruling says defacing Facebook and physical property are the same thing
What happens on Facebook doesn't just stay on Facebook, and your social network activity can be used against you in a court of law. Trolling, bullying and posting offensive content can all land you in hot water, not to mention that your Facebook history can be used as evidence in all kinds of criminal cases. Currently, even the US Supreme Court is trying to clarify legal accountability of social media. Now, in what's thought to be the first prosecution of its kind, a man in Ireland has been charged with "frape" -- the rather tactless term that describes defacing someone's Facebook page from within their account.
WildStar bans thousands of botters
Carbine Executive Producer Jeremy Gaffney informed the WildStar community last night that the team is waging a serious fight against botters, having suspended 7,300 accounts in the last few days. "Obviously 7,300 is a tiny fraction of the overall player base, but it's a noticeable chunk of the current bots," Gaffney wrote. He pointed out that over half of those accounts were regular players who had their accounts hijacked and urged players to use two-factor authentication as a preventative measure. To aid in the war against bots, the team will be improving the reporting process and tuning its automated bot detection. Gaffney said that the studio will be unrelenting in its prosecution of such accounts: "We're attacking this with a full-spectrum approach as a placeholder until we get to the better tools that should help in the short-medium term. We acknowledge it sucks when you see obvious cheaters, and we're working to eliminate it."
