Legal
Latest
United States planning legislation to offer Europeans the same privacy rights as US citizens
The United States government intends to offer European citizens the same privacy rights extended to US citizens. Exactly how it will do that is yet to be determined, but US attorney general Eric Holder this week told European leaders of the Obama administration's intention to create legislation offering EU citizens "the same right to seek judicial redress for intentional or willful disclosures of protected information and for refusal to grant access or to rectify any errors in that information." Holder made the announcement at a US-EU home affairs and justice ministers meeting in Greece this past Wednesday. The news comes in the wake of a strained 12 months in US-EU relations; information revealed by former security/cryptography expert Edward Snowden showed that the US government spied on a variety of EU leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Holder's lack of specificity left EU leaders wanting for more. "Words only matter if put into law," EU justice commissioner Viviane Reding told The Guardian. "We are waiting for the legislative step."
Hearing on 38 Studios' potential lobbying violations set for next week
Rhode Island Secretary of State Ralph Mollis has issued letters to four individuals, requesting their presence in court on July 1 to determine if attempts were made to lobby lawmakers following the costly collapse of game developer 38 Studios. "Our office has been diligently investigating who, if anyone, lobbied lawmakers regarding 38 Studios," Mollis said in an official statement sent to local media outlet WPRI. "It is our goal to uncover any lobbying violations, which may have occurred without our knowledge, which is why our office has sent letters of inquiry to all parties who we feel may have been involved in lobbying activity, and may be in violation of lobbying laws." Those contacted by Mollis include 38 Studios founder Curt Schilling, former board member Thomas Zaccagnino, Keith Stokes, the former executive director of the Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation, and Michael Corso, an attorney who, WPRI claims, had "several lucrative contracts with the failed video game company." A letter obtained by WPRI, sent from Mollis to Corso, alleges that the attorney met with members of the Rhode Island General Assembly and other lawmakers on "numerous" occasions "for the purposes of influencing policy–making decisions or policy-making actions of the public corporation." Corso's lawyers, in turn, deny Mollis' claims, and demand more evidence of wrong-doing. [Image: 38 Studios]
Oculus: ZeniMax lawsuit a 'transparent attempt' to profit from Facebook sale
Oculus VR has issued a legal statement denying ZeniMax Media's claims that Oculus Chief Technology Officer John Carmack developed key VR technology while employed at ZeniMax, therefore entitling ZeniMax and its subsidiary id Software to compensation. "ZeniMax's Complaint falsely claims ownership in Oculus VR technology in a transparent attempt to take advantage of the Oculus VR sale to Facebook," the statement reads. "By deliberately misstating some facts and omitting others, ZeniMax makes the incredible assertion that it, a videogame software publishing company for personal computers and consoles like the Sony PlayStation, invented and developed a virtual reality hardware and software system." The statement continues: "The truth is quite different. There is not a line of ZeniMax code or any of its technology in any Oculus VR product. [...] Until the Facebook deal, and the perceived chance for a quick payout, ZeniMax never raised any claim of infringement against Oculus VR, undoubtedly because ZeniMax never has contributed any intellectual property or technology to Oculus VR." Carmack responded to the allegations last month. "No work I have ever done has been patented," he said. "ZeniMax owns the code that I wrote, but they don't own VR." Today's statement asserts that the Oculus VR headset technology was developed solely by Palmer Luckey, and claims that "[ZeniMax's] lawsuit is nothing more than ZeniMax seeking to correct for a massive missed opportunity through the assertion of meritless litigation." Oculus now demands a jury trial to resolve the issue. [Image: Oculus VR]
UK court rules against Nintendo in patent infringement case
A UK court has found Nintendo's reasons for creating devices with both a camera and motion-sensing technology "unconvincing," and has ruled against the house that Mario built in a patent infringement case brought forward by electronics company Philips. The decision impacts the Wii and Wii U consoles, as both systems utilize such technology via Wii Remotes and the Wii U GamePad. "The common general knowledge did not include a device combining a physical motion sensor with a camera and the reasons advanced by Nintendo for putting those two sensors together in one unit are unconvincing," judge Colin Birss wrote in his decision, possibly channeling his inner Ron Burgandy. What this means for fines and damages is currently uncertain, as Nintendo has said that it will appeal. Philips filed against Nintendo in the US last month, seeking damages for Nintendo's "deliberate and willful" patent infringement, as well as a ban on the Wii family of products. [Image: Nintendo]
NY medical marijuana law could mean big bucks for vaporizer makers
New York is against second-hand smoke of any kind; even beneficiaries of the state's new medical marijuana law will need to avoid lighting up. Government restrictions do allow vaporizers, however, which got their (legal) start with tobacco and are about to become big business in NY. The handheld devices will play a key role in the treatment of medical marijuana recipients, who will be permitted to inhale the drug through vaporizers, but not by using cigarette paper and a lighter. You'll also be able to consume marijuana in food or through a concentrated liquid called a tincture, but there's no question that vaporizers will become more prolific as more New Yorkers get their hands on closely regulated prescriptions in the days and months to come.
Confiscated data must be returned or deleted if it's not covered by a warrant
Picture a scenario where the government's accused you of a crime. During its investigation, law enforcement copies your computer's hard drive to look for evidence of your misdeeds (pursuant to a warrant, of course). Until today, it was unclear if law enforcement could hold onto copies of your data forever. A new Federal Court decision, however, has crystallized things for us all: the government can no longer keep that data indefinitely. United States v. Ganias is the name of the case in question, and the court held that indefinite retention of our digital files is an illegal seizure under the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.
Toontown Online 'homage' illustrates emulator quandary
Disney's Toontown Online was shut down last year, but that hasn't kept fans from working on a so-called "homage" to the game. A team of 24 or so volunteer developers have been working on making Toontown Rewritten with publicly available images and their own skills as programmers and artists. While the team isn't charging players to access the title, its status as a de facto emulator could put it in jeopardy with the Mouse House. Disney hasn't commented on it yet, but copyright attorney Scott Landsbaum noted the quandary that such projects face: "When does a fan homage that is beneficial to your brand cross the line to infringement that can no longer happen?" Analyst Michael Pachter claimed that it was "unusual" for fans to take on such emulator projects, which was rebutted by Raph Koster, who tweeted, "Sorry Pachter, but hasn't EVERY shuttered MMO (and some open ones) been remade by fans?" A similar project for the also-defunct Pirates of the Caribbean Online claims that Disney has given the emulator its blessing.
Apple settles ebooks price-fixing claim and other news for June 17, 2014
We've got three top stories for you this morning. Apple settles its eBook price-fixing claim out of court, new kids camps are set for Apple Stores this summer and FiftyThree teases a new goodie for Pencil owners. Let's get to it. Apple has settled the eBook price-fixing claim out of court. The details have not been made public, but Attorney Steve Berman, representing the plaintiffs, believed Apple should pay $840 million. Apple announces filmmaking, iBooks Author camps for kids. I'd love to send my kids to one of these camps. Apple has announced that it will host filmmaking and iBooks Author camps for kids ages 8 to 12 in Apple Stores this summer. The 90-minute classes will run for three days. Sessions begin in mid-July and wrap up in August. FiftyThree will add natural 'Pencil' stylus to 'Paper' with iOS 8. FiftyThree has given us another reason to get excited for iOS 8. A new Surface Pressure feature will let those using the FiftyThree Pencil (US$49.99) to angle the tip and the eraser to produce broader strokes.
Court ruling could force YouView to change its name
YouView could soon be forced into a rebrand after it suffered another loss in the courts. After almost two years of legal battles, telecoms company Total successfully argued that YouView had infringed on its "Your View" trademark. Judges agreed that the brand would was "confusingly similar" to Your View, allowing Total to push ahead not only for damages but also seek an injunction on "any further use of the name." YouView maintains that there's "no confusion" between its consumer TV service and Total's business-to-business mobile top-up platform, but today marks the third (and most likely final) time it has come off second best in the courts. Last year, Livescribe was on the wrong end of a UK trademark dispute and was forced to rebrand its Sky Wi-Fi pen having lost to BSkyB. If YouView suffers the same fate, its backers, which include the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Five, BT and TalkTalk, will have the fun job of figuring out what to call their TV offering moving forward.
Kim Dotcom offers whistleblowers $5 million to help Megaupload's case
The basic facts of how Megaupload was shut down in 2012 are public knowledge. But the founder of the file-sharing service, Kim Dotcom, believes there's a subtext to what really happened -- and he's looking for your help to prove it. In essence, he claims to be the victim of a "corrupt" plot between two back-scratching parties: the US authorities, which supposedly wanted to secure the re-election of President Barack Obama, and the movie moguls of Hollywood, who allegedly offered influence over votes in return for having Megaupload terminated for copyright abuse. The only problem? Dotcom will actually have to prove all of this to a New Zealand court, otherwise he'll face extradition to the US, not to mention a string of further civil lawsuits. And so far, it isn't going well.
Valve: Early Access devs may be 'unable to finish their game'
Valve has issued an update to its Steam Early Access FAQ, warning users that some featured games may never reach a completed state. "It's up to the developer to determine when they are ready to 'release,'" an unaltered section of the FAQ reads. "Some developers have a concrete deadline in mind, while others will get a better sense as the development of the game progresses." GamesBeat reports that the following statement was appended recently: "You should be aware that some teams will be unable to 'finish' their game. So you should only buy an Early Access game if you are excited about playing it in its current state."
What you need to know about the 'right to be forgotten' on Google
Who decides your rights to privacy and freedom of speech on the internet? Earlier this month, a landmark ruling by Europe's biggest court left Google trying to find an answer to that unanswerable question. The case, which centers on the so-called "right to be forgotten," allows European users to actively ask providers to remove personal information that's become "outdated" or "irrelevant." Even if Google (or other search engines) has indexed it in a fair and legal way, it's obligated to comply with the ruling. It's opened a debate over whether a company known for its complex search algorithms should be given the duty of making judgement calls over what should and should not remain online for the world to see. Google co-founder Sergey Brin wishes he could "just forget the ruling," but unfortunately for him, Google, and you, the issue is real. And it's going to impact the way we search the web forever.
Report: Former Index president arrested for fraud
Masami Ochiai, former president and CEO of Atlus parent company Index Corporation, has been arrested by Japanese authorities who claim Ochiai fraudulently boosted Index's financial records prior to its sale to Sega Sammy Holdings last year. News of the arrest comes from Japanese business periodical Nikkei (via a Gematsu translation), which claims that the 4 billion yen profit shown on Index's records of the third fiscal quarter of 2012 doesn't actually exist. Investigators believe Ochiai fraudulently reported business transactions that never occurred in order to avoid the removal of Index from JASDAQ (the Japanese analogue to the American NASDAQ stock exchange). Unfortunately for Index, even that profit (the first Index had shown in six years), couldn't save the company from bankruptcy, and it was while sorting out that mess that authorities picked up on Ochiai's reported attempts to make his company look a few million yen better than it otherwise would have. Though Ochiai claims that he has "not been engaging in fraud," investigators plan to delve deeply into Index's financial records under the belief that Ochiai wasn't alone in his deception, and that these financial hijinks were systematically plotted out by Index management. [Image: Sega]
Following $119 million judgement, Apple seeks retrial and injunction against Samsung products
In the wake of its nearly $120 million judgement against Samsung, Apple continues to go on the attack. In a motion filed this past Friday, Apple argues for a retrial on the damages amount. Recall that at the outset of Apple and Samsung's second California litigation, Apple was seeking upwards of $2 billion. What's more, Apple is also seeking a permanent injunction against Samsung's accused products that were found to infringe upon Apple's patents, which include the slide-to-unlock feature and data detectors. Some of the more notable products at issue include the Galaxy Nexus and the Galaxy S II. Further, Apple seeks an injunction against any current and future Samsung products which implement Apple's aforementioned patents. But as Florian Mueller points out, Apple has never had much luck in securing injunctions against Samsung in the U.S. So while Apple argues that it will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction isn't granted, it doesn't appear likely that Apple will attain the injunction it seeks, especially in light of the fact that Samsung can easily code around Apple's patents. Cleverly, though, Apple argues that an injunction should be granted precisely because Samsung can so easily update its software so as to not infringe. In fact, Samsung represented at trial that it now has non-infringing alternatives ready to go for the '647 patent, which would require "less than a day" to implement. Samsung also represented that it has existing non-infringing alternatives to the '172 and '721 patents-including in its "best selling" Galaxy S III phone. Given these representations, Samsung cannot legitimately contend that it would suffer any harm from Apple's narrow proposed injunction, which merely prohibits Samsung from using infringing features that it claims to have already designed around-and that, according to Samsung, would be quick and easy to implement. A redacted version of Apple's motion for a permanent injunction can be viewed below. Lastly, and as we indicated previously, it doesn't seem that Apple and Samsung will be reaching any type of settlement deal anytime soon. 14-05-24 Public Version of Apple Motion for Permanent Injunction Against Samsung by Florian Mueller
While Apple is taken to task for e-book antitrust violations, Amazon wields true monopolistic power
Last summer, Judge Denise Cote found that Apple colluded with publishers to artificially raise the price of e-books across the board. As a result, Cote imposed rules constraining Apple's ability to negotiate with book publishers while also appointing an external monitor tasked with ensuring Apple refrains from antitrust abuse in the future. Indeed, the only winner in the Apple e-book saga appeared to be Amazon, despite Judge Cote's assertion that punishing Apple would restore competition to the e-book space. Recent negotiation tactics from Amazon, however, serve to highlight that the real company prone to wielding monopolistic power in the e-book space is Amazon. The New York Times last week highlighted some of the discouraging antics Amazon has engaged in during the course of heated negotiations with Hachette book publishing. Taking drastic measures, Amazon has delayed delivery of some Hachette titles (in some cases from a few days to a few weeks) while removing others altogether from its online store. Amazon, under fire in much of the literary community for energetically discouraging customers from buying books from the publisher Hachette, has abruptly escalated the battle. The retailer began refusing orders late Thursday for coming Hachette books, including J.K. Rowling's new novel. The paperback edition of Brad Stone's "The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon" - a book Amazon disliked so much it denounced it - is suddenly listed as "unavailable." In some cases, even the pages promoting the books have disappeared. During the course of Apple's e-book trial, Apple stressed time and time again that the iBookstore provided consumers with more choice and operated to "break Amazon's monopolistic grip on the publishing industry." While Amazon's power in the e-book space certainly doesn't give Apple a free pass to do whatever it wants, many have long questioned the DOJ's strategy of pursuing aggressive legal action against Apple when the real 800 pound gorilla in the e-book space is and has always been Amazon. As writer John Moltz comically and snarkily wrote of Amazon's actions, "Time for more ebook sanctions against Apple."
ZeniMax Media formally files suit against Oculus
Polygon reports that it has obtained a copy of the court filing showing that ZeniMax Media, familiar to MMO players as the parent company of The Elder Scrolls Online's ZeniMax Online Studios, has sued Oculus VR for misappropriation and commercial exploitation of "copyrighted code, trade secrets, and 'technical know-how'" in relation to Oculus' virtual reality tech. ZeniMax Media earlier this month accused Oculus (by way of developer John Carmack) of using and exploiting "ZeniMax's technology and intellectual property without authorization, compensation or credit to ZeniMax." Oculus and Carmack strongly denied those claims.
Dutch appeals court upholds Apple injunction against Samsung Galaxy smartphones
Re/Code points us to the fact that Apple on Tuesday was granted a "modest" victory in its ongoing and global legal battle against Samsung. Specifically, a court in the Netherlands upheld a lower court's ruling which banned the sale of Galaxy S II and Galaxy Ace smartphones. The court found that the aforementioned products infringe upon Apple's rubber branding patent, otherwise known as inertial scrolling. While the ruling is ostensibly good news for Apple, the products at issue highlight the ongoing challenge Apple faces in taking its battle against Samsung to the courtroom. The Galaxy S II was first released in May of 2011 while the Galaxy Ace was released in March of 2011. So while Apple has an injunction intact, the products at issue are over three years old at this point and are wholly irrelevant in today's smartphone market. Indeed, litigating over products that are no longer popular remains a frustrating problem for Apple in the U.S. as well. Tim Cook addressed this notion himself last summer when he appeared at a Senate hearing to discuss Apple's tax practices. "I actually think that we require much more work on IP in this country," Cook explained. Cook specifically mentioned that traversing through the U.S. court system can often take years, which is a problem because the pace of technological advancement moves much faster. I think the U.S. Court system is currently structured in such a way that tech companies aren't getting the intellectual property protection they need. Our cycles are fast, the court system is very long and the foreign competitors in the US can quickly take IP and use it and ship products with it and they're to the next product as well. I would love to see conversations between countries and see protections between IP globally. For us, our intellectual property is so important, I would love the system to be strengthened in order to protect it.
38 Studios knew $75M loan wasn't enough to finish Project Copernicus
Emails surfacing from the legal fracas concerning 38 Studios and its loan from Rhode Island indicate that the studio knew the loan was not nearly enough to fully fund the game but decided to hide that from outsiders. 38 Studios Vice Chairman Thomas Zaccagnino allegedly sent one the damning emails, urging a few studio execs to remain mum on the financial situation: "I really do not think we should highlight the fact that we might be under-capitalized... [it] won't go over well with the staff or board." The email was in response to CEO Jen MacLean, who wrote that she was concerned that the state wasn't delivering the full $75 million from the agreement and that the project would fall short of funding because of this. One lawyer involved in both the deal and the lawsuit said that the state knew that the deal wasn't enough to fully fund: "The [EDC] Board was acutely aware that the capital needs of 38 Studios where [sic] in excess of $125MM as acknowledged in the 2010 EDC Inducement Resolution[.] The Board also knew that the net proceeds of the EDC Loan would be less than $75MM."
HEX developers reject copyright infringement allegations
Last week, Wizards of the Coast filed a lawsuit accusing Cryptozoic, the studio behind upcoming MMOTCG HEX, of "willful infringement of intellectual property rights," among other patent and trademark infringement claims. Cryptozoic has responded this week with a statement rejecting what it's calling "frivolous" complaints: Although we take all pending litigation seriously, we do not find any merit to the allegations in the complaint. We do not expect this frivolous legal action to impact our efforts to deliver a compelling and entertaining game experience to our customers. HEX: Shards of Fate is a digital only MMO-TCG that attempts to innovate what a digital trading card game can be. Its digital only nature allows it to push the boundaries in ways a traditional paper TCG never could. As a small company, the daunting task of defending ourselves from the bullying of a much larger corporation is difficult, but we are committed to HEX: Shards of Fate and ultimately we will prevail. We respect intellectual property rights, but the right to make a TCG is not exclusive to WOTC. Many TCGs can, and do, coexist consistent with any IP rights WOTC might have. While IP rights are important, so is fair competition. WOTC cannot snuff out fair competition with frivolous infringement assertions. The original complaint is viewable online.
Notions of an Apple/Samsung settlement appear entirely premature
A Korea Times report earlier this week relayed that Apple and Samsung recently re-opened settlement talks in the hopes of putting their 3+ year long litigation battle behind them. Samsung has recently resumed working-level discussions with Apple and the key issue is how to dismiss all lawsuits," one source said, declining to be named. Ostensibly, the report seemed encouraging, especially in the wake of Apple's recent patent settlement deal with Google. What's more, we do know that Apple and Samsung are prone to engage in high level settlement negotiations from time to time, even if they happen to be court mandated. But a recently filed court document (unearthed by The Verge) from both Samsung and Apple suggests that reaching a settlement deal anytime soon isn't likely to come soon. In a joint statement filed on Monday, Apple questions just how serious and genuine Samsung is about stopping its use of Apple's protected IP and really reaching a settlement deal. In particular, Apple pointed to hyperbolic statements made by lead Samsung attorney John Quinn in the wake of Apple's recent legal victory. "This is Apple's Vietnam, and people are sick of it." And, in what hardly presages a fruitful return to mediation, Mr. Quinn remarked: "It's kind of hard to talk settlement with a jihadist." Further, Apple cites the recent Vanity Fair feature on Samsung in order to point out that Samsung's business model "prohibits early or even timely resolution of any dispute involving intellectual property infringement." Apple also expressed concern that Samsung seemingly wants to use Apple's willingness to engage in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as a negotiation point in future infringement proceedings and royalty negotiations. Of course, Apple isn't the only party casting accusations here as Samsung also has its own view on things. Samsung is quick to dismiss the Apple-proffered notion that they aren't genuine about reaching a settlement. Samsung's portion of the statement reads: Apple seeks to condition further ADR on Samsung's agreement that "Samsung will not use Apple's participation in ADR to resist an injunction or reduce a royalty." Importantly, if Apple were truly interested in global resolution of all cases between the parties, this condition precedent to ADR would be a non-issue. Regardless, Apple's condition is improper. ... By contrast, Samsung does not condition its willingness to participate in ADR on anything even though Apple has repeatedly used its pre-litigation meetings with Samsung during trial to support its arguments. As for Apple citing inflammatory comments from Samsung lead counsel John Quinn, Samsung intimates that the comments are wholly irrelevant and "have little, if anything, to do with Samsung's willingness to discuss settlement." Samsung also adds that "only Apple seeks to impose an obstacle to this resolution through a unilateral condition precedent to further ADR." Looking forward, it's hard to see these two companies reaching an agreement anytime soon. For an alternative point of view, Florian Mueller last week articulated why he believes an Apple/Samsung settlement "is now more likely than ever."
