ruling
Latest
Judge orders new Apple vs. Samsung trial to reevaluate $450.5 million in damage awards
Samsung has tentatively been on the hook for $1.05 billion in penalties after allegedly infringing on Apple's patents, but that figure is about to change -- for better or for worse. Judge Koh has ordered a reevaluation of $450.5 million of the damages in a second trial, arguing that the jury set one damage figure per product where there were six infringement claims that had to be taken into account for each device. She also believes that Apple may be entitled to damages for sales not included in the original case. There's a chance Samsung can lower the amount it ultimately has to pay, but the extra factors and devices could easily worsen its situation. Koh hasn't set a trial date, either, but we'd like it to come soon: Apple versus Samsung is quickly becoming the battle that never ends.
In Germany, internet service providers pay you! (for loss of service)
Ever lost your internet connection? Do the loathsome words "executive customer service" resonate with you? They shouldn't if you live in Deutschland -- at least, not after today. While that course of customer service whinging can occasionally yield some form of restitution stateside (we're being generous), for Germans it's now almost unnecessary. In a ruling issued today, a federal court in Karlsruhe has determined interruption of internet service to be grounds for compensation, as it can be categorized as an "essential material item," Reuters reports. The decision, which allows impacted users to file compensatory claims, stems from a 2008 - 2009 incident in which a private German citizen incurred a loss of phone, fax and internet service over a two month period. Apparently, the man had already been partially reimbursed for having to rely on mobile phone service, but decided to take things a little further. In other news, Americans can just threaten to switch to FiOS. Worked for us.
German state of Schleswig-Holstein orders Facebook to allow pseudonyms
While some countries are insisting that web users hand over their real names, a German state has ordered Facebook to start letting people use fake handles online "immediately." The office of the Data Protection Commissioner in the state of Schleswig-Holstein said that Facebook's real name policy violates the German Telemedia Act and promised to fine the company $26,000 if it fails to allow pseudonyms within two weeks. The decree doesn't hold water in other German regions, but Schleswig-Holstein's commissioner said that colleagues elsewhere agree with the order, and that his state is being used a pilot to test the law. Facebook said it'll fight the order "vigorously," calling it "a waste of German taxpayer's money," and added that its policy already complies with European laws. We'll have to see whether this turns into yet another privacy tiff with the nation, or if it's just a lot of sturm & drang in a teapot.
Court dismisses Verizon attempt to halt FCC data roaming requirements
Verizon hasn't been fond of the FCC requiring data roaming agreements; it sued the agency last May on claims that the requirement overstepped the FCC's legal bounds. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals isn't quite so worried, as three judges at the court have unanimously ruled that the FCC was within the authority of the Communication Act to make data roaming deals mandatory. Regulators have been measured in developing the rule and aren't treating cellular networks like Verizon's as common carriers, the court says. Verizon hasn't yet commented on the court loss, although FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is more than pleased -- he sees the roaming rule encouraging competition and keeping more of our mobile gear online. We're sure smaller carriers would tend to agree now that they won't always have to build out wide-reaching (and expensive) cellular coverage of their own just to offer more than voice and texting for travelers.
Apple's 'spaceship' campus might be delayed until 2016
Apple was moving right along on its plans to build a "spaceship"-like campus on the ground in Cupertino by 2015, but according to a new report to the city council, the project has been delayed by at least a year. Apple was hoping to break ground on the new site this year, but the company is still working on an environmental impact report that's not expected to be finished until June 2013, and that report is required for Cupertino's council to approve the building. There aren't any big changes to the plan itself though a few revisions have been made, including a new scheme to develop the area without trucking dirt around, as well as a tweak that will move a big auditorium further away from campus center. The biggest issue is city council approval. And the council says that even if it approves the plans as they are, local residents might have other legal challenges that could delay the process even further. At any rate, Apple may not get to start building the spaceship campus until 2014, which means employees likely couldn't sit down at their new desks until a few years later. That's probably still fine with the company, though given how quickly things are moving in this industry, it's hard to tell just what Apple will be like when that date rolls around.
X-Men: Destiny destined for unsure lifespan on Games on Demand
X-Men: Destiny is available from today on Xbox Live Marketplace as part of the Games on Demand program, priced at $39.99. That's despite Silicon Knights being ordered by the US court to recall and destroy all unsold copies of its products using Unreal Engine 3, of which X-Men: Destiny is one. The company was also ordered to cease producing and distributing games using Epic's technology.So what exactly's going on here? Well, the ruling in the Silicon Knights vs. Epic Games case dictates Silicon Knights notifies the US court by December 21 of its compliance with the injunctions ordered. This is presumably to give Silicon Knights adequate time to carry out the required actions; recalling and destroying every unsold copy of X-Men: Destiny and Too Human.So the game newly appearing on XBLM might not contravene the injunctions, at least for now. It should also be noted that Too Human is also currently available on XBLM, while GameStop, Target, and Best Buy all have new copies of X-Men: Destiny listed as available.
Apple told to rewrite 'Samsung did not copy' statement, post it on front page until Dec 14th
Apple might not have liked having to publish a notice stating that Samsung did not copy its design, as the result of a court ruling, but it complied all the same. Or did they? A UK court of appeal has criticized the firm over its choice of wording, considering it slippery enough to warrant a rewrite. The Guardian reports that the acknowledgement posted by Apple was deemed non-compliant with the court's order. Apple has today been told to correct its statement, and re-post it on the front page of its website, with at least an 11-point font (and not as a hidden footer link) within 48 hours. The Cupertino team rebuffed, claiming that it would take at least two weeks to get a fresh rework together, a statement that reportedly caused disbelief from some court officials. So, the clock is ticking, and somewhere a legal team is no doubt engaging in some serious thinking. The new statement must remain on Apple's site until December 14th, plenty of time to catch the attention of eager Christmas shoppers.
Dutch court rules that Samsung didn't infringe on Apple multi-touch patent
Once again, a decision has been made on an Apple versus Samsung patent dispute. This time, it's a Dutch court in the Hague, ruling that Samsung does not infringe on a Cupertino patent relating to certain multi-touch commands that the Korean firm implements in some of its Galaxy phones and tablets. This isn't the first time that the Netherlands-based court has found in favor of Samsung, and Apple had already lost a preliminary injunction on this same patent last year. Reuters also reports that the Hague court's decision comes in the same week that the International Trade Commission is expected to decide about further patent disputes between the two firms, which went in favor of Apple the last time around. At the very least, this long and bumpy ride isn't over yet.
German court rules that Motorola, Samsung don't violate Apple touch event patent
Motorola and Samsung just caught a break from the law after a few hard knocks. A Mannheim, Germany court has ruled that neither company infringes on an Apple patent covering how an OS responds to and ignores touch events. While we don't yet know the full details, patent lawsuit guru Florian Mueller suggests that the German judge took the same point of view that thwarted Apple's claims in the Netherlands and the UK: the particular patent was just too broad to stick. It's a potentially important win, as a ruling of violation could have led to serious problems with keeping Android-based Motorola and Samsung devices in stores; other patents are more easily circumvented. However, it's still something of a Pyrrhic victory for a pair of companies that have lately been facing the threat of near-term bans and steep damages.
ITC says Apple didn't violate four Samsung patents with iPad, iPhone
This just hasn't been Samsung's summer. On top of Apple winning its earliest civil lawsuit against Samsung, the International Trade Commission has just handed out an initial determination that Apple didn't violate any of four Samsung patents (including two reportedly standards-essential examples) by offering the iPad and iPhone. While Judge James Gildea didn't publicly outline why Apple was in the clear, he added that Samsung lacks a domestic business that uses the patents -- important when it's trying to claim economic harm in the US. The verdict still gives Samsung at least four months' room to breathe while the ITC reviews the decision, but it's hard to see Samsung enjoying the reduced offensive strength when it's already on the defensive in American courtrooms.
Court upholds Apple victory in Cover Flow, Spotlight, Time Machine patents
An appeals court in Washington has upheld a recent Apple victory on a number of different patents for features in the OS X operating system, including things like Cover Flow, Spotlight search and Time Machine. A company called Mirror Worlds is trying to get a judgment that Apple infringed on its patents with those features, but after initially winning damages of more than $625 million in a jury case, Apple was able to get the decision appealed and wiped the initial ruling clean. Now, an appeals court has denied Mirror Worlds' appeal, leaving Apple the victor, at least until another appeal is filed and run through the courts yet again. Apple's been doing well for itself in patent cases lately -- this ruling follows a huge decision a little while ago that earned Apple a whopping $1.05 billion in damages. That case is also probably set to be appealed by Samsung, as these companies will use whatever tactics they can to try and avoid paying out these huge sums of money.
Apple v. Samsung jury finds Apple's patents valid, awards it nearly $1.05 billion in damages
The federal court jury in the patent infringement lawsuit between Apple and Samsung has presented its verdict after deliberating for just 21 hours and 37 minutes following the three week trial. This particular case started with Apple's lawsuit last April and now the jury's decision is that Samsung did infringe on Apple's '381 bounceback patent with all 21 of its products in question. For the '915 patent on pinch-and-zoom, the jury ruled all but three of the devices listed infringed, and more damningly, found that Samsung executives either knew or should have known their products infringed on the listed patents. The jury has also found against Samsung when it comes to Apple's contours on the back of the iPhone and its home screen GUI. The Galaxy Tab, was found not to have infringed upon Apple's iPad design patents. The bad news for Samsung continued however, as the jury decided that not only did it willfully infringe on five of the seven Apple patents, but also upheld their validity when it came to utility, design and trade dress. The amount of the damages against Samsung is in: $1,051,855,000.00 (see below). That's less than half of the $2.5 billion it was seeking, but still more than enough to put an exclamation point on this victory for the team from Cupertino. The final number is $1,049,343,540, after the judge found an issue with how the jury applied damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 4G LTE and Intercept. The jury also ruled that Apple did not infringe upon Samsung's patents with the iPhone 3G and 3GS, and has awarded it zero dollars in damage. We'll have more information for you as it become available. Update: Both companies have released statements on the matter, with Apple stating via the New York Times the ruling sends a loud and clear message that "stealing isn't right." Samsung has its own viewpoint calling this "a loss for the American consumer" that will lead to fewer choices, less innovation and high prices. You can see both in their entirety after the break.
ITC decides Apple didn't violate Motorola WiFi patent after all, tosses case back to judge
Trouble looked to be brewing for Apple last April: an International Trade Commission judge made an initial ruling that Apple infringed on a standards-essential Motorola WiFi patent, raising the possibility of a trade ban if the verdict held true. The fellows in Cupertino may have caught a big break. A Commission review of the decision on Friday determined that Apple didn't violate the patent, and it upheld positions that exonerated the iPhone maker regarding two others. Apple isn't entirely off the hook, however. The ITC is remanding the case to the judge to review his stance that Apple hadn't violated a non-standards-based patent, which still leaves Apple facing the prospect of a ban. However, having to revisit the case nearly resets the clock -- we now have to wait for another ruling and a matching review, and that likely puts any final decision well into 2013. Google-owned Motorola isn't lacking more weapons in its arsenal, but any stalled proceedings take away bargaining chips in what's become a high-stakes game.
Sixth Circuit rules that law enforcement doesn't need a warrant to track your phone
If you go through tin foil like there's no tomorrow (or because you think there's no tomorrow), you might want to head down the store. A recent 2 - 1 ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that law enforcement agencies can obtain cellphone location data, without the need for a warrant. The decision comes after a defendant in a drug-related case claimed protection from his phone's GPS location data being used under the Fourth Amendment. Judge John Rogers stated that the defendant didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy for data given off by a voluntarily purchased phone, going on to state that if tools used in such crimes give off a trackable signal, police should be allowed to use it. Rogers likened it to the use of dogs tracking a scent, and criminals complaining they didn't know they were giving one off, or that the dog had picked it up. The use of technology in crime prevention, be it police tools, or that belonging to the greater population, has long been a source of complex discussion, and this latest development is unlikely to be the end of it. But for now, at least one guy is rueing his decision to get a better phone. Hit the source for the full case history.
Judge cuts international Galaxy S and S II, Galaxy Ace from Apple lawsuit against Samsung
Apple rested its side of the case in its main lawsuit against Samsung on Monday, and with the switch of focus came a small sacrifice. While Samsung failed in a Hail Mary bid to have the suit dismissed, it successfully argued that a few devices should escape the clutches of a full-fledged ban. Don't get too excited, though: the exclusion list mostly touches on phones that only reach US shores through unofficial importers, including the Galaxy Ace as well as international editions of the Galaxy S and Galaxy S II. The decision still leaves the American variants of phones under scrutiny, and it doesn't change Apple's hopes of a large licensing fee for all the alleged transgressions. We'd still say the exemption provides some small amount of relief for Samsung, however. Most of Apple's early, less-than-flattering accusations of trade dress violations focused on the more familiar-looking foreign Galaxy models and lose some of their thunder when leveled against the conspicuously altered designs that eventually set foot in the US.
Chinese government forbids MMO television series
Chances are that you weren't holding out hope that BBC One was suddenly going to announce Chuck Norris: Warcraft Ranger or that Syfy was going to sign EVE Online to a three-season deal. TV shows based on MMORPGs don't happen -- at least not yet -- but if there is any place that you could imagine one being made, it would probably be in China. Unfortunately, it looks like this hypothetical daydream is off the table for the time being, as the government ruled that no TV show can be made from an MMO property. What gives, China? Why no love for the MMO? This strange restriction is one of several new guidelines announced over the weekend by the Chinese State Administration of Radio, Film, and Television. Among the guidelines is the rule that broadcast TV can't be based on online games. The only current show on Chinese TV related to MMO is Rift in the Sky (which is based on the game Sword of the Yellow Emperor). If you consider how popular MMOs are in the country, it seems odd that the government feels that they're unworthy of appearing on air.
InterDigital wins appeal in never-ending Nokia patent battle
We'll leave labeling of InterDigital to the individual -- whether you prefer patent troll or non-practicing entity, the semantics don't concern us. What does concern us, however, is the IP firm's ongoing legal battle with Nokia, and its recent victory over the Finnish manufacturer in the US Court of Appeals. The ruling reverses a previous decision handed down by the ITC that found Nokia did not violate InterDigital's patents, but the trio of judges hearing the appeal disagreed. The claims in question relate to 3G radios and networks -- the same patents that the firm used to target ZTE and Huawei. It doesn't appear that there will be any immediate repercussions for Nokia, either in the form of import bans or settlement fees. The Windows Phone champion is considering its next move, which may involve appealing the appeal.
Verizon to stop blocking tethering apps, settles with FCC for $1.25 million
In May of last year, our free ride came to an end. US carriers started blocking third party tethering apps in the Android Market. Not long after, the built in feature was turned off on most phones. Our fortune may be reversing, however. The FCC has ruled that Verizon violated the rules governing the C Block of LTE spectrum by preventing consumers from using any application of their choice. The end result: Big Red will have to open up its airwaves and allow customers to circumvent its $20 a month tethering plan using apps from the Play store -- so long as you're on a "usage-based pricing plan." Though it's not explicitly stated, we assume that means those of you lucky enough to be grandfathered in to the unlimited data plans are left out. In addition to unblocking apps such as PdaNet and Barnacle, Verizon must pay a $1.25 million settlement to put an end to the investigation. For a few more details of the plan put in place to ensure compliance with the ruling, check out the PR after the break.
Apple denied Galaxy Nexus and Tab ban in Germany
Samsung is having slightly better luck in Munich than it is here the US in its ongoing legal battle with Apple. The high court upheld a previous ruling that Cupertino's patent relating to "list scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display" was invalid. The end result is that the Galaxy Tab 10.1N and Galaxy Nexus will stay on shelves in Germany, while Apple undoubtedly looks for a new avenue of attack against its primary competitor (one we presume will also be of the legal variety). The decision to deny an injunction against the 10.1N comes only two days after the same device passed a similar challenge in Dusseldorf, where the cosmetic design was the focus. Samsung was obviously pleased with the result, saying that it confirmed the company's position that its Android products did not infringe on Apple's IP. Cupertino, on the other hand, remained predictably silent. Of course, this war is far from over, and it's only a matter of time before a new ruling hands one of the two manufacturers another small victory.
Apple wins stay on having to post 'Samsung did not copy' notice
Apple's pride can stay intact for at least a little while longer: the company successfully won a stay on a UK ruling that would have it post notices clearing Samsung's name in the wake of the two tech giants' patent dispute in the country. Apple now won't have to face any kind of public flogging unless it loses an appeal on the non-infringement verdict, which is due to be heard in October. Not surprisingly, the iPad creator doesn't want its own site to become a billboard promoting someone else's work. The decision makes Samsung's victory that much more bittersweet -- along with losing that instant satisfaction from a humbled Apple, it still has to accept a verdict that claims the Galaxy Tab supposedly isn't cool enough to have been an imitation.
