ruling
Latest
German court rules Motorola Xoom doesn't violate Apple's iPad design patent
Apple filed a stealth lawsuit last summer alleging that the Motorola Xoom violated the design patent that underpins the iPad. While Apple has had some success leveling its big patent gun against Samsung, the same can't be said for Motorola: a German court just declared that the reference Android tablet doesn't infringe on Apple's design claim. The ruling isn't a complete win for Motorola, however, as the court wouldn't invalidate the patent -- it could theoretically be leveled against other tablets in the future. The loss will still sting for Apple, which now has to resort to a multi-touch patent claim (among others) if it wants to make Motorola feel the heat in Mannheim.
EU clears resales of used software, shoots down Oracle's new-sales-only dreams
One advantage American technology fans can celebrate is the right to resell software. After the initial purchase, they're usually cleared to pass along any apps or games as long as the technology itself allows. Europeans haven't had that (legal) option to date, but the EU's Court of Justice has just ruled in a case against Oracle that they will going forward: no matter what the license says, those in EU countries can resell their downloaded apps as long as they don't try to keep a working copy for themselves. The new owner doesn't even have to shuffle over a local example and can go straight to the source. We can't imagine that Oracle and other companies averse to used software are jumping for joy, although copy protection and a lack of digital resale mechanisms might help them simmer down and let us treat our apps like we do our gadgets. [Image credit: Maciej Bliziński, Flickr]
UK judge rules HTC doesn't violate Apple's patents, invalidates Cupertino's claims
Well, Apple had a few legal victories over the last couple of weeks, but it's just been handed a significant defeat by Judge Christopher Floyd. The UK court handed down a ruling that HTC does not violate four Apple patents, including the infamous slide-to-unlock claim. What's more, the judge ruled that three of the four patents in question were not valid, among them the aforementioned unlocking design. The only one of the four patents that stood at the end of the day was related to scrolling through images in the photo management app, but HTC did not infringe upon the claim. This follows the ITC refusing an emergency ban on HTC products in the US. Don't think you've heard the last of slide-to-unlock, however. As HTC, Apple and Samsung have repeatedly shown, they're just as interested in competing in the court room as they are on store shelves (if not more so).
EU court rules it's legal to resell digital games, software
Buying and reselling any form of digital software is perfectly legal, the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled. Software authors – or in the gaming world, publishers – can not stop customers from reselling their games, even if the publisher attaches an End User License Agreement prohibiting resale."The exclusive right of distribution of a copy of a computer program covered by such a licence is exhausted on its first sale," the court has found.This ruling covers customers in European Union member states, and games bought through services such as Steam or Origin. The initial purchaser is now entitled to sell the license of a game and allow someone else to download it directly from the publisher's website. The tricky part now is selling the actual license, since there is no system in place for any such transaction. The initial buyer would need a code for a game's license and upon selling it, he would no longer be able to access that game on his account.The ruling applies to the broader scope of software, covering items such as Windows and Adobe downloads. There is no word yet on whether game distributors will change policies or services to enable a license-selling process, but that would make Steam sales much more interesting in the EU.
Microsoft catches a break: ITC remands Motorola case, Xbox 360 dodges at least a 2012 ban
Things were looking grim for gaming in April, when the International Trade Commission decided that the Xbox 360 violated Motorola patents and the console's US future was in doubt. The agency hasn't necessarily reversed its decision, but it just gave Microsoft a significant (and possibly permanent) reprieve. The Commission has remanded Motorola's case back to the Administrative Law Judge that gave the initial ruling, which very nearly restarts the clock: a new ruling won't come for months, and the usual review process guarantees even more of a delay even if the decision once more works in Motorola's favor. Patent suit watcher Florian Mueller is now confident that the Xbox 360 won't face any real risk of a ban in 2012, at a minimum. If the new decision doesn't clear Microsoft outright, it still pushes any ruling past a Microsoft lawsuit's trial in mid-November, when Motorola might be blocked from attempting any ban using its standards-based patents. We've rarely seen a majority or total reversal of this kind of ITC patent dispute before it reaches the appeals stage, but there's a distinct chance of that flip happening here -- especially as the ITC is using Apple's successful dismissal of an S3 Graphics victory as the judge's new template.
Court upholds EU antitrust decision against Microsoft, reduces fine slightly to $1.07 billion
Europe's second-highest court has finally denied Microsoft's 2008 appeal of its 899 million euro ($1.35 billion) EU antitrust fine, while reducing the award to 860 million euros ($1.07 billion). If you can't remember that far back, Redmond was hit with the penalty for delaying information about its operating system to rival companies, impeding their progress in competing with the software giant. It's not known if a further appeal is possible, but we suspect that the company won't give up if it's got any options -- it's not exactly pocket change we're talking about.
Google to pay $0 in damages to Oracle, wait for appeal
After watching Judge Alsup strike down its patent and Java API infringement claims, Oracle seems to be cutting its losses, agreeing to accept $0 in damages from Google. Confused? So was the Judge, who reportedly responded to the proposal by asking, "is there a catch I need to be aware of?" No catch, but Oracle isn't giving up, stating that it's taking its case to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. If successful, the appeal could put the two firms back in Alsup's courtroom, perhaps asking for somewhere between the previously proposed $32.3 million and today's sum total of zilch. We'll let you know when the drama comes around again.
Dutch court rules in favor of Samsung in 3G patent case against Apple, could lead to compensation
Remember that Apple versus Samsung case? You know, the one with the patents? Okay, well while these disputes are not rare, they do occasionally finally get decided upon. A District Court in the Hague, Holland, has ruled that some of Apple's older iPads (versions one and two) and iPhones (3G, 3Gs, and 4) violate one of the Korean firm's 3G patents. This comes after the same court shot down two of Samsung's other patent claims. Today's ruling regards European Patent EP1188269, which protects "Apparatus for encoding a transport format combination indicator for a communications system." Dutch site WebWereld.nl reports that the court ruled that the two tech giants try and reach a compensatory deal. Despite this, Samsung will still have to pay up €800,000 in costs to Apple for the two cases it lost. There is no talk of a sales ban at this time.
Judge puts Apple vs. Motorola hearing back on deck, asks the two to put up or shut up
Well, we did ask you to "tune in next week." Just seven days after he tentatively dismissed one of Apple's patent lawsuits against Motorola, Judge Richard Posner has given both sides a chance to prove their cases are worthwhile in a hearing on June 20th. As both sides are claiming damages, Posner wants them to explain if and how they're entitled to a payout should they win, including the possibility of a modest royalty instead of lump sums. Motorola is getting extra scrutiny since it's using standards-based patents that have drawn flak from lawmakers -- it will likely have to say how it thinks FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing requirements for its 3G patent fit into its claims. The judge clearly warns that progress is contingent on Apple and Motorola meeting legal standards; if they fall short, it's not likely they'll get a third chance. Any success will revive the possibility of preliminary product bans, though, and that's something that most won't find something to cheer about.
Kodak can't dismiss Apple's claims on patents, gets clearance to sell those patents regardless
Apple might have been denied a lawsuit against Kodak while the former camera maker is in bankruptcy, but that hasn't kept it from winning in court. A Manhattan judge has tossed a Kodak attempt to dismiss Apple's claims that it, not Kodak, owns 10 of those patents through collaborative work back in the QuickTake days. The ruling explicitly clears Kodak to sell the patents to the highest bidder and gives it a quicker path to recovery. However, the compromise also sends a warning to any potential buyers that Apple might have a stake in patents that change hands -- a decision that will either push Kodak to set some money aside or risk sticking a potential buyer with the bill. While who owns what is still up for debate, Kodak likely isn't eager to have another Sword of Damocles over its head that risks scaring away much-needed patent buyers. [Image credit: Pittaya Sroilong, Flickr]
ITC denies HTC chance to wield Google patents against Apple
HTC hasn't been having the best time bringing ITC disputes against Apple, and the situation just got a bit more glum. Administrative Law Judge Thomas Pender has ruled that HTC can't use the patents it borrowed from Google to challenge Apple's products, as the Taiwan phone maker hasn't properly acquired all the necessary rights. If the decision is upheld after the (possible) appeal, it cuts the amount of ammunition for HTC's second complaint by more than half: only three of the eight patents will hold up. The One X designer can still try to appeal or get Google involved, and Apple still can't rest easy knowing that just one patent infringement verdict would be bad news. Even so, the ruling does take a considerable amount of sting out of the ITC case as-is -- and at a time when Apple is ramping up its own complaints.
RIM finally gets some good news, court rules it can keep using BBM name
Between delays, executive defections and falling market share the news lately hasn't been rosy for RIM, but today it got at least one reprieve as a Federal Court in Canada ruled its use of the acronym BBM did not infringe another company's trademark. The lawsuit was filed last December by BBM Canada, a broadcast industry group that owns a trademark on the name but because they are in different types of businesses the court decided RIMs usage was acceptable. According to The Globe and Mail BBM Canada CEO Jim MacLeod has not decided whether or not to appeal the ruling, but we're sure the folks from Waterloo will take a win for now. It already had to switch the name of its new OS from BBX to BlackBerry 10 after losing a trademark ruling there and more bad news is expected in its next quarterly earnings report.
Oracle v. Google: Judge finds structure of Java APIs not copyrightable, renders jury infringement verdict moot
Thought the Oracle v. Google litigation fireworks were over? Well, if you weren't aware, during the copyright phase of the trial, the jury found that Google had infringed the structure, sequence and organization of Oracle's Java APIs. However, at the time, Judge Alsup had yet to evaluate the validity of Oracle's API copyright claims upon which that verdict was based. Today, Alsup found that Oracle's argument didn't hold water because it would expand the breadth of copyright holder's rights too far -- in essence, it would allow owners of software code to prevent others from writing different versions to perform the same functions. This ruling renders the jury's earlier infringement verdict moot, and gives Mountain View yet another courtroom victory. Despite this latest defeat, Oracle's sure to run the case up one more rung on the legal ladder, so let the countdown to the appeal begin.
French court rules Google isn't liable for YouTube bootlegs of TF1 TV shows
France typically hasn't been kind to Google. Today, though, it's cutting some important slack. A court has ruled that the search firm can't be held liable when YouTube members upload clips of their favorite football matches or movies from local network TF1. As in a case involving Dailymotion last year, the judge saw YouTube as just the host for others' videos rather than having any hand in producing the content itself. Not only does the decision let Google off the hook for a possible €141 million ($177 million) fine, it prevents the company from having to pre-screen every video that might be visible in France -- a difficult challenge for a company that takes 72 hours of new video every minute. Google is still facing less-than-cordial attitudes towards its copyright enforcement in other countries, including a zombie Viacom lawsuit in the US, but it now has some extra ammunition if it wants to cite a precedent. [Image credit: Premiere]
Jury issues verdict in Android suit, finds that Google doesn't infringe Oracle patents
It appears that the jury has come to a conclusion in the Oracle v. Google trial, determining that Android does not infringe Oracle patents. Judge William Alsup of the US District Court for Northern California exonerated the search giant following a trial that lasted three weeks, ruling that Google did not infringe on six claims in US Patent RE38,104, along two claims in US Patent 6,061,520. Jurors were dismissed following today's ruling, with the trial's damages phase reportedly set to begin on Tuesday. According to The Verge, the jury did determine that Google was responsible for two counts of minor copyright infringement, relating to the order of Java APIs and several lines of rangeCheck code, which could be matched with a maximum penalty of $150,000 for each count. Regardless, it appears that the lawsuit, which dates back to 2010, when Oracle filed against Google for copyright and patent infringement related to Sun's Java code, could finally be coming to a close.
ITC says again that Apple and RIM don't violate Kodak patent
Kodak hasn't caught a break lately, and that trend isn't easing up any time soon with a second rejection arriving in its main International Trade Commission (ITC) patent dispute with Apple and RIM. Despite having had its case remanded after a loss last year, Kodak is once more being told that BlackBerrys and iPhones don't violate a patent on previewing photos. The one violation was rendered moot through "obviousness," according to administrative law judge Thomas Pender. It's still an initial ruling, and Kodak is trying to put a positive light on the situation -- it's "pleased" there's still an infringement, even if the patent claim is invalid -- but the patent wars aren't looking good for a photography company that has already had to give up cameras to have a chance of staying afloat. Most of Kodak's hope, then, will be pinned on a second wave of ITC disputes that might stand a better chance of putting at least Apple's feet to the fire.
Justice Department clears Google of WiFi wiretapping violations
Two years ago, Google drove its way into a fair amount of hot water when it accidentally (as was claimed) scooped up private data over WiFi while collecting Street View and location data. Now, the Justice Department has cleared the prolific mapsters of the wiretapping violations. The DOJ made its decision not to push for prosecution based on reports from employees and investigating key documents reports Wired. The Wiretap Act (which is the relevant one here) was argued to only pertain to "traditional radio services," by US District Judge James Ware, but neither the DOJ or FCC said they could find any evidence that Google accessed the date it snared. In an extra move of openness, the search giant has also released the entire FCC report on the Street View investigation (redacted to protect identities) which can be found in the more coverage link. So, next time you see the famous camera-topped wagons roll around, you can leave your tin hat in the closet.
140 characters to the clink: Occupy Wall Street protester loses battle to block Twitter subpoena
In a decision that's sure to be lost on this generation of over-sharers, Occupy Wall Street protester Malcolm Harris, arrested this past October during a Brooklyn Bridge demonstration, has just lost a legal battle to block prosecutors' attempts to subpoena three month's worth of his tweets. Chalking the ruling up to Twitter's terms of service, Judge Matthew Sciarrino Jr. concluded that the posted updates belong to the social networking company under license and, therefore, are fair game for use in the case "given their relevance." Harris, as expected, is in the process of filing a motion to reargue, but let this be a fair warning to our open online culture: what happens on the internet, stays on the internet forever. So you better watch what you tweet.
ITC judge finds Apple in violation of Motorola WiFi patent
Motorola scored a win with the US International Trade Commission this week in its on-going patent battle with Apple. The commission's Judge Thomas Pender ruled that Cupertino is in violation of a Motorola WiFi patent -- one of four patents included in a complaint filed by the RAZR maker back in October 2010. Before the ITC actually goes so far as blocking the import of Apple products, however, the ruling is subject to review by the commission. The decision follows another patent win for Motorola, handed down by the ITC yesterday in a dispute with Microsoft. Update: Motorola sent along the following, not surprisingly chipper statement on the matter: We are pleased that the ALJ's initial determination finds Apple to be in violation of Motorola Mobility's intellectual property, and look forward to the full commission's ruling in August. Our commitment to innovation is a primary reason why we are an industry-leader in intellectual property, and our focus continues to be on building on this strong foundation to enhance the user experience.
YouTube ordered to filter video uploads by German court, could face hefty fines
A Hamburg court decision has ruled that YouTube is responsible for what its users upload to the site. This therefore could make the site liable for any copyright infringement associated with that. Furthermore, the court has asked the video sharing giant to put filters in place that detect clips that are protected by the German royalties agency Gema at the point of upload. Worst of all, this could saddle the website with a hefty tab. Although this particular case only pertains to 12 videos (and the ruling to seven of those,) future fines could be as much as €250,000 ($330,000) per case. YouTube maintained that it has no responsibility over what users upload, but that it did take action when notified about protected content. [Thanks, Guy]
