rulings
Latest
ITC judge issues initial ruling that Motorola infringes Microsoft patent
Well, it's a busy holiday week for the International Trade Commission. The agency just announced an initial ruling that Motorola infringed on four claims of Microsoft patent number 6,370,566, which deals with "generating meeting requests and group scheduling from a mobile device," but not the six other patents that were part of last year's ITC complaint. This is an initial ruling by an administrative judge at this point, unlike yesterday's judgement issued by the ITC, which theoretically banned the sale and import of some HTC phones beginning in April 2012. There's certainly more to come in this particular intellectual property saga, however, so stay tuned. Update: The spin cycle is on full blast, as Motorola has just issued a downright bizarre press release celebrating the fact that it was cleared on six of the seven patents. Evidently, that's enough for a mega-corp to holler "victory!"
German court grants injunction against Apple for infringement of Motorola patents (update: Apple responds)
Motorola just confirmed that earlier today, the Mannheim District Court in Germany granted a default judgment in its case against Apple that bars the sale of Apple products in Deutschland. In addition to the confirmation, Motorola also issued the following, rather unrevealing statement: "As media and mobility continue to converge, Motorola Mobility's patented technologies are increasingly important for innovation within the wireless and communications industries, for which Motorola Mobility has developed an industry leading intellectual property portfolio. We will continue to assert ourselves in the protection of these assets, while also ensuring that our technologies are widely available to end-users. We hope that we are able to resolve this matter, so we can focus on creating great innovations that benefit the industry."The ruling comes as a role reversal of sorts for Apple, which most recently received a pair of injunctions in Germany, banning the sale of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in that country, along with the rather embarrassing removal of the Tab 7.7 from the show floor at IFA. According to FOSS Patents this is a default judgment, meaning Apple did not respond to Moto's filing and as a result got hit with the injunction, which could result in its products being pulled or the company being required to pay damages. And so the saga continues... Dust off the pocket translator and hit up the source link for the full ruling in German.Update: We just got the following statement from Apple regarding the ruling: "This is a procedural issue, and has nothing to do with the merits of the case. It does not affect our ability to sell products or do business in Germany at this time."So, it appears our iDevice-loving German friends have nothing to worry about, at least for now.Update (11/7): FOSSPatents has posted a second update accessing the procedural rules, how they (might) affect this case and whether or not Apple has anything to worry about. If you can't get enough FRAND and Zivilprozessordnung news you can read through it -- we'll just hang on until the courts make another decision or someone's products actually get pulled from shelves.
German court finds 2005 e-voting was unconstitutional, uncool
Oh, e-voting machines... ever since they arrived on the scene to challenge old timey lever-laden beasts of yore (not to mention pencils and paper, if you remember what those are), there have been numberless examples of their hackability, their unreliable software, and the general mayhem caused by not having a paper trail in elections. It's been a fun ride, but one that's causing a ruckus in Germany... almost four years after the fact, anyway. That's right, the country's highest court has ruled that the 2005 General Election was, in fact, unconstitutional, after the use of e-voting machines was challenged by a father and son team. The ruling states that while the voting was unconstitutional (read: illegal) because the software used on the machines is unreliable, they have not proven that any mistakes were made, nor do they rule out the possibility of using such machines in the future, when stuff will be cooler and work better.
Judges fighting litigation with Supreme Court's "obvious" patent ruling
You might recall that the Supreme Court recently handed down a decision which loosened the definition of "obvious" as applied to patent interpretation, saying that if a person of ordinary skill could "fit the teaching of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle," the patent is obvious and unenforceable. That decision, which has been called the most important patent ruling in decades, is starting to affect several longstanding patent disputes, most notably a case brought against Real Networks in 2003 by a company called Friskit. In the first instance of a judge applying the new rule, Friskit's patents have been deemed unenforceable as obvious, a change from an earlier ruling allowing the case to go forward. Friskit is of course considering an appeal, but we wouldn't be surprised to see a lot more of these suits decided early on the basis of obviousness.[Via TechDirt]
EU hits Microsoft with $357 million fine
Even though we've resigned ourselves to the fact that Windows Vista isn't coming out until it's good and ready, EU regulators aren't as forgiving as us when it comes to Microsoft playing the delay game, and have hit the software giant with a $357 million fine based on that 2004 anti-competition ruling. What's more, EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes has decided to slap the company with a three million euro-per-day fine starting on July 31st if the document disclosure stipulation of the original decision -- which requires Microsoft to make the Windows source code more accessible to rivals provide technical information to makers of competing server software -- has not been fulfilled. Redmond, for its part, claims that it has been fully cooperating with regulators; general counsel Brad Smith argues that the commission's original demand was too vague, and therefore the issue is not one of compliance but clarity. In the end, Microsoft can complain all day and night about unfair rulings and unclear requirements, but if it wants to continue having unfettered access to the lucrative European market, it seems the company has little choice but to toe the line on this one.
