usdistrictcourt
Latest
Court clamps down on warrantless surveillance case against NSA
This week, a US District Court judge ruled in favor of the NSA in a case challenging its tactics of intercepting messages on the internet without a warrant. California District Judge Jeffrey White said that the plaintiffs in Jewel vs. NSA didn't establish the legal standing needed to pursue claims that the US government violated their Fourth Amendment rights. White ruled that there wasn't enough evidence presented by the plaintiffs, and that the risk of revealing of state secrets would prevent the case from going forward even if they had. The group, who are all AT&T customers being represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), still has a case against the wider telephone record collection and other forms of mass surveillance employed by the National Security Agency. Jewel vs. NSA was filed in 2008 and is one of the earliest lawsuits brought against the federal government over its monitoring practices, preceding the whistleblowing work of Edward Snowden. [Photo credit: AP Photo/Rick Bowmer]
US District Court: Users can't legally resell iTunes songs
US District Judge Richard Sullivan ruled in favor of Universal Music Group in a case involving the resale of songs bought on iTunes, reports AllThingsD. UMG filed the suits against startup ReDigi, a service that lets users resell their music library. In a judgment filed over the weekend, Judge Sullivan shot down the multiple arguments ReDigi used to defend its practice of reselling songs. Sullivan said in his decision that consumers can't sell their music library without consent from the copyright owners. This kills the practice as large music companies like Universal are not likely to approve the reselling of music anytime soon.
Former senior manager at AU Optronics found guilty of involvement in LCD price fixing
The name of Taiwanese display manufacturer AU Optronics is rarely out of the courts when LCD price fixing is involved, and now another of the company's heavyweights has been convicted for the part he played in such crimes. The US Department of Justice announced that Shiu Lung Leung, formerly a senior manager at AUO, has been found guilty for his role in a "conspiracy" which artificially raised the prices of LCD-packing gear in the US. From 2002 through to 2006, Leung is said to have been privy to secret monthly meetings with his company's competitors, where they discussed price fixing (and presumably, sinister cat stroking) in "hotel conference rooms, karaoke bars and tea rooms." Leung joins a couple of other AUO execs and many from different companies who've received similar judgments, and when sentenced, could face up to a dime in the slammer and a hefty fine -- although we doubt any of that cash will be put towards a long-overdue rebate.
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.
Apple, Samsung drop more claims in upcoming trial
The trial between Apple and Samsung in the US District Court in California is slated to begin at the end of July, and both companies are making final preparations for the case. Part of this process requires each company to pare down the number of claims it is asserting in the case, reports FOSS Patents. Earlier this year, Judge Lucy Koh ordered the two companies to limit the number of claims in the case, which the companies did on May 1 and May 7. On Tuesday, another round of reductions was submitted to Judge Koh for review. According to FOSS Patents, Apple dropped its infringement claim on its multipoint touchscreen patent and narrowed its trade dress claims by removing references to Samsung's packaging. Samsung, likewise, dropped its total number of claims from 15 down to 9. Koh will examine these changes and decided if further reduction is needed before the trial.
Broadcast TV networks, Dish Network file lawsuits over new Auto Hop ad skipping feature
Dish Network shocked us just a couple of weeks ago by upgrading its new Hopper DVRs with "Auto Hop" ad skipping that targeted prime time programming on broadcast TV captured via its PrimeTime Anytime feature, and predictably, the networks aren't happy. After several executives took shots at the service during upfronts for the new fall programming in the past few weeks, Fox has filed suit in US District Court, while Dish Network responded with its own request for a court order specifying that it does not infringe on the TV network's copyrights. Just in the last few minutes, the New York Times reports NBC (Update: Add CBS to the list as well, THR has copies of the complaints from Dish and Fox.) has filed a lawsuit against Dish Network as well, and it likely won't be the last one to do so. ReplayTV folded under similar legal pressure, but clearly Dish Network thinks it has a workable solution and now it's going to be up to the courts to decide who wins.
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.
Aereo countersues broadcasters over its internet TV streaming service
Now that Aereo has launched its antenna TV-over-the-internet service it can devote some attention to its legal issues, and today countersued the TV networks suing it (Fox, PBS, Univision, WPIX and WNET) in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan. It's already filed another suit against Disney, CBS, NBCUniversal and Telemundo, as they wrangle over whether or not its scheme -- using an individual "microantenna" for each subscriber and streaming to that person over the internet, as long as they're in the broadcasting area -- violates their copyright. According to Aereo, it's merely relocating the equipment from the customer's home to its remote facility. We'll see if that argument works out any better than it did for Zediva, which announced last week that customers wouldn't be getting their money back after it was sued out of existence last year.
British Telecom is the latest to sue Google over Android, other services
Another day, another patent lawsuit against Google. FOSS Patents reports British Telecom filed suit Thursday in Delaware over six of its patents it says Google is infringing upon with Android and other services like Maps and Music. Feel free to avail yourself of the text of the suit embedded after the break, which is heavy on terms like "telecommunications apparatus and method" and "navigation information system". We're not hearing any official response from Mountain View yet, but until we do you can probably pencil in platitudes about innovation and bogus patents. Update: We have heard from Google, saying (predictably) ""We believe these claims are without merit, and we will defend vigorously against them."
Texas judge says warrantless cellphone tracking violates Fourth Amendment, saga continues
Rev up the bureaucratic turbines, because a judge in Texas has determined that warrantless cellphone tracking is indeed unconstitutional. In a brief decision issued earlier this month, US District Judge Lynn N. Hughes of the Southern District of Texas argued that seizing cellphone records without a search warrant constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment. "The records would show the date, time, called number, and location of the telephone when the call was made," Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling, linked below. "These data are constitutionally protected from this intrusion." The decision comes in response to an earlier ruling issued last year by Magistrate Judge Stephen Smith, also of the Southern District of Texas. In that case, Judge Smith argued against unwarranted wiretapping on similarly constitutional grounds, pointing out that with today's tracking technology, every aspect of a suspect's life could be "imperceptibly captured, compiled, and retrieved from a digital dossier somewhere in a computer cloud." The federal government appealed Judge Smith's ruling on the grounds that the Fourth Amendment would not apply to cellphone tracking, because "a customer has no privacy interest in business records held by a cell phone provider, as they are not the customer's private papers." Judge Hughes' decision, however, effectively overrules this appeal. "When the government requests records from cellular services, data disclosing the location of the telephone at the time of particular calls may be acquired only by a warrant issued on probable cause," Judge Hughes wrote. "The standard under [today's law] is below that required by the Constitution." The law in question, of course, is the Stored Communications Act -- a law bundled under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, which allows investigators to obtain electronic records without a warrant. This month's decision implicitly calls for this law to be reconsidered or revised, though it's certainly not the only ruling to challenge it, and it likely won't be the last, either.
Voltage Pictures dismisses 90 percent of defendants in Hurt Locker file-sharing lawsuit
That record-breaking Hurt Locker lawsuit may not be so impressive after all, now that Voltage Pictures has slashed a major chunk of defendants from its file-sharing complaint. Last week, the company voluntarily dismissed about 90 percent of the 24,583 defendants originally named in the suit, according to documents filed with the US District Court for the District of Columbia. The dismissals were made without prejudice, meaning they could theoretically be re-targeted in the future, though the number of those that reached settlements with Voltage remains unclear. The company also identified some of the alleged file-sharers by name, but acknowledged that 2,278 IP addresses remain anonymous. For more details, check out the coverage from TorrentFreak, where you'll find the full list of dismissed IP addresses, along with the recently-named defendants.
Former ARRI exec pleads guilty to hacking into rival CEO's e-mail account, faces jail time
There's some Oscar-worthy drama brewing in California, where ARRI executive Michael Bravin has pleaded guilty to hacking into a high-level e-mail account at rival camera maker Band Pro Film and Digital. In a plea agreement filed yesterday with a US District Court, Bravin admitted to intentionally accessing a corporate e-mail account belonging to Amnon Band -- Band Pro's President and CEO. More details after the break, including a potential connection to RED's Jim Jannard.
Shocker! WiLAN drums up another lawsuit, this time against big cable
As the saying goes, every time an iPhone is dropped, another wide sweeping patent lawsuit in the tech world sprouts up in the plaintiff-friendly US District courts of east Texas. Okay, so perhaps there's no factual basis for that, but who knows if the latest case filed by suit-happy Canadian wireless company WiLAN against Comcast, Time Warner, and Charter Communications is any more legitimate. The dispute is over US patent No. 5,661,602, which is one of the company's 970 issued or pending patents, and was awarded in 1998. It covers "hybrid multichannel data transmission systems utilizing a broadcast medium" -- a.k.a. the broadcasting of data to remote networks and computers. WiLAN has tapped their ole' favorite US law firm, McKool Smith for the case, and asserts that the big cable triumvirate is in violation of the patent, though a spokesperson for Comcast did note they had not been served with a complaint just yet. Sadly (or not-so-sadly, depending on perspective) we can't take part in the gavel swinging, but considering that WiLAN filed suit against Alcatel-Lucent, Sony Ericsson and LG last month, and sued Acer, Apple, Dell, HP, and Lenovo in April, there's plenty of evidence that this outfit's lawyers are the hardest working employees on the payroll.
Verizon Wireless and AT&T engage in legal fisticuffs over ad slogans
Which North American wireless provider do you think is telling the truth in its advertising? If you answered "none of 'em," you're probably right, but that's not stopping Verizon Wireless from going to court to uphold its commercial honor, having been called out by AT&T earlier this month. VZW took the A train down to US District Court in Manhattan asking that its slogans like "America's Most Reliable 3G Network" be validated, claims AT&T earlier said were false. We're not quite sure why 'ol Blue and White is getting feisty, since it's had its fair share of issues, but maybe this is just some attempt to make the two look like they hate each other in public while exchanging sweet nothings and text messaging price hikes in private. All we know is this isn't the first time carriers have battled over such claims, and it sure won't be the last.
