Hasta La Gadget!

Another day, another lawsuit finally drawing to a close. This time, a judge has approved a settlement for a class-action lawsuit filed against Apple and AT&T, based on the unlimited data claims of the original iPad that were later withdrawn by AT&T. So, if you bought a 3G iPad before June 7th, 2010, you’ll get a $40 payout from Apple, even if you stand among AT&T’s grandfathered customers. Meanwhile, if you purchased the original 3G iPad but didn’t get a mobile plan, you’re also eligible for a $20 / month discount for up to a year under the carrier’s current $50 offering. The toddler-aged class action was born out of affected customers’ frustration over the change and the belief that they overpaid for their devices as a result. Unfortunately, the ruling won’t be finalized until February 2014, so don’t expect to hear from Apple about the payout — or plan a modest $40 dinner for two — until then.

Filed under: Tablets, Mobile, Apple, AT&T

Comments

Via: GigaOM

Source: Law360, Scribd

Yesterday, Lavabit — the email service used by Edward Snowden, catapulting it into unwanted fame — filed a request to have its case partially unsealed, allowing for third parties to file amicus briefs. Today, an appeal filing has surfaced revealing some details about what went down with the email service after attracting the government’s attention, […]

Apple is no stranger to lawsuits targeting the iPhone and iPad, but over in Japan, it’s the company’s older iPod design that has landed it in hot water. Kyodo News reports that the Tokyo District Court ordered Apple to pay ¥300 million ($3.3 million) to Japanese inventor Norihiko Saito for infringing on a patent covering the touch-sensitive click wheel used in the iPod Classic and older models of its iconic music player. Saito’s damages come more than five years after he filed the patent lawsuit, during which time he demanded damages of ¥10 billion ($101 million), based partly on the number of iPods Apple had sold during that period. Fortunately for Apple, the final figure was substantially less than Saito’s demand and it’ll only have to sell a few more iPhones to cover the cost.

Filed under: Handhelds, Apple

Comments

Via: Dow Jones

Source: Kyodo News

There’s been a lot of fallout from the Duke Nukem Forever launch in 2011, and not just from critics — 3DRealms sued Gearbox earlier this year for allegedly skimping on royalties until it paid off a loan. All that’s now water under the bridge, as 3DRealms has dismissed its lawsuit. The game developer’s Scott Miller describes the suit as a “misunderstanding;” Gearbox is in the clear following an evidence review, he says. The dismissal may not patch things up with gamers, but it shows that industry disputes don’t always have to reach a bitter conclusion. Read 3DRealms’ full statement after the break.

Filed under: Gaming, Software

Comments

Google’s already vowed to pony up $7 million and destroy passwords, emails and other data collected from unsecured WiFi networks through its Street View cars, but the damage won’t stop there. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has denied the company’s attempt to dismiss wiretapping claims in a class action suit over the debacle. Page and Co. argued their actions could pass under a wiretap exemption since data transmitted over WiFi is an electronic communication that’s easily accessible to the public. However, the panel of judges didn’t buy the search giant’s argument. “Wi-Fi transmissions are not ‘readily accessible’ to the ‘general public’ because most of the general public lacks the expertise to intercept and decode payload data transmitted over a Wi-Fi network,” Judge Jay Bybee explained. Secondly, the court ruled that the data transmitted over WiFi can’t be classified as mostly audio, so it falls “outside of the definition of a ‘radio communication.'”

“We are disappointed in the Ninth Circuit’s decision and are considering our next steps,” a Google spokesperson told Bloomberg. Now that Mountain View isn’t getting off this hook, expect it to dish out more compensation soon.

Filed under: Google

Comments

Via: AllThingsD

Source: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (PDF)