Earlier this week, an ITC ban of certain older Apple products was overturned by President Obama in a veto of the decision, something the Samsung expressed displeasure over. Following this, the International Trade Commission ruled today that the Korean company violated two of Apple’s patents, and as a result certain products in its lineup should […]
The US Department of Justice isn’t buying publishers’ arguments that proposed injunctions against Apple for alleged e-book price fixing are excessive and contradictory. DOJ attorney Lawrence Buterman claims in a response letter that the penalties against Apple are necessarily harsher, since it didn’t settle the accusations like its reported co-conspirators. The group objection even justifies Apple’s punishment, Buterman claims; it suggests that publishers are just waiting until the end of a two-year ban on agency pricing to raise prices once again. The five-year restriction imposed on Apple could keep prices down for longer, the lawyer says.
Apple, meanwhile, isn’t done with its objections. In addition to an earlier request for a stay on proceedings pending an appeal, it now contends that the court excluded or ignored testimony while giving Amazon and Google witnesses too much credibility. The company will present more of its opinion at a conference today with both the DOJ and the presiding judge, but we’re not expecting a quick resolution — neither side is budging at this stage.
Filed under: Internet, Software, Apple
Source: Letters to the court (1), (2), (3), (4)
For those of you eagerly following the seemingly never-ending legal battle between Apple and Samsung (cue crickets), a recent decision by the US Patent and Trademark Office has thrown a wrench into Apple’s master plan. According to documents filed by Samsung in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Sunday, Apple’s Patent No. 7,844,915, which covers the two-finger pinch-to-zoom gesture, was found wanting by the USPTO due to it being anticipated by other patents and declared otherwise non-patentable, much like its “overscroll bounce” claim. Apple has up to two months to dispute the decision, though whether or not that action would gain the company any ground, either with federal court or the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, remains to be seen.
Filed under: Misc, Apple, Samsung
Via: PC World
Oracle has filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of California against two IT service providers, Maintech and Terix. According to the lawsuit, the two companies have provided illegal support for Oracle’s Solaris OS software, having encouraged customers to cancel their Oracle support subscriptions.
The filing from Oracle states that both of the service providers led customers to believe that they’re authorized to provide support for Oracle’s software, which includes software updates. Furthermore, says Oracle, the two companies acquire the software updates in an “unathorized” manner that includes the use of login information that has expired.
Not surprisingly, both Maintech and Terix have denounced such claims. Said Terix’s CEO Bernd Appleby: “Oracles [sic] complaint is without any basis in either law or fact. Terix fully respects and diligently strives to protect the intellectual property of any third party. Terix acts only as an authorized agent of the end-users, pursuant to their rights, to facilitate support services.”
Terix goes on to state that all the users named in the filing had valid Oracle rights and licenses, among others, with their login info only being used for their own issues. For its part, Oracle is seeking an injunction – both preliminary and permanent – against both companies, as well as payment in the form of damages, restitution, and return of any and all intellectual property.
This isn’t the first time companies have been accused of providing unauthorized support for Solaris software, and is a further push on Oracle’s part to stomp on third-party vendors that pose a threat to its support revenue stream. Such third-party vendors, however, feel that there is nothing wrong with their services, and contend that they work within the rights of the customers.
SOURCE: Network World
Oracle files lawsuit against companies offering illegal tech support is written by Brittany Hillen & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2013, SlashGear. All right reserved.
Ford‘s advanced MyFord Touch infotainment systems are the focus of a new class-action lawsuit that’s been filed, noting that they’re defective and don’t work as advertised. The lawsuit also states that Ford knew that the infotainment system had issues, but sent them out to the public anyway without telling customers.
The MyFord Touch dashboard infotainment system was introduced in Ford and Lincoln vehicles a couple of years ago, and many drivers have reported dealing with glitches and freezing menus. Ford has issued several firmware updates to the system in the past and are even bringing back physical controls due to driver demand, but it seems that isn’t stopping a particular group.
The group behind the lawsuit is Center for Defensive Driving, which is a non-profit organization that offers free educational presentations on defensive driving to the public (and they also happen to be partially funded by Ford, which is a little ironic). It seems that they’re fed up with Ford’s infotainment offerings, despite the company’s attempts at fixing it.
Of course, Ford is well aware of these issues. Last year, the car maker reported that for every 1,000 vehicles, approximately 400 of them experienced issues with the MyFord Touch system — a rather disappointing ratio that isn’t quite the majority of their vehicles, but makes up almost half of them.
We’ve spoken with Ford on the matter, but they said that the company does “not comment on pending litigation.” As for what the Center for Defensive Driving hopes to get out of the lawsuit, a monetary reward will most likely take place, but no figure has been estimated yet. However, CDD President Chris Knox said that Ford should discontinue the MyFord Touch system instead of trying to improve it.
VIA: Automotive News
Ford sued over defective MyFord Touch infotainment systems is written by Craig Lloyd & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2013, SlashGear. All right reserved.
The PRISM news may have slowed in recent weeks, but the backlash against companies who were accussed of giving the government unmitigated access to their users’ data hasn’t, and these companies are responding to clear their names. Yahoo! is one such company, and it has recently received a victory in court, with a ruling being issued that will declassify a document showing that it fought against FISA orders.
PRISM, of course, is the name of the program leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, in which it was claimed that major US companies – Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and others – had given the government direct access to its servers, allowing it to grab users’ data at will. The companies all spoke out against this, stating that such was not the case and that no direct access to information was given.
Yahoo took issue with this, and petitioned for a declassification of legal documents that will prove it fought against the FISA orders on behalf of its users, something that was granted today. Under the order, the Department of Justice is required to make available documents filed in 2008, which Yahoo says contains information proving its innocence and battle to keep information private.
The order came from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, more commonly called FISA, and was then signed by the FISC. Said the ruling: “The Government shall conduct a declassification review of this Court’s Memorandum Opinion of [the Yahoo case] and the legal briefs submitted by the parties to this Court.” We’ll know within the next two weeks how long this declassification process will take.
Shortly after the PRISM accusations had surfaced, Yahoo! denied the claims, and later went on to petition for the right to reveal more detailed data request numbers, something it was granted with fairly substantial limitations. According to the report, the company received between 12,000 and 13,000 law enforcement data requested in last half of 2012.
SOURCE: Daily Dot
Yahoo court document to be declassified showing FISA opposition is written by Brittany Hillen & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2013, SlashGear. All right reserved.
Thought the ITC battle between Microsoft and Motorola over Microsoft’s email-based meeting patents was over? Think again. Despite winning an exclusion order (read: an import ban) on all MMI handsets infringing its patent, Microsoft has filed suit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia against US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Customs Deputy Commissioner Thomas Winkowski, the Department of Homeland Security and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano for failing to enforce the order. The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to do their jobs and allowed infringing devices to continue to be imported based upon claims and arguments Moto successfully made to US Customs — and Microsoft was neither privy to these discussions, nor given the opportunity to respond to Motorola’s claims. Essentially, Microsoft argues that Customs and Border Protection has both shirked its duties and made rulings in direct conflict with the ITC’s decision and order.
As such, Microsoft wants the court to rule that the CBP exceeded its legal authority, set aside the unlawful rulings set forth by CBP and compel it to enforce the ITC’s exclusion order. In addition to the complaint, Microsoft also filed for a Preliminary Injunction asking that the original ITC import ban be enforced immediately. We’ve yet to hear how the government will respond to these allegations, but we’ll keep you posted as things develop.
Filed under: Cellphones, Software, Mobile, Microsoft, Google
Via: Bloomberg
Source: Complaint [PDF], Preliminary Injunction request [PDF]
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is no stranger to laying down the law on those who illegal download copyrighted content, but a recent case has an interesting settlement attached. The RIAA is giving infamous file-sharer Jammie Thomas-Rasset the choice to represent an anti-piracy campaign in exchange for a lower fine.
The court case involving the RIAA and Thomas-Rasset has lasted seven years so far, but it seems like things are coming to a close. Thomas-Rasset was sued for illegally sharing 24 songs online, and after the US Supreme Court declined to hear Thomas-Rasset’s appeal, the RIAA said that it would would reduce her fine, which stands at $222,000 currently.
The fine would be reduced as long as Thomas-Rasset made a public service announcement that would campaign against online piracy through the RIAA. It’s quite the ultimatum, but it wasn’t disclosed what the fine would be reduced to if Thomas-Rasset agreed to the proposal.
One of the big reasons why this court case has been so huge lately is that Thomas-Rasset became the first person to refuse to settle with the RIAA, and instead chose to let the RIAA take the case to court. The settlement cost was only $3,500, but Thomas-Rasset could end up paying way more than a few grand.
Her attorney said that she “is pretty opposed” to the proposal of making a public service announcement for the RIAA, and it’s possible that Thomas-Rasset will be filing for bankruptcy protection in order to evade the damages that she would be getting. However, the case is still ongoing, so it’s possible things may change in the near future.
SOURCE: Wired
RIAA cutting file-sharer fine in exchange for anti-piracy campaign is written by Craig Lloyd & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2013, SlashGear. All right reserved.
This is site is run by Sascha Endlicher, M.A., during ungodly late night hours. Wanna know more about him? Connect via Social Media by jumping to about.me/sascha.endlicher.
