Hasta La Gadget!

Miami U.S. District Judge Robert Scola had choice words for Apple and Samsung Google during a patent dispute between the pair, accusing the two of of having “no interest in efficiently and expeditiously resolving this dispute” and instead using such proceedings “as a business strategy.” The Florida case began in 2010 and has since swelled to over 180 claims, causing the pair to ask the court to reduce the scope of the case. That caused Judge Scola to rail against the combatants, saying “without a hint of irony, the parties now ask the court to mop up a mess that they made,” adding that he would “decline this invitation.” Instead, he gave them four months to streamline the case themselves, lest it be placed on hold until all the nearly 100 terms in dispute are defined to everyone’s satisfaction — but we know how that’s gone before.

Update: The original post mentioned Samsung and Apple as the disputants, but it’s actually a suit involving Google and Apple. Thanks for all who pointed it out.

Filed under: Cellphones, Misc, Tablets, Apple, Samsung

Comments

Via: Games Industry International

Source: Bloomberg

Looks like the IRS believes it can read your emails, Facebook Chats, Twitter Direct Messages, SMS messages, and more without needing to obtain a search warrant beforehand. However, a ruling in the 2010 case, U.S. v. Warshak, by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals states that accessing someone’s email messages without obtaining a warrant first violates the Fourth Amendment.

According to an IRS 2009 Search Warrant Handbook discovered by the American Civil Liberties Union, the IRS says,

“Emails and other transmissions generally lose their reasonable expectation of privacy and thus their Fourth Amendment protection once they have been sent from an individual’s computer.”

The ACLU says that under the currently outdated Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), if an email is in an email provider’s server for more than 180 days, or has been opened, it does not require a warrant to access. Authorities can access the emails with just an administrative subpoena. Luckily, the ruling in the U.S v. Warshak protects individuals from unreasonable searches by the government. However, the main fear is whether or not the IRS would be abiding by the Warshak ruling throughout the entire country, or if its only going to be abiding by it throughout the Sixth Circuit.

When the IRS issued edits to its Internal Revenue Manual in March 2011, one year after the Warshak ruling, it still decided to keep its original policy. The manual states that under ECPA,

Investigators can obtain everything in an account except for unopened e-mail or voice mail stored with a provider for 180 days or less using a [relevant-and-material-standard]court order.

Even on today’s date, the Internal Revenue Manual retains the same policy that a warrant is not required to search emails stored for more than 180 days. The IRS strongly believes that emails, or any form of communication held in electronic storage, is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Back in 2009, the IRS Criminal Tax Division’s Office of Chief Counsel stated,

“The Fourth Amendment does not protect communications held in electronic storage, such as email messages stored on a server, because internet users do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such communications.”

The office echoed its stance in 2010 at a presentation, stating, “4th Amendment Does Not Protect Emails Stored on Server.” Luckily for us, a lot of companies are all fighting to protect your information and your rights. Amazon, Apple, AT&T, eBay, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Twitter, and many advocacy groups have all asked Congress to update the ECPA to make it clear to the IRS, and other authorities, that they need warrants to access someone’s private, electronic conversations.

[via CNET]

IRS believes it can read your emails, chats, and more without a warrant is written by Brian Sin & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

It’s no secret that Samsung and LG have been less than enthused with each other in recent months, with Samsung having sought an injunction against the latter company last year. The competitors aren’t calling a truce any time soon, and it seems things might have jumped a notch, with Samsung’s display business’s office in Korea being searched by Seoul police yesterday over possible tech theft.

Reports Bloomberg, the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency searched Samsung’s Asan-stationed display headquarters in search of documents that would indicate theft of LG’s OLED display technology. According to the report, the police have an active investigation going on regarding whether LG’s partners leaked the company’s secrets, and, in this particular case, whether Samsung could be on the receiving end.

In response, Samsung’s spokeswoman Jun Eun Sun offered a semi-smug statement: “We have no reason to steal other companies’ technology, as we have the world’s best OLED technology.” While the initial thought is that LG is behind the search, the company’s spokesman said that it didn’t have any involvement in the matter. “The latest investigation is related to large-sized OLED TV panel technology, but the police have made the allegation themselves.”

LG was smacked last year with theft accussations, with six of its workers being charged with stealing Samsung’s OLED technology. LG saw the matter different than the legal system, claiming that the technology its employees were charged with stealing was common industry information and that no trade secrets were involved. As it currently stands, LG has trumped Samsung in the OLED television market.

[via Bloomberg]

Samsung’s offices searched by Seoul police over possible technology theft is written by Brittany Hillen & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Angered over Aereo’s recent win in Appeals court, News Corp is threatening to cancel its free Fox TV network and switch it completely to a subscription-based service. Many other networks are also frustrated with Aereo, which takes over-the-air broadcast signals with its thousands of little antennas and feeds them to its subscribers’ computers, phones, and tablets. Many networks that have fought against Aereo include Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, Univision, and more.

Chase Carey, Chief Operating Officer of News Corp, stated,

Aereo is stealing our signal. We believe in our legal rights. We’re going to pursue those legal rights fully and completely, and we believe we’ll prevail. But we want to be clear. If we can’t have our rights properly protected through legal and political avenues, we will pursue business solutions. One such business solution would be to take the network and turn it into a subscription service.

Carey also stated,

“One option could be converting the Fox broadcast network to a pay channel, which we would do in collaboration with both our content partners and affiliates.”

Because Aereo has individual antennas picking up the broadcast signals, the court ruled that Aereo wasn’t retransmitting signals. It stated that Aereo was merely offering subscribers an option that they could already do with their own antennas. If the court did rule that Aereo was retransmitting the broadcast signals, it would most likely have to pay a fee to the TV networks.

Retransmission fees add up to billions of dollars in total each year, and are usually paid by companies that want to redistribute the networks’ programming to their subscribers. The court says that like Cablevision’s web-based RS-DVR, Aereo isn’t a video-on-demand service and isn’t retransmitting signals. It is merely storing individual copies of TV shows and providing them to the user who had requested them.

If Fox is converted to a subscription-based network, many popular TV shows, like American Idol, Glee, Family Guy, and X-Factor, will see a drastic hit in viewers. All of those shows are what made Fox so popular, so limiting the number of viewers who have access to them may backfire on Fox. Aereo charges a fee for its services. Fees range from $8-$12 monthly, and $80 for the entire year. We’ll keep you posted on how this case turns out.

[via Fox News]

News Corp threatens to cancel its free Fox TV network if Aereo isn’t banned is written by Brian Sin & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Fisker, maker of the beautiful Karma hybrid luxury vehicle, had a rough time last year, reportedly having fire issues with some of its cars and then losing hundreds of them during Hurricane Sandy. On April 5, we reported that the company had laid off about 75-percent of its workforce in what seemed to be a last-ditch effort to pull out of bankruptcy. It has surfaced that the same day the layoffs took place, a lawsuit was filed against Fisker.

Fisker had a moderate 213 employees, 160 of whom it gave the boot with little warning last week, with the lawsuit stating that they should have received a 60 day written notice in advance by law. Because Fisker failed to do this, it is said to have violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, and thus class-action status is being sought in the legal proceedings.

The lawsuit was initiated by Sven Etzelsberger, a former employee, via Outten & Golden of California. The lawsuit wants Fisker to pay up 60 days’ of wages/benefits for all who were let go. Fisker hasn’t replied to comment requests, and hasn’t said anything official about the lawsuit. Such a mandate would place additional financial strain on a company that is already on the verge of going under.

Like several other green initiatives, Fisker received tax-payer money via a federal program (Advanced Vehicle Technology Loan, in this case) to the tune of $529 million, of which it only got $193 million before the kibosh was put on the loan over failure to meet certain terms. Of that $193 million, the company is supposed to make its first loan payment this month.

[via USA Today]

Fisker Automotive hit with lawsuit due to last-minute layoffs is written by Brittany Hillen & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.