Hasta La Gadget!

The Wikimedia Foundation positions Wikipedia as a hub for unfettered knowledge, but it’s now obligated to police that content in the wake of a newly published German ruling. Stuttgart’s Higher Regional Court has determined that the organization is liable for Wikipedia articles. While Wikimedia won’t have to screen content, it will have to verify any disputed passages and remove them if they’re known to be false. The court isn’t telling Wikimedia how to handle this verification, although the legal presumption of innocence will still apply. We’re not expecting a chilling effect on Wikipedia given that takedowns will only be necessary in a handful of circumstances. However, it gives Wikimedia’s moderators an extra level of responsibility — they’ll now have to pull some content quickly to minimize the chances of lawsuits.

Updated: Wikimedia has clarified the ruling. The court sees Wikimedia as a service provider that, on a basic level, isn’t liable for content. However, the site will only maintain its immunity so long as it pulls any content that allegedly violates German laws. If it declines, it risks opening itself to legal action.

Filed under: Internet

Comments

Via: PCWorld

Source: Juris.de (translated)

Among the many patent cases currently ongoing between Motorola and Microsoft is one in US District Court in the state of Washington concerning standards-essential WiFi and h.264 patents. AllThingsD reports that while Motorola was requesting billions in royalties for the technology it owns, Judge James Robart — who invalidated a number of its patent claims a few months ago — ruled it’s entitled to around $1.8 million per year. The reason given? There’s so many patents in play, the judge determined that the amount Motorola sought would cost more than the Xbox 360 they’re being implemented in, and also that it hadn’t proven its patents were more valuable than those of other companies included in the same pool. All 207 pages of the decision are available beyond the source link if need more info on the hows and whys of today’s decision. ATD also has quotes from each company and while Microsoft called it a good decision for consumers, Motorola chose to acknowledge the decision, but didn’t hint at any reaction or future moves.

Filed under: Gaming, Microsoft

Comments

Source: AllThingsD

To our delight, the recent ruling that phone subsidy unlocks are no longer protected by copyright law has sparked a lot of attention from the general public as well as the US government. However, some of the carriers are predictably not too excited by the amount of negative light it sheds on their own unlock policies. AT&T has taken to its public policy blog to discuss its viewpoint on the matter. Joan Marsh, VP of Federal Regulatory for the company, insists that “the ruling has very little impact on AT&T customers.”

Marsh reiterates AT&T’s unlock policy by stating: “if we have the unlock code or can reasonably get it from the manufacturer, AT&T currently will unlock a device for any customer whose account has been active for at least sixty days; whose account is in good standing and has no unpaid balance; and who has fulfilled his or her service agreement commitment. If the conditions are met we will unlock up to five devices per account per year.”

Filed under: Cellphones, Wireless, Mobile, AT&T

Comments

Source: AT&T Public Policy Blog

Samsung has tentatively been on the hook for $1.05 billion in penalties after allegedly infringing on Apple’s patents, but that figure is about to change — for better or for worse. Judge Koh has ordered a reevaluation of $450.5 million of the damages in a second trial, arguing that the jury set one damage figure per product where there were six infringement claims that had to be taken into account for each device. She also believes that Apple may be entitled to damages for sales not included in the original case. There’s a chance Samsung can lower the amount it ultimately has to pay, but the extra factors and devices could easily worsen its situation. Koh hasn’t set a trial date, either, but we’d like it to come soon: Apple versus Samsung is quickly becoming the battle that never ends.

Filed under: Cellphones, Mobile, Apple, Samsung

Comments

Source: FOSSpatents, Bloomberg

Apple might not have liked having to publish a notice stating that Samsung did not copy its design, as the result of a court ruling, but it complied all the same. Or did they? A UK court of appeal has criticized the firm over its choice of wording, considering it slippery enough to warrant a rewrite. The Guardian reports that the acknowledgement posted by Apple was deemed non-compliant with the court’s order. Apple has today been told to correct its statement, and re-post it on the front page of its website, with at least an 11-point font (and not as a hidden footer link) within 48 hours. The Cupertino team rebuffed, claiming that it would take at least two weeks to get a fresh rework together, a statement that reportedly caused disbelief from some court officials. So, the clock is ticking, and somewhere a legal team is no doubt engaging in some serious thinking. The new statement must remain on Apple’s site until December 14th, plenty of time to catch the attention of eager Christmas shoppers.

Filed under: Tablets, Apple, Samsung

Apple told to rewrite ‘Samsung did not copy’ statement, post it on front page until Dec 14th originally appeared on Engadget on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 08:44:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |  The Guardian  | Email this | Comments