Legal

Apple heads to trial over billion dollar iTunes antitrust claims

Reuters:

Opening statements are scheduled to begin on Tuesday in an Oakland, California, federal court in the long-running class action, brought by a group of individuals and businesses who purchased iPods between 2006 and 2009. They say a 2006 iTunes update dictated that iTunes music could only be played on iPods, unfairly blocking competing device makers.

EU legislator who introduced Google breakup bill has ties to other side

From the New York Times:

Andreas Schwab, a German member of the European Parliament, has been making headlines in the last week after drafting a resolution that calls for the breakup of Google.

But Mr. Schwab is not just a legislator, he is also “of counsel” at the German law firm CMS Hasche Sigle, which has represented some of the German publishing interests that have been most eager to declaw Google.

CurrentC and antitrust implications

There’s been a lot of discussion about the legal implications of the recent move by CVS and Rite Aid to drop support for Apple Pay. A little more light is shining on this issue.

Microsoft suing Samsung for breach of contract

From Microsoft’s blog post:

As you may have seen, on Friday Microsoft filed legal action against Samsung in U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. Today’s legal action is simply to enforce our contract with Samsung.

We don’t take lightly filing a legal action, especially against a company with which we’ve enjoyed a long and productive partnership. Unfortunately, even partners sometimes disagree. After spending months trying to resolve our disagreement, Samsung has made clear in a series of letters and discussions that we have a fundamental disagreement as to the meaning of our contract.

Oh, Samsung. Keep behaving like this and no one’s going to want to play with you anymore.

Chinese company threatens Apple’s ability to sell Siri in China

BBC:

Apple has failed in its attempt to get a Chinese company’s voice-recognition patent ruled invalid.

The verdict threatens Apple’s ability to offer its voice-controlled virtual assistant, Siri, in the country.

Shanghai-based Zhizhen Network Technology has sought to block Apple from selling products with the app installed, saying it infringed its rights.

Apple will appeal the verdict and had this to say:

“Apple believes deeply in protecting innovation, and we take intellectual property rights very seriously,” said a spokesman.

Apple patents method of building seamless all-glass iOS devices, monitors and TVs

Apple Insider:

Apple on Monday was granted a U.S. patent covering a method of fusing glass structures together to encapsulate the internal circuitry of an iOS device, and that of larger electronics like monitors and televisions.

Not clear if this will ever make it into a real product, but certainly interesting.

Apple may not call patent troll a “patent troll” before jury, says judge

US District Court Judge Lucy Koh oversees a case pitting Apple against GPNE. GPNE is suing Apple for infringing on one of its patents.

The case itself is important, in that GPNE is demanding payment for every iPhone sold. To my untrained eye, the claim seems laughable, were it not for the fact that much money is being spent to defend this case.

Judge Koh issued this order:

In an unusual order, a federal judge last week told Apple that it may not call a Hawaii-based company names like “patent troll” or “privateer” or “bandit,” nor tell a jury that the company is engaged in a “shakedown” or “playing the lawsuit lottery.”

British regulator to probe creepy Facebook experiment

Britain’s Information Commissioner’s Office said it would look into the Facebook experiment. That’s one problem for Facebook. Another is a potential class-action suit:

Critics of Facebook’s study have raised the specter that the company could face a class-action lawsuit over the study. According to a report in Forbes, the company added mention of research to its terms of service months after the study was conducted.

Amazon sues former employee after he leaves for Google

CNET:

Amazon said Szabadi, who left the company in May after nearly six years, can’t solicit business from any of his former customers for 18 months after his departure. He joined Google as a lead for the reseller ecosystem team in May.

In response, Szabadi’s lawyer told Amazon that Szabadi has also signed an agreement with Google, vowing not to do business with any AWS clients that he remembers having “material direct contact” with, or that he knows “confidential information” about, according to the court document. The agreement is in effect for six months.

Google is not backing down and is planning a strong defense for the suit. said a person familiar with the company’s strategy.

Samsung and its lawyers fined $2M for leaking details of Apple/Nokia patent deal

9to5mac:

A court has fined lawyers Quinn Emanuel and Samsung a total of $2M for misusing confidential details of a patent deal struck between Apple and Nokia.

The documents were supplied by Apple to Samsung’s lawyers purely so that it could see that Apple was telling the truth about its patent deals with other companies. The documents were marked “for attorney’s eyes only” and were not to be revealed to Samsung executives.

Typical.

Supreme Court decision reining in “on a computer” patents

The Supreme Court yesterday handed down a decision in a landmark case, known as Alice Corp v CLS Bank. Here’s a link to the decision.

In a nutshell, Alice Corp was issued a patent for a computer implemented payment system. CLS Bank argued that the patent was invalid because it took an existing system and simply implemented “well known” steps on a computer.

Apple settles e-book antitrust case, avoids trial

Reuters:

Apple Inc reached an out-of-court settlement with U.S. states and other complainants in an e-book price-fixing class action lawsuit on Monday, effectively avoiding a trial in which the iPad maker faced more than $800 million in claims.

Apple is currently awaiting the results of its appeal of last July’s finding that Apple was liable for colluding with publishers. Yesterday’s settlement proposal has to be approved by the judge and is contingent on the outcome of the appeal.

A cry for help at the bottom of a Saks bag

In September, 2012, Stephanie Wilson, a twenty-eight-year-old Australian who lives in West Harlem, bought a pair of Hunter rain boots from Saks Fifth Avenue. She was digging for her receipt in the paper shopping bag when she discovered a letter inside that, in its urgency, started higher than the ruled paper’s printed lines. “HELP! HELP! HELP!!” a man had written, in blue ink on white paper. He opened, “Hello!! I’m Njong Emmanuel Tohnain, Cameroonian of nationality.”

Great story.

Patent troll on the verge of winning 1 percent of iPhone revenue

This is simply incredible.

In 2012, Apple won the year’s biggest patent verdict—more than $1 billion against Samsung. The company also lost one of that year’s biggest cases when an East Texas jury ordered it to pay $368 million to a company named VirnetX for infringing patents related to FaceTime and VPN On Demand functions used in iPhones, iPads, and Macs. VirnetX is a company some call a “patent troll” because its only business is now patent enforcement. Then, in March, US District Judge Leonard Davis ordered (PDF) an ongoing royalty to be paid to VirnetX. The number was downright stunning: 0.98 percent of revenue from iPhones and iPads sold in the US.

Plaintiff in tech hiring suit asks judge to reject settlement

Reuters:

One of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit that accuses tech firms including Apple Inc and Google Inc of conspiring to hold down salaries has asked the court to reject a $324 million settlement negotiated by his own lawyers.

Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, others keeping eye on “Heckler’s Veto” case

A cheerleader’s defamation lawsuit against a gossip site has big implications for sites that carry third party content of any kind. At the core of the suit:

“If websites are subject to liability for failing to remove third-party content whenever someone objects, they will be subject to the ‘heckler’s veto,’ giving anyone who complains unfettered power to censor speech,” according to briefs filed Nov. 19 by lawyers for Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Amazon, Gawker and BuzzFeed, among others.

In other words, should Facebook or Twitter be liable for statements posted by one of its users? Should Amazon be held liable for the accuracy of a review posted on its site?