STOP IT! Pay the money and go away you thieving bastards.
The $290 million verdict is nearly $100 million less than the $380 million Apple sought in the retrial, but far above the $53 million Samsung said it owed. In a series of seemingly desperate last-minute attempts to delay the verdict, Samsung first moved for a mistrial on racial grounds, and then asked Judge Koh to stay the case pending a possibly years-long reexamination of a key Apple patent.
Judge Koh denied both motions, and the new verdict brings Apple’s total award in the landmark patent dispute is $888 million.
Now just pay up scumbags.
The mission of WordPress.com is to democratize publishing. We’re inspired every day by the ways creators use our platform to bring their voices to the world. Unfortunately, we also see many cases of censorship aimed at WordPress.com authors and users.
These cases are both infuriating and increasingly common. While there are no legal consequences (like fines) under the DMCA for copyright abusers, there is a provision that allows victims of censorship (and their web hosts) to bring legal action against those who submit fraudulent DMCA notices. So today, we’ve joined with Oliver, Ivan, and Adam to take a small strike back at DMCA abuse. We’ve filed two lawsuits for damages under Section 512(f) of the DMCA, which allows for suits against those who “knowingly materially misrepresent” a case of copyright infringement.
Much respect WordPress people.
But Motorola — a wholly-owned Google subsidiary — has filed patent lawsuits against Apple all over the world. Just one month ago Apple finally put an end to an 18-month injunction that prevented iCloud users in Germany from getting push notifications for email — because of a patent lawsuit filed by Google.
I’m in total agreement with Gruber on this one. Like most people, I hate these stupid patent trolls, but too many people are trying to make Google seem like a victim here. They’re not.
Gates has been prolific in filing patent applications over the past few years, mostly through a partnership with friends at Intellectual Ventures (IV). That’s one of the world’s largest patent holding companies, typically described as a patent troll because of its practice of acquiring patents and using them to file lawsuits (notably against Motorola), despite not using the patents to make technology of its own.
It would be funny if the company sued Gates.
Something has to be done with these guys to stop them permanently.
Apple Inc deserves a five-year ban from entering anticompetitive e-book distribution contracts, and should also end its business arrangements with five major publishers with which it conspired to raise e-book prices, federal and state regulators said on Friday.
Here is where the Court’s logic is strained and incorrect. The Court concedes that there is nothing wrong with using the agency model, the MFN clause or pricing tier caps. So essentially the Court is finding Apple liable for antitrust violations for knowing that the publishers wanted to raise prices. The Court is essentially holding that faced with that knowledge, Apple supplied those terms (agency, MFN, price tiers) to the publishers so they could then go to Amazon and impose the agency model and raise retail prices.
Adam Engst takes a look at the Apple’s ebook trial and answers some of the questions everyone has asked over the past few months.
A federal court in New York has come down hard on Apple in a closely watched case over ebook pricing. In a ruling issued Tuesday morning, US District Judge Denise Cote ruled that the company “brilliantly” organized a conspiracy to raise prices and thwart competition.
In a 160-page ruling, Cote points to phone calls, emails and the words of Apple founder Steve Jobs to conclude that the company orchestrated an illegal “scheme” in which five major publishers changed their pricing practices. The court said that the prime target of the conspiracy was Amazon, whose Kindle tablet competes with Apple’s iPad, and whose pricing practices infuriated publishers.
Here’s a good summary.
Apple lawyer Orin Snyder questioning Thomas Turvey, Google’s director of strategic partnerships in the e-book trial:
Things went downhill from there. Under Snyder’s questioning, Turvey acknowledged that he couldn’t remember a single name of any of the publishing executives who had told him Apple was the reason the publishers were switching their business model. He conceded that the publisher’s move to the agency system was important to Google’s own business, yet Turvey couldn’t remember any details about the conversations with publishers. By the end of the interview Turvey had gone from saying the publishers had told him directly, to saying they had merely told people on his team, to finally saying the publishers had “likely” told someone on his team.
Joe Mullin for Ars Technica:
Court documents unsealed this week reveal who’s behind FlatWorld, and it’s anything but typical. FlatWorld is partly owned by the named inventor on the patents, a Philadelphia design professor named Slavko Milekic. But 35 percent of the company has been quietly controlled by an attorney at one of Apple’s own go-to law firms, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. E-mail logs show that the attorney, John McAleese, worked together with his wife and began planning a wide-ranging patent attack against Apple’s touch-screen products in January 2007—just days after the iPhone was revealed to the world.
That’s almost too crazy to believe.
I must admit, I missed this part of the Senate hearings yesterday, but I think Cook brought up some good points.
“Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99.”
That is the line that the DOJ is using in its e-book case against Apple. However, when you look at it in context with the rest of the comments Jobs made, it’s pretty innocuous.
In a court filing on Monday, Apple extended its ongoing litigation struggle with Samsung, adding the company’s recently released Galaxy S4 to the list of devices Apple says infringe on its patented designs.
The Tokyo District Court rejected the request as Samsung hadn’t negotiated “sincerely” with Apple over licensing data- sending patents, Judge Ichiro Otaka said in a ruling today. The court also ruled that Samsung doesn’t have the right to seek damages … Continued
Bart Eppenauer, Microsoft’s chief patent counsel:
“There are a lot headlines about the patent system being out of control and major changes being needed,” Eppenauer says. “While certainly there are areas for improvement in the patent system — in terms of what the U.S. Patent [& Trademark] Office can do and what the courts can do and what companies can do — this doesn’t mean you need, at least from our point of view, some sort of radical overhaul of the system or a complete change in the approach to certain technologies.”
Why am I not surprised.
“We didn’t want to give carte blanche to a company, by any name, to infringe someone else’s intellectual property,” Hogan told Reuters a day after the verdict was delivered.
Good for them.
A jury on Friday found in favor of Apple in its patent infringement case against Samsung. After finding that Samsung willfully infringed a number of patents, the jury awarded Apple $1 billion in damages. […]
Goodrich, who worked for Jobs since 1998, was promised by late chairman of the world’s most valuable company in a one-on- one meeting in May 2005 that he would always have a job at Apple, according to the complaint. The conversation took place after Jobs’s return from medical leave to receive treatment for pancreatic cancer, Goodrich said.
Just playing devil’s advocate here, but aren’t things like this said all time? “You’re good, you’ll always have a job here.” Things change.
The proposed settlement would require the three settling publishers — HarperCollins, Hachette and Simon & Schuster — to terminate their existing agency pricing contracts with Apple. Apple says that isn’t fair: “The Government is seeking to impose a remedy on Apple before there has been any finding of an antitrust violation.” This case, the company states, revolves around “an alleged conspiracy to force Amazon to adopt agency.” So a settlement “enjoining collusion or precluding publishers from forcing agency on Amazon would be appropriate,” but Apple is entitled to defend its contracts in court.
It does seem unfair to impose a settlement without giving Apple a chance to defend itself.
In the sworn declaration, Mr. Stretch admits to having “brought five Samsung prospective witnesses, accompanied by two interpreters, and three Samsung in-house attorneys, to see the Ceremonial Courtroom on the afternoon of August 2, 2012”.
Apple’s lawyer William Lee on Samsung releasing evidence to the press:
“Mr. Quinn’s declaration does not adress two of the Court’s questions: who drafted the statement and who released it,” Lee wrote. “Samsung’s multiple references to the jury in its statement make plain its intent that the jurors in our case learn of arguments the Court has excluded through the press.”
Laura Hazard Owen:
In a complaint sent to the Department of Justice this morning, Barnes & Noble says that the DOJ’s proposed settlement with HarperCollins, Hachette and Simon & Schuster for allegedly colluding to fix e-book prices “represents an unprecedented effort” to become “a regulator of a nascent technology that it little understands.”
Nice aggressive stance by Barnes and Noble.
Oracle has filed a legal complaint against Lodsys — the company that’s taken aim at app makers on Apple’s iOS, Google’s Android, and other technology platforms for infringing on its patents — with the hopes of invalidating them.
Tuesday’s filing saw Apple categorically dismiss accusations from the class, which now includes 31 states, stating several times that the evidence will “speak for itself.” The response breaks down the complaint paragraph by paragraph, challenging the charges by either citing a lack of “sufficient evidence and belief” or denying them outright.
In the space of six paragraphs the document characterizes the Justice Department’s assertions as “absurd” and “fundamentally flawed,” accuses the government of “ignoring inconvenient facts” and of siding with monopoly rather than competition.
Apple seems pretty aggressive and confident in this battle with the government.
Laura Hazard Owen writing for paidContent:
New York, the District of Columbia and fifteen other states have joined the e-book pricing class action suit against Apple, Macmillan and Penguin, bringing the total number of states involved so far to 31 (if you include DC and Puerto Rico). The amended complaint, released Friday, reveals details that were previously redacted, including an e-mail from Steve Jobs.
Judge Richard A. Posner:
“I deny the second half of Apple’s motion (seeking prohibition of the deposition) as frivolous and the first half (seeking substitution) as untimely. I’ve had my fill of frivolous filings by Apple. The next such motion, and I shall forbid it to file any motions without first moving for leave to file.”