Have you ever broken your iPhone 4 or 4S’s glass? Felt that it was Steve Jobs’s fault for sucking you into his reality distortion field and convincing you that the iPhone 4’s glass was thirty times harder than plastic? Angry enough to want to try to sue?
Tough. A San Jose federal judge has just thrown out a class action lawsuit over the strength of the glass in the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S.
Judge Lucy Koh has once again made a plea of Apple and Samsung to make peace in their patent dispute before a verdict is handed down. Not doing so, the federal judge warns, could be a danger to both Apple and Samsung.
Do you remember the Pear, an ingenious Bluetooth dongle that would give any 30-pin iPod dock the ability to receive and play music streamed from an iPhone, iPad or iPod touch? We were eagerly awaiting the little gadget’s successful funding on Kickstarter, but it looks like we’ll have to wait a little longer: the product has been pulled from the crowdsourced project funding website following an accusation of trademark infringement.
The good news is the issue should be resolvedpretty quickly: the guys behind the Pear say that they were hit with a cease-and-desist order over the name of the dock converter, which caused the Kickstarter page to be pulled immediately, leaving the Pear team with no way to tell their fans and supporters what was going on. However, with a name change and a slight design alteration, Pear should be back to life in the next 3-6 weeks. Let’s hope a shippable product isn’t too far behind.
You know those annoying friends that grab your iPhone at parties and then think it’s cool to explore all your pictures, texts, phone calls, and every other crevice of your iPhone? Some people don’t understand that there’s this thing called privacy, and that you have to get permission to look through all that stuff. It’s in the constitution. Look it up.
Apparently the privacy laws that some people thought we had with our iPhones actually don’t apply to police seizures, as two recent court rulings have shown that it is totally legal for police to seize an iPhone and impersonate the owner. If your iPhone ever falls into the clutches of the police and they want to sext with your ex-girlfriend, you’re just out of luck because that’s totally legal.
Apple’s iPad, with its sleek aluminum casing, large 9.7-inch display, is widely regarded as one of the most beautiful tablets currently available. But there was a time when it was as thick as a cheap Dell notebook and made from tacky white plastic — as these images of an early iPad prototype prove.
The last couple of weeks have seen quite a few wins for Apple in court. Bans against US sales of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab and new Galaxy Nexus phone, for starters, were successful.
Apple’s request for an “emergency ban” for HTC phones, however, was denied today, allowing smartphone manufacturer HTC to continue to sell its latest devices while the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) investigates Apple’s patent infringement claim against the Taiwanese-based company.
Now that Apple has paid $60 million to end a thuggish extortion attempt on the part of China’s Proview over the iPad trademark, it looks like at least one additional Chinese trademark troll is coming out of the woodwork, looking for a payday. This time, however, it’s a dispute over a product Apple doesn’t even sell anymore: OS X Snow Leopard.
Canadian lawyer Perminder Tung is suing Apple over a Time Capsule failure that cause him to lose laptop backups that included precious photographs of his child’s birth. Tung wants $25,000 in compensation for the broken device and the lost memories after Apple told him the data on his Time Capsule could not be saved.
Tim Cook and Choi Gee-sung sat down for nine hours on Monday and seven hours yesterday in an attempt to come to some sort of solution to the litigation mess between Apple and Samsung. Many were hopeful after Tim Cook admitted he’s not a fan of litigation and prefers to “settle versus battle.” Things showed even more promise after Samsung mentioned the possibility of cross-licensing, but after two days and 16 hours, they still couldn’t come to any “clear agreement.”
Proview’s legal battle against Apple over the use of the “iPad” trademark continues to drag on, but things haven’t quite gone to plan for the Chinese company. A Hong Kong court has sided with Apple and agreed that some of Proview’s evidence should be excluded from the case after it failed to comply with the court’s instructions.
A class action suit filed against Apple in 2005 has gotten new life after a judge’s ruling on May 2. The complaint, which has its own website, covers consumers who purchased an iPod classic, iPod shuffle, iPod touch or iPod nano model between Sept. 12, 2006 and March 31, 2009. That’s a lot of people and a big stretch of time.
After a weekend deliberation, a federal jury in San Francisco handed Oracle a partial victory by finding Google guilty of copyright infringement yet remaining deadlocked on whether Google’s use of the Java APIs fell under “fair use.” The jury found that Google infringed a minimal amount of Java source code with Judge William Alsup indicating that Oracle would only be entitled to statutory damages as a result. This certainly wasn’t what Oracle was hoping for and when Oracle’s lawyer seemed to suggest they were entitled to more than just statutory damages, Judge William Alsup quickly put the kibosh on that notion based on the minimal amount of code infringed, stating what they’re seeking as “bordering on the ridiculous.”
A few years back Seattle Rex had gone all out on a 17” MacBook Pro – spending approximately $4,500 on the then top-of-the-line machine ($5,100 including AppleCare). The particular MacBook Pro he bought turned out to be defective. The laptop’s Nvidia graphics processor started displaying symptoms of the defect shortly after his AppleCare expired. A few days later the laptop died completely – it wouldn’t even start up. At the time Rex’s laptop broke down the defect was a known and well-documented issue. Apple had even issued a tech note and was replacing defective models as they failed.
The U.S. Department of Justice recently accused Apple and 5 large book publishers of conspiring to raise e-Book prices in the iBookstore. Experts said that it would be unlikely for Apple to be found as guilty of collusion, and now the Cupertino company is wanting a trial to defend itself against the DoJ’s accusations.
Do you remember when Twitter patented the pull-to-refresh tech they acquired from Loren Brichter when they purchased Tweetie and made it their official, thereby effectively putting all the apps that use pull-to-refresh (like Tweetbot or even Facebook) in their legal crosshairs?
Pull-to-refresh inventor Loren Brichter said there was no reason to worry, and it seems like he was right, as Twitter has today announced an awesome initiative in which they have promised that their patents will only ever be used defensively… even if they sell them to another company down the line!
Last week, the Department of Justice filed its lawsuit against Apple and several large publishing companies alleging a complex conspiracy to fix e-book prices and to limit competition among e-book retailers. It didn’t take long for Apple to fire back in a public statement, claiming that the allegations set forth in the DOJ’s complaint “were simply not true” and that Apple’s actions actually served to break “Amazon’s monopolistic grip on the publishing industry” and to encourage — not hamper — competition. Who’s telling the real story?
It’s long been rumored that the Department of Justice would file an antitrust suit against Apple for e-book price fixing, but now it’s happening, as the United States DoJ just filed such a suit against Apple, Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan and Penguin.
At issue here is Apple’s attempt to overthrow Amazon’s hegemony on e-book selling by collaborating with publishers ahead of the iBookstore launch to standardize how much is charged for e-books, not just through Apple, but through Amazon as well.
Remember way back last year, when some poor soul of an Apple employee reportedly lost a prototype iPhone 4S that he was testing out in a San Francisco tequila joint?
A great deal of controversy surrounded the case after it came out that Apple employees had reportedly posed as police officers when they investigated the property to which they’d tracked the lost iPhone. Afterwards, the owner of the house, Sergio Calderón, threatened to sue over the incident, and even hired a lawyer who tried (and apparently failed) to negotiate the case with Apple.
It looks, though, like Apple eventually settled after all… and possibly fired the director of security who was responsible for the raid over it.
Apple and Samsung have been duking it out in court for quite sometime now, with Apple claiming that the Korean electronics giant has been “slavishly” copying its iOS products to use in Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets. In its case against Samsung’s Galaxy Tab, Apple has leaned heavily on two specific patents for its defense, both having to do with the exterior of the iPad.
As if to point out the absurdity of Apple patenting the exterior of a tablet, Judge Koh, presiding over the case, notably held up both the Galaxy Tab and iPad side-by-side and asked those in the court to tell which was which from a distance. It took lawyers on both sides of the aisles a few seconds to answer the question correctly.
The judge’s point seems simple. Sure, the Galaxy Tab may look like the iPad, but Apple can’t patent that appearance… and to prove her point, she made note that in 1994, a television network portrayed the look of a tablet much before the iPad or Galaxy Tab came on the scene. If true, this could seriously destroy Apple’s case.
In the latest patent war saga, a Dutch court ruled that Samsung cannot assert 3G patents against Apple products using Qualcomm’s baseband chips — as Samsung has a licensing deal with the U.S. chipmaker — thus denying their bid to ban the sales of the iPhone and iPad in the Netherlands. However, Samsung didn’t consider the ruling a complete loss as the Hague court also ruled that Samsung could seek damages over the use of Intel chips. While Apple doesn’t use Intel chips, this gives Samsung ammunition against those that do.
When we think about security for our mobile devices, we’re usually protecting it from nefarious individuals. Well guess what? It apparently works both ways. In a story straight out of James Brown’s diary, the FBI is having a hard time busting a notorious San Diego pimp thanks to Android’s pattern lock feature.
Although the war will rage on for a few more years, Apple just scored a major victory in their legal war with Motorola Mobility in Germany. In December 2011 Apple lost a preliminary injunction with Motorola and faced the possibility of having their 3G-enabled products, like the iPad and iPhone, barred from Germany. However, a recent decision by the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court has ruled that Motorola can not enforce their injunction against Apple while the appeals process is underway, meaning Apple is free to sell their products in Germany until the appeal has been resolved.
As Google’s proposed acquisition of Motorola Mobility waits for approval from the courts, Apple has fired back at Motorola in the U.S. over a licensing agreement with chipset-maker Qualcomm.
Motorola recently sued Apple over wireless technology in its iOS devices with a patent that Apple is now using to cite the licensing violation with Qualcomm. The retaliation from Apple is meant to suffocate any patent violation claims that Motorola was asserting before to the courts.
Apple comes down hard on manufacturers that attempt to use its product names — or any variation of its product names — for their own goods. We learned this yesterday when it was revealed the Cupertino company is demanding a New Zealand case manufacturer to change the name of its driPhone brand. But it seems Apple may be guilty of exactly the same practice, which could land it a $38 million fine from Chinese company Proview Technology.
Known for being overly protective of its “i” brand, Apple has taken aim at another iPhone case manufacturer whose name is dangerously close to that of Apple’s most popular products. The company in question is called “driPhone,” and it produces a waterproof case for the iPhone and other mobile devices. But that could be about to change if Apple has its way.
