A lawsuit against Google, claiming to represent 4.4 million iPhone users, has been thrown out of court by a U.K. judge.
The Apple-using coalition, a group called “Google You Owe Us,” was asking for up to $1 billion in damages. This was to have been split among Safari users affected by Google’s allegedly unlawful data collection, which involved Google supposedly bypassing privacy settings to categorize users for advertising.
Apple wants Samsung to cough up a whopping $1 billion in damages for infringing iPhone design patents.
The two companies again returned to court this week over the long-running dispute, which first began seven years ago. Apple told jurors that Samsung should hand over all the profit it made on four devices that were heavily inspired by the iPhone. Samsung’s lawyers disagree.
Apple has revealed which executives will be taking the stand when it comes to court for its latest bout with Samsung — and, no, sadly that doesn’t include Tim Cook or Jony Ive.
Instead, at Apple’s May 14 hearing it will call Richard Howarth, senior director of the Apple Design Team, and Greg Joswiak, Apple’s vice president of product marketing to testify. More intriguingly, it will also call original Mac icon designer Susan Kare to the stand.
Apple and Samsung are headed back to court… again.
The two companies are still battling it out over a patent infringement lawsuit that was originally settled in 2012. A successful Samsung appeal means the most recent sum of damages will be reassessed at trial yet again.
Apple has been ordered to pay patent troll VirnetX a whopping $625 million after losing a legal battle over the technology used for FaceTime and iMessage. The Cupertino company says it is “surprised and disappointed by the verdict,” and calls for patent reform.
A number of Silicon Valley technology giants have backed Samsung in its legal battle against Apple. Documents confirm Dell, eBay, Facebook, Google, and HP all took the South Korean company’s side in a “friend of the court” brief on July 1.
It looks like that cheap cassette adaptor I bought for my first iPhone and that universal remote for all my TV gadgets at RadioShack in the last ten years may come back to haunt me.
If you’re like me and you’ve shopped at RadioShack within the last several years, your personal information may be included in the sale of all of the failed electronics retailer’s assets in an auction that concluded Monday of this week.
The sale also includes Radio Shack trademarks, patents, leases, and the court presiding over the matter will likely decide whether Radio Shack can continue its retail operations at a smaller scale.
The reported winner of the bid, Standard General, is also RadioShack’s largest shareholder, making this an odd one. The winning bid still needs to be approved by a bankruptcy judge, who will have to consider the pending legal challenges to this sale.
Like, for example, whether a retailer that bragged, “We pride ourselves on not selling our private mailing list,” can sell them once bankrupt.
Phil Schiller took to the stand yesterday for the second day of Apple’s latest patent trial with Samsung.
Schiller mostly rehashed the same defense he used when the two companies met in court last November, also over a patent dispute — namely that Apple was the company which took the risk developing the iPhone, and that Samsung’s copying has hurt the company.
“I believe it has caused damage for Apple in the marketplace,” Schiller said. “It has caused people to question some of the innovations we’ve created and Apple’s role as the innovator. That challenge is made harder in the copying.”
Apple has lost its latest bid to put court-appointed antitrust monitor Michael Bromwich on hold, with a federal appeals court rejecting Apple’s claim that the monitor’s work was causing irreparable harm.
In a brief order, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said that Bromwich (the former U.S. attorney and Justice Department inspector general given the job of ensuring antitrust compliance regarding e-book price fixing) may continue to examine Apple’s antitrust compliance policies, while Apple pursues a broader appeal seeking to remove him altogether.