HTC handsets delayed at US customs due to ITC injunction over Apple patent

HTC confirmed to The Verge that its One X phone for AT&T and EVO 4G LTE handset for Sprint are being held at the border by customs officials. The shipments are being delayed while the government agency reviews the packages in accordance with an ITC ruling that banned the import of HTC's Android smartphones.

In December 2011, the ITC ruled that HTC violated Apple patents, one of which describe a UI feature that lets you tap on an address or phone number as a link and pull down a menu of appropriate actions. HTC said in a statement to the Wall Street Journal that its products are no longer infringing, "We believe we have worked around our design and are now in compliance with the ITC ruling. We are cooperating with the U.S. Customs to speed up the review process."

Depending on how long it takes for the review, HTC could face shortages of its One X, which went on sale last month with AT&T. It may also have to delay its May 18 launch of the EVO 4G LTE with Sprint.

HTC handsets delayed at US customs due to ITC injunction over Apple patent originally appeared on TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Wed, 16 May 2012 10:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Judge refuses request to dismiss ebook class action suit

Apple received a legal slap on Wednesday when U.S. District Judge Denise Cote rejected a request to dismiss a class action lawsuit against Apple and five publishers.

Cote scoffed at the idea that Apple and the publishers acted independently in coming up with what's known as agency pricing, their defense to the charges that they were price-fixing ebooks. Not only that, she accused Steve Jobs at being at the center of it all. Parts of the opinion, as excerpted by paidContent, reads:

In short, Apple did not try to earn money off of eBooks by competing with other retailers in an open market; rather, Apple 'accomplished this goal by [helping] the suppliers to collude, rather than to compete independently.'"

"Finally, the fact that Apple might have had different motivations for joining the conspiracy, and was involved in only a portion of it, does not undermine the existence of the conspiracy itself or Apple's role as a participant.

Cote also cites ongoing investigations against Apple, including the antitrust suit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, as other reasons to maintain the class action suit, filed in August 2011.

Judge refuses request to dismiss ebook class action suit originally appeared on TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Tue, 15 May 2012 23:50:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Court refuses request to review Psystar case

You have to give Psystar credit for being tenacious. The Mac clone company spent four years fighting Apple and took its legal battle all the way to the Supreme Court. According to a CNET report, the Supreme Court on Monday refused Psystar's request to review a lower court decision that prevents the company from selling non-Apple hardware with OS X.

The decision upholds the original ruling in 2009 which said Psystar "violated Apple's exclusive reproduction right, distribution right, and right to create derivative works." Apple was awarded a permanent injunction against Psystar and the company was forced to stop selling its Mac clones. This Supreme Court rejection should put an end to litigation between the two companies.

Court refuses request to review Psystar case originally appeared on TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Tue, 15 May 2012 11:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Apple vs. Motorola, HTC cases consolidated

According to Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, Apple is now battling one less lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida. Apple was fighting two separate lawsuits in the courts, one filed by Motorola Mobility and another by HTC. Judge Robert Scola decided to merge the two lawsuits because "the parties have shown a complete inability to agree upon anything and it is frustrating the progress of these cases." Apple reportedly pushed for this consolidation, while HTC and Motorola opposed it.

Apple vs. Motorola, HTC cases consolidated originally appeared on TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Tue, 15 May 2012 10:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Apple changes name of ‘iPad WiFi + 4G’ to ‘iPad WiFi + Cellular’ in several countries

As reported by 9to5 Mac, Apple has changed the name of the iPad WiFi + 4G to the less descriptive iPad WiFi + Cellular. The change is the result of criticisms from customers and consumer advocacy groups about the iPad's 4G branding.

Groups in the UK, Sweden and Australia complained that the 4G label confused customers in areas that did not have compatible cellular networks. Customers expected to get a product that delivered fast 4G mobile broadband speeds and were disappointed when the iPad connected to a slower 3G network.

To quell customer's discontent, Apple added a disclaimer to the iPad that clarified the tablet was compatible only with 4G networks in the US and Canada. In Australia, Apple also argued that its labeling adhered to the marketing standard set by the ITU. These changes apparently were not enough, and Apple decided a small name change was the best course of action.

Apple changes name of 'iPad WiFi + 4G' to 'iPad WiFi + Cellular' in several countries originally appeared on TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Mon, 14 May 2012 10:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Oracle vs. Google heading to a conclusion. Who will be the winner?

Oracle vs Google

Here at Android Authority, we’ve been watching closely the unfolding Oracle vs. Google legal drama. Each week of the trial has brought us valuable insight in the inner workings of Android (and Google as a whole). We’ve learned about the early childhood of Android, about how much money Google made from Android, and, in general, about how our favorite operating system came to be.

But the Oracle vs. Google affair is worth scrutinizing for more than just the wealth of inside information that is trickling out of Judge William H. Alsup’s court. The trial has major implications for the future of Android, but also unpredictable consequences for the entire tech world.

Google infringed Oracle’s copyright on Java APIs, says jury

[Updated] As our reader Adrian points out, the jury was instructed to assume that APIs are copyrighted and make a decision based on that assumption. Judge Alsup will decide if Oracle actually holds the copyright over the Java APIs.

In the first part of the trial (which was broken up into three sections – copyright, patents, and damages), the jury was asked to decide whether Google infringed on Oracle’s copyrights for the Java APIs. APIs (application programming interfaces) are omnipresent and vital to the modern technological landscape. They are the glue that keep your favorite platform together, be it Android, iOS, or Windows. A ruling that is favorable to Oracle would create a dangerous legal precedent and potentially turn the tech scene into a volatile and unpredictable conflict theater.

Oracle has already won, at least partially, in this matter. On Monday, the jury decided that Google infringed on the structure, sequence, and organization (SSO) of the Java APIs. In other words, the jury considered that Google purposely mimicked the way the Java APIs are built and structured, when it created Dalvik, its own Java-based virtual machine.

However, the twelve jurors couldn’t agree whether Google’s infringement was protected by the fair use principle or not. So, the trial moved ahead to the patent phase.

Oracle did try to have Judge Alsup make a “judgment as a matter of law” on the fair use issue, but Alsup rejected the motion. On the other side, Google countered with a motion of mistrial, which, if accepted, would cause the API copyright issue to be retried with another jury.

A final ruling on the fair use question is still to be issued.

Patent phase

With the jury hitting a deadlock concerning the fair use issue, the trial moved on to the patent phase. As you might know, Oracle initially claimed that Google’s Android infringed on seven of its Java related patents. But the USPTO and Judge Alsup denied Oracle’s request for trial on five of these patents, leaving only patent RE38,104, which describes a “method and apparatus for resolving data references in generated code” and patent 6,061,520, which describes a “method and system for performing static initialization”.

Both Google and Oracle brought to the stand their experts and witnesses, including Andy Rubin in the Android camp and former Sun VP Brian Suthpin on Oracle’s side.

Although this second phase of the trial should be dedicated to patents, we saw a number of moves related to both the copyright phase and the damages phase. In a somehow surprising decision, Judge Alsup ruled that Google did in fact infringed on Oracle’s copyrights, by decompiling and copying the code in eight Java files. Alsup effectively overturned the decision that the jury made last week. The jurors agreed that Google was only guilty of copying the now infamous nine lines of code in the TimSort.java file, and not the eight files in question.

What lies ahead?

Alsup’s surprising decision on the eight lifted files is a victory for Oracle, but it’s a very small one. In the damages phase, Oracle is unlikely to get any major compensation from Google. Even Judge Alsup said that it would be the “height of ridiculousness” for Larry Ellison’s company to ask 9-figure damages for Google’s infringement of the nine lines of code and the eight Java files.

Both parties seem eager to end the trial as soon as possible, but probably for different reasons. Google hopes that its mistrial motion will be accepted, while Oracle might look forward to an appeal, now that its hopes for this trial have fizzled. Ellison and co. have little chance to get a share of Google’s Android profits, like they have asked for, and statutory damages (a kind of standard amount paid in such cases) would be insignificant .

At this point, the trial is set to go ahead in the damages phase, where the jury is expected to decide what kind of compensation, if any, Oracle should receive for Google’s infringement over its Java APIs and patents. First, though, we should see a decision about the two patents, which will probably come on Monday.

Overall, it seems that the scales of  justice are tipping in Google’s favor, or at least, that’s what I make of this complicated, at points obscure legal spat. For Oracle, the potential winnings from their legal action have plummeted from the lofty six billions floated around back in 2010, to a sum that might not even cover its legal expenses.

Of course, it all depends on the jury and the judge, and it’s possible that this trial is just one battle in an attrition war that could last for years. We’ll learn more next week, when the two parties are set to spar over how much money Oracle is entitled from the Android camp.

No related posts.


This article, Oracle vs. Google heading to a conclusion. Who will be the winner? , was originally published at AndroidAuthority.com - Your Android News Source.


Apple claims Samsung destroyed "vast quantities" of evidence

The dispute between Samsung and Apple is heating up in the United States, with Apple now claiming Samsung destroyed vast quantities of evidence crucial to the case. According to Network World, Apple filed a motion in the Northern District of California that alleges Samsung intentionally destroyed documents it was required to hand over to the court.

The motion points out this is not the first time Samsung has been accused of destroying evidence. A 2004 trial between Samsung and Mosaid revealed that Samsung routinely deleted emails from computers every two weeks, even when it's required to keep them as part of a court case. Apple claims this email deletion practice and others adversely affected Apple's case against the Korean handset maker.

Samsung has until May 15 to file a response to Apple's accusation. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for June 7, 2012. Samsung denies that it destroyed evidence and is asking for an extension until May 29 to respond to the allegations and a delay in the hearing until July 10.

Apple claims Samsung destroyed "vast quantities" of evidence originally appeared on TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Fri, 11 May 2012 14:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Proview reportedly rejects Apple’s settlement offer

Earlier this week, a report suggested Apple and Proview were far apart on a settlement for the iPad trademark in China. According to Sina, the difference between the two companies is about US$384 million. The report claims Apple offered Proview $16 million for the iPad name and the Chinese company rejected the offer. Proview reportedly wants $400 million from Apple so it can appease its creditors.

[Via The Next Web]

Proview reportedly rejects Apple's settlement offer originally appeared on TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Thu, 10 May 2012 17:45:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Judge throws out Proview lawsuit against Apple in California

A California judge threw out Proview's iPad trademark lawsuit against Apple in the US, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal. This dismissal is inconsequential to the trademark case which is making its way through the Chinese court system. Apple asked for and was granted the dismissal which lets the Asian court system make the final decision on the trademark infringement suit.

Apple and Proview are discussing settlement terms for the infringement case which is being heard in Guangdong province. A recent report suggests there is a wide gap between the settlement being proposed by the two companies.

Judge throws out Proview lawsuit against Apple in California originally appeared on TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Wed, 09 May 2012 13:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Apple and Samsung drop some claims but still disagree

Apple and Samsung are battling in a California courtroom over Samsung's Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets. On Monday, the Cupertino company limited the scope of the case by cutting its patent and trademark infringement claims in half, says a report in FOSS Patents. Samsung responded by dropping 5 of the 12 patents in its counterclaim.

Despite this reconciliatory move, the two companies still disagree about many details of the lawsuit. The two companies are bickering about the ability of the case to go to trial starting this summer. Apple says Samsung is being uncooperative, while Samsung blames Apple for keeping the case too broad. The two companies also disagree about the infringement with Apple calling Samsung a copycat and Samsung arguing it used "innovative, independently developed technologies."

You can read a detailed analysis of these latest developments on FOSS Patents's website.

Apple and Samsung drop some claims but still disagree originally appeared on TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog on Wed, 09 May 2012 08:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments