24
Aug
court-gavel

Samsung Owes Apple $1.05 Billion In Damages Following U.S. Trial, Says Jury [Update: Now $1.04 Billion]

Posted by in Captivate, Epic 4G, Galaxy Ace, Galaxy S, Galaxy Tab, News, Nexus S 4G (Crespo4g), Samsung, Vibrant

The verdict in the Apple-Samsung legal battle came in much sooner than expected and the news hasn't been good for Samsung. To pull out one of the most relevant details amid all the patents and trade dress claims, the jury has ordered Samsung to pay Apple $1.05 billion in damages. Yikes.

Update: The jury was asked to reconsider Question 4 of the verdict form. After deliberating, the jury's answer was changed to "no" for the Intercept and one other device, and the damages amount officially changed to $1,049,343,540.

a-galaxy-s-phone

Apple was originally seeking an award of $2.45 billion from Samsung, but few thought it would get even remotely that much.

24
Aug
nexusae0_iphone4-vs-galaxy-s-head_thumb_thumb

Breaking: Jury In Apple v. Samsung Reaches Verdict - Apple Winning On Multiple Devices And Counts

Posted by in Android OS, Legal, News, Samsung

Breaking live from TheVerge, who are in the courtroom, we're hearing that the jury in Apple v. Samsung has rendered a verdict. Now, this is complicated - there were around 700 questions for the jury to answer on the instructions they were provided, so there are a lot of issues to go through here.

Apple's Claims

  • Samsung has been found to infringe on many of the accused devices for all three of Apple's asserted software patents. These patents can result in injunctive relief (decided at a later date), but are relatively small in terms of monetary implications. These include things like Apple's patents for scroll bounce back.

07
May
jurybox

Analysis: Google Moving For Likely Mistrial In Copyright Portion Of Oracle Java Case, But Big Questions Remain

Posted by in Legal, News
Last Updated: June 2nd, 2012

You've probably already read headlines in the last hour or two proclaiming that Google has "lost" its copyright case against Oracle, and in the strictest sense of the word, it has. Google lost on a number of counts, including the most important one, question one in the jury instructions. It also lost on a count involving nine lines of code that have long-since been removed from Android.

The first question, though, asked the jurors whether Google's use of 37 Java API packages, taken as a group, constituted an infringement of Oracle's copyrighted works. The jury, responding unanimously, answered that question with a "yes." But question 1 contained a part two, and therefore a dependent unanimity requirement (answers on all parts of the question must be unanimous):

Q1

Jury instructions via FOSSPatents

If you know anything about copyrights (and if you're on the internet a lot, you probably do know more than most people), you know that part two of question one asks the jurors something very important: was Google's use of Oracle's Java APIs fair?

21
Mar
evil apple

Judge Decides Apple Doesn't Really Need All The Android Development Details, Tells Apple To Make Request Less Vague And Broad

Posted by in Motorola, News

Two weeks ago, the judge in Apple's case against Motorola ordered Google and Moto to hand over details on Android development. Naturally, Motorola appealed, and managed to change Judge Posner's mind. While the company isn't getting away scot-free (or at least, not yet), he did say that "[Apple's] motion is vague and overbroad and Motorola's objections are persuasive." In other words, Apple needs to tone down their request and make sure things are relevant and specific (or in my words, "Apple needs to stop requesting all the shit they can think of").

Presumably from here Apple will try to narrow things down as little as possible to get the request to hold, at which point Motorola will appeal it and both sides will hope for the best (before doing it all over).

10
Mar
gplay_logo_g

Google Attempting To Seize GooglePlay.com With ICANN's Help, Will Probably Win, Here's Why

Posted by in Android OS, Legal, News

Cybersquatting, one of the more profitable forms of trolling, is nothing new to anyone familiar with the interwebs. In fact, it's often a source of some pretty funny disputes.

That gets us to today's story: a lot of people have noticed Google doesn't actually own GooglePlay.com (link goes to WhoIs.Net - not the actual page). Now, Google wants that page, and they've filed an ICANN dispute to get it.

It has become such a problem that the United States passed its own legislation to address the issue. The preferred method for dealing with these disputes, though, has been an arbitration body known as ICANN, whose decisions are binding around the world (mostly because they essentially control the Domain Name System).

22
Feb
android_privacy_investigation_580

PSA: California's New App Privacy Policy Requirement Just Made Life Harder For Developers Everywhere, Here's What You Need To Know

Posted by in Android OS, Apps/Games, Development, Editorials, Legal, News

Privacy is a good thing in the digital world - you'll get no argument from me. I don't like my data floating around in cyberspace without my consent, but I also realize that much of what makes the internet (and computing generally) so great is that I can use my own judgment to decide who I will and will not trust with my information.

Things like app permissions, which have been a part of the Android package installation process for quite some time, are nice, but let's face it: 95% of us don't read them. And if we do, we may not even be sure what those permissions really entail, or how the app will use those permissions to gather information, or even what kind of information will actually be collected.

22
Feb
Sprint

Comcast Sues Sprint For Patent Infringement On SMS/MMS, Mobile Broadband, And Network Technologies

Posted by in Legal, News, Sprint

It seems Sprint just can't catch a break lately. After the LightSquared LTE fiasco (it seems eminently likely Sprint will be forking over $65 million and have to cancel the deal), this just seems a bit like kicking the company when it's already down. Comcast has filed suit in Pennsylvania against the nation's number-three carrier, and it's for patent infringement.

Namely, Comcast alleges that Sprint is violating patents it owns covering technologies like SMS/MMS, mobile broadband cards and hotspots, as well as certain traffic routing technologies (IP/MPLS). Here are some excerpts from the complaint regarding the patents:

  • No. 7,684,391: Communications System for Delivering Multimedia Internet Protocol Packets Across Network Boundaries.

16
Feb
sam_vs_apple

Apple Still Trying To Sue The World Into Oblivion With A Fresh Suit Against 17 Samsung Devices Infringing Upon 8 Apple Patents; In Other News, Sky Blue, Water Wet

Posted by in News, Samsung

Last week, we found out that Apple was bringing a fresh suit against Samsung - specifically, seeking a preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Nexus over four patents. Now the official complaint document has been posted by the court, and it turns out the suit is aimed at a lot more than just the beloved GNex, and involves more than the four patents initially mentioned. In fact, Apple explicitly names seventeen Samsung devices and cites eight of its patents.

The patents in question:

2012-02-16 08h42_36

Or, for those of you that prefer things in text (also, so that you can copy and paste them elsewhere for the purpose of mockery):

  • System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data
  • Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system
  • Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image
  • Method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations
  • Missed telephone call management for a portable multifunction device
  • Graphical user interface using historical lists with field classes
  • Asynchronous data synchronization amongst devices
  • Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system

The 17(+) devices in question:

2012-02-16 08h52_52

  • Phones
    • US SGSII series: Galaxy S II Skyrocket, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S II - T-Mobile, Galaxy S II - AT&T
    • Galaxy Nexus
    • Illusion
    • Captivate Glide
    • Exhibit II 4G
    • Stratosphere
    • Transform Ultra
    • Admire
    • Conquer 4G
    • Dart
  • Media Players/Tablets
    • Galaxy Player 4.0 and 5.0
    • Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus and Galaxy Tab 8.9

sam_vs_apple

I CAN SEE THE INFRINGEMENT FROM HERE.

30
Jan
Im-just-a-bill

Mobile Device Privacy Act Wants To Require Carriers To Notify You Of Any Tracking Software On Your Phone

Posted by in Android OS, Carriers, Legal, News

Congress is a lot like a slot machine - once in a while, something good comes out. A new bill introduced by Representative Ed Markey of Massachusetts would require cellular carriers in the US to disclose to end users upon purchase of a mobile device any tracking software present on said device, or any such software that might be installed at a later date by the carrier, manufacturer, or OS provider (that would be Google for Android).

After the Carrier IQ debacle, the public has taken a heightened interest in the privacy of the information on their smartphone devices, and rightfully so.

25
Jan
600px-US-CopyrightOffice-Seal.svg

PSA: The DMCA Exemption Allowing Legal Rooting Of Smartphones Expires This Year, And The EFF Wants Your Help To Renew It

Posted by in Android OS, Legal, News

This a cause I think we can all get behind. Back in 2010, the Copyright Office in the Library of Congress issued a rulemaking statement exempting smartphones and DVDs from reverse engineering laws under the DMCA. Previously, companies like Apple had used these provisions to threaten criminal prosecution (as well as civil action) against those who "jailbroke" (rooted) devices such as the iPhone (or iPad). The exemption to these penalties put in place by the Copyright Office extended to the "jailbreaking" (or, as we know it in the Android community, rooting) of all smartphones (it also extends to things like bootloader unlocking).

Page 1 of 41234