05
Nov
nexusae0_courtroom_thumb

Federal Judge Dismisses Apple's Wisconsin Lawsuit Against Motorola With Prejudice

Posted by in Android OS, Google, Legal, Motorola, News

Google announced in a statement today that Wisconsin Judge Barbara Crabb has dismissed Apple's lawsuit against Motorola Mobility claiming the Google-owned Moto's practices related to standards-essential patent licensing were unfair.

The lawsuit was set to go to trial in US District Court in Madison, Wisconsin this afternoon but was, according to Google, dismissed with prejudice by Judge Crabb this morning. Readers may remember that a similar Apple vs Motorola trial was canceled in Illinois by Judge Richard Posner earlier this year.

For those just tuning in, the case was centered around the licensing of some of Motorola Mobility's patents (which Google bought along with the company in May).

05
Nov
little rascal

Apple Hides Rewritten Court-Ordered Samsung Apology Behind Sneaky UK Homepage Code

Posted by in Legal, News

Remember when you were in grade school, and your parent or teacher told you to apologize to the other kid? And you'd reply, "I'm sorry that Johnny has a big stupid face and he made me want to punch it"? Apple's been doing the same thing, except in this case the kids are billion-dollar international companies. With big stupid faces.

sneaky sneaky

By now you've probably seen Apple's original apology to Samsung, ordered by the UK court to punish the company's assertion that Samsung wholly copied the iPad design. And you've seen the rewritten apology that the court forced Apple to post, after finding the original (which included statements that US and German courts found otherwise) somewhat lacking.

03
Nov
judgejudythumb

Apple Posts Revised Court-Ordered Apology, Skips The Passive Aggressive, Judge-Undermining Remarks

Posted by in Legal, News

Let this be a lesson to you all: if a judge orders you to issue a statement saying X, it might not be a good idea to say "Well, that guy said X, but everyone else in the world thinks he's an idiot, so it doesn't really matter." That's roughly what Apple did when it posted this court-ordered concession on its website. When the UK judge came back and said, "Um, no, try that again," the Cupertino company was forced to issue a new version, sans snark. Here it is in full:

Samsung / Apple UK judgment

On 9 July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic(UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do notinfringe Apple’s Community registered design No.

01
Nov
judgejudy-002

UK Judge To Apple: Your Apology Is Bogus, Rewrite It (Or, How Not To Deal With A Court Order)

Posted by in Legal, News

It seems Apple is getting far more than it bargained for in its failed iPad lawsuit in the UK, having been ordered by a judge there to run statements in both print and on its website clearly stating that Samsung's Galaxy Tab had not copied the company's own tablet. Of course, when Apple ran the apology on its UK website, it was one paragraph of acknowledgement of the judgment, and four paragraphs of reasons why that judgment was stupid, essentially. Which is not what the court order told Apple to do.

So, Samsung brought that up with the judges at the UK appellate court, and they aren't happy.

31
Oct
unnamed (2)

Analysis: Does Google Maps Infringe Apple's New Maps Patent? Signs Point To "Almost Definitely Not"

Posted by in Android OS, Applications, Legal, News

OK, everybody, it's patent time. Get your coffee. And preferably, keep sharp objects out of arm's reach.

As you may have heard by now, Apple now has a patent on touchscreen maps that was granted just a few days ago. The patent in question (which we'll call the '033 patent) can be found here. It's a real page-turner. I'm kidding, no it's not - it's a patent. It's about as exciting as a treatise on the effects of the 18th century transatlantic textile trade on horse carriage upholstery.

Of course, being that this patent has pictures of maps and talks generally about Apple revolutionizing the "inflexible ...

26
Oct
gavel

New DMCA Exemptions Allow Rooting Phones (But Not Tablets), Unapproved Phone Unlocks Will Be A Thing Of The Past

Posted by in Legal, News

Good news, bad news, and really bloody ridiculous news, Android fans. Today, the latest round of DMCA exemptions has been passed and if you've ever jailbroken or rooted a phone, you'll be happy to know that this will continue to be legal. At least, for your phones. If, however, you want to gain su access to your tablet, you're fresh out of luck. Also, phones purchased after January 2013 cannot be legally unlocked for use on a carrier that didn't give you explicit permission. Yeah, it's kind of a mess.

Wait, What Are DMCA Exemptions?

A brief intro, for the uninitiated: the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, signed into law in 1998, has a certain set of rules concerning circumvention of DRM.

26
Oct
apple-still-required-to-run-samsung-didnt-copy-us-ads-in-the-uk-after-appeals-ruling

Apple Publishes A Statement On Its UK Website Saying That Samsung Did Not Copy The iPad, But Only Because Their Products Aren't As Cool As Ours

Posted by in Legal, News, Samsung

After months of media hype and courtroom battles, Samsung was finally ordered to pay Apple $1.05 billion by a U.S. court a couple of months ago, for infringing the company's design patents. On the other side of the pond, however, things haven't been quite as clear cut, with a UK judge ordering Apple to publish ads stating that Samsung did not copy the iPad at all.

Today, Apple has posted a statement on its UK website saying just that, but its PR team has also taken the opportunity to say a few more words about Samsung as well.

After noting that "the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple’s registered design No.

23
Oct
BU001683

Apple's Rubber-Banding Patent Is Invalid - Here's What That Actually Means, And Why It Was Invalidated

Posted by in Legal, News, Samsung

In perhaps its soon to be most-publicized decision in decades, FOSS Patents is reporting that the USPTO has issued an initial finding of invalidity on every claim in Apple's patent for "rubber-band scrolling," that is, the scroll bounceback patent which anyone with half a brain knows is about as patent-worthy as any purely aesthetic user interface element is.

The claims were rejected on findings of prior art from two sources - an AOL patent, and a patent previously filed by Apple. All of the claims of the '381 patent were either rejected as being anticipated (previously described) by prior art, or being obvious in light of it.

18
Oct
gavel

Apple Still Required To Run 'Samsung Didn't Copy Us' Ads In The UK After Appeals Ruling

Posted by in Legal, News, Samsung

It may be pretty hard for Apple to get away from the ruling that it has to state publicly on its website and in advertisements that Samsung didn't copy the iPad. An appeals court has ruled that the previous sentence should still be in place. The judges stated that, if Apple wasn't the one to clear up the confusion, the damage caused by the lawsuits all over Europe would be irreparable to Samsung.

Said the judges:

The acknowledgment must come from the horse's mouth. Nothing short of that will be sure to do the job completely.

The one thing the appeals court did change is that the web-based disclaimer doesn't need to take up a large amount of real estate on Apple's homepage, and instead a simple link to "Samsung/Apple judgment" will suffice.

10
Oct
image

Apple Granted Another Slide-To-Unlock Patent That Covers More Than Just Predefined Paths

Posted by in Android OS, Legal, News

Following up on last year's slide-to-unlock patent grab (which itself built on a patent granted in 2010), Apple has been granted another, yet more expansive slide-to-unlock patent, one which ditches the previous patents' emphasis on "predefined paths" in favor of more ambiguous language covering the movement of an unlock image to "an unlock region" on a device's display.

While US Patent 8,286,103 is largely similar to Apple's previous two slide-to-unlock, its language is considerably broader. The logic of the patent is not concerned with what path a user takes to unlock a device, nor where the user starts or stops that path, just that an unlock image is moved "from the first location to an unlock region."

Essentially, the language of the patent has been loosened to cover workaround solutions (presumably like the circle locks of Ice Cream Sandwich and Jelly Bean) and, ostensibly, to ensure that pretty much any method of unlocking a device through a continuous touch movement is protected.

Page 4 of 13«First...23456...10...Last»