In a somewhat unexpected turn of events, it seems that at least one customer ordering an HTC Amaze 4G from T-Mobile.com has been alerted that shipments of the device have been delayed "due to an unforeseen issue with receiving the product from the manufacturer." It looks like T-Mobile is sending out emails to customers informing them that they have no "estimate as to when the product will be available," and suggesting that customers explore other options in the meantime.
According to an exclusion order issued by the ITC, some of Motorola Mobility's smartphone devices are in violation of four claims in a Microsoft patent related to scheduling meetings in a calendar. The specifics really aren't important - basically, the ITC found that Motorola infringed a Microsoft patent related to mobile software for creating and sending meeting invitations.
Motorola and Google had argued that an exclusionary order banning the import of offending Motorola devices wasn't in the public interest, but the judge didn't buy it.
We reported last night that, due to an ITC order on an Apple patent infringement claim, at least some of HTC's One X and EVO 4G LTE smartphones had been halted at shipping ports by US Customs.
The implications of this for the EVO 4G LTE just got worse, as Sprint has been forced to concede that the planned May 18th launch will have to be delayed until the customs investigation is completed.
US Customs has halted at least some shipments of the HTC One X and EVO 4G LTE (presumably at the Port of Los Angeles), as a result of an earlier ITC order won by Apple over a patent lawsuit for "data tapping" (context-sensitive text-based actions) in the browser and messaging apps on some HTC phones.
These features, HTC contends, have been removed from the One X and EVO 4G LTE, and HTC is "confident" that it is in compliance with the ruling:
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 Galaxy S III is... well... it's ugly. There's really no other way to put it. But why? Why is it ugly? I don't mean aesthetically, why is it ugly, I mean, "How did something like this ever make it out of Samsung's design studio?" I'll tell you how, it was never in the design studio. This phone design was born down the hall, in a room where the door sign reads "Samsung Legal."
It was designed by lawyers.
After what was a pretty obvious application of the ICANN anti-squatting policy, it seems Google has now gained control of GooglePlay.com from an ad-serving Japanese squatter. Google filed a complaint under ICANN anti-squatting regulations, and after the case's short stint at the National Arbitration Forum (a non-court but legally binding decision-making body in the US), Google now shows as the registrant of GooglePlay.com.
A quick 'whois' of the domain yields the following:
Seeking damages for California residents who have purchased defective Android apps and were disallowed a refund, Android users Dodd Harris and Stephen Sabatino are suing Google under the pretext that the search giant's 15-minute refund window is unfair.
The pair claim that Google's pocketing of a 30% commission on defective apps and denying a refund after 15 minutes is wrong, using the practices of other app stores (those run by Amazon and Apple) to illustrate their point.
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.
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.