One of the big advantages of Google Fi is its flexibility. You just pay for the data you use at a rate of $10 a gig, up to a recently-set maximum of $80 a month. But, according to a lawsuit filed earlier this week, Google may have charged at least one Project Fi subscriber for data that was used while the customer was on a Wi-Fi connection. Read More
The continuing corporate drama between Android ROM developer Cyanogen, Inc., precocious enthusiast manufacturer OnePlus, and Indian smartphone vendor Micromax is basically a love triangle with Cyanogen's customized software in the middle. After Cyanogen made an arrangement with Micromax to exclusively provide the Android build for its Yu smartphone, Micromax went to the Delhi High Court to forcibly bar the OnePlus One (and its CM11S software) from being sold. The court granted an injunction on December 16th, allowing only the remaining stock to be sold on Amazon's Indian portal.
But now the India Times reports that the same court has reversed its decision, officially allowing OnePlus to sell and import the One phone with its CyanogenMod software and branding. Read More
Writing for Android Police from my home office in Virginia, it's not every day that I get to report on something somewhat close to home. But here it is. A Virginia Circuit Court judge has ruled that while police officers cannot compel a person to give up their passcode, they can demand someone use their fingerprint to unlock their phone.
Judge Steven C. Frucci made the ruling this week, saying that giving a police officer your fingerprint is similar to providing a DNA or handwriting sample, something the law permits. Divulging a password or PIN, however, requires admitting or handing over knowledge, something that's protected by the Fifth Amendment (you have the right to remain silent). Read More
Last year, Apple won what was perhaps the largest legal victory in its war on Android when a court ruled that Samsung infringed its patents on a significant number of devices and owed the Cupertino company in excess of a billion dollars. Today, however, that same judge is vacating $450m from that total until a second damages trial with a new jury can commence.
That amount won't be stripped away entirely, mind you. The problem comes from the fact that the jury made some errors when it passed judgment on 14 of the infringing devices. Samsung's lawyers broke down the numbers for its damages and discovered that there were certain flaws in the way they were calculated. Read More
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.
A court in Tokyo returned a favorable ruling for Samsung Friday, finding that Samsung's mobile devices were not in violation of an Apple patent related to inter-device media transfer.
This news comes one week after Samsung lost in what was (and continues to be) one of the most compelling trials tech has seen in a long time, with a San Jose jury ruling that Sammy owed Apple over $1 billion in damages over various trade dress and patent claims levied by Apple. By contrast, the jury awarded no damages to Samsung, finding that Apple didn't violate any of Samsung's patents and that all of Apple's patents retained validity. Read More
In the (annoyingly) highly-publicized case between Apple and Samsung, it took the jury just a few short days to come to the conclusion that Samsung had infringed on many of Apple's patents. The trial is certainly far from over (and there are doubts about how much attention the jury paid to detail, given that they answered 700 questions in 3 days). Still, that Samsung has to pay nearly $1.05bn in damages to Apple is likely to shake up other Android manufacturers no matter how the case plays out through the inevitable appeals. Read More
Update: It should come as no surprise, but Samsung has responded to Apple's attack on the Galaxy S III, saying it will "demonstrate to the court that the Galaxy S III is innovative and distinctive."
Apple and Samsung's ongoing litigation in California federal court has become something of a three-ring circus. Back in December, the presiding judge denied Apple's request for a preliminary injunction against a wide variety of Samsung products. Apple has since filed for more such injunctions on newer products, and the newest is the Galaxy S III.
Apple claims the devices infringes the same "data tapping" patent it has accused HTC (again today) and Motorola of infringing - which it is now extending to the core Android long-press action dialogue menu for URLs (eg, links in Gmail, browser, etc). Read More
Let this be a lesson to all major tech companies: if you have a ton of users and you want to enter a new market, you'd better charge some kind of arbitrary fee, lest you end up in trouble with the French judicial system. Google is feeling that sting this week, as a French court ordered the company to pay €500,000 in damages to Maps competitor Bottin Cartographs as well as a €15,000 fine.
The plaintiff claimed that Google was using its market dominance to muscle out smaller competitors in the mapping software market. Here's what Bottin Cartographs' lawyer, Jean-David Scemmama, had to say on the ruling:
"We proved the illegality of (Google's) strategy to remove its competitors...