Posts with tag legal
Posted Oct 11th 2007 7:15PM by Nilay Patel
Filed under: Storage
This one's still a ways off, but the International Trade Commission has just launched a patent investigation into five manufacturers that could result in a ban on hard drive imports if the agency finds evidence of infringement. The patents, which are owned by Californians Steven and Mary Reiber, cover a method of using "ceramic bonding tips" on the internal wiring of the drives, and the couple claims Western Digital, Seagate, Toshiba, Hewlett-Packard, and Dell have all infringed by importing the drives. Much like the
Qualcomm case, the ITC has a variety of ways of dealing with the situation and the parties have a lot of methods of appeal, but products that infringe on US patents are barred from being imported, so this initial determination will set off a lot of dominoes when it gets made in 45 days. Details are still pretty sketchy on what exactly the ITC is investigating, but we'll definitely keep you updated as we get more info.
Disclaimer: Although this post was written by an attorney, it is not meant to be legal advice or analysis and should not be taken as such.Posted Oct 11th 2007 10:16AM by Darren Murph
Filed under: Misc. Gadgets
Vonage, who has been
hit up with a bevy of legal
trouble in recent months, is officially seeking a review of the September 26th Verizon
patent decision. Reportedly, the internet telephony outfit "filed a motion for a review by the original three-judge panel or the full panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit." According to Vonage Chief Legal Officer Sharon O'Leary, the move "represents the next logical step for Vonage in managing this litigation and continuing to move its business forward," and she also stated that the firm would "continue to explore all legal options available to put the Verizon litigation to rest."
Posted Oct 8th 2007 12:48PM by Joshua Topolsky
Filed under: Misc. Gadgets
Vonage, everyone's favorite "gettin' sued by The Man" company has taken another beating in the Sprint-Nextel patent suit, agreeing to settle the case and license the telco's internet-calling technology for the tidy sum of $80 million. This comes hot on the heels of last month's ruling, which stipulated that Vonage was to pay
$69.5 million to Sprint over six patents which the mobile phone company says it had infringed. "We are pleased to resolve our dispute with Sprint and enter into a productive future relationship," said Sharon O'Leary, General Counsel for Vonage, though it's possible she wasn't as ecstatic as that quote would have you believe. This is just another money-siphoning event for the VoIP company, which in March was hit up for
$66 million from Verizon for illegally using some of
its patents. If you're keeping count at home, that's
$215.5 million paid out. If this keeps up, they may not even be able to afford those snappy commercials anymore. [Warning: read link requires subscription]
Posted Oct 5th 2007 5:43AM by Thomas Ricker
Prepare to be amazed at what passes for investigative journalism on television these days. Atlanta's WSB-TV Action News team ran a sensational iPod "nana" piece last night under the title "Man's Pants Catch Fire At Airport." To set the stage, WSB-TV says that the nano "uses the same technology as those
troubled laptop batteries under recall due to the risk of fire." In steps Danny Williams -- mild mannered consumer, airport employee -- who claims that his iPod nano "burst into"
chest-high flames while he was at work. So why isn't he covered in burns after exposure to such a serious chemical fire? We've all watched the
horrifying video of a lithium ion battery explosion, right? Well, Danny claims that he was protected by a "glossy piece of paper" in his pocket at the time. Taking it up a notch, WSB-TV worries that Danny could have been mistaken for a terrorist due to his smoking airport trousers. Look, we're not saying that nothing happened, after all, we've written about an
exploding iPod nano before. We're only saying that it didn't happen in the way described. Check the video of the hot-coffee-in-lap style legal preparation after the break.
[Thanks, Will]
Continue reading iPod "nana" spews chest-high flames from trousers -- lawsuit at 11
Posted Oct 4th 2007 9:01AM by Nilay Patel
Filed under: Portable Audio
There's one of them
RIAA lawsuits going down in Duluth this week, and Jammie Thomas, the single mother charged with sharing 26 songs on Kazaa, isn't going down without a fight. Yesterday her attorneys called Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's head of litigation, to testify before the jury and got her to say some incredibly incendiary things -- not least of which was her opinion that making copies of purchased music is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy.'" That viewpoint, of course, implicates pretty much every single thing consumers do with music and computers, including transferring songs to iPods and Zunes. We're betting there might be a couple jurors on the panel who aren't too fond of Ms. Pariser right now. Might want to check yo'self before you wreck yo'self, counselor.
Disclaimer: Although this post was written by an attorney, it is not meant as legal advice or analysis and should not be taken as such.Posted Oct 3rd 2007 8:12AM by Darren Murph
Filed under: Peripherals, Portable Audio, Wearables, Wireless
Another day, another
lawsuit aimed at Cupertino. This time, however, a Utah-based company is bringing Nike along for the ride, as it claims that the two firms willfully created and sold the
Nike+iPod Sport Kit after refusing to incorporate their patent into the product. Apparently, Leaper Footwear successfully "patented in 1998 a unique breed of shoes which measures locomotive performance parameters such as a user's walking or running speed and / or distance traveled." Furthermore, Nike allegedly refused to take interest in the firm's patent, while it eventually went on to pursue and craft the same type of product some six years later. As predicted, the two plaintiffs are hoping to garner a (presumably large) sum of money "to be determined at trial, a permanent injunction barring Apple and Nike from further infringement on their patent" and a court order that they receive "three times the damages assessed at trial due to the willful and deliberate nature of Nike's actions."
[Thanks, Mark]
Posted Oct 1st 2007 2:57PM by Darren Murph
Filed under: Cellphones
Qualcomm finding itself in
more legal trouble? Say it ain't so! Sure enough, the chip maker is now facing even more heat as the European Commission "has launched formal antitrust proceedings" against it after "mobile phone manufacturers complained it charged far too much for vital technology licenses." The move had reportedly been expected for some time, and while the Commission noted that this would be considered "a matter of priority," no deadline was immediately set for a resolution. Apparently, Qualcomm feels that mobile phone makers were trying to "stifle the competition that it brought to the market," and while the probe could eventually be scrapped, the other outcomes are likely to involve Qualcomm coughing up some dough unless it proves that the allegations were without merit.
Posted Oct 1st 2007 4:14AM by Ryan Block
Filed under: Cellphones
Angry with Apple over the
absolute lockdown of the iPhone? You're not alone. Angry enough to
start a lawsuit over it? You're probably in a far smaller group entirely, which now includes a number of rabble-rousers on Apple's forums, whose comment threads were killed shortly after beginning discussions of calling for a class action suit against Apple. (Really though, what'd they expect?) There's no question that users want some retribution for the sorry, sometimes even bricked state the iPhone's now in, but big talk is infinitely smaller than even minor action, so until some brave (or publicity hungry) individuals step up to the plate to test legality of disabling hacked features on personal electronics, it sounds like we'll all just have to be content with our
$100 refunds or
reduced-price purchases until this thing works itself out.
Posted Sep 27th 2007 9:22AM by Nilay Patel
Filed under: Misc. Gadgets
So after all the
uproar and
lawsuits over
Best Buy's secret in-store intranet, which looked exactly like the external bestbuy.com site but lacked sale prices and other discounts, the company has responded in the lamest way possible: by putting a warning label on the in-store kiosks. The warning will say something like "THIS KIOSK DISPLAYS IN-STORE PRICES - WHICH MAY DIFFER FROM NATIONAL INTERNET PRICES," and advise customers to see a sales associate if they have any questions. It's still unclear why the company won't just do the right thing and match its own listed prices, but we're willing to bet the suits are patting themselves on the back for their innovative, out-of-the-box solution. Martinis for all!
Posted Sep 27th 2007 2:09AM by Thomas Ricker
Filed under: Cellphones, Misc. Gadgets
Prepare to feel your carrier-hate well from within. Remember
Verizon Wireless' lawsuit against the FCC claiming that the 700MHz open-access auction rule -- the rule enabling the likes of
Google,
Apple, and others to take home a slice of the spectrum pie -- "violates the US Constitution?" Well, according to "industry sources," FCC chairman Kevin Martin is "aggressively pushing" for revisions to the 700MHz open-access rule in response to Verizon Wireless' lobbying efforts. However, having been met with an internal FCC "backlash" last week, Martin is said to be preparing a "declaratory ruling" in an effort to fast-track support for VZW's claim outside of the normal public-comment process. Insiders worry that Martin is caving to VZW pressure as the auction, expected to generate some $15 billion in FCC fun-money,
draws near. Man, nothing says free market capitalism like a little protectionist bullying -- "can we sue you now."
[Via
Phonescoop]
Posted Sep 26th 2007 4:26PM by Darren Murph
Filed under: Misc. Gadgets
When it rains, it pours. At least we're pretty sure Vonage thinks so, as for the second time in as many days, the firm has been hit with terrible news on the legal front. Just a day after being
ordered to pay Sprint a whopping $69.5 million for patent infringement, the VoIP provider is now hearing that the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit "partially affirmed" the Verizon verdict from March. For those who have forgotten, that
case proclaimed that Vonage owed Verizon $58 million in addition to royalties on future revenue, but the appeals court did "direct the trial court to reconsider the verdict on one of the three patents and it vacated the damages and royalty awards." Notably, the "injunction has been stayed pending resolution of Vonage's appeal," but it will go into effect within a month if the outfit can't secure an emergency stay from the US Supreme Court.
Posted Sep 25th 2007 5:24PM by Darren Murph
Filed under: Misc. Gadgets
While there was
once talk of just selling Sprint the keys to the (crumbling) Vonage offices, it's pretty safe to say that those plans are no longer in the cards. Apparently, Vonage Holdings Corp. "was ordered in federal court to pay $69.5 million in damages for infringing on six telecommunications patents owned by competitor Sprint-Nextel," and if that wasn't punishment enough, "jurors ordered Vonage to pay a five-percent royalty on future revenues." If you'll recall, this isn't the
first time Vonage has had to
cough up major quantities of dough after
being sued for patent infringement, and although a spokesman for the firm "declined comment," the company has already announced that it will "seek to overturn" the verdict.
Read - Vonage to pay Sprint $69.5 million
Read - Vonage to Appeal Court Decision in Sprint Patent Suit
Posted Sep 20th 2007 10:35AM by Joshua Topolsky
Filed under: Misc. Gadgets
It's not easy being
Steve Jobs. When you're not jet-setting
around the world,
introducing your disappointing EDGE-only iPhone to the European market, you're getting subpoenaed by US securities regulators over a lawsuit concerning stock option backdating. According to reports, El-Jobso has been called in for the US Securities and Exchange's case against former Apple general counsel Nancy Heinen over
backdating option grants to Jobs and other executives. Apparently, Heinen is looking for 45 depositions for the case, though the SEC is hoping to limit that to 12 (per party). SEC lawyers are claiming that Heinen and former Apple Chief Financial Officer Fred Anderson (of
Elevation Partners fame) backdated more than $20 million in stock options in 2001 for Jobsy, themselves, and other executives. Anderson -- who's already paid $3.5 million in fines -- claims he was given permission by Jobs himself to backdate the options. An internal Apple review claims it found two questionable stock options awarded to Jobs, but found no wrongdoing on his part. For Jobs' sake, let's hope he stays out of the slammer -- a pretty face like that won't last long on the inside.
[Thanks,
Randall]
Posted Sep 18th 2007 11:42AM by Thomas Ricker
Filed under: Gaming, Transportation
Trevor Michael Karney – aka, The Elusive Dietrich – has been sentenced to jail by an LA judge for misleading police in the 162MPH crash of that $1.5 million Gizmondo Ferrari Enzo. Besides lying to police about his involvement as a passenger, the 27-year old German playboy also fled to Ireland before sneaking back into the US through the Mexican border in search of some tasty bud and cool waves. The sentence? 30 days, which roughly translates to a punishment of tickling by virgins until the onset of bellyache by the time the appeals process is through.
Posted Sep 17th 2007 12:12PM by Evan Blass
Filed under: Misc. Gadgets
Sounding like a child who's just been caught with a hand in the proverbial cookie jar, Microsoft issued a decidedly contrite, non-confrontational response this afternoon to the
decision handed down earlier today by a European Grand Chamber of the Court of First Instance, thanking the court for its time and promising to take whatever steps are necessary to comply with the ruling. While playing up its commitment to Europe, aspirations for increased transparency, and continuing changes to its business practices, Redmond Senior Vice President and General Counsel Brad Smith also admitted that "we all have to acknowledge that there are some issues that do remain open" and even welcomed "continued discussion to adhere to our duties with the European Commission." Notably absent from Microsoft's response was any mention of an appeal, and while the topic does seem to have been broached in post-statement Q&A, the company's press release conveniently lists all questions as being asked "off mike" -- therefore, the only clue we have regarding future plans is Smith's assertion that "I don't want to talk about what will come next in terms of the legal process." In other words, it sounds like this case may well enter its second decade before a final decision is reached.
Next Page >
