SCOTUS Decides i4i, Apple Moves to Intervene in the Lodsys case, and iCloud sues Apple for iCloud.
SCOTUS Decides i4i case
Apple Moves to Intervene in Lodsys case
iCloud sues Apple over, you guessed it, iCloud
Comments Off on Episode 105: iCloud v. iCloud Posted in: Podcast on June 13, 2011
Lodsys, the company who has sent demand letters to many iOS developers, has posted a Q&A about their licensing scheme and practices.
You can read the ever-growing Q&A here.
Comments Off on Lodsys Answers Some Questions Posted in: Links on May 16, 2011
Apple has issued a press release explaining what location-based data they do and do not collect. The answers are a little surprising, in that Apple admits to collecting some encrypted, anonymous, data about users location in relation to cell towers and to traffic, but Apple explains that the cell tower information stored on the phone and backed up to the computer is kept to decrease the time it takes for the phone to display your location. The press release is short, and well worth the read.
Bloomberg is reporting that Apple has filed a compliant against Amazon for using “App Store” in the context of the “Amazon Appstore Developer Program,” (as of 10:42 EDT, Amazon still hasn’t taken down the reference) which will apparently be some kind of Android app
stor… err, online market for, well, “apps.”
You may recall that we discussed the issues associated with Apple’s application for the “appstore” trademark in some detail on Podcast 92. In sum, Microsoft thinks this mark is generic (and is separately challenging it before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board). I think there is a better argument that this mark is merely descriptive, without a strong secondary meaning. On the other hand, there are only so many ways to describe a online marketplace (a “store”) of software applications (“apps”) without implicating those two words together. So, it’s quite possible that a judge may hold Apple’s claimed mark to fail both for genericide and descriptiveness. Either way, it seems like a tough claim for Apple to defend.
Just about every major tech blog and news site is now carrying this story; but, I’ve yet to see the actual compliant. Once I find that I will post it back here.
3/22 update: Apple v. Amazon compliant added.
On Tuesday, November 30, 2010, the Apple v. Psystar case was argued before the 9th Circuit. Groklaw continued its excellent coverage with another post which includes a link to an audio recording (file hosted by 9th Circuit) of the arguments by Kiwi Camara (on behalf of Psystar) and George Riley (on behalf of Apple).
In case you’ve forgotten, Apple filed this suit against Psystar for copyright infringement and breach of contract (among several other claims) after Psystar began marketing hackintosh PCs with OS X pre-installed on the hardware in 2008. Apple’s EULA expressly prohibits using OS X on any non-Apple hardware.
This is one of 3 Psystar cases going on across the nation. The case at hand was originally filed in the N.D. California District court, another case was filed in the S.D. Florida District court by Psystar against Apple, and Psystar also filed for bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy court in Florida. Groklaw has neatly organized documents from all the cases here.
It will be some time before the 9th Circuit issues an opinion on the case. It’s worth noting that the arguments before the 9th Circuit are limited only to whether the District Court was correct to reject Psystar’s affirmative defense of copyright misuse. Psystar’s opening brief was filed under seal, but Apple’s answering brief, and a reply from Psystar are available to catch you up on some of the arguments.
Here’s an interesting factoid to chew on while listening to the recording. According to info on their respective bio pages, Apple’s attorney graduated law school prior to the year Psystar’s attorney was born. Yikes!
Comments Off on Psystar case argued before Ninth Circuit Posted in: Links on December 2, 2010
T-Mobile blocks third-party text messages, Apple butts heads with patent exhaustion, Likelihood on Confusion over Paper Towels
T-Mobile Blocks Third-Party Text Messages
Apple Butts Heads with Patent Exhaustion
Georgia Pacific’s Effort to Control Towel Dispenser Refills Fails in 8th Circuit–Georgia Pacific v. Myers Supply
Selling Replacement Supplies Could Constitute Contributory Trademark Infringement–Georgia Pacific v. Von Drehle
Comments Off on Episode 69: Exhausted Patents Posted in: Podcast on September 27, 2010
First Sale v. EULAs, HP Sues Mark Hurd, and Apple Revises App Store Guidelines.
First Sale: Vernor v. AutoDesk
HP Sues Mark Hurd
Apple Revises App Store Guidelines
Comments Off on Podcast 67: Do You Really Want to Hurd Me Posted in: Podcast on September 13, 2010
HP and Lexmark Sue over Ink Jet Cartridges, again, Facebook Sued over Kids Liking ads, iPad and People
HP and Lexmark sue over Ink Jet Cartridges
Lexmark, HP Using Patent Law To Try To Block Replacement Ink Cartridges From The Market
Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.
HP guns for printer ink competition
Lexmark sues 24 cartridge makers over patents
Facebook Sued over Kids Liking Ads
People Magazine and the iPad
Comments Off on Podcast 65: iLike Facebook Ads Posted in: Podcast on August 30, 2010
Apple gets a couple of scary design patents, AT&T thinks wireless is different, and Oracle sues the Java out of Google.
Apple Design Patents
Article (via TUAW)
AT&T on Net Neutrality
Oracle (d/b/a Sun) Sues Google Over Java (N.D.CA, No. 1418106)
Article (via Tech Crunch)
Ben and David Lu!! are MIA this week.
Comments Off on Episode 64: Big, Scary Design Patents! Posted in: Podcast on August 23, 2010
The blogosphere was abuzz today with the news that Apple was awarded two patents. One was for slide to unlock, the other for virtual keyboard keys popping up when you tap them.
Both of these, however, were design patents, and not utility patents. That means that other people can implement the same features, as long as they don’t look substantially similar to Apple’s implementation.
Think of design patents more of trademarks than regular patents. This just keeps people from making a lock screen that’s so similar to the iPhone that it will risk confusing people.
Comments Off on Apple Awarded Design Patent on Slide to Unlock Posted in: Links on August 17, 2010