Episode 40: Goin Gaga
Innocent infringement off the table, Apple sues HTC, and is it illegal to poach tickets?
Please download the podcast, or subscribe to the feed. Feel free to e-mail us with questions, suggestions or comments.
Innocent infringement off the table
5th Circuit rules innocent infringement defense not supported in Maverick v Harper
The opinion
Apple Sues HTC
Apple sues HTC over iPhone patents
Apple sues HTC–court filings
Apple HTC Complaint U.S. Google & HTC
Poaching Gaga Tickets
Couldn’t Get Those Coveted Gaga Tickets? Here’s Why
Four Charged in Bid To Buy, Resell Tickets
Comment on this post
Posted in: Podcast on March 9, 2010
Apple Sues HTC Over iPhone Patents
This is still breaking, so we’ll have more coverage as the details of the litigation emerge.
Apple has sued HTC for infringement of Apple patents relating to the user interface and underlying hardware of the iPhone. While I don’t have my hands on a complaint yet, there’s a fair bet it involves the patent for capacitive touch screens Apple was recently awarded.
UPDATE: You can now download the relevant documents. I’ll try to get a look at them later today or this evening.
Comment on this post
Posted in: Links on March 2, 2010
Episode 36: Still Not About the iPad
Amazon Wrap Up, iPad Trademark Dispute, Out-Of-School Speech, New Rules for Juries
Please download the podcast, or subscribe to the feed. Feel free to e-mail us with questions, suggestions or comments.
iPad Trademark Dispute
FUJITSU’s iPAD
Fujitsu’s Leaked iPad Memo
Will the iPad soon have a new name?
MAGTEKs iPad
STMicroelectronics iPad
Apple’s Trademark Application
Students Punished, or not, for Out of School Speech
Snyder v. Blue Mountain School District
Synder Opinion
Layshock v. Hermitage School District, Opinion
New Rules for Juries
Juror Use of Electronic Communication Technology
Courts move to ban juror use of Blackberry, iPhone, Twitter and Facebook
Comments Off
Posted in: Podcast on February 8, 2010
Episode 35: Not about the iPad
Are file extensions trademarks, Google Street View suit reinstated, and Amazon pulls Macmillian books.
Please download the podcast, or subscribe to the feed. Feel free to e-mail us with questions, suggestions or comments.
Are file extensions trademarks?
File extensions cannot be trademarks
Street View Suit Reinstated
Google Street View: Appeals court revives Pa. couple’s lawsuit
The opinion
Amazon pulls Macmillan Books
Amazon Pulls Macmillan Books Over E-Book Price Disagreement
Amazon conceded to Macmillan hours after we finished recording.
Comments Off
Posted in: Podcast on February 1, 2010
Psystar Appeals
Psystar has appealed the summary judgment for Apple and permanent injunction. It will be a while before we have briefs, and the case won’t be heard, until much later in the year. We’ll follow it, as we have since the beginning.
Comments Off
Posted in: Links on January 15, 2010
Apple Wins Injunction against Psystar
AppleInsider reported that Apple won a permanent injunction against Psystar. Psystar has until December 31, 2009 to comply with the injunction. They will no longer be allowed to copy or sell copies of OS X, they cannot circumvent copy protection, or sell programs that circumvent the copy protection.
What’s unclear, because of conflicting reports (and our inability to find a copy of the injunction), is whether this injunction applies to OS X 10.6, Snow Leopard. Apple worked very hard to keep 10.6 out of the California litigation, and it is currently the subject of a case in Florida.
As always, we’ll keep you updated.
Update: A copy of the injunction can be found here
Comments Off
Posted in: Links on December 17, 2009
Apple, Psystar, Enter into Partial Settlement
AppleInsider is reporting that Apple and Psystar have entered into a partial settlement. The deal will prevent a trial on the issues of copyright damages, trademark and tradedress infringement and state unfair competition claims. In exchange, Psystar will pay an undisclosed amount of money, and will not have to pay Apple until after Psystar appeals the District Court judge’s ruling.
The judge still has to decide whether to issue Apple’s permanent injunction, and Apple’s legal challenge to Psystar’s RebelEFI is not included in this settlement.
Episode 27: Groundbreaking Website
Apple files a patent suit, Motorola and Blackberry sued for patent infringement, and database abuse.
Please, download the podcast here. E-mail us with suggestions, comments, or questions.
Apple Sues for Patent Infringement
Apple Files Patent Infringement Suit Over ‘Knock-Off’ Power Adapters
Apple Sues To Stop Power Adapter Knock Offs
Motorola and Blackberry Sued for Patent Infringement
Motorola, Research in Motion sued over voicemail
Klausner Technologies
Database Abuse
Apple to Defend Nokia Lawsuit “Vigorously”
Recently, Nokia filed a patent infringement suit against Apple, alleging that the iPhone infringes on Nokia patents.
In a recent SEC filing, Apple summarized the lawsuit, and promised that, “The Company intends to defend the case vigorously.”
What does that really mean? Sadly, little. It’s a public filing, and, as such, the company pretty much has to say that they will put on a vigorous defense. That being said, unless the case is a slam dunk against Apple, and that the patents are clearly valid, I think we can expect Apple to not given in easily.
One Way You’re Not Going to Infringe Copyright
The EFF is reporting that a court has ruled that neither cellphone users, nor the carriers, are liable for copyright infringement when the phone rings in public.
ASCAP argued that playing the ringtone in public constituted a “public performance” under the copyright act. The judge found that the performance was exempt from having to pay royalties because the “performance” wasn’t for commercial gain.
In an interesting twist for the ASCAP/BMI v. Apple dispute, the judge in this case also found that transmitting the ringtone to one person does not constitute a public performance. It still would constitute a reproduction, though. Because the 30 second song clips on iTunes are only transmitted to one person at a time, they would also not count as public performances under this interpretation.
