Posts Tagged ‘ruling’
As of right now it’s perfectly legal to operate a drone for commercial reasons. That’s according to a federal judge, in a ruling that notes the Federal Aviation Administration has not made any legally binding rules against the practice. This flies in the face of the FAA, which previously stated that drones used for commercial reasons were illegal. The ruling follows a lawsuit in which… Read More
A federal district court judge in Washington DC issued a preliminary injunction today in a case regarding the NSA’s practice of collecting phone call metadata. In doing so, Judge Richard Leon essentially prohibited the NSA from recording the metadata …
Notorious patent troll Lodsys abandoned a lawsuit on the eve of a trial rather than face the possibility of losing on the merits of his claims, according to the defendant in the case. Security firm Kaspersky Labs, one of dozens of defendants in Lodsys’ two-year-old lawsuit over claims related to in-app purchases, said in a blog post today that Lodsys settled its claims without winning any concessions from Kaspersky. “Churchill was right: ‘Never give up,’” company founder Eugene Kaspersky wrote. “We’ve followed his advice in our fight against a particular troll. As a result the troll gave up and ran away with nothing and its tail between its legs.”
Privacy has been a hot-button topic of late, no more so than in the area of telecommunications. Perhaps as a response to these concerns, the FCC voted today for a Declaratory Ruling that all carriers must safeguard the private data in their customers’ mobile devices. This data is known as customer proprietary network information (CPNI) and consists of metadata like phone numbers, call duration, call locations and call logs. Providers are supposed to protect such data already, but until today that only applied to the network — now phones are covered under it as well. Carriers are still allowed to collect the information for network support purposes, but all precautions must be met so it’s not compromised. It appears that third-party apps and services aren’t covered under the ruling, and there aren’t any strict regulations on how the CPNI may be gathered or protected. Still, the FCC made it clear that if any of the data is compromised, the carriers would have some serious ‘splainin to do. To learn more about the ruling, check out the press release after the break.
Via: Fierce Wireless
An additional Legal Blow For Apple As Dutch Court Concurs With U.K. Ruling That Samsung Galaxy Tablets Do Not Infringe iPad’s Design
Apple ’ s court room skirmishes against its Android OEM adversary top Samsung have actually not been going extremely well lately, despite Cupertino ’ s huge $ 1bn + loss win against Samsung last summer. Today another legal blow for Cupertino: a Dutch area court has actually ruled that Samsung ’ s Galaxy tablets do not borrow Apple design patents.
The most recent Apple vs Samsung court ruling worries the rounded edges of Samsung ’ s Galaxy Tab 10.1, Galaxy Tab 8.9 and Galaxy Tab 7.7 tablets — which Apple had said borrow the design of the iPad. The Dutch court rejected Apple ’ s argument — saying there is “ no question of an infringement ” — and citing previous comparable choices in U.K. courts.
A notice on its website (translated from Dutch with Google Translate) checks out:
Today the Hague area court judgment in a case of Samsung against Apple. At issue in this case is whether the design of some of Samsung Galaxy tablets borrow a design right from Apple. The court thinks that there is no question of a violation. The court describes British law which the court already had actually discovered the same 2 circumstances on the same violation question. While it may appear sensible to conclude that all these court misses are collecting to weigh down Apple ’ s total legal hopes against Samsung — Reuters notes that the pair are taken part in patent litigation in at least 10 nations — the reason for the
Dutch court falling in line with the U.K. ruling comes down to this case being concentrated on a design/IP patent, as opposed to a technical patent. According to the FOSS Patents blog site, design/IP patents are presently based on EU-level law, whereas technical patents are adjudicated on a country-by-country basis. ” It would have taken some extraordinary situations for the Dutch court to disagree with the UK court, ” the blog site notes. Samsung offered the following statement commenting on the Dutch court ruling: We welcome the court’s decision, which declared
decisions made by courts in various other countries that our Galaxy Tab items do not borrow Apple’s registered design right. We continue to think that Apple was not the initial to make a tablet with an oblong shape and rounded edges and that the origins of Apple’s registered design functions can be found in numerous examples of prior art. Must Apple remain to make extreme legal cases based on such common designs, development in the industry
can be damaged and consumer option unduly restricted. At the time of composing Apple had not
reacted to a request for remark. Last October Apple lost an appeal in a U.K. High Court against a tablet design patent judgement that had actually found in Samsung ’ s favor. The U.K. court additionally ruled that Samsung ’ s Galaxy Tab did not borrow the iPad ’ s design (the judge in the original trial really stated Samsung ’ s tablet was ‘ not cool enough ’ to infringe Apple ’ s design). Because circumstances the court purchased Apple to release an acknowledgement of the judgement on its website and run ads in paper-based media.
Incoming search terms:
Another Legal Blow For Apple As Dutch Court Concurs With U.K. Ruling That Samsung Galaxy Tablets Do Not Infringe iPad’s Design
Apple’s courtroom skirmishes against its Android OEM enemy number one Samsung have not been going very well of late, despite Cupertino’s big $ 1bn+ damages win against Samsung last summer. Today another legal blow for Cupertino: a Dutch district court has ruled that Samsung’s Galaxy tablets do not infringe Apple design patents.
The latest Apple vs Samsung court ruling concerns the rounded corners of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1, Galaxy Tab 8.9 and Galaxy Tab 7.7 tablets — which Apple had argued infringe the design of the iPad. The Dutch court rejected Apple’s argument — saying there is “no question of an infringement” — and citing previous similar decisions in U.K. courts.
A notice on its website (translated from Dutch with Google Translate) reads:
Today the Hague district court judgment in a case of Samsung against Apple. At issue in this case is whether the design of some of Samsung Galaxy tablets infringe a design right from Apple. The court believes that there is no question of an infringement.
The court refers to British law which the court already had found the same two instances on the same infringement question.
While it might seem logical to conclude that all these court misses are accumulating to weigh down Apple’s overall legal hopes against Samsung — Reuters notes that the pair are engaged in patent litigation in at least 10 countries — the reason for the Dutch court falling in line with the U.K. ruling comes down to this case being focused on a design/IP patent, rather than a technical patent.
According to the FOSS Patents blog, design/IP patents are currently subject to EU-level law, whereas technical patents are adjudicated on a country-by-country basis. ”It would have taken some exceptional circumstances for the Dutch court to disagree with the UK court,” the blog notes.
Samsung provided the following statement commenting on the Dutch court ruling:
We welcome the court’s decision, which reaffirmed decisions made by courts in other countries that our Galaxy Tab products do not infringe Apple’s registered design right. We continue to believe that Apple was not the first to design a tablet with a rectangular shape and rounded corners and that the origins of Apple’s registered design features can be found in numerous examples of prior art. Should Apple continue to make excessive legal claims based on such generic designs, innovation in the industry could be harmed and consumer choice unduly limited.
At the time of writing Apple had not responded to a request for comment.
Last October Apple lost an appeal in a U.K. High Court against a tablet design patent judgement that had found in Samsung’s favour. The U.K. court also ruled that Samsung’s Galaxy Tab did not infringe the iPad’s design (the judge in the original trial actually said Samsung’s tablet was ‘not cool enough’ to infringe Apple’s design). In that instance the court ordered Apple to publish an acknowledgement of the judgement on its website and run ads in paper-based media.
Following The Letter Of The Law: Apple Publishes Non-Apology To Samsung On Its Website To Comply With U.K. Court Ruling
After losing an appeal in a UK high court last week against a judgement that Samsung ’ s Galaxy Tab tablets do not infringe the design of the iPad due to the fact that their design is simply not cool enough, Apple has now published an acknowledgement of the court ’ s judgement on its U.K. internet site — in line with the court order. You could ’ t call it an apology — fairly the reverse: Apple makes it clear it does not agree with the court ’ s decision by pointing out that it has had court wins against Samsung for the exact same design patent in Germany, and noting its huge win against the Korean device maker in the U.S this summer.
Apple also concentrates on the judge ’ s explanations for dismissing its patent claim — quotationing the judge ’ s detailed ruling on exactly what makes the iPad ’ s design so much cooler than the Galaxy Tab, in which he talks practically lovingly of the “ extreme simpleness ” of the iPad ’ s design; its “ undecorated areas ”; “ crisp edge ” and “ combination of curves ”.
Apple then contrasts that with what the judge had to say about the Galaxy Tab: “ extremely thin, virtually insubstantial ” with “ uncommon information on the back ” — and the conclusion: “ not cool ”.
Here ’ s Apple ’ s acknowledgment in full
Samsung / Apple UK judgment
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited’s Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do notinfringe Apple’s registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the Highcourt is readily available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html. In theruling, the judge made a number of crucial points contrasting the designs
of the Apple and Samsung products: “ The harsh simpleness of the Apple design is striking. Total it
has undecorated flat areas with a plate of glass on the front all the method out to an extremely thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combo of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design appears like an item the informed individual would wish to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and straightforward product. It is a cool design. ” “ The notified individual ’ s overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the household which includes the Apple design; however the Samsung items are really thin, almost insubstantial users of that family with uncommon information on the back. They do not have actually the same understated and extreme simpleness which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool. ” That Judgment has impact throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is offered on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe. Nevertheless, in a case tried in Germany concerning the same patent, the court discovered that Samsung engaged in unjust competition by copying the iPad design. A UNITED STATE jury additionally located Samsung guilty of borrowing on Apple ’ s design and utility patents
Apple has lost an appeal against a ruling in a U.K. High Court that Samsung ’ s Galaxy Tab does not infringe the iPad ’ s design. The initial ruling by Judge Colin Birss said Samsung ’ s tablets were not cool enough to be confused with Apple ’ s since they did not have the “ extreme simpleness ” of the iPad. That ruling has now been supported by the Court of Appeal.
The original ruling additionally specified that Apple should run adverts on its web site and in newspaper saying Samsung did not copy the iPad. Reuters reports that the Court of Appeal ’ s Judge Kitchin said today the notices have to be in a font size no smaller sized than Ariel 14.
Samsung provided the following declaration
We welcome the court’s judgment, which reaffirmed our position that our GALAXY Tab items do not infringe Apple’s registered design right. We continue to believe that Apple was not the first to create a tablet with a rectangular design and rounded corners and that the origins of Apple’s registered design attributes could be discovered in various examples of previous art. Should Apple continue to make excessive legal claims in other nations based on such common designs, advancement in the sector could possibly be harmed and consumer option unduly restricted.
We ’ ve additionally reached out to Apple for comment and
will certainly update with any sort of response.the business stated it has no remark on the court ’ s choice.
Incoming search terms:
- powered by myBB articles on performance management
- Powered by Article Dashboard archery shops
- Powered by Article Dashboard consumer review of vacuum cleaners
- Powered by Article Dashboard table tennis supplies
- Powered by Article Dashboard archery supplies release
- powered by myBB archery gear
- powered by myBB written performance review
It’s done. It’s all over. There’s nothing left now but the tears, the huge checks– and the appeals. After weeks of laborious considerations and no shortage of courtroom antics the jury has released its verdict and, while it isn’t really a total triumph for Apple, it’s most certainly a loss for Samsung. Naturally, we have some ideas on the subject. Join us after the break as we show our feelings.
MobileEditorial: Engadget on
In a site ruling in the Apple vs. Samsung patent trial, the jury has actually just awarded loss to Apple for Samsung’s violation of its various software application, hardware design patents, and trade-dress dilution. For its numerous violations, Samsung needs to pay Apple $ 1,051,855,000 in damages, the jury determined.
The jury was tasked with examining each patent, designating a cumulative buck amount to over 700 patent-specific questions. The jury returned a verdict after merely 2 days of consideration.
Developing. Follow our full live insurance coverage of the case here.