Posts Tagged ‘Violate’
Motorola and Samsung just caught a break from the law after a couple of hard knocks. A Mannheim, Germany court has actually ruled that neither business infringes on an Apple patent covering just how an OS reacts to and ignores touch occasions. While we do not yet recognize the full details, patent lawsuit guru Florian Mueller proposes that the German judge took the exact same viewpoint that obstructed Apple’s claims in the Netherlands and the UK: the certain patent was just too broad to stick. It’s a possibly essential win, as a ruling of violation can have resulted in major complications with keeping Android-based Motorola and Samsung units in stores; additional patents are more conveniently circumvented. However, it’s still something of a Pyrrhic success for a pair of business that have actually recently been dealing with the risk of near-term bans and steep damages.
Incoming search terms:
This simply hasn’t been Samsung’s summer. On top of Apple winning its earliest civil lawsuit against Samsung, the International Trade Commission has actually simply given out an initial determination that Apple didn’t breach any of 4 Samsung patents (including two supposedly standards-essential instances) by providing the iPad and iPhone. While Judge James Gildea didn’t publicly lay out why Apple was in the clear, he included that Samsung is without a domestic business that makes use of the patents– essential when it’s trying to claim financial harm in the United States. The conclusion still gives Samsung at least four months’ space to breathe while the ITC evaluates the choice, but it’s tough to see Samsung taking pleasure in the lowered offensive strength when it’s already on the defensive in American courtrooms.
Filed under: Cellphones, Tablets, MobileITC states Apple didn’t breach four Samsung patents with iPad, iPhone initially appeared on Engadget on Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:06:00 EDT. Please see our terms for usage of feeds. Permalink FOSSpatents|ITC (PDF)|E-mail this|Remarks
Incoming search terms:
- Powered by Article Dashboard binging
- powered by SMF eating disorder specialist
- powered by SMF online funny video clips
- powered by SMF auto reviews
- powered by SMF binging
Washington DC-based interest group Public Understanding released a short press release this evening stating its displeasure with AT&T’s decision to restrict FaceTime over cellular– a new feature in iOS 6– to subscribers selecting its new Mobile Share plans, arguing that the company is “violating the FCC’s Open Internet regulations.” Right here’s the full statement from senior personnel attorney John Bergmayer:
By blocking FaceTime for many of its clients, AT&T is violating the FCC’s Open Net guidelines. These rules state that mobile providers shall not ‘prevent applications that contend with the supplier’s voice or video recording telephone services.’ Although carriers are allowed to engage in ‘reasonable network management,’ there is no technical explanation why one …
Well, Apple had a few legal victories over the last couple of weeks, but it’s just been handed a significant defeat by Judge Christopher Floyd. The UK court has handed down a ruling that finds HTC does not violate four Apple patents, including the infamous slide-to-unlock claim. What’s more, the judge ruled that three of the four patents in question were not valid, among them the aforementioned unlocking design. The only one of the four patents that stood at the end of the day was related to scrolling through images in the photo management app, but HTC did not infringe upon the claim. This follows the ITC refusing an emergency ban on HTC products in the US. Don’t think you’ve heard the last of slide-to-unlock, however. As HTC, Apple and Samsung have repeatedly shown, they’re just as interested in competing in the court room as they are on store shelves (if not more so).
Kodak hasn’t caught a break lately, and that trend isn’t easing up any time soon with a second rejection arriving in its main International Trade Commission (ITC) patent dispute with Apple and RIM. Despite having had its case remanded after a loss last year, Kodak is once more being told that BlackBerrys and iPhones don’t violate a patent on previewing photos. The one violation was rendered moot through “obviousness,” according to administrative law judge Thomas Pender. It’s still an initial ruling, and Kodak is trying to put a positive light on the situation — it’s “pleased” there’s still an infringement, even if the patent claim is invalid — but the patent wars aren’t looking good for a photography company that has already had to give up cameras to have a chance of staying afloat. Most of Kodak’s hope, then, will be pinned on a second wave of ITC disputes that might stand a better chance of putting at least Apple’s feet to the fire.
Incoming search terms:
Incoming search terms:
Man. Exciting stuff, here. Stuff like lawyers yelling at each other in varied continents because “your stuff looks too much like my theoretical stuff.” The long, winding and increasingly mind-numbing battle between Samsung and Apple has taken yet another turn in Australia, with the former slapping the latter with a bold countersuit. According to The Wall Street Journal, Sammy feels that the iPhone and iPad 2 both “violate a number of wireless technology patents held by Samsung.” Spokesman Nam Ki-yung stated the following: “To defend our intellectual property, Samsung filed a cross claim for Apple’s violation of Samsung’s wireless technology patents.” The suit is being filed just days / weeks before a ruling will decide on whether the Galaxy Tab 10.1 can be legally sold Down Under, and in related news, Samsung is also appealing a recent ruling back in Germany. If ever the world needed an out-of-court settlement…
You might have heard how careless some third-party apps can be with your personal data, but it may not yet have hit home — offenders can include must-have programs like MySpace and Pandora, too. The Wall Street Journal tested 101 popular apps for iPhone and Android and discovered that over half transmitted unique device identifiers (UDID) to a flock of advertisers without so much as a prompt, and that some (including Pandora) even transmitted a user’s age, gender and location to better target their marks. Now, before you boycott your favorite music apps, you might want to hear the other side of the story, which is that all this data is typically processed in batches and anonymized so that advertisers can’t necessarily separate you from the crowd. However, the worry is that there may be little stopping nefarious individuals from creating a database that links your UDID to all this other data you send out. It’s a juicy proposition for targeted advertising, sure, but also potentially real-world crime, so we doubt this will be the last we hear of UDID privacy scares.
The suggestion has been made countless times that manufacturers who customize their devices’ builds of Android (that is to say, nearly all of them) should have the decency to offer users the option of reverting to a completely clean, stock version of the platform if they so choose. The concept came up at a press lunch featuring Google CEO Eric Schmidt last week, and the dude came up with an interesting explanation for why they don’t require that of their partners: “if we were to put those type of restrictions on an open source product, we’d be violating the principle of open source.” Of course, “the principle of open source” is open to wild differences in interpretation, the source of well over 20 years worth of intense debate in the developer community and the reason why countless types and versions of open source licenses exist (GPL, BSD, MIT, and so on). We’d also argue that the fact that Google is allegedly placing a range of arbitrary restrictions on certified devices (that is, those that feature the Market and other Google apps) gives them the platform they need to impose one more… but hey, Schmidt’s an opinionated guy, and until Android stops growing by leaps and bounds, there’s probably not a great capitalism-inspired argument that can be made here.
As we noted earlier this week, Israel has banned iPads.
The country is so serious about this ban that it’s confiscating iPads at airports.
The initial story was that the US iPad runs on a different WiFi standard than Israel’s WiFi standard and, therefore, iPads might “damage Israel’s domestic network.”
That story was preposterous.
So now Israel is clarifying. Here, courtesy of the WSJ, is the new story:
“This device’s wireless strengths violate Israeli law and will overpower other wireless devices in Israel,” ministry spokesman Yechiel Shavi said.
The new story doesn’t explain why travelers have been able to bring US laptops and cellphones into Israel for years without any complaint at all.
And engineers who have examined the iPad’s wireless strength say that its wireless strength is actually weaker than that of comparable devices. So that part of the story doesn’t hold water, either.
So, Israel, what’s the real reason? What do you have against the iPad?
Don’t miss: 99 iPad App Reviews
Join the conversation about this story »
- Israel Bans iPads
Props to Silicon Alley Insider