Apple's getting sued for Siri being beta, apparently. A class-action lawsuit in Oakland, California is alleging that Apple has been improperly representing Siri in their ads and that the functionality isn't as perfect as Samuel L. Jackson and Zooey Deschenel led them to believe. Apple's reply to the plaintiffs?

They offer only general descriptions of Apple’s advertisements, incomplete summaries of Apple’s website materials, and vague descriptions of their alleged—and highly individualized—disappointment with Siri. Tellingly, although Plaintiffs claim they became dissatisfied with Siri’s performance “soon after” purchasing their iPhones, they made no attempt to avail themselves of Apple’s 30-day return policy or one-year warranty—which remains in effect. Instead, they seek to take an alleged personal grievance about the purported performance of a popular product and turn it into a nationwide class action under California’s consumer protection statutes. The Complaint does not come close to meeting the heavy burden necessary to sustain such claims.

Source: WSJ

17 more American states have joined the class action lawsuit against Apple and publishers for e-book pricing collusion according to amended court documents. That makes it a total of 31 states involved, plus the case from the Department of Justice which is running in parallel. The new docs also revealed an e-mail from the late Steve Jobs describing how he saw the situation to the parent company of one of the conspiring publishers.

As I see it, [Conspiring Publisher] has the following choices:

1. Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream ebooks market at $12.99 and $14.99.

2. Keep going with Amazon at $9.99. You will make a bit more money in the short term, but in the medium term Amazon will tell you they will be paying you 70% of $9.99. They have shareholders too.

3. Hold back your books from Amazon. Without a way for customers to buy your ebooks, they will steal them. This will be the start of piracy and once started, there will be no stopping it. Trust me, I’ve seen this happen with my own eyes.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see any other alternatives. Do you? Other evidence shows a back-and-forth between Apple's Eddy Cue and MacMillan CEO John Sargent where Apple shot down requests to lower the 30% standard cut. Still, there are signs of obvious collusion, particularly in one set of e-mails where the publishers in question referred to themselves as "The Club" when discussing staggered releases of print and digital editions.

iBooks isn't particularly huge right now, but Apple is clearly aggressive about it, and their approach to competing with Amazon will make or break their success in the world of e-books. In the worst case scenario, Apple and their publishing partners will have to pay some fines, and odds are their prices will have to go down, which, though potentially painful for the industry, is all gravy for end consumers.

Here are all of the ammended legal documents if you're interested in taking a look.

Source: PaidContent

Anyone in the U.S. who bought a first or second-gen iPod touch between September 12, 2007 and and March 31, 2009 are eligible to get in on an antitrust lawsuit against Apple. The two complaints state that Apple broke federal and state laws by charging for iOS updates and prevented iPods from playing anything that wasn't bought through iTunes. The litigating class membership includes just about every iPod model, including classic, shuffle, and nano.

Although I was peeved when Apple had the gall to charge for an iOS update on my first-gen iPod touch, just so that users could get email and other apps that came for free with the iPhone, it was easy enough to work around. Apple's story about GAAP vs. non-GAAP accounting methods and reasons for insisting on the charge were overly complex and ultimately user hostile. Which is probably why Apple stopped charging for iOS software updates entirely.

I'm still not sure why the lawsuit is claiming that iTunes wouldn't allow outside music sources; from the sounds of it, that situation was isolated to a few types of incompatible DRM, but that's it. Basically, if you bought something from Real (remember them?) or something protected by Windows DRM, it wouldn't play on your iPod. If you had iTunes music with FairPlay DRM or DRM-free MP3s from any source, you were good to go.

Right now there's not much to do besides wait to see how the case pans out and collect what will likely be a five dollar refund for what you paid for the firmware update. You can get updates by signing up at the class-action suit site, or opt out of the case if you're crazy and intend on going after Apple separately for the same issue.

Apparently this case has been hounding Apple for awhile; do you guys see any legitimacy to it?

Source: AppleInsider

A date has been set for Apple and Samsung's court-ordered settlement talks -- May 21 and 22, 2012. While the talks were ordered by Judge Lucy Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, they will be overseen by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero at the San Francisco courthouse.

one of the things Magistrate Judge Spero wants the parties to do is to provide a settlement statement until May 9 including, among other things, "a candid evaluation of the parties' likelihood of prevailing on the claims and defenses" [emphasis NOT mine]. I think this is wishful thinking because the parties won't really say that any of their claims are legally weak, no matter in front of whom these talks take place, but there's no way they would ever express even the slightest skepticism over any of their claims in front of a judge involved with the actual litigation.

Apple and Samsung are currently engaged in 50 lawsuits in 10 countries. They also remain manufacturing partners, with Samsung providing key components for Apple devices like the iPhone and the iPad.

Apple CEO Tim Cook will represent Apple in the talks. Apple's late co-founder, Steve Jobs, reportedly met with Samsung in previous years but was unable to reach a resolution. According to his official biography, his terms were rather absolute:

I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this. [...] I don’t want your money. If you offer me $5 billion, I won’t want it. I’ve got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that’s all I want.

Cook was recently asked if he might be more open to a resolution than Jobs was.

Cooks answer was pretty much the same now as it was before he became CEO — he doesn’t like litigation, but he also doesn’t like other companies using what he feels are Apple innovations to sell competing products. Cook also took it a step further, saying Apple cannot become the developer for the world. Although he didn’t elaborate, it seemed to be along the same theme as previous statements — he believes Apple competitors should invent their own stuff rather than copying Apple.

In other words, we'll hope for the best, but we're not expecting it.

Source: FOSS Patents

Apple has been granted permission to step in against Lodsys, a holding company with alleged ties to Intellectual Ventuers, which is intent on suing iOS developers for patent infringement. Apple had originally applied to intervene nearly a year ago after Lodsys claimed the right to in-app purchasing, and consequently went after big-name devs like Square Enix, 2K, Atari, Rovio, and EA for royalties. Apple's stance has been that they've licensed the rights to the in-app purchasing mechanism to these parties, and that Lodsys should take up the fight with Apple directly.

This is a textbook case of patent trolling, and I imagine that while Lodsys might have had a shot squeezing money out of the smaller developers, and a slim chance of getting royalties from the bigger ones, they won't stand a chance against Apple. Lodsys went after Android developers too, and Google intends to intervene on that front in much the same way as Apple.

It's only unfortunate the courts took this long to decide, however, because those smaller developers have no doubt been hurt in the mean time.

Source: FOSS Patents; Image: Statue Forum

Last month, Apple finally concluded the class-action lawsuit surrounding the iPhone 4's reception issues, and today those affected can now start the process of cashing in. A simple, dedicated website outlines qualification criteria, provides claim forms, and answers a variety of FAQs.

Basically, if you ever owned an iPhone 4 and you live in the U.S., and you weren't interested in the free bumper Apple was offering, you can get $15 instead -- even if you aren't still using an iPhone 4. When can you get the cash? Well, there's going to be a hearing on July 13 to approve this settlement, which may see appeals which could last over a year. At that rate, I would just take the free bumper, as detailed in Apple's support knowledgebase.

The antennagate debacle was caused by a flaw in the iPhone 4's external antenna design; basically, when you bridged two sections of it when holding the phone in a fairly natural way while in a low-coverage zone, your signal would drop like a rock. While the issue caused a lot of bad press, the actual instances and real inconveniences of the phenomenon were sparse, and didn't put a dent in iPhone 4 sales. Still, that didn't stop Consumer Reports from withholding their recommendation of the phone, despite it being the best thing on the smartphone market at the time.

Any iPhone 4 owners in the house that were affected by antennagate and didn't bother getting the free bumper? Here's the link you need to visit, below.

Source: iPhone 4 settlement via CNET

AT&T is reportedly offering a settlement to the individual who recently won a court case against them for the throttling his data service to an unlimited data plan a settlement. According to the Associated Press, Matthew Spaccarelli sent them a letter dated last Friday that he obtained from the law firm hired by AT&T to defend his small claims lawsuit. The letter stated that if he was not willing to sit down and "talk" his service would be terminated.

According to Spaccarelli, the reason for this particular letter (and alleged threat) is that AT&T wants him to keep quiet and sign a confidentialialty agreement. Legal settlements usually do include non-disclosure agreements, and Spaccarelli had blogged detailed information and instructions on how to engage in the same type of lawsuit against AT&T. Also in the letter was the request to keep quiet about the settlement talks, something Spaccarelli has no interest in doing, prompting him to send the letter to the Associated Press.

It seems like Spaccarelli may be pushing his luck here. He already has won the case and that may have helped persuade AT&T to increase the throttling cap from 2GB to the current 3GB, but now he's continuing to push the carriers buttons.

What do you think? Time to declare victory and let it go, or should he hound AT&T until the end of time?

Source: Associated Press, publikdemand, @matthewpacc

Apple has addressed concerns over the iPad trademark case brought by Proview that has recently had online retailers in China removing iPad's from their inventory. In a statement issued to China Daily, Apple asserts that Proview is simply not honoring the agreement in place.

“We bought Proview’s worldwide rights to the iPad trademark in 10 different countries several years ago. Proview refuses to honor their agreement with Apple, and a Hong Kong court has sided with Apple in this matter,” according to the statement, which also said the case is still pending on the Chinese mainland.”

When Apple purchased the iPad trademark, it was from a UK firm who had purchased it from Proview Taiwan, the sister company of Proview Shenzhen who didn't have the rights to actually sell the trademark.

Xie Xianghui, a lawyer representing Proview Shenzhen responded to Apple's statements, claiming that Apple meant to confuse the public. He said that the outcome in Hong Kong would have no bearing on other court cases because of how different the legal systems are.

“Apple is worried the iPad trademark will be resold before the hearing is finished, so it asked the Hong Kong court to forbid Proview Shenzhen from doing that,” , adding that the court’s decision to prevent the trademark from being transferred cannot be seen as showing that it has ruled in favor of Apple.

As the proceedings move on slowly, many retailers have stated they'll not stop selling the iPad in China but it's viewed by some that it might just be easier to settle on a deal with Proview Shenzhen rather then fighting the legal system in China. At least then, Apple would own the trademark fully without question and they could continue on without wondering if they may have to deal with the issue at some other point in time.

Source: People Daily via: 9to5Mac

While Apple probably wishes they'd really locked down the trademark rights to the iPad name long ago, the folks at Proview Technology in Shenzhen have a prior claim to the name and they're taking Apple to court over it. They're asking Apple stop selling the iPad in China (which only went on sale in the area recently), and demand an apology. Proview Shenzhen had registered the trademark in 2001, but their sister company, Proview Taiwan, had sold the rights to the iPad name to a UK firm, even though the Taiwanese company didn't have rights to the trademark. Despite that, a UK company then sold the rights to Apple, which now counts iPad on their official trademark list. Apple had known about this whole mess, and had sued Proview Shenzhen last year to assert their claim to "iPad", but had lost the suit. Now it looks like Proview is taking the fight to Apple.

Apple still doesn't own ipad.com, and with this trademark issue lingering, there's a clear gap in their IP rights. It's not like they don't have enough money to throw at the problem, and that said, odds are slim that this trademark suit will pose any serious roadblock to the advance of iPad in China.

Proview makes outdoor LED lighting, so it's not like there's any real competitive overlap here; they probably just want a big fat payoff, and it's hard to blame them. 

We'll be keeping an eye on the lawsuit's progress following the initial hearing this month.

Source: China Daily

Apple is increasingly playing defense against lawsuits from Samsung and Motorola that seek to take iPhones and iPads off the shelves and out of stores. Apple is trying to do the same to their competitors, of course, but there's a subtle difference -- Samsung and Motorola are suing Apple over FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory) patents and are apparently seeking licensing that's anything but fair and reasonable, and may in fact be discriminatory.

FRAND patents are typically typically pledged as part of a standard, which makes them essential to a technology, the organizations that govern those standards require them to be equitably licensed back to everyone. That's the whole point of having standards. If you want your invention to become a standard, you let it be used as a standard.

FRAND vs. non-FRAND

Apple doesn't play the FRAND game with the iPhone or iPad. They don't want their multitouch patents to be a standard. They don't want other companies using them. (Unlike Microsoft, they don't want to make their competitors' products more expensive, they want them to stop being Apple-like.)

Samsung and Motorola did play the FRAND game, however, and did want their wireless patents -- covering core 3G technologies, among other things -- to be standards. However, when Samsung and Motorola infringe on Apple's non-FRAND patents, they then demand outrageous terms from Apple to license their FRAND patents -- which Apple has to use for their products to work on existing networks -- hoping Apple will cave and cross-license their non-FRAND patents as part of the deal.

Put another way, it's like the owner of your local public pool refusing to let you swim there unless you let them swim in your private pool at home. Worse, it's like the manager of your local public pool demanding you pay him $1,000,000 dollars to swim in a pool you're supposed to have fair and equal access too, unless he gets to swim in your private pool at home. Worse still, it's like the manager of your local pool has made agreements that force anyone who wants to swim anywhere to get a license from his pool first, then demands you pay him a fortune for it, and give him access to your private, home pool. (In one case, in a swim-suit that looks surprisingly like yours. Only bigger.)

What can Apple do?

According to Florian Mueller over at FOSS Patents, this means Apple has to be careful, and iterative in their defense.

Apple won't get a deal that meets its needs unless Samsung and Motorola (or Google) are forced to recognize the fundamentally greater strategic and commercial value of Apple's non-standards-related patents, which are the fruit of independent innovation and independent commercialization as opposed to a company's ability to push its patented ideas into industry standards everyone is forced to implement after a collective of major industry players defines them.

Samsung and Motorola (or Google) would like all patents to be treated in more or less the same way. They give nothing more than lip service to their FRAND licensing obligations. They may hope that the law on this isn't sufficiently settled in major jurisdictions. They look for loopholes in the rules -- including certain opportunities in Germany, where the case law on this is more favorable to them than elsewhere. If they realize at some point that this strategy doesn't work out because of a combination of court rulings, regulatory intervention and Apple's determination to stand its ground, then -- and only then -- Apple will ultimately get the kind of deal it wants. Until then, Apple doesn't even have much to talk about with Samsung and Motorola (or Google).

Sure, you can say Apple is being selfish by not licensing multitouch to one and all, but they never agreed to in the first place. (Are you being a selfish by not letting everyone who wants to come swim in your private home pool?) Samsung and Motorola did agree to let everyone use their patents under FRAND terms so those patents would be become essential to the standard.

Enter the European Union

Now Samsung and Motorola are certainly free to do and to sue what and who they want... up to a point. The European Union has already announced they're investigating Samsung for FRAND abuse, and Motorola may not be far behind. With pressure from Apple on one side, and anti-trust action on the other, it puts them in a delicate position.

In the meantime, Apple can't give in to Samsung and Motorola's unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory demands, and they can't risk injunctions like the one that was temporarily in effect in Germany last week, becoming permanent before the EU sorts everything out.

Whether or not there will ultimately be a settlement, like the one they achieved with Nokia over similar FRAND patents, only time will tell. All Apple can do for now is continue the careful, iterative defense.

Mueller's whole article, which delves into the patents and legal issues in great detail, is worth a read.

Source: FOSS Patents, x2

Apple has successfully defended the second UMTS (3G) patent infringement claim from Samsung in Germany today, though the battle's far from over. The first complaint from Samsung was dismissed last week, and Apple promptly fired back at Samsung with a slide-to-unlock infringement claim. The Galaxy Nexus isn't one of the phones in Apple's countersuit, though there are still plenty more Android devices Apple's complaint does include. Even if Apple manages to chew through the other 3G-related complaints, Samsung has another two lawsuits lined up related to smiley emoticons.

Apple and Samsung haven't only been duking it out in the courtrooms, either. Samsung has been running a tongue-in-cheek set of ads that depict desperate, near-sighted Apple fanboys being faced with the grim reality that the Galaxy S II is plainly a better phone. Yeeeeeah, because we've all seen how Android's voice-to-action implementations are way better than Siri.

While Apple is duking it out in Germany, Dutch courts have sided with Samsung in Apple's design patent infringement claims against the Galaxy Tab 10.1. Patent squabbles are a natural part of the high-tech game, but Samsung and Apple in particular seem to really be going blow-for-blow against one another - although I'm sure Apple would be equally willing to attack any manufacturer siding with Android. Steve Jobs, as you might recall, had an intense loathing for the Android platform, and that mission will likely live on in Apple.

It sure would be nice if we could all just get along, if only to avoid having to figure out who's suing who for what and where.

[via FOSS Patents]

Apple had recently flung a slide-to-unlock patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung in Germany, but one very important Android phone was never on the list of complaints: the Galaxy Nexus. As you probably know, the iPhone has a signature way of activating from sleep mode, and many smartphones have since emulated and expanded it to sliding in any direction within a circle, sometimes to unlock directly into an app, as in the case with the Galaxy Nexus. A Samsung official commented, saying:

“We’re aware that there was a hearing involving Apple’s slide-to-unlock feature after our patent infringement case last Friday and a series of products in the Galaxy lineup were accused there, but what we’ve discovered is that the Galaxy Nexus wasn’t one of them.”

You certainly can't help but give credit to Apple for getting all of these smartphone manufacturers to reconsider how one unlocks phones, but it seems like things have progressed so far beyond simply sliding a bar at this point that Apple is going to have a real hard time suing the competition over it.

Source: Korea Herald via Android Central

Samsung was hoping to nail Apple for 3G patent infringement in Germany, but a judge has already tossed one of them out the window. Six other patents are still being investigated, but details on that particular case are skimpy for now. Apple has in the same breath shot back at Samsung for infringing on a slide-to-unlock patent with the Galaxy Nexus. Apple had pulled out this patent against HTC two years ago, though it doesn't look like they won on that particular front.

Germany has been a bit of a hotbed for mobile patent cases lately. Apple has most recently attacked Samsung for design infringement on ten phones, and previously earned an injuction against Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales. Of course, Apple isn't winning all of their fights in Germany; Motorola recently won a case against Apple for 3G patents.

It's a messy web of companies suing and counter-suing over arguably broad claims to intellectual property. Rarely do these episodes conclude with the dramatic import bans that are initially threatened, and that's a good thing - we would probably have way fewer phones to play with if these lawsuits ended without some kind of compromise.

Source: FOSS Patents, x 2

KO Gadget posted up on their Facebook page this morning that they have received a cease and desist order from Apple over their glowing light mods. The order states what you would assume about trademark infringement -

The website, http://store.kogadget.com/, is offering for sale and selling merchandise bearing counterfeit Apple trademark(s). Such illegal use of Apple Trademark(s) is a violation of federal and State trademark laws.

There are tons of third party manufacturers out there that distribute colored and custom backs for the iPhone (I order many of them for color swaps). I don't think that Apple issued this order on the basis of infringing on the Apple logo alone. I believe it's due to safety concerns as well. I personally don't feel these modifications are safe from a technical standpoint.

KO Gadgets is claiming all orders have shipped but that they won't be selling any additional units. If you've ordered one of these light mods recently, has your shipping status changed or has your order been cancelled?

Source: KO Gadget Facebook

According to BusinessWeek, Apple has apparently issued a notice of complaint against Samsung for patent infrignements tied to the cases Samsung uses on their tablet and smartphone devices.

Apple issued the notice of infringement to Samsung in Australia over the cases, and will file a statement of claim, Apple’s lawyer Stephen Burley said at a hearing in Sydney today. Samsung’s lawyer Katrina Howard said at the same hearing the company was served with the notice that the cases infringe at least 10 patents.

This comes hot on the heels of Apple loosing an effort to keep Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 off the store shelves in Australia last week. Samsung also recently dropped a bid for a temporary injunction that would have prevented Apple from selling the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S and iPad 2 in select countries.

Apple is currently taking time to gather evidence before the case begins, but it looks like we can add another mark to the growing list of Apple vs Samsung disputes.

Source: Bloomberg BusinessWeek

Image credit: SlashGear

We haven't really been keeping up with all the myriad legal maneuverings in the ongoing -- and going, and going -- legal disputes between Apple and accused "copyist" Samsung, as well as other Android manufacturers like Motorola, but there have been some injunctions granted, refused, overturned, and asked for review. If you're thinking there's just too much of this stuff and no one cares who's not a lawyer on one of their payroll, well, fair enough. Here are the highlights/lowlights.

• U.S. Lucy Koh refused to grant Apple an injunction against Samsung. She felt Apple had a case, but not a strong enough one that monetary damages wouldn't sufficiently compensate Apple. [Reuters]
• Sounds like Apple actually licensed one of their precious multitouch patents -- the inertial bounce -- to IBM and Nokia, and at one point offered to license it to Samsung but no deal could be reached. [The Verge]
• New Google acquisition Motorola is still going at it with Apple in Germany, with courts unconvinced of Moto's case, with FRAND issues causing confusion aplenty. [FOSS Patents]

There's a ton more going on, of course, and if you're super-interested in the details, just follow the link above.

Samsung's request to ban 3G Apple products was turned down by Dutch courts on Friday. We pretty much figured this would be the outcome considering 3G technology is covered by FRAND as an essential standards technology. Samsung can't refuse a license to Apple.

This will also make it harder for Samsung to win bans on Apple devices in the EU as well according to intellectual property expert, Florian Mueller -

"A win for Apple but also relief for the industry because the judge upheld widespread understanding of fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms in the use of patents,..."Apple will be taking French and Italian translations of the Dutch ruling with it. This makes it a long shot for Samsung that it could win an injunction in the EU based on its 3G patents,"

The judge simply ruled that the two companies should negotiate an agreement on the license and be done. Anyone surprised by this ruling? I know I'm not.

Reuters

What a difference a week makes. Last we heard Samsung sounded like they had only just begun to fight, now they've signed an agreement to cross-license and pay Microsoft a fee for every Android device they've sold, but according to the Wall Street Journal, they've also offered an olive branch to Apple as well.

It wasn't clear what benefit Apple would gain from any agreement, as details of the proposed deal were not discussed in full in front of the court. But Apple's attorney, Stephen Burley, conceded there was some potential benefit from an agreement on the matter. "(Samsung's) inconvenience would be diminished and we would be comforted" by such a deal, he said.

Microsoft's benefit was easier: money.

“Microsoft and Samsung see the opportunity for dramatic growth in Windows Phone and we’re investing to make that a reality,” said Andy Lees, president, Windows Phone Division, Microsoft. “Microsoft believes in a model where all our partners can grow and profit based on our platform.”

“Through the cross-licensing of our respective patent portfolios, Samsung and Microsoft can continue to bring the latest innovations to the mobile industry,” said Dr. Won-Pyo Hong, executive vice president of global product strategy at Samsung’s mobile communication division. “We are pleased to build upon our long history of working together to open a new chapter of collaboration beginning with our Windows Phone “Mango” launch this fall.”

Apple doesn't want money from Android ODMs, however. They don't want to make Android more expensive. They want to stop Samsung from "copying" them in order to make it less usable -- they want what they consider to be Apple patented technology taken out.

Google called the Microsoft deal "extortion", if Samsung does come to terms agreeable to Apple, what would Google call that?

Hopefully "done". Overly violating and overly litigating patents are too extremes I for one have had about enough of. Restoring some respect and balance to the equation might just allow everyone involved to stop investing in lawyers and start re-investing on the innovation that brought us iOS, Gingerbread, and Mango.

Source: Wall Street Journal, Microsoft, TechCrunch

Florian Mueller from FOSS Patents reports on Verizon's filing of an amicus brief in the long going Apple vs. Samsung legal dispute, claiming any injunction would harm Verizon's ability to deploy LTE, and no doubt otherwise decimate small children, candy, and puppy dogs:

This attempt by Verizon to interfere with Apple's enforcement of intellectual property rights against Android in general and Samsung in particular is a declaration of war that may have far-reaching consequences in the U.S. market. I'm sure that Apple will view this move as a self-serving attempt to game the system in Android's and Samsung's favor, as another sign of Verizon being staunchly Android-aligned in exchange for market-distorting favors from Google, and as an attack on the intellectual property-centric business model of Apple and other innovators.

Apple gives them a shiny, best-selling box Verizon isn't allowed to touch, Samsung gives them carte-blanche to swap out Google for Bing, install crapware, stamp logos everywhere, and otherwise control the experience to their user-hostile heart's content. What's so hard to understand?

Source: FOSS Patents

Samsung has already sued Apple over patent infringements and now they're attempting to get a full out ban of iPhones and 3G iPads in the Netherlands. They've sued Apple on infringement of four patents and not only want a ban but a full retail recall of any device that uses 3G technology.

The patents involved are standards-essential patents. They are incorporated as internationally excepted standards and the patent holder (Samsung) is obligated to grant licenses to third parties. Florian Mueller, an active patent consultant, believes that an injunction won't happen unless Apple refuses to pay up if royalties are owed to Samsung.

“Should it turn out that Apple entered the market without taking licenses to essential patents, then that’s indefensible and Apple should pay,” ..."However, it doesn’t justify an abuse of standards-essential patents. Asking for an injunction is an abuse unless the request for the injunction is limited to the scenario in which the defendant doesn’t accept to pay FRAND royalties.”

Samsung may be growing more aggressive with Apple due to the fact that Apple has taken some of their display business elsewhere. Apple was Samsung's number two customer last year so that could have a lot to do with why Samsung hasn't filed patent suits in the past.

But at the end of the day Apple will probably just pay the royalties if ordered to and there will still be iPhones and iPads equipped with 3G for all.

Macworld

According the Korea Times, rival smartphone maker Samsung is eagerly anticipating the Korean launch of Apple's next generation iPhone 5 handset -- so Samsung can try and sue it off the shelves.

`Just after the arrival of the iPhone 5 here, Samsung plans to take Apple to court here for its violation of Samsung’s wireless technology related patents,’’ said a senior executive from Samsung Electronics, asking not to be identified.

``For as long as Apple does not drop mobile telecommunications functions, it would be impossible for it to sell its i-branded products without using our patents. We will stick to a strong stance against Apple during the lingering legal fights.’’

While almost two dozen lawsuits are already pending between Apple and Samsung, Samsung remains a major manufacturing partner of Apple, though there are signs Apple is moving to diversify and diminish that dependence as well.

``Apple is Samsung’s biggest customer. Hewlett-Packard (HP), Nokia and Sony were Samsung’s previous big clients, however, Apple is now a primary one. From our perspective, we are not entirely happy (about the litigations),’’ Samsung CEO Choi Gee-sung said.

Apple originally took issue with Samsung, whom they dubbed a "copyist", over perceived similarities between Samsung Android phones and tablets and the iPhone and iPad. Unlike other Android manufacturers who established their own looks, Apple contends Samsung deliberately copies Apple to confuse customers and unfairly benefit from Apple's brand and marketing. Apple has already succeeded, at least temporarily, to get Galaxy Tabs banned from sale in German and parts of the EU.

While Microsoft, who is also going after Samsung, seems content on getting licensing fees to make Android more expensive to manufacture, Apple's appears to want to make Android less friendly to use, demanding removal of features, not licensing deals.

Patent portfolios are often compared to nuclear arsenals, held as deterrents. Of course, if everyone ever lets them all fly, everyone loses.

[Korea Times]

According to Bloomberg, Google -- who previously never missed an occasion to whine about patents and patent litigation -- seems to have been quietly buying patents of its very own from Palm, Motorola, and Openwave Systems, then sold them to HTC so HTC to use them to sue Apple. Pretty slick.

The lawsuit contends the Mac computer, iPhone, iPod, iPad, iCloud and iTunes are infringing patents for a way to upgrade software wirelessly; a way to transfer data between a microprocessor and a support chip; a method to store user preferences, and a way to provide consistent contact between application software and a radio modem.

HTC also amended a complaint with the International Trade Commission today, adding five of the former Google patents to a case that targets many of the same products. Three of those patents Google bought from Openwave and two others had been owned by Palm, which was acquired by Hewlett-Packard Co. (HPQ) last year.

Apple originally sued HTC, and HTC has countersued before. The part that caught my eye is that HTC says they "will continue to protect its patented inventions" when Google just bought said inventions for HTC last week? Apple buys patents as well, from Fingerworks for multitouch to Nortel for LTE, and no doubt won't waste any time asserting them, it's just interesting wording on HTC's part.

With Apple still suing Android manufacturers instead of Google directly, and Google now supplying arms to those manufacturers instead of going after Apple directly, one thing is for certain -- we're going to need a lot of popcorn.

[Bloomberg]

Long title, longer legal filing, but the gist is Apple seems to be claiming Android founder Andy Rubin was working for Apple and reporting to the man who filed for a patent on Apple's behalf that Apple is now suing HTC for violating in their Android phones. Even longer:

Android and Mr. Rubin's relevant background does not start, as HTC would like the Commission to believe, with his work at General Magic or Danger in the mid-1990s. In reality, as the evidence revealed at the hearing, Mr. Rubin began his career at Apple in the early 1990s and worked as a low-level engineer specifically reporting to the inventors of the '263 [realtime API] patent at the exact time their invention was being conceived and developed. [...] It is thus no wonder that the infringing Android platform used the claimed subsystem approach of the '263 patent that allows for flexibility of design and enables the platform to be "highly customizable and expandable" as HTC touts. [...] While Mr. Rubin's inspiration for the Android framework may not be directly relevant to the pending petitions for review, that HTC felt compelled to distort this history is illustrative of the liberties it takes in attacking the ALJ's [initial determination] and the substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's findings.

FOSS Patents Florian Mueler says that since Rubin works for Google, not HTC, this would be far more meaningful if Apple eventually sues Google directly, or if/when Google's Motorola purchase goes through.

Google (or a Google subsidiary like [Motorola Mobility) would almost certainly be found to infringe the relevant patent intentionally, and willful infringement would greatly increase Apple's chances of obtaining an injunction as well as triple damages.

Mueler also points out Rubin and co. may have willfully infringed Oracle (formerly Sun) Java patents in Android as well.

Regardless of where you fall on the whole Apple vs. Android and patent system issues, right now it's just more fuel for the legal soap opera.

[FOSS Patents]

No, you didn't read the headline wrong -- Samsung is claiming their Galaxy Tab 10.1 couldn't be a copy of Apple's iPad because... it was copying the earlier movie prop from Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Well, okay, not copying -- more like maintaining the design elements were commonplace in pop culture, especially science fiction. One of the ways to invalidate a patent is to prove prior art -- that someone had the idea before the company who was awarded the patent.

Since everyone from HAL's buddy Dave to the Enterprise D's Captain Jean Luc Picard used tablet-like devices, Samsung seems to be asking, how could Apple possibly have been granted the design patent?

Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents stops short of calling it either genius or a stunt.

It would be amazing if the court agreed with Samsung that this constitutes prior art for that particular iPad-related design patent. Whether or not Samsung will succeed, the mere fact that they proffer this kind of evidence is remarkable and will be exciting for many fans of movies in general -- and of that movie in particular -- to find out about.

Hopefully Samsung hasn't seen Dick Tracy or Apple's nano watch might be next!

[FOSS Patents]

Apple sued HTC, HTC counter-sued Apple, and now HTC has sued Apple, again over 3 additional patents in both Mac, and iPhone/iPad platforms. (HTC currently pays Microsoft a reported $5 per Android device licensing fee.)

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Delaware seeks to halt Apple's importation and sale of infringing products in the United States. It also seeks compensatory damages, triple damages for willful infringement and other remedies.

It comes a day after Google announced its intent to purchase Motorola Mobility and their 17,000 and growing patent portfolio.

Time to flex a little green robot muscle, is it?

[Reuters]

Webwereld took a look at the visual evidence presented against the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 that got it banned from sale in most of the European Union, and has called shenanigans. Jerry from Android Central explains:

In Apple's images, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 has been shown with a different aspect ratio (1:36 as opposed to the actual 1:46 -- the iPad is 1:30), causing it to more closely resemble the dimensions of the iPad. This accounts for a full eight percent difference in the "short" side of the Tab, and you can see the result above. If that weren't enough, the Samsung logo has been removed from Apple's image, and of course it's shown with the app drawer open instead of the normal home screen view.

Certainly seems like someone has some explaining to do!

Update: MacRumors sums up that the photo above, obviously, was only part of Apple's evidentiary offering. [MacRumors]

As John at Edible Apple and others have pointed out, Apple's evidentiary submission is not limited to the inaccurate comparison photo, as Apple did also offer a number of other exhibits in support of its case, including some showing actual side-by-side photos of the iPad 2 and Galaxy Tab 10.1 rather than just promotional images. Consequently, it stands to reason that the judge's decision was not based entirely on the flawed comparison, although the inclusion of inaccurate information in Apple's submission certainly is a curious one.

[Webwereld via OSNews, Android Central]

Google has filed a request with the United States Patent on Trademark Office (USPTO), asking that 2 of the patents Lodsys is using the troll iOS and Android developers be re-examined.

“We’ve asked the US Patent Office to reexamine two Lodsys patents that we believe should never have been issued,” Google senior vice president and general counsel Kent Walker told Wired.com in a statement. “Developers play a critical part in the Android ecosystem and Google will continue to support them.”

While re-examination could get the patents thrown out, the more common result seems to be a narrowing of focus. Likewise, while the ongoing Lodsys lawsuits could be paused pending the re-examination, there's no guarantee of that either.

It's nice to finally see Google take some action, though Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents seems non-plussed:

While I agree with Google's senior vice president and general counsel Kent Walker that those patents should never have been issued, I don't consider those reexamination requests -- unless they will be accompanied by more forceful and useful measures very soon -- a serious commitment to supporting Android app developers against trolls. If this is all that Google does, it's too little, too late, and calling it "half-hearted" would be an overstatement.

Apple, by contrast, has filed a motion to intervene in the cases. Apple, Google, Microsoft and others are already licensed under an agreement with previous patent holder, Intellectual Ventures. There was a theory that the Intellectual Ventures license might prevent Apple et al from trying to invalidate the patents, so either that's not the case or Google is going for it anyway.

Meanwhile, the whole situation continues to cost developers time, money, attention, and sanity. (Which is part of why this matters.

[Wired, FOSS Patents]

Google SVP and Senior Legal Officer, David Drummond has blogged about the recent trouble Google and their manufacturing partners have had over patents with the likes of Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle.

Android’s success has yielded something else: a hostile, organized campaign against Android by Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through bogus patents.

He also complained about Apple and Microsoft teaming up to out-bid Google for Novell and Nortel patents and calls for a Justice Department investigation into anti-competitive behavior while at the same time indicating Google would beef up their own patent portfolio.

He didn't seem to indicate Google would be filing to intervene in the Lodsys lawsuits against developers, which Apple has done. With Samsung delaying the launch of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia due to litigation with Apple, and HTC paying Microsoft $5 per Android handset in licensing fees, Google does have a lot to worry about.

While Android is fast approaching majority share of the smartphone market, Apple enjoys 66% of the profits, and as we've said before, while Apple seems content at making Android uglier, Microsoft wants to make an already less-profitable Android platform even costlier.

We called our most recent podcast with FOSS Patent's Florian Mueller, World War Patents for a reason, and it seems the battles are just beginning.

[Google Blog via Android Central]

The judge hearing the Apple vs. Samsung "copy-cat" lawsuit has denied a motion by Samsung asking that Apple allow Samsung's outside council advanced looks at iPhone 5 and iPad 3. The judge had previously granted Apple's request for Apple's outside council to look at Samsung's upcoming devices, since Samsung had already shown off or given away previews to the press and public. Apple, however, keeps their stuff secret. But of course, it's not that simple:

Samsung is free to argue, for instance, that there is little likelihood of confusion because consumers will not encounter its products side-by-side with the iPhone 4 or iPad 2, but rather with Apple's next generation iPhone and iPad. Similarly, as to proximity, Samsung is free to argue that because the iPhone 4 and iPhone 2 will soon be outmoded and reduced in price, they are not being sold (or very soon will not be sold) to the same class of purchasers who are likely to buy new Samsung products. By choosing to allege infringement only of its current products, Apple opens itself up to these arguments.

Says Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents:

[Apple] might want to proceed cautiously and wait with a preliminary injunction motion until the iPhone 5 can be shown, or present only a tablet-related motion in the very near term and a smartphone-related one a little later.

We'll see how bold or conservative Apple is.

And Samsung. If they really wanted to have fun with this, their CEO should start dressing in jeans and black mock turtleneck...

[FOSS Patents]

Apple has upped the stakes in their look-and-feel "copy cat" lawsuit against Samsung, taking the complaint from 38 to 63 pages, and now accusing Samsung of "products that blatantly imitate the appearance of Apple's products to capitalize on Apple's success." According to FOSS Patents, Apple goes so far as to quote the media to help set up its case:

The copying has been widely observed in the industry and has been mentioned in multiple articles reviewing Samsung products. For example, a writer for Wired wrote that Samsung's "Vibrant's industrial design is shockingly similar to the iPhone 3G." [...] "First Look: Samsung Vibrant Rips Off iPhone 3G Design." Another Wired writer wrote, "[L]et's settle one of the biggest arguments surrounding this phone. Yes, the Vibrant closely resembles a certain best-selling smartphone." [...] "Samsung Vibrant Looks Like an iPhone, Has Battery Life to Match." [...]

[A] Business Insider review of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 stated that, "[f]rom the front, it looks like an iPad." [...]

A recent CNET reviewer remarked: "Taking another page from the iPad 2's school of sexy tablet building, the 10.1 has one of the cleanest designs we've seen on a tablet. [...]"

[Fast Company:] "Samsung’s Anti-iPad 2 Policy" – "[To] Clone the Heck Out of It"

While the original complaint listed the the Samsung Captivate, Continuum, Vibrant, Galaxy S 4G, Epic 4G, Indulge, Mesmerize, Showcase, Fascinate, Nexus S, Gem, Transform, Intercept, and Acclaim smart phones and the Samsung Galaxy Tab tablet, the amended complaint adds Droid Charge, Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Ace, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S (i9000), Gravity, Infuse 4G, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, Sidekick, Galaxy Tab 10.1, and Galaxy S II (aka Galaxy S 2), Showcase i500 and Showcase Galaxy S. (For more on those devices, see our sibling site Android Central)

Says Florian Mueller:

In the very near term, Apple will have to decide on whether to request a preliminary injunction. Like I said further above, that's reasonably likely. If the court appeared to give serious consideration to this measure, it could put enormous pressure on Samsung and greatly increase the likelihood of a near-term settlement in Apple's favor. But this can also become another epic battle like the one between Apple and Nokia...

Samsung remains the manufacturer of many key components for iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad.

[FOSS Patents]

Even though Apple has now filed a motion to intervene, Patrick T. Igoe, Esq., writing for Groklaw, gives his opinion on how developers should deal with a lodsys patent claim made against the iPhone or iPad app (or Android, or other platform).

1. Read the patent, not the blogs. He questions how well the actual patent has been reported to date.
2. Focus on the claims. He's not convinced Lodsys' patent covers what they allege it does.
3. Question the claim chart. He thinks Lodsys is cherry-picking.
4. Consider an active defense. He thinks Lodsys' business model is ripe for disruption, namely:

However, if transaction costs rise through legitimate defenses or declaratory judgment actions, the business model is strained. Lodsys needs developers to think it is cheaper to settle than it is to fight. Developers should consider, however, whether filing a declaratory judgment action in their own district might have the possibility of creating a less costly and more satisfying resolution. With a declaratory judgment action, it is Lodsys that is faced with a dilemma. For a small or medium sized target, it may be more economically sensible for Lodsys to drop the demand for the small licensing fee even if they somehow feel they could win. It may be especially compelling if major weaknesses are identified in the infringement case, as I believe they could be here.

He also stresses you should talk to an attorney. (Of course.)

[Groklaw via @chronic]

It looks as though Nokia and Apple have finally come to an agreement over the lawsuit they have been involved in since late 2009, with Apple agreeing to pay licensing fees for key Nokia patents. Originally, Nokia claimed that Apple had infringed on almost two dozen of their patents for mobile technologies. Apple argued that Nokia was demanding "unfair" licensing fees and didn't want to pay more than other companies licensing the same technology, then counter sued for UI and computer-related patents. Complaints flew back and forth, and now the end result of the lawsuit was that Apple has to pay Nokia a lump some of of cash on top of royalties for the term of the agreement with Nokia.

The financial structure of the agreement consists of a one-time payment payable by Apple and on-going royalties to be paid by Apple to Nokia for the term of the agreement. The specific terms of the contract are confidential.

"We are very pleased to have Apple join the growing number of Nokia licensees," said Stephen Elop, president and chief executive officer of Nokia. "This settlement demonstrates Nokia's industry leading patent portfolio and enables us to focus on further licensing opportunities in the mobile communications market."

Apple having to pay Nokia was never really in question. The argument was over how much. Nokia's patents were in a pool that was supposed to be freely and fairly licensed to everyone. Apple felt Nokia was violating the letter and spirit of that by asking more of Apple. Whether or not Apple eventually got the same terms as other licensees, or whether they did have to pay up more, is still a question.

Apple also remains in litigation with the three top Android makers, HTC, Samsung, and Motorola. For now, Nokia is no longer in litigation with anyone.

UPDATE: Apple has issued a statement to the New York Times [NYT]:

“Apple and Nokia have agreed to drop all of our current lawsuits and enter into a license covering some of each other’s patents, but not the majority of the innovation that makes the iPhone unique,” Apple said. “We are glad to put this behind us and get back to focusing on our respective businesses.”

[Nokia via FossPatents]

Lodsys has decided to ignore Apple's strongly worded demand they cease harassing iOS developers, and instead decided to file suit against 7 of them, including Combay Inc. (Mega Poker Online Texas Holdem), Iconfactory (Twitterrific), Illusion Labs (Labyrinth), Shovelmate (69 Positions), Quickoffice, Richard Shinderman (Hearts), Wulven Games (Shadow Era). Says Lodsys:

Apple and Lodsys were in confidential discussions and there was clearly disagreement on the interpretation of the license terms of Apple’s agreement. Before, during and after these interactions, Lodsys has carefully considered this issue and consulted several legal experts to consider Apple’s claims. We stand firm and restate our previous position that it is the 3rd party Developers that are responsible for the infringement of Lodsys’ patents and they are responsible for securing the rights for their applications. Developers relying on Apple’s letter do so to their own detriment and are strongly urged to review Apple’s own developer agreements to determine the true extent of Apple’s responsibilities to them.

In a private communication, simultaneous to this posting, Lodsys has sent a detailed legal position on the license interpretation issue, in writing to Apple that has been previously only verbally communicated. Apple has our permission to publish that letter, in its entirety, should developers wish to review our dispute and evaluate the risks with their own counsel. While we have nothing to hide, we cannot unilaterally publish the letter because it refers to information that was obtained with an obligation of confidentiality to Apple and we do not have their permission to do so.

They've also promised $1000 to each developer if they're in the wrong. Says Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents:

Obviously, $1,000 is not much to gain considering that even an initial analysis of a patent assertion letter by a qualified attorney will typically cost much more than $1,000. And a lawsuit can cost millions. However, the fact that Lodsys publishes such a promise shows that it really doesn't believe in Apple's representations (concerning the scope of the license) at all.

The ball is now back in Apple's (and Google's, as one developer is being sued for the Android version of his app as well). Will they indemnify developers, offer to take on the litigation on their behalf, counter sue Lodsys to invalidate the patent, or all or none of the above?

[Lodsys, FOSS Patents]

According to This is my Next, after a judge ruled that Apple's outside council gets to see unreleased Samsung phones, Samsung has fired back demanding to see Apple's presumably upcoming iPhone 5 and iPad 3. Of course, part of the judge's ruling was based on Samsung having shown off or given away pre-release devices to the media and developers, and Apple absolutely does not breathe word one about their products until Steve Jobs or another exec holds them up on stage.

• Samsung says it has to see the next-gen iPhone and iPad because it believes those are the products that will actually be on the market against future Samsung devices, so it has to be prepared for Apple’s potential motion for a preliminary injunction. That’s kind of a stretch: Apple can’t really file for a preliminary injunction based on potential confusion with unannounced, unreleased products, so Apple’s lawyers will almost certainly focus on confusion with the company’s existing products.
• Samsung says that doesn’t matter because Apple tends to discontinue previous products when it launches new ones, and it has to be prepared for what might be in the market when and if Apple actually files its motion. This is also a bit strange, since Apple kept both the iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS on the market after launching new models. You can bet Apple will point that out.

Apparently, Apple and Samsung negotiated for a year and couldn't come to an agreement before Apple launched their look-and-feel infringement suit, and there haven't been any talks since then. So chalk this up to Samsung trying to get some leverage. Whether or works or not, it could further delay what's no doubt going to be a long and protracted process.

So... countdown to Samsung outside council intern blurry cam shots?

[This is my Next]

As part of Apple's ongoing look-and-feel -- aka copycat -- lawsuit against Samsung, Judge Lucy Koh has ordered Samsung to cough up some of the unreleased, but allegedly infringing devices to Apple's outside council for investigation.

"Although the Court expresses no opinion on the merits of Apple's claims, the Court notes that Apple has produced images of Samsung products and other evidence that provide a reasonable basis for Apple's belief that Samsung's new products are designed to mimic Apple's products."

"In particular, the design and appearance of Samsung's forthcoming products and packaging are directly relevant to Apple's trademark, trade dress, and design claims. Because these claims are subject to consumer confusion and "ordinary observer" standards, the products themselves and the packaging in which they are sold are likely to be central to any motion for preliminary injunction," the order reads.

The devices in question are Galaxy S2, Galaxy Tab 8.9, Galaxy Tab 10.1, Infuse 4G, and Droid Charge.

Our question -- why couldn't Apple just read Android Central like everyone else?

[Courthouse News]

Samsung has countersued Apple for the infringement of 5 patents, this in response to Apple's suit against Samsung for patent and trademark violations filed earlier this week.

"Samsung is responding actively to the legal action taken against us in order to protect our intellectual property and to ensure our continued innovation and growth in the mobile communications business,"

Apple's lawsuit seemed focused on preventing Samsung from copying the look and feel of iPhone and iPad in the Galaxy S line of tablets and TouchWiz skins. Samsung's seems focused on trying to match the patent portion. It will be interesting to see how they respond to the trademarks.

Anyone else thinking that if they continued to innovate, they wouldn't be facing the trademark charges?

[Reuters]

Apple is suing Samsung, claiming Samsung's Galaxy line of phones and tablets copy the look and feel of iPhone and iPad.

"Rather than innovate and develop its own technology and a unique Samsung style for its smart phone products and computer tablets, Samsung chose to copy Apple's technology, user interface and innovative style in these infringing products."

Samsung's Galaxy line has been one of the most commercially successful range of Android products to date but have also been among the most iOS-like in terms of interface conventions, thanks to Samsung's TouchWiz. Ironically, Samsung is also one of Apple's more important manufacturing partners, producing components for iPhone and iPad both.

This is the third Android-based lawsuit launched by Apple, who sued HTC last year -- HTC has reached a licensing deal with Microsoft, ironically, for Google's Android -- and Motorola back in October.

UPDATE: More from Apple, and an illustrative image, above. [Mobilized]

“It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging,” an Apple representative told Mobilized. “This kind of blatant copying is wrong, and we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.”

UPDATE 2: As Jon points out in the comments, Apple is legally obligated to defend its trademarks or it risks losing them. Likewise asserting patents for a public company in a highly competitive market is the responsibility of of its management. When and against whom it chooses to litigate them, however, is interesting.

UPDATE 3: Samsung has a preliminary response [AFP]

"Samsung will respond actively to this legal action taken against us through appropriate legal measures to protect our intellectual property," the South Korean firm said in a statement.

"Apple is one of our key buyers of semiconductors and display panels. However, we have no choice but respond strongly this time," an unidentified official was quoted as saying.

UPDATE 4: Former Engadget editor (and lawyer) Nilay Patel gives a break down of the suit, and his thoughts. [This Is My Next]

Taken as a group, it feels like a remarkably solid case — Samsung can’t just up and countersue Apple with its own patents and hope to walk away with a handshake and a cross-license because of the various trademark, trade dress, and design patent claims. How the company decides to deal with those issues remains to be seen; there’s no question in my mind that Samsung designed TouchWiz to look and feel as much like iOS as possible, and then marketed it as such.

[Wall Street Journal]

Time Warner Cable issued a press release today announcing they have filed a request for declaratory judgement related to its recent TWCable TV app debacle, which forced them to remove a number of channels from the iPad app last week.

We’re at an impasse with a handful of network owners, and we need an impartial third party to referee the situation and confirm that our interpretation is correct. We thought the most efficient way to settle this would be to go before a judge and ask for a decision that, while noncombative, would establish the rights that we bargained for.

TWCable is taking a non-aggressive approach to the matter by requesting a judge step in and make a fair decision based on the facts. They believe they're well within their rights to stream content from Viacom (and other content owners) to an iPad located within the viewer's home under current agreements.

Viacom, on the other hand, isn't taking things lightly and has fired back with some pretty strong language, stating that Time Warner "blatantly grabbed the rights that their competitors have negotiated in good faith to obtain" and has now filed a lawsuit against the cable provider.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out given the gaping differences between new media and old media these days, but we're hoping a judge declares Time Warner Cable is in the right, don't you? Sound off in the comments below!

[TWCableUntangled via Engadget]

After a judge recently threw out 5 Nokia patent complaints against Apple, Nokia has filed a second series of complaints with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) against Apple. This second complaint is alleging that Apple infringes Nokia patents in virtually all of its mobile phones, portable music players, tablets and computers.

Our latest ITC filing means we now have 46 Nokia patents in suit against Apple, many filed more than 10 years before Apple made its first iPhone," said Paul Melin, Vice President, Intellectual Property at Nokia. "Nokia is a leading innovator in technologies needed to build great mobile products and Apple must stop building its products using Nokia's proprietary innovation.

This new complaint refers to seven Nokia patents in the areas of multi-tasking operating systems, data synchronization, positioning, call quality and the use of Bluetooth accessories. This one looks set to drag on for quite some time, and in a great many countries!

[Nokia PR]

California resident Donald LeBuhn has filed a class action lawsuit against Apple after, he claims, his daughter dropped his almost new iPhone 4 from 3 feet and the glass shattered. Yes, "glassgate" is back in the news:

LeBuhn's beef starts with the fact that Apple markets the strength of the iPhone 4 glass as "20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic," and is "ultradurable" and made of the same material as the "glass used in helicopters and high-speed trains."

This, LeBuhn claims, is all part of Apple's ruse.

In actuality, he says in the lawsuit, "Months after selling millions of iPhone 4s, Apple has failed to warn and continues to sell this product with no warning to customers that the glass housing is defective."

I'm on record as thinking Apple putting glass on both sides of iPhone 4 was a bad idea from the get-go (and something they're going to change in iPhone 5) but is it really actionable? Should Apple fix up or pay up, or is this just another nuisance suit?

[LA Weekly, image via VentureBeat, thanks Anthony]

Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen has dropped the patent suit hammer on Apple, Google, Facebook, AOL, eBay, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo, and YouTube, accusing them of violating his lab's innovations in internet commerce. According to the Wall Street Journal:

For Mr. Allen, the lawsuit marks new terrain. He is aggressively going after companies, including many of Silicon Valley's biggest names, that he thinks are violating technology that was developed at his Interval Research Corp., a Palo Alto, Calif., lab and technology incubator he financed with about $100 million during the Internet bubble.

Here are the patents in question:

• Patent #507 “Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information, With Particular Application to Browsing Information Represented By Audiovisual Data.”
• Patent #657 “Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device.”
• Patent #314 “Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device.”
• Patent #682 “Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest.”

Google has responded with:

“This lawsuit against some of America’s most innovative companies reflects an unfortunate trend of people trying to compete in the courtroom instead of the marketplace. Innovation — not litigation — is the way to bring to market the kinds of products and services that benefit millions of people around the world.”

And Facebook says:

We believe this suit is completely without merit and we will fight it vigorously

What do you think, pure patent trolling or does Paul Allen deserve compensation?

[Wall Street Journal, TechCrunch]

There's a rumor -- repeat, rumor -- going around that Apple will switch the Apple TV to iOS and rename it iTV, and that seems to be enough to get British broadcaster ITV all dressed and wigged up in litigation clothes.

"You only have to look at recent problems with the iPhone 4 to see not everything Apple produces is gold dust. We all take our ITV brand very seriously and we'll do everything in our power to protect it."

Ouch. Meow.

Apple for their part is staying mum:

"Apple does not comment on rumours and speculation."

We've seen Apple take iPhone and iOS from Cisco and work out licensing deals later. Could iTV be next and this saber-rattling just a way to tell Apple they better open up that Cupertino vault?

[Mirror, thanks to everyone who sent it in!]

The class action lawsuit against AT&T's US iPhone exclusivity has been certified, which means a judge thinks it meets the legal requirements to go forward. If you remember back, The crux of suit states that customer contracts are 2 years, but the AT&T exclusivity is 5 years -- so customers were falsely lured to AT&T for 5 years, not 2 -- if they want to keep iPhones, that is. The lawsuit seeks to include all current AT&T iPhone customers.

Now, whether or not that original 5 year exclusivity has changed over the past few years is anyone's guess -- the only people who know that for sure are the AT&T and Apple higher ups that sign the contracts. In this day and age, contracts change constantly.

My opinion? I don't know if a court will buy this as falsely leading on customers. Most carriers don't ever specify how long their exclusivity deals are, it's all hearsay until they announce it. Yes, the iPhone deal is unique in length (I don't believe any carrier has ever had an exclusive anywhere even close to the length AT&T scored with Apple), but I don't necessarily know if I believe it misleads customers. When the first iPhone was released, the 5 year deal was already publicized, even if it was hearsay, and people still bought iPhones. And honestly, if you get an iPhone, no one's forcing you to get another one. If you upgrade and lock yourself in, that's pretty much your decision, your hand isn't forced.

We'll watch this one but I personally don't think it will go very far.

[Engadget]

Apple and AT&T have been hit with a class-action lawsuit over what some are calling the bait and switch removal of iPad 3G unlimited data plan. Since June 9, three consumers went to the law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP to file the amended complaint.

"The availability of an unlimited data plan was a key reason why consumers paid the extra $130 charge to access the 3-G network, and their ability to switch in and out of the unlimited data plan was also an important consideration in the decision to purchase an iPad," stated Lieff Cabraser attorney Michael W. Sobol. "The complaint alleges that Apple and AT&T should have known at the time they were promoting the availability of unlimited data plans, they were not going to keep that promise."

Who is to blame on this one - Apple, AT&T, or both of the companies? Sound off in the comments below!

[Business Wire]

HTC has just announced that they're counter-suing Apple for infringement, claiming Apple treads on 5 specific HTC patents.

“As the innovator of the original Windows Mobile PocketPC Phone Edition in 2002 and the first Android smartphone in 2008, HTC believes the industry should be driven by healthy competition and innovation that offer consumers the best, most accessible mobile experiences possible,” said Jason Mackenzie, vice president of North America, HTC Corporation. “We are taking this action against Apple to protect our intellectual property, our industry partners, and most importantly our customers that use HTC phones.”

Apple originally sued HTC for patent infringement on April 2, citing 20 patents in a move widely speculated to be directed towards Google's Android platform in general. HTC had since agreed to license patents from Microsoft -- counter-intuitively -- for Android, again speculated to me a move directed towards Google.

Just like the Nokia vs. Apple suit and counter-suit, these types of suits can take months if not years to resolve, especially in the still forming smartphone space.

[HTC via Android Central]

Nokia has just filed a second patent infringement suit against Apple, adding the iPad into the mix. The new suit covers:

five patents related to "enhanced speech and data transmission, using positioning data in applications and innovations in antenna configurations that improve performance and save space, allowing smaller and more compact devices." [...] by our count, Apple and Nokia now have some five pending legal actions between them, including one that's been placed on hold pending an ITC decision.

This one has been filed in a so-called "rocket-docket" which means, unlike previous suits, it could go to trial in less than a year.

Now we'll just sit back, grab some popcorn with our good friends over at NokiaExperts.com, and wait for Apple to counter-sue. Again.

[Engadget]

Just when you think the internet can't take any more crazy it laughs, loosens its belt another notch, and unleashes something like ITWorld's story about Adobe getting ready to sue Apple over the iPhone's lack of Flash support or the iPhone OS 4 SDK prohibiting cross-compilers, or Canada winning Olympic hockey, whatever.

It's not like the real news isn't crazy enough right now, what with iPad and Adobe CS5 shipping and iPhone OS 4 getting previewed all within the last week or so.

Just what exactly is Adobe's cause of action remains unaddressed, of course. Last we checked, being upset -- even being righteously PO'd -- isn't grounds for legal action.

If ever Apple gains a true monopoly position in mobile and abuses that monopoly, then cases will no doubt be made (remember, you can have a monopoly, and you can be abusive, you just can't be an abusive monopoly). Until that time, we get the feeling Apple is going to do everything they can to leverage their technology to get as far ahead of the mobile platform competition as they can. They're going to go at a dead sprint, in fact, until they reach that very line. They want to be so far ahead by the time they have to worry about anti-trust and may be forced to switch gears, competitors will be too far behind to catch up.

Adobe's only option is to do the same -- take Flash further and faster than Apple takes the iPhone. Make it killer on the backs of Android or some other platform. That or sue Apple for patent violations if they have the portfolio stones, because as far as we can tell, there's nothing involving the iPhone's lack of plugin support or cross-compiler acceptance for them to sue over.

Of course, free enterprise means the freedom to sue just because, so ultimately who knows what Adobe will do. We're not lawyers anyway, so if you are, correct us in the comments (pro bono, 'natch).

HTC has sent out a press release in response to the patent infringement lawsuit Apple recently fired in their direction. CEO Peter Chou is quoted:

“HTC disagrees with Apple’s actions and will fully defend itself. HTC strongly advocates intellectual property protection and will continue to respect other innovators and their technologies as we have always done, but we will continue to embrace competition through our own innovation as a healthy way for consumers to get the best mobile experience possible.”

The full presser lists out all of HTC's "firsts" in the industry but gives no indication about what, if any, counter-suit and patent infringement claims of their own they might use to return fire.

We did say this could take years, right?

[via Android Central]

Without being asked, Google decided to whip out an email to TechCrunch anyway and comment on the Apple vs. HTC patent lawsuit announced yesterday:

“We are not a party to this lawsuit. However, we stand behind our Android operating system and the partners who have helped us to develop it."

This is interesting in light of suggestions that the real target of Apple's patent offensive isn't HTC but rather Android and Google. While some maintain it isn't like Apple (or at least the crunchy, hippy Apple they hold dear) to use patents offensively, when combined with HTC (read: Google) as target, could it begin to make more sense?

With Nokia, Apple merely counter-sued, to go on the attack against HTC has led to speculation that, because of Google, it's personal.

The Apple/Google relationship has been the subject of a lot of chatter lately as the once closely-tied partners have become increasingly competitive. As Gizmodo pointed out yesterday, Google CEO Eric Schmidt sitting on the Apple board -- whether or not he recused himself from iPhone discussions -- and then turning around and releasing Android and Chrome OS, when coupled with allegations that Steve Jobs told employees he believed Google was trying to "kill the iPhone", more than hints at a possible motivation.

9to5Mac also notes the lawsuit was filed one month to the day after Google enabled multitouch on the Nexus One, which was 6 months after Eric Schmidt resigned from the Apple board.

Sure, Steve Jobs made it a point to defend Schmidt at the recent Apple shareholder meeting, and Google keeps saying things are "stable", but the best of friends can become the bitterest of rivals. Given the current patent system, Apple has a right to defend their technology -- in the case of Google, they could have far more incentive too as well.

If that's the case, then Apple hasn't changed at all -- when's the last time we heard about feeling screwed and not retaliating?

While precious little new information is coming to light about Apple's just-announced lawsuit against HTC, a lot more specu-nalysis has been hitting the blogsphere, ranging from "Apple is seeking a cross-license to get HTC's patents" (shades of the accusations facing Nokia about their lawsuit against Apple), to "Steve Jobs feels personally betrayed by Eric Schmidt and is using HTC to get at Google's Android".

• Niley Patel over at Engadget has done his usual, spectacular job digging through the patents in question and surfacing what looks to be behind them. 10 are for US court, 10 for the ITC. He also points out that these lawsuits can be settled tomorrow or can drag out 10 years.

• Jesus Diaz of Gizmodo tackles the love affair and nasty breakup between Apple and Google, positing that after Apple made Google CEO Eric Schmidt a board member, and Google saw the iPhone dominating mobile web browsing, they "betrayed" Apple to try and seize that market for themselves. Having lost out to Microsoft in the Mac vs. Windows last-generation war, Giz thinks Apple has $40 billion ways to try and make sure the same doesn't happen to the iPhone in the upcoming next-generation mobile platform war.

• John Gruber, the Daring Fireball, repeats his "if you can't beat 'em, sue 'em" quip from when Nokia sued Apple, and thinks Apple is making a "terrible mistake" suing HTC. He also despises the idea of UI patents.

• Erick Schonfeld of TechCrunch think Apple is suing HTC for the same reason Nokia sued Apple: to get a cross-license on patents. What could HTC have that Apple would want? (Aside from 480p screens, but it's mostly TiPb who wants those...!)

• Our own editor-in-chief Dieter Bohn, writing for PreCentral.net, thinks that if Apple is engaged now with Nokia and HTC -- who have significant patent portfolios all their own -- maybe the threat of mutually assured destruction is no longer enough to keep Palm out of the patent pugilism. That does raise the question of who is next?

The US Patent Office seems to be granting everything up to and including Facebook's recent win for ridiculously broad "the feed". So we're guessing we'll be seeing more rather than less of these lawsuits as time goes on (unless there's some unlikely software patent-shaking decision spillover from the Supreme Court over Bilsky...)

For most of us, however, just like Nokia vs. Apple, it will remain a spectator sport. About all we can do is pass the patent popcorn and watch. First round no-contest, or 10 slobberknocker, we'll have to wait and see...

Apple announced today that they are suing Windows Phone and Android hardware manufacturer, and Sense UI developer, HTC for patent infringement. The suit, filed in US District Court in Delaware, alleges violation of "20 Apple patents related to the iPhone’s user interface, underlying architecture and hardware". Says Apple CEO Steve Jobs:

“We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it. We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.”

This harkens back to Steve Jobs' original introduction of the iPhone at Macworld 2007 when, as a keynote bullet point, he stated emphatically about the iPhone -- "boy did we patent it."

HTC, who produces the Android G1, MyTouch, and Hero and the Nexus One hardware for Google, and a variety of Windows Phones including the Touch Pro 2 and HD2 has built their own multitouch solutions, even when Google was reticent to implement the technology themselves. Curiously, Apple has yet to go after Palm, perhaps due to Palm's equally impressive mobile patent portfolio. Likewise, does going after HTC allow Apple to go after Android and Windows Phone without taking on Google and Microsoft?

More on this as it develops. Also keep an eye on our sibling sites, Android Central for more from the HTC angle.

UPDATE 2: Android Central brings us an HTC response:

We only learned of Apple's actions based on your stories and Apple's press release. We have not been served yet so we are in no position to comment on the claims. We respect and value patent rights but we are committed to defending our own innovations. We have been innovating and patenting our own technology for 13 years.

UPDATE 1: Gizmodo has the full list:

• The ‘331 Patent, entitled "Time-Based, Non-Constant Translation Of User Interface Objects Between States," was duly and legally issued on April 22, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
• The ‘949 Patent, entitled "Touch Screen Device, Method, And Graphical User Interface For Determining Commands By Applying Heuristics," was duly and legally issued on January 20, 2009 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘949 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
• The ‘849 Patent, entitled "Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image," was duly and legally issued on February 2, 2010 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘849 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
• The ‘381 Patent, entitled "List Scrolling And Document Translation, Scaling, And Rotation On A Touch-Screen Display," was duly and legally issued on December 23, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘381 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
• The ‘726 Patent, entitled "System And Method For Managing Power Conditions Within A Digital Camera Device," was duly and legally issued on July 6, 1999 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘726 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
• The ‘076 Patent, entitled "Automated Response To And Sensing Of User Activity In Portable Devices," was duly and legally issued on December 15, 2009 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘076 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
• The ‘105 Patent, entitled "GMSK Signal Processors For Improved Communications Capacity And Quality," was duly and legally issued on December 8, 1998 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘105 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
• The ‘453 Patent, entitled "Conserving Power By Reducing Voltage Supplied To An Instruction-Processing Portion Of A Processor," was duly and legally issued on June 3, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘453 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit H.
• The ‘599 Patent, entitled "Object-Oriented Graphic System," was duly and legally issued on October 3, 1995 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘599 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit I.
• The ‘354 Patent, entitled "Object-Oriented Event Notification System With Listener Registration Of Both Interests And Methods," was duly and legally issued on July 23, 2002 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ‘354 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit J.

Yikes. Apple is asking for permanent injunction and triple damages. Some of those also read so broad that I don't feel safe even making gestures in traffic any more!

What do you think? Is Apple right to sue? Is this their attempt to stop what happened with the Mac from happening to the iPhone? And why HTC in particular?

Previously, on Patent Wars, Nokia escalated their lawsuit against Apple by requesting a US import ban on virtually every product Apple makes with the International Trade Commission (ITC), and now Apple has responded in kind against Nokia phones.

Yes, phasers and disruptor fire is criss-crossing the legal heavens and photon torpedos are exploding in the silence of judicial space.

We could joke that Apple has more to lose here, since their products are far more popular in the US than Nokia phones are, but again this is just what giant electronics companies with billion-dollar legal war chests do. It's "negotiations", and we hope all the lawyers enjoy the new unibody aluminum Ferraris they'll be getting out of this.

[Bloomberg via Engadget]

Remember when Nokia sued Apple for infringement over essential wireless patents? Us neither, but Apple sure does -- in a counter-suit which says Nokia is copying the iPhone interface. Says Bruce Sewell, Apple SVP and General Counsel:

"Other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours"

And in the complaint:

"Nokia has rapidly lost share in the market for high-end mobile phones. Nokia has admitted that, as a result of the iPhone launch, the market has changed suddenly and [Nokia was] not fast enough changing with it. In response, Nokia chose to copy the iPhone, especially its enormously popular and patented design and user interface."

They remind Nokia of their EVP, Anssi Vanjoki's statement about the iPhone in 2007:

"[If] there is something good in the world, we copy with pride"

To which Apple responds:

"True to this quote, Nokia has demonstrated its willingness to copy Apple's iPhone ideas as well as Apple's basic computing technologies, all while demanding Apple pay for access to Nokia's purported standards essential patent. Apple seeks redress for this behavior."

Whether or not this leads to a quick(er) settlement and cross-licensing deal on both sides, it's interesting to note the "mutually assured patent destruction" strategy we (and PreCentral.net regarding Palm vs. Apple) have spoken about before seems to be holding true. If one sues, the other(s) sue back. Boom. Merry $&@#ing Christmas indeed.

UPDATE 1: Engadget reveals:

Apple also says Nokia wanted to cross-license Apple's various iPhone device patents as part of any deal, which Apple clearly wasn't will to do.

UPDATE 2: Official Apple PR on the lawsuit.

UPDATE 3 & 4: Roughly Drafted explains in good detail a theory under which Nokia wouldn't license their pooled patents to Apple under "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms,” and instead wanted a cross-licensing deal with access to Apple's private (non-pooled) patents. Apple refused, Nokia sued, Apple sued back. (Thanks to JK in the comments).

[NokiaExperts and Apple Insider]

Apple is no stranger to lawsuits, and today is no exception as St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants have slapped them with a lawsuit that claims the iPhone infringes upon four digital camera patents that the company holds. The four include the ‘459, ‘219, ‘010 and ‘899 patents.

• 459: Take image contained within lens and store in some type of memory.
• 219: Display the picture that will be taken in some type of display window.
• 010: Push button in order to capture image.
• 899: Make images contained within some type of memory and make them viewable in some sort of digital camera roll.

St. Clair is a veteran of suing over patent infringements as they successfully squeezed 25 million out of Sony back in 2001 and in 2003 they sued Canon and were awarded $34 million in damages. They also have gone after companies such as Fuji, Kyocera, Minolta, Nikon, Olympus, Casio, Samsung, Panasonic, Nokia, HP, Kodak, LG, Motorola, RIM, Palm, and various others.

[Via Loopinsight]

According to Business Insider, both AT&T and Verizon have decided to drop the lawsuits over Verizon's hilarious controversial "Map for That" commercials. AT&T believed the commercials to be misleading, splitting hairs about 2.5G EDGE coverage and 3G HSPA, while Verizon believed the truth hurt (ouch).

Since the judge rejected AT&T's request for an injunction, and Verizon will be continuing to air the ads, we're guessing we know who blinked here... (And also guessing Luke Wilson and Apple will continue to fire back...)

(Insert canned soap opera music here!)

Speaking of the ongoing ad-war between AT&T and Verizon, according to CNET:

A federal judge in Atlanta Wednesday declined to grant AT&T a temporary restraining order that would force Verizon to stop showing the ads.

So the "map for that" campaign can continue, even as AT&T counters on the marketing front with "side by side".

On the legal front, though certainly a set back, we're sure AT&T's lawyers want to get as much as they can out of this legal challenges will continue as well.

By now most of you have seen the infamous Verizon "map for that" attack ads against AT&T. It was only a matter of time before we heard Verizon's response to the lawsuit [Full document PDF link] that AT&T recently slapped them with and respond they did. Verizon's lawyers put their heads together to come up with the following opening line:

AT&T did not file this lawsuit because Verizon’s “There’s A Map For That” advertisements are untrue; AT&T sued because Verizon’s ads are true and the truth hurts.

Ouch, if you continue reading the lengthy document you will find that Verizon does not intend to remove the ads from the air unless it is forced to. They also claim AT&T agrees the map coverage is indeed accurate and before anything progresses both parties need to do some more of their own investigating into the matter.

All of this really isn't necessary, both parties should agree to carry along and spend their time doing something more productive - improving both of their respective networks.

[Via Engadget Mobile]

Ho-ho-hold on a minute, Verizon -- AT&T's not finding much to laugh about in those new anti-AT&T iPhone "map for that" commercials that show a teensy, tiny blue GSM/HSPA 3G footprint compared the ginormous country painted CDMA/EVDO red. In fact, AT&T is amending their original lawsuit to include those new misfit toys, Santa's workshop, and blue Christmas ads.

“Contrary to the image presented in the Verizon ads, our wireless network is pervasive,” said an AT&T spokesman. “It covers over 300 million people, or 97 percent of the U.S. population. Our fastest, or 3G, network covers approximately 233 million people, or 75 percent of the U.S. population….[Verizon's] use of white space is misleading.”

In other words, AT&T is saying Verizon's 3G coverage of mountains and lakes is impressive for the fish and eagles, but they think they have the humans and their "cities" covered just fine, thanks. (Though, again, NYC and SF might disagree...)

Digital Daily has the whole, amended, complaint for your reading pleasure. Let us know your take.

Verizon's "Map for That" ad was witty and kicked AT&T right where it hurt most -- right in the network. AT&T, naturally, didn't find it so amusing and has now decided to take Verizon to court. Engadget has been covering (and updating the coverage) today, and here's where it stands:

• AT&T complained that the original ad was misleading, saying customers could still use iPhones outside of 3G coverage (on EDGE).
• Verizon has apparently already changed the ad once, adding some small print to disclaim the above.
• AT&T still isn't happy, thinks Verizon is confusing customers, and thus is sicking the lawyers on them.

What do you think? Were you confused, or were you too busy laughing (or crying, if you live in SF or NYC).

Engadget's resident legal gadget eagle, Nilay Patel, has put together a great, depth analysis of Nokia's recent lawsuit against Apple and the iPhone over patent infringement.

As usual, the race to hype this dispute as a bitter standoff between two tech giants desperate to destroy one another has all but ignored the reality of how patents -- especially wireless patents -- are licensed, what Nokia's actually asking for, and how it might go about getting it. And as you know, we just don't do things that way, so we've asked our old friend Mathew Gavronski, a patent attorney in the Chicago office of Michael Best & Friedrich, to help us sort things out and figure out what's really going on here -- read on for more.

In a nutshell, Nokia believes Apple is infringing on 10 patents that are core to GSM/UTMS/Wi-Fi. All the other major players have paid up. Apple hasn't. Apple may believe the patent fees are already paid by the manufacturer of the components they bought for the iPhone, or they may just be using the legal system as way to negotiate a lower ultimate licensing fee from Nokia.

If the area interests you, check out the whole analysis and then let us know what you think!

Out sibling site NokiaExperts.com brings word that Nokia is suing Apple in Delaware court. Why-for?

ten patents related to GSM, UMTS, and WLAN standards that Nokia states they established after investing more than EUR 40 billion in R&D over the last 20 years. Nokia stated that they have successfully entered into license agreements including these patents with approximately 40 companies, including virtually all the leading mobile device vendors, allowing the industry to benefit from Nokia’s innovation.

Seems other companies have coughed up the cash to use them, but Apple's waiting for a court to force their hand. With $35 billion in the bank, they can obviously afford to give a fortune away to the lawyers, but why go to the effort? Do they really think a court will somehow dismiss the patents as invalid?

Pass the popcorn, get ready for some patent pugilism, and let us know what you think!

Apple and AT&T are being sued in Louisiana over the lack of MMS available for iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS users running iPhone 3.0 software. Now, it's gotten to the point where TiPb doesn't pay too much attention to Apple lawsuits anymore just because they're so frequent we'd need to get the blog roomier pants, and while we're not lawyers and can't comment as to the merits of this case, it's yet another (painful) reminder that AT&T has dropped the ball when it comes to MMS on the iPhone and especially when it comes to communicating what's happening -- and keeping updated -- their long suffering user base.

Says TG Daily:

Apple, says the filings, has revealed that AT&T has never upgraded its towers so as to support MMS functionality. "The only excuse offered by AT&T and Apple is a mouseprint disclaimer on the website, in barely readable font, which reads 'MMS Support from AT&T coming in late summer'".

That's the part where it kind of falls down for us, however. Now, I'm not on AT&T, but several of our readers are and as part of beta tests and carrier tests, some of them have indeed sent MMS messages on AT&T, and AT&T's website seems to show it working for other phones, so... huh?

Is this once again an absurd claim distracting from the real issue -- that summer grows later and later, and there's still no word on iPhone MMS from AT&T? What are they waiting for, a Special Music Event?!

[Thanks to Gregg for the tip!]

Another week, another iPhone lawsuit or three. If it isn't American's complaining about AT&T's 3G "network" (so bad, it's made (Giga)Om Malik abandon his iPhone), it's owners of white iPhones complaining about cracks in their plastic casings (which is effecting other, non-iPhones as well, making us suspect someone spike a plastic factory somewhere in China). This time, however, it's a patent dispute, and it's not Apple going after Palm, but Picsel Technologies taking it to Apple. According to Apple Insider:

By using particular techniques to speed up panning and zooming for images and other documents, Apple is effectively borrowing Picsel's own acceleration to make the iPhone work as smoothly as it does, the complaint reads. [..]Unlike many of these suits, the plaintiff already has major customers for its software that primarily include Japanese firms like KDDI and Sharp but also include American phone manufacturers such as Motorola and Palm.

So even though Apple now owns multi-touch(ish), they may not be allowed to show it working on screen? Gotta love patent poker...

What's the one thing worse than bloggers offering opinions about the likelihood of an Apple vs. Palm patent fight? That's right! Analysts! (Where's our magic 8 ball for a dissenting view when we need it?!)

PreCentral.net picks up just such a story on how one analyst thinks Apple's IP claims against Palm just might be -- wait for it! -- fruitless:

Though the review of granted and filed patents shows that Apple has a "formidable arsenal of capacitive, multi-touch patents that constitute a nearly impenetrable barrier to entry for companies hoping to commercialize capacitive, multi-touch devices," Perez-Fernandez also noted that Apple’s key patents may be “invalidated based on prior art considerations if subjected to a review by the USPTO.”

Prior art can trump all, unless Apple's own early patents, or the ones it acquired from Fingerworks, are the most "prior" of relevant art in question.

Of course, Apple has $30 billion reasons more than Palm for just why it might press its case anyway, even if it's ultimately unsuccessful...

Following up on Apple Chief Operating Officer, Tim Cook's comments during yesterday's Q1 conference call, and the supposition that he was hinting that Apple may just take legal action against the Palm Pre for violating Apple's intellectual property (i.e. patents), PC Mag quotes a reaction from Palm:

A spokeswoman at Palm said Thursday that the company has not been contacted by Apple's legal team, to her knowledge. "Palm has a long history of innovation, obviously reflected in our own products and our own robust apps portfolio," she said. "We have long been recognized for our fundamental patents in the mobile space. If we're faced with legal action, we're confident that we have the tools to defend ourselves."

When asked whether gestures like "pinching" were universal, or belonged to Apple, the Palm spokeswoman said that "our position is that multitouch has been around a long, long, long time before Apple introduced it."

We learned that Apple first began patenting multi-touch in 2004 and acquired additional patents when they bought Fingerworks in 2005, but is Palm hinting that -- as PreCentral.net pointed out -- they may have some patents of their own to fight back with?

Curiouser and curiouser...

Apple Insider is reporting (via CNet) that Apple has hired away Mark Papermaster, IBM's VP of Microprocessor Technology Development.

When Apple bought Palo Alto Semiconductor (PA Semi), and reportedly signed licensing agreements with ARM and PowerVR, we kinda sorta suspected Steve Jobs was getting serious about spinning his own custom systems-on-a-chip for the iPhone and the greater iPod platform.

Hey, if they can switch from Intel integrated to Nvidia chipsets to support their Core 2 Duos on the Macbook line, they can certainly role their own mobile brains, right?

IBM is suing on the grounds of a no-compete clause, which has historically been worthless in California (which is likely why IBM is suing in New York!)

TiPb, of course, doesn't really care about no frivolous lawsuit. We just want to see what kind of "screaming" fast new iPhones we can has next year!

Yet another iPhone related lawsuit only this time it does not involve Apple... shocking isn't it?

Coors beer company is being sued by Hottrix, creators of the strangely popular iBeer app for a cool 12.5 million for copyright infringement. The lawsuit alleges that Coors copied its iPhone application iBeer. Both Hottrix's App and Coors' iPint simply create the illusion of beer being poured out when a user tilts the handset as if the user is drinking it. The only major difference between the two apps is that iBeer costs $3 and iPint was free - it has been pulled from the App Store by Apple.

More or less, the lawsuit claims that iBeer was a success until iPint quickly stole it's thunder by being offered for free. Stop and think about this, both Apps were released on July 11th so how is one to determine who really came up with the idea? Hottrix answer, this youtube video that was released back in August of 2007.

Why someone would spend 3 bucks on such a App, I have no clue. But Coors... come on, talk about a blatant rip off. Hottrix, 12.5 million? Seriously?

(Via Gizmodo)

Apple (along with Palm, RIM, and the usual suspects) are all being sued by litigation happy patent-portfolio'er, WiAV Solutions, about whom Engadget Mobile says:

The company that doesn't make anything or even have a web site, but files so many patent lawsuits that some companies have taken to pre-emptively filing suits for declaratory judgment against it.

Must be something super-non-obvious, remarkably novel, spankingly applicable, and about which there couldn't possibly be any prior "art", right? Turns out not so much:

Detecting the difference between silence and voices, mobile device power management, and altering music to accommodate voices.

Congratulations on officially joining my all-time favorite patent suits like "tabs in a GUI", "display of a URL adjacent to window displaying contents of URL", and "transfer of file over network". But wait, could it get any more ludicrous? You betcha! Not only is WiAV suing, but it sounds like its forcibly asking the court to join its licensor, Mindspeed, into the suit as well.

Good luck with that.

Once RAZR-sharp, now Icahnicly troubled Motorola has filed suit in Illinois court against Apple. More specifically, Michael Fenger, who stepped down from managing Moto handsets in EMEA (Europe, Middle-East, and Africa) to become VP of Global iPhone Sales at Apple. Problem? Seems Moto had a do-not-compete clause, and they see Apple as... er... competitive:

Moto claims Fenger "was privy to the pricing, margins, customer initiatives, allocation of resources, product development, multiyear product, business and talent planning and strategies being used by Motorola"

While I'm sure some people have ditched their RAZRs for the iPhone, I'm going to take a wild guess that it wasn't because of ill-obtained competitive knowledge, but because Moto mismanaged themselves out of innovation, and Apple produced a killer handset. But that's just me...

Read Via

We already mentioned that Klausner is suing Apple over Visual Voicemail, to the tune of $360 million. Turns out there were plenty of other folks in on that suit - AT&T, Comcast, the list goes on. Well drop one off that list, SimulScribe. SimulScribe is basically the super-voicemail system for the non-iPhone set: offering both transcribed voicemails and something exactly like the iPhone's Visual Voicemail (SimulSays). Well they've dropped out of the case and settled with Klausner.

That basically leaves Apple as the biggest name not to settle - but Apple is also the most litigiously bull-headed corporation around. So expect a fun fight, but don't expect your Visual Voicemail to go away. Apple may not want to be forced into licensing agreement, but they definitely don't want to take our features away more. After all, Apple gave in to the very same company over the Newton way back in the day.

SimulScribe, LLC., a co-defendant with Apple, Inc.(APPL:NASDAQ) in the patent infringement lawsuit recently filed by Klausner Technologies, has settled the litigation and has licensed the Klausner Technologies visual voicemail patents. - Press Release

Apple Legal has been busy in the past few days. Apple has officially begun protecting their iPhone Trademark. MY iTablet -- once MYiPhone -- changed their name on the advice of Jobs himself. And it appears that some of the other blog sites have now received contact letters from Apple lawyers.

In the U.S. system of intellectual property law, if you don't actively protect your copyrights and trademarks, you lose them. Apple has to do this. I'm sure Apple isn't excited about taking iPhone community sites to court, but they have to do what they have to do.

figure 1: AT&T has made some changes to benefit customers out of enlightened self-interest.

In news that should please anyone on AT&T, and if you have an iPhone, odds are good that this is you, AT&T is making consumer-friendly changes to how they do things. First, AT&T announced that they will begin pro-rating termination fees. The longer you stay on in your contract, the less of a fee you'll have to pay. They also announced that they will not require a new contract for a simple change of service. Both are welcome changes.

Odds are good that this change of heart is due to the Senate commerce committee holding those hearings, and T-Mobile's lawsuit problems -- AT&T probably doesn't want to get into the same legal hot water that T-Mobile is currently in.

Apple's response to Greenpeace's report of PVC, phthalates, and BFRs in the iPhone is short and sweet. Witness the words of the Apple spokesperson as told to MacWorld:

"Like all Apple products worldwide, iPhone complies with RoHS [Restriction of Hazardous Substances], the world's toughest restrictions on toxic substances in electronics. As we have said, Apple will voluntarily eliminate the use of PVC and BFRs by the end of 2008."

There's another key quote from the Center for Environmental Health, the California-based organization that filed the 60-day notice of a suit yesterday. They aim to

"encourage the manufacturers through a negotiated settlement to reduce the use of these chemicals."

I'm not a lawyer, but my wife is. If they want a negotiated settlement, that means they don't want to go to court. Court is expensive. What exactly they want, I don't know; if they want money, this is essentially a shakedown job. If they want to hurry Apple's schedule or force a warning, they may be doing it on the basis of their ideals. Either way, it's a lot of free publicity.

Apple was sued on the basis of information from Greenpeace's report card for the iPhone from yesterday. Apparently, California's Proposition 65 requires the disclosure of phthalates on a warning label, and the iPhone doesn't have that. So, the Center for Environmental Health is suing. There will apparently be a 60 day notice before the lawsuit is actually, while the CEH independently verifies Greenpeace's findings. And ensuring that this iPhone lawsuit is just as murky as all of the other ones, the findings that phthalates affect reproductive functions is apparently in dispute. And Apple is on the record for a timeline of getting rid of phthalates; they've already vowed to get rid of the bad stuff by the end of 2008 so I'm not sure who wins with a lawsuit like this except for the lawyers. It's just bad press for everyone involved.

'For those claims which the Court is still likely to take into account, Li is requesting compensatory damages in the amount of $1 million, punitive damages in the amount to be determined at trial, and a court order that she is entitled to "threefold her damages, the costs involved in maintaining this action, and attorney's fees."'

Dongmei Lee's class-action lawsuit doesn't address the bricking of iPhones with the recent update, so maybe iPhoneClassActionLawsuitVille will be a two-horse town sooner rather than later.