A Superior Court judge in Morristown, New Jersey is considering whether or not a woman who knowingly texted her boyfriend, while he was driving, and who ultimately crashed into a couple on a motorcycle, can be held responsible in civil court.

According to the report, the 18 year old driver was "glancing" at texts from his girlfriend when he crossed traffic and hit two motorcyclists. The driver plead guilty to using his cellphone while driving, was fined $775, and has to make speeches about the dangers of texting and driving, which is illegal in the state of New Jersey.

The motorcyclists are suing the driver, but are also seeking to have his girlfriend added to the suit as well. Their attorney told The New York Post:

“If you know somebody is operating a motor vehicle, if you know it is illegal to text and drive because it violates the law, if you know it’s dangerous, if you know all this and knowingly send a text, then a jury should decide.”

The girlfriend's attorney told The Daily Record that it's not fair or reasonable, and that the girlfriend has no way to control when her boyfriend is going to read her messages.

A decision is expected May 25.

Now, I'm not an attorney, I do not play one on this blog, and I know next to nothing about contributory negligence, but there does not appear to be any precedence to this case the way there is to drinking and driving cases, for example.

The laws surrounded distracted driving are also patchwork. They often target specific items, like phones, instead of general principles. Putting on makeup. Reading newspapers. Drinking and eating. Changing radio stations. Focusing on GPS. Looking at expensive cars. Staring at scantily clad humans.

Conversely, new technologies are emerging that allow for different ways to interact with mobile devices. Chief among them, Siri. With Siri, instead of staring and typing, you can do more listening and talking. You can hear SMS and dictate responses. When it works.

All of this raises a lot of questions. Should there be specific laws against texting, or should there be more general laws against distracted driving? If there are always against texting, should new interfaces like Siri be exempt? Is having a conversation on the phone, or with Siri, different than having a conversation with a passenger who could, theoretically serve as a second set of eyes on the road?

And if something like texting while driving is illegal, and someone knows you're driving and keeps texting you, should they bear some of the responsibility if an accident occurs?

Source: The New York Post

With court-madated settlement talks between Apple CEO Tim Cook and Samsung CEO Choi Gee-Sung scheduled to begin tomorrow, Samsung Mobile's JK Shin took a moment to discuss the potential for resolution. According to Reuters:

"There is still a big gap in the patent war with Apple but we still have several negotiation options including cross-licensing," Shin told reporters at Seoul airport shortly before his departure for the United States.

Asked about the prospects for Samsung's memory chip business, Shin said the 4G chip shortage was expected to continue until early in the fourth quarter of this year.

While Apple and Samsung are suing each other over patents, trade dress, and other infringements real and imagined -- Apple accusing Samsung of being mobile's biggest copy cat and Samsung fighting back on technology, and standards, grounds -- they remain massive manufacturing partners. Many of the components in Apple's mobile devices, and some in their computers as well, are made by Samsung.

Apple recently claimed Samsung was destroying evidence, while also trying to bar Samsung from entering Walter Isaacson's Steve Jobs biography as evidence.

Although analysts had hoped Tim Cook might be a less fiery and litigious CEO than his predecessor, Cook turns out to be every bit as serious about patent disputes, and cold as ice.

For their part, Samsung has denied allegations that they're a copy cat, despite the uncanny similarities to Apple products that keep popping up.

Apple reportedly gave their manufacturing partner, Samsung, fair warning before going "thermonuclear" on their competitor, Samsung, in the courts.

Unlike Microsoft, which is seeking -- and in large part has obtained -- licensing fees from manufacturers in a bid to make Android as "expensive" as Windows Phone, Apple's goal doesn't seem to be financial -- they don't want Android looking or working like iPhone. They want to out litigate and out innovate the competition.

That might make it unlikely a settlement will be reached, unless Tim Cook does do things differently and shows a willingness to take money in lieu of design concessions -- or Samsung's patents force the matter.

Source: Reuters

Apple CEO Tim Cook was asked during Apple's Q2 2012 conference call how he felt about ongoing patent litigation, and whether he might be more open to a settlement or resolution than his predecessor, Steve Jobs might have been. 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.

Apple is currently engaged in lawsuits with Android manufacturers including Samsung, Motorola, and HTC. The late Steve Jobs seems to have taken particular, personal offense at Android using what he felt were Apple innovations and giving them away "promiscuously". According to Jobs' biographer, Walter Isaacson:

[The Microsoft Windows situation was] almost copied verbatim by Android. And then they licence it around promiscuously. And then Android starts surpassing Apple in market share, and this totally infuriated him. It wasn’t a matter of money. He said: ‘You can’t pay me off, I’m here to destroy you’.

This followed Jobs' famous scorched-earth vow:

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.

Some have hoped that Tim Cook might bring a different temperament to the situation, and indeed he will be meeting with the head(s) of Samsung to discuss points of resolution in their case.

However, based on his statements today, it doesn't sound like he's making any drastic policy changes at this point.

(Nor is he addressing examples of Apple using Google and Palm-style elements, like Notifications, in iOS.)

A German appeals court has issued a temporary ruling that prevents Motorola (currently in the process of being acquired by Google) from enforcing a ban on Apple iPhones and iPads based on what may be FRAND-absuing terms. Bloomberg reports:

“At the current state of the proceedings, it is to be assumed that Motorola Mobility would violate its duties under antitrust rules if it continues to ask Apple to stop the sales,” the court said in a statement.

FRAND patents are considered essential to standards-based implementations of technology, and in exchange for a patent becoming part of a standard, they're expected to be licensed to anyone and everyone under Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

Apple, which is suing many other companies based on non-FRAND (i.e. proprietary) patents, has been counter sued by Motorola and Samsung based on FRAND patents, something the European Union is now investigating.

It's probably too soon to tell how big a blow this is for Motorola, though Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents thinks it could be a deal breaker, especially in terms of how much value it takes out of the Motorola acquisition for Google:

Motorola was hoping to gain near-term leverage against Apple and Microsoft through the aggressive pursuit of injunctive relief based on standard-essential patents. Google, which was totally in agreement with MMI's litigation strategy, was hoping to buy that leverage for $12.5 billion, and Germany was a key part of that plan because its legal system places a relatively high burden on implementers of standards invoking the FRAND defense. In fact, Google's public statement on the post-acquisition use of MMI's patents proposed the German approach to FRAND as the way forward for the whole world. With today's ruling, Googlorola's strategy has failed even before the companies have formally merged. This is such a major blow to Google's patent strategy that, from a mere shareholder value point of view, it should now give serious consideration to the possibility of coughing up the $2.5 billion break-up fee agreed upon with MMI's board of directors and walk out on this deal. After all, that $2.5 billion payment would be an affordable subsidy for the only totally Google-aligned company among the major handset makers. But in all likelihood, Google will nevertheless try to close the deal, if only to avoid a colossal embarrassment for its CEO and other decision-makers.

This doesn't affect Motorola's other cases against Apple, including the non-FRAND win on pager sync patents that forced Apple to stop providing push email for German iCloud and MobileMe users.

Source: Bloomberg, FOSS Patents

Motorola has filed an injunction against Apple, claiming the iPhone 4S and iCloud infringe on six different patents. The six patents included in the suit are:

• U.S. Patent No. 5,710,987 on a "receiver having concealed external antenna"
• U.S. Patent No. 5,754,119 on a "multiple pager status synchronization system and method"; Motorola is asserting the European equivalent of this patent against Apple in Mannheim, with a decision (that will likely be favorable for Motorola) scheduled for Friday of next week (February 3, 2012)
• U.S. Patent No. 5,958,006 on a "method and apparatus for communicating summarized data"
• U.S. Patent No. 6,101,531 on a "system for communicating user-selected criteria filter prepared at wireless client to communication server for filtering data transferred from host to said wireless client"
• U.S. Patent No. 6,008,737 on an "apparatus for controlling utilization of software added to a portable communication device"
• U.S. Patent No. 6,377,161 on a "method and apparatus in a wireless messaging system for facilitating an exchange of address information"

Motorola already has a suit against Apple from the fall of 2010 that's still on-going in the Florida court system. It was too late in the process for them to add these patents to the current case. They've instead opted to file it as a separate case. Since these new filings occurred following Google's purchase of Motorola Mobility, it probably means that Google authorized Motorola to go ahead with the litigation. Since there's already a suit pending on some of these patents, the second trial may move quicker unless new claims are made. It seems typical for companies to go after patents they've already filed for infringement on as the process moves along a lot faster.

All of the above patents are being asserted against the iPhone 4S while two of them are also being asserted upon iCloud.

For more information, follow the source link below.

Source: Foss Patents

The International Trade Commission (ITC)'s Administrative Law Judge has ruled in favor of Motorola Mobility, saying the new Google acquisition and maker of fine, Corellian-styles Android phones doesn't violate 3 of Apple's multitouch patents. Scott Offer, senior vice president and general counsel for Moto, had this to say:

We are pleased with today’s favorable outcome for Motorola Mobility. Motorola Mobility has worked hard over the years to develop technology and build an industry-leading intellectual property portfolio. We are proud to leverage this broad and deep portfolio to create differentiated innovations that enhance the user experience.

Apple had claimed Motorola's Droid, Droid 2, Droid X, Cliq, BackFlip, Devour and Charm infringed on tapping, swiping, and pinching gestures. What this means for the viability of the patents moving forward is unknown, but likely not good for Apple.

Steve Jobs considered Android a stolen product and said in his biography that he would spend every last dollar in Apple's massive money bin to destroy it. Results so far, however, have been decidedly hit and miss. Still, the legal wrangling persists and no doubt the lawyers on both sides are already picking out new hypercars in anticipation of the next round.

Source: Motorola PR via Android Central

Kodak will be filing lawsuits against both Apple and HTC related to possible infringements on some of their digital imaging patents.

The claims from Kodak are that both smartphone manufacturers are infringing upon some of their digital imaging patents. While they already have an existing lawsuit directed at Apple, this one brings more devices to the table. HTC meanwhile are being targeted through their EVO View 4G, Flyer, Jetstream, Vivid, Amaze 4G, Desire, EVO Design 4G, Hero S, Rezound, Rhyme, Sensation 4G and the Wildfire S devices. That's a lot of Android. Notably missing from the list are any of HTC's Windows Phone devices.

Florian Mueller from FOSS Patents speculates this may be due to Kodak attempting to gain attention with their patent portfolio while they shop around for a potential buyer.

Source: AndroidCentral via mobileburn

According to Nilay Patel at The Verge, Apple has won an International Trade Commission (ITC) ban on some HTC devices. Not much else is known at this point, but if you're following the patent wars the way normal folks follow the soaps, then stay tuned. It's getting serious.

Update: Android Central scored a statement from HTC:

We are gratified that the Commission affirmed the judge’s initial determination on the ‘721 and ‘983 patents, and reversed its decision on the ‘263 patent and partially on the ‘647 patent. We are very pleased with the determination and we respect it. However, the ‘647 patent is a small UI experience and HTC will completely remove it from all of our phones soon.

And Jerry Hildenbrand capped it off perfectly:

While fans on one side will cheer, and fans on the other side will call foul, we all will lose. Justice really is blind, and when it comes to technology and innovation, it also seems pretty damn stupid.

Source: The Verge, Android Central

Apple is once again taking exception to the counter-charges HTC is filing in their ongoing legal dispute.

• Apple denies that its correct name is Apple, Inc. The correct name of Respondent is Apple Inc.

Things are either getting snarkily passive-aggressive, or passive-aggressively snarky:

Denny Crane!

Source: FOSS Patents

The US Patent and Trademark office just published fourteen new patents recently awarded to Apple. Among them are design patents for the MacBook Air, iPhone 3G, Apple remote, their battery charger design, and many more.

Considering Apple recently sued Samsung for copying the iPhone and iOS look and feel, these patents could end up with many other manufacturers in court. Lots of notebooks have recently mimicked the design of the MacBook Air or other variations of the MacBook line. None of the patents seem too design specific. If Apple has the ability to sue based on the overall appearance and design, I definitely think we'll see more lawsuits springing up sooner rather than later.

Patently Apple

Lodsys, the troll previously suing independent iOS and Android developers for infringing on a fax-machine era patent they claim covers in-app transactions such as upgrades and upsells, has now modified the suit to go after Angry Birds developer Rovio, SIMS developer Electronic Arts, Atari, Final Fantasy maker Square Enix, and 2K sports developer Take-Two Interactive. That takes the number of developers involved in the suit from 7 to 11.

FOSSPatents points out that this might mean:

• Lodsys isn't afraid to go after "deep pocket" developers.
• Is content targeting Android as well as iOS
• Isn't intimidated in the least by Apple legal
• Due to their existing licenses, Apple and Google might be precluded from trying to invalidate Lodsys' patents as a means of interceding.

Apple is still trying to intervene based on patent exhaustion, though that may or may not prove successful. Some developers, meanwhile, have removed their apps from the US App Store to avoid any potential suits.

For more, listen to our special edition iPhone Live 160: World War Patents.

[FOSS Patents]

An administrative judge at the International Trade Commission (ITC) has issued an initial determination that HTC is infringing on 2 Apple patents, which -- in a worst case scenario -- could result in an import ban of iPhone-competing HTC Android smartphones. HTC's stock has taken a hit since the ruling, obviously, but it's important to remember it's an initial ruling and a lot can change between now and any final decision, including an agreement between HTC and Apple, similar to HTC's existing agreement with Microsoft.

Florian Mueller from FOSS Patents doesn't think that's likely, however.

For Apple this is not just about money. They're not going to let HTC build fully functional smartphones and tablets in exchange for $10 or $20 per device unless HTC owns patents that Apple absolutely needs to license.

It's a fallacy to assume that Apple v. HTC is just the usual patent dispute between two large players, and therefore going to have the same kind of happy end. This one is different. From a shareholder value point of view, what Apple needs to achieve -- even if it costs a lot of time and money -- is as much of a technological gap as possible between its own products and the Android-based products offered by HTC and other vendors.

In other words, as Florian discussed in our World War Patents podcast, while Microsoft seems to want to make Android more expensive (through licensing fees), Apple wants to make it less usable.

HTC meanwhile, could be fighting back using a company called S3 as a proxy. HTC's chairwoman is a major S3 shareholder, but S3 has to do what's best for S3 and that could end up being a licensing agreement with Apple that doesn't end up providing any cover for HTC.

I could imagine a situation in which Apple might agree on a partial cross-license that would grant Apple access to all of HTC's and S3's patents while HTC would get access to only some of Apple's patents: maybe just enough so that HTC can at least continue to sell Android-based products of some kind, but those products could be limited and there might be substantial degradations of the user experience.

Google, for their part, is continuing it's terrifying silence on all things patent related, including a remarkable non-answer by Larry Page during the latest financial results conference call. This probably means they're either playing their cards very close to their ninja vests, or they're just not concerned with how this might play out, including the unlikely possibility of HTC switching to Windows Phone exclusively, just to avoid any more patent-related headaches.

Check the link below for Florian's full rundown and his excellent "battlemap" visualization of the dispute.

[FOSSPatents]

As expected Lodsys was but the first highly publicized patent troll to try its hand at getting licensing fees from small, independent iOS developers, and as more come creeping out of the woodwork, some international devs are considering leaving the US App Store to avoid the costs and potential legal nightmares.

Simon Maddox on Twitter:

All my apps removed from US app stores (all platforms). 0.575% of total revenue put in a spare bank account. Screw you, Lodsys.

While leaving the US market now may not prevent claims of past infringement, it certainly shows the increasing frustration experienced by developers whose livelihoods are threatened by an increasingly incomprehensible and irreconcilable system. Basic concepts of patent law, like obviousness and prior art, seem not longer to be consider when patents are granted, only when they're litigated. Expensively.

Florian Mueller on FOSS Patents:

The patent troll problem gets worse by the day, and it's turning into a think-global-sue-local business. Today, an Indian company named Kootol distributed a press release announcing that it sent "a notice" to a long list of companies large and small, claiming that they sell products and operate services on which a patent application pending in different jurisdictions around the globe reads.

At what point will Apple (and Google, among others) have to step up and offer support, perhaps even indemnification for code included in their SDK, or bend their billions towards reasonable patent reform in the US, or face the decimation of the app ecosystems that are at the heart of their collective mobile profit centers?

[@simonmaddox via The Guardian, FOSS Patents]

There have been a few interesting developments lately in Apple's ongoing patent disputes with HTC and Samsung, and a switch up inside their own legal team. First, Reuters reports that Richard "Chip" Lutton Junior, the man who was responsible for managing Apple's patent portfolio, is no longer with the company. Now, BJ Watrous, former deputy council for HP, is lists himself as the new guardian of iPhone, iPad, and Mac IP.

Lutton's voicemail was still set up at Apple on Monday, but he will be leaving Apple soon, perhaps in the next month, said the source familiar with the situation. Watrous was deputy general counsel at Hewlett-Packard in charge of IP licensing. An HP spokesman declined to comment. Apple's intellectual property team has been on a hiring spree lately, snapping up litigation specialist Noreen Krall from Sun Microsystems.

Meanwhile Samsung, whom Apple has sued for being a "copyist", thinks just one lawyer leaving isn't enough and, according to FOSS Patents now wants Apple's external lawyers disqualified over purported conflicts of interest.

Samsung's motion is 20 pages long. The gist of it is that Samsung wants the recently-founded law firm of Bridges & Mavrakakis barred from the case because at least five of its lawyers -- including one of its founders, Kenneth Bridges -- previously represented Samsung while they were with another firm, Kirkland & Ellis. Samsung then goes on to argue that this fact "taints all attorneys at Bridges & Mavrakakis through imputation". But not enough: Samsung additionally demands that Apple's two other law firms involved with this federal lawsuit (Morrison & Foerster and Wilmer Hale) "provide affidavits confirming they have not received any Samsung confidential information from attorneys at Bridges & Mavrakakis" while those firms were coordinating Apple's representation so far or, absent such assurance, be disqualified as well.

Apple's outside counsel, of course, deny any such conflict.

Lastly, a couple more salvos have been fired in the ongoing Apple vs. HTC dispute, with Apple filing a asking the International Trade Commission (ITC) to ban imports of HTC devices... again. The devices targeted this time are the HTC Droid Incredible, Droid Incredible 2, Wildfire, T-Mobile mytouch 3G, T-Mobile myTouch 3G Slide, T-Mobile G1, T-Mobile G2, Evo 4G, Aria, Desire, Hero, Merge, Inspire 4G, Evo 4G, Thunderbolt, Thunderbolt 4G, and the HTC Flyer tablet. Apple's goal might be to get those new devices into litigation, and bring new patent infringement charges along with them. HTC was nonplussed.

"HTC is disappointed at Apple's constant attempts at litigations instead of competing fairly in the market," said HTC general counsel Grace Lei in a statement. "HTC strongly denies all infringement claims raised by Apple in the past and present and reiterates our determination and commitment to protect our intellectual property right."

For more on all of this, check out our special edition iPhone Live podcast from Saturday, World War Patents with guest Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents.

(And yes, I still think Judge Judy should be given juris-her-diction over all Apple and Android patent lawsuits. For our sake.)

[Reuters, FOSS Patents, AFP]

Apple has filed a motion to intervene in Lodsys' lawsuits against 7 iOS developers. These developers are reportedly under NDA as well, so it's unknown if Apple is also stepping in with legal and financial support for the individuals, but they are clearly taken the suit back to Lodsys:

Apple's proposed defense against Lodsys's claims is exclusively related to the assertion that the alleged infringements are covered by an existing license agreement in Apple's favor (which I'm pretty sure harks back to when Lodsys's patents belonged to Intellectual Ventures). That is consistent with Apple's recent letter to Lodsys. Apple does not raise any other affirmative defenses, such as claiming that the patents are invalid or that they don't read on the accused products. The sued app developers may still raise those defenses (and possibly even more). They will definitely do so if Apple provides them with the necessary funding, and others are already trying to have Lodsys's patents declared invalid (in other lawsuits). But for Apple's own proposed participation as an intervenor it makes sense to focus on the theory of exhaustion (meaning that Lodsys can't get paid twice for a licensed use of the patents in question). In connection with that particular defense theory, Apple has by far the strongest basis for asking to be admitted as an intervenor.

The court may or may not grant the motion, of course, and lots of questions remain about whether or not this strategy -- rather than something more encompassing like indemnification -- is better overall for developers now and in the future.

Also, one of the developers is on the line for an Android app as well, and it will be interesting to see what, if any, response Google has to the Lodsys suit as well.

For a complete overview, and lots more on the questions still surrounding the issue, hit the link below.

[FOSS Patents]

AT&T faces a new class action lawsuit claiming that AT&T is overstating and over-billing iPhone and iPad data charges. The class compares AT&T's billing system to a rigged gas pump that charges for a full gallon when, in fact, it only pumps nine-tenths of a gallon into your car's tank.

In the new complaint, named plaintiff Patrick Hendricks claims that AT&T's overbilling "was discovered by an independent consulting firm retained by plaintiff's counsel, which conducted a two-month study of AT&T's billion practices for data usage, and found that AT&T systematically overstate web server traffic by 7 percent to 14 percent, and in some instances by over 300 percent. So, for example, if an iPhone user downloads a 50 KB website, AT&T's bill would typically overstated the traffic as 53.5 KB (a 7 percent overcharge) to as high as 150 KB (a 300 percent overcharge)."

Additionally, the consulting firm discovered that AT&T also bills for phantom data traffic. They set up a test account, disabled push notifications and location services, had no email accounts configured, closed all apps, and didn't touch the iPhone for 10 days. During that time, AT&T billed the account for 2,292 KB of data usage.

This is like the rigged gas pump charging you when you never even pulled your car into the station.

If the over-billing is true, then this could have a significant impact on AT&T's bottom line. Granted, there are a lot of people this would never affect; however, those who barely exceed their allotted data cap must pay twice as much for data that month.

Have any of you used more data than what your plan includes and been billed extra? Do you suspect that AT&T overstated your usage and overcharged you?

[Courthouse News Service]

Nokia, massive if alien-to-North America, sued Apple for WiFi/GSM/HSPA patent violation, at which point Apple spun around and counter-sued for iPhone patent violation, and now Nokia has yelled the legal equivalent of "fire everything!"

According to PC World:

Nokia fired the latest salvo in its ongoing patent dispute with Apple, saying Tuesday that it has filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission charging that Apple infringes its patents "in virtually all of its mobile phones, portable music players and computers."

The complaint involves seven patents that Nokia says Apple is using to "create key features" in products related to the user interface and camera, antenna and power management technologies. Nokia wants the ITC to investigate its claims.

So, if we can piece the story together as we've heard it rumored, Nokia is supposed to license it's pooled patents to Apple under the same equitable and reasonable terms as everyone else, but decided they wanted Apple to counter-license their iPhone patents to Nokia. Apple declined, Nokia sued, Apple counter-sued, and now Nokia is seeing them and raising the stakes -- to the very roof.

Nokia is huge, Apple has billions, this could drag on for years and years. We're guessing the execs don't care and neither do the lawyers.

[Thanks Icebike for the tip!]

The Woolworths department store chain in Australia is being taken to court by Apple due to their new logo... looking too much like Apple's. Apple is required by law to defend their trademarks, lest they lose them, and they're concerned Woolworth may sell computers (or smartphones?) under the new, Apple-esque logo.

If the stylized W in Woolworths' logo didn't have that little leaf on top, we'd think Apple was a little over-litigious. As it is, we're not sure why the W needs a leaf, or if it looks more like an Apple than the "Great Pumpkin" from Charlie Brown (maybe Peanuts can sue as well?)

Take a look at the comparisons above and let us know how close you think the logos are.

[via AppleInsider]

Apple Insider says:

A new lawsuit from a Beverly Hills, Calif., man alleges that Apple conspired with the Italian mafia to secretly track him, transmit threatening messages to his iPod, and insert the word "herpes" into the song "Still Tippin'" by Mike Jones.

We say: forgetaboutit.

Seriously, though, get the man some help, not a lawyer.

Sigh.

Fortune scoop'let'ed the story: the Palm Pre syncs with iTunes. No, not like a dumb USB disk. Not even like a 3rd party-enabled BlackBerry on the PC. Somehow, when Jon Rubinstein joined Palm, someone at Apple forgot to frisk him for iTunes keys.

Our friends over at PreCentral.net, of course, are all over this:

If the Pre does indeed just show up as a standard device on iTunes, it would be big news -- but it wouldn't be unprecedented.  Apple has allowed other OEMs to license the necessary APIs to talk directly to iTunes so they can show up as a device.  If you take a gander at the list of compatible players on Apple's support site, you'll see that Rio players, Nomad Players, and others will all work with iTunes directly (not to mention various Motorola phones).

Still, the level of integration purportedly available to the Pre makes us feel more than a little violated. Did Apple really license them that deep a hook into the system? Given the existence of one Steven P. Jobs, we somehow doubt that. But if not, which 3rd party hook did Palm embed, is it all nice and legal, and how -- if at all -- will Apple react?

We know! At WWDC Phil Schiller will announce -- iPhone compatibility with Palm Desktop!!

Ahem

We typically don't follow every little Apple or AT&T lawsuit that closely because, frankly, there are too many of them and the frivolity of some just harshens our collective mellow. Case in point, according to Apple Insider:

Apple, AT&T and several others have been named in a new patent infringement lawsuit, presumably for their connection to Shazam, a maker of music identification software distributed under the same name for the iPhone and several other mobile devices.

The suit was brought by Tune Hunter, Inc. Assuming their case has merit, why sue Apple and AT&T instead of focusing on the actual Shazam app in question? Tune Hunter claims it's because the iPhone duo are contributing to the infringement. For our part, we couldn't help but notice Apple especially is contributing towards having tons of money.

They're also suing Samsung, Napster, Motorola, Gracenote, LG Electronics, Pantech Wireless, and Verizon.

Apple Insider reports that the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) is helping OdioWorks LLC file suit in an attempt to get Apple to stop threatening to sue them. Complicated much?

OdioWorks, which runs the free and open wiki service BluWiki, wants to bar Apple from repeatedly threatening its own legal action simply for letting BluWiki users host a wiki for iTunesDB, a project to learn about iTunes' database file system and create third-party software that can replicate the sync functionality of iTunes for iPhones and iPods without forcing users to run Apple's own media software. Over the course of several months, Apple has claimed the very existence of iTunesDB violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)'s rules on circumventing copyright locks and, in November, successfully frightened OdioWorks into taking down the wiki entries.

EFF says it's legal to hack code to increase competition -- i.e. to allow an iPhone to work outside of iTunes. Is it also legal to hack bank accounts and transfer large sums of money so my net worth is more competitive with Bill Gates?

Not the same thing, of course, just pointing out that while I'd personally love Apple to open-source more of their code, the way they've done with OpenCL, CardDAV, CalDAV, etc. it's still their code. As much as I don't want to live in a corporate-controlled world where big business owns the rights to math, I also don't want to live in a world where the over-entitled populace thinks they can take whatever they want. Because, if either side gets too extreme, what's to stop them from targeting me next?

Other than the fact that I've never made or hacked any code worth stealing or knowing...

We all know Steve Jobs sculpted the iPhone from unicorn tears through a sheer act of singular will and hutzpah -- along with buying FingerWorks and winning a glove-full of multi-touch patents of their own along the way (which may or may not still result in several rounds of pugilism with Palm's Pre).

But who knew they might not have done enough? Elan Microelectronics of Taiwan, that's who. Elan claims the iPhone, iPod touch, and Macbooks -- basically everything featuring multi-touch functionality -- is in violation of their patents, and they've filed suit in Apple's home turf of San Francisco to prove it. (No word yet of litigation friendly Texas will sue over not being the venue of choice...)

A previous lawsuit from Elan against a company called Synaptics, who counter-sued resulted in a dismissal and cross-licensing agreement. This time? We're calling Apple wins by (frenzied) tap-out due to guillotine choke near the end of the second round.

Anyone got the popcorn, hot dogs, and spicy drink?

[NY Times via iLounge]

For the love of Steve Jobs, leave Britney ehh... I mean the iPhone alone!

Back at the end of July, Casey reported on white iPhones having issues with the plastic housing cracking in certain areas. As most of you are probably aware of, there have been a few lawsuits filed against Apple regarding the iPhone 3G.

This go around a New York man, Avi Koschitzki, filed a 23 page lawsuit stating the iPhone is not "twice as fast" as the original and exhibits cracks in the housing of the phone.

Koschitzki is among several customers who've noticed hairline cracks form in the iPhone 3G's casing at or around the camera module, and adds that some customers have noticed similar cracks immediately upon opening their new iPhones' boxes for the first time.

Upon opening their new boxes for the first time? Gee... don't you think if you bought a new iPhone 3G and you opened up that box only to see some cracks in the housing that you would say hey, wait a minute! Common sense if you ask me.

There is a ongoing thread in our forums regarding cracks in the iPhone 3G casing. Sorry but I still think people need to take better care of their iPhones. And I'm sure for some people it is a legitimate issue, but more than likely, most of the cases are cracking from abuse.

[Via Appleinsider]