MacBlogz - One Stop Apple News » Legal

Palm Claims to Have “No Issues with Apple” Over Patents

Aviv — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:57:50 +0000

Apple and Palm have been publicly shying away from addressing what may be a large legal tussle surrounding multi-touch patents. Previous comments from Apple have provoked the notion of aggression, while the latest comments from executives at Palm sidestep around the possibility of patent lawsuits.

At the Thomas Weisel Technology & Telecom Conference, Palm chief Ed Colligan explained that they have “no issues with Apple” surrounding multi-touch patents and the seemingly conflicting technology between them. As electronista notes, Colligan continued to explain that Palm has around 1,500 patents he feels confident about, and that Palm in general is very respective of other company’s intellectual property.

Still, the notion that Apple would allow Palm to blow the doors open on multi-touch is a bit strange. Apple COO Tim Cook has explicitly stated Apple’s stance on protecting its patents. “We approach this business as a software platform business. We are watching the landscape. We like competition as long as they don’t rip off our IP (Intellectual Propert). And if they do, we will go after anyone who does.” Although Cook made it clear these “threats” weren’t directed at Palm, one can’t help but wonder. “I don’t want to talk about any specific company. We are ready to suit up and go against anyone. However, we will not stand for having our IP ripped off.”

A well-sourced story over at VentureBeat explains why T-Mobile’s G1 with Google, which runs Android, does not incorporate the use of multi-touch. In a nutshell, Apple strong-armed Google and Google felt too much would be at risk given the two company’s deep and fruitful relationship.

Interestingly, Apple was recently awarded a potentially crucial patent application revolving around multi-touch technology. While it has been referred to as “the iPhone patent” in the past, reports explain that if Apple and Palm indeed went to court, the battle would call upon the oldest patents available referring to the way these devices function.

Either way the situation plays out, legal battles such as these hinder innovation and generally give consumers less of a choice in the marketplace. For the benefit of the mobile market, we hope Apple and Palm can resolve their differences and innovate against each other through technology, not the talent of their legal teams.

New German Mac Cloner Emerges As Psystar Battle Continues

Aviv — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:01:25 +0000

A new company calling themselves PearC has been spotted selling a new line of PC’s with Apple’s Mac OS X operating system pre-installed. This comes fresh on the heels of an ongoing legal dispute between Apple and currently the biggest Mac cloner around, Psystar.

Psystar’s legal standing is by no means clear cut. The last we heard, Apple was awarded the right to dismiss Pystar’s counterclaims, which were based around anti-trust violations. However, now it seems that Psystar will in fact be allowed to make its next legal move while at the same time attempting to slam Apple with misusing copyrights and creating an unfair and unbalanced marketplace. Apple has in fact responded to such claims in the past, all but negating Psystar’s arguments.

In response to Psystar’s argument, Apple’s argument made clear of the fact that a “market comprised of a single brand of a product is neither legally nor factually plausible.” Judge William Alsup agreed, “Whether products are part of the same or different markets under antitrust law depends on whether consumers view those products as reasonable substitutes for each other and would switch among them in response to changes in relative prices,” he wrote. “The counterclaim itself explains that Mac OS performs the same functions as other operating systems,” he wrote. “The counterclaim admits that market studies indicate that, although Apple computers with Mac OS enjoy strong brand recognition and loyalty, they are not wholly lacking in competition.” — “Psystar also points to Apple’s extensive advertising campaigns,” he continued.

Even though Judge Alsup sides with Apple in their ability to file for dismissal. He disagrees with Apple’s claims that “copyright misuse” cannot be used as a counterclaim. Apple is saying that copyright misuse can only be used in defense. In the new court filing Alsup wrote, “This order is unconvinced, however, that misuse may never be asserted as a counterclaim for declaratory relief…” — “PsyStar may well have a legitimate interest in establishing misuse independent of Apple’s claim against it, for example, to clarify the risks it confronts by marketing the products at issue in this case or others it may wish to develop.”

While the internal logistics of Psystar’s claims remain a mystery, Judge Alsup has asked both companies to be prepared for a trial, which set to begin on November 9th. Psystar continues to sell its products unaffected by the potential legal repercussion.

Perhaps even more interesting is the emergence of another new Mac cloner going by the name of PearC (did they have to pick another type of fruit?). As ArsTechnica points out, there seems to be a bit of cloudiness around the EULA (End User License Agreement) in Germany.

Since the EULA is inside the box and users can’t see it, the argument will be that the parts about not installing OS X on non-Apple hardware are void. Even if that’s true, though, the legality would likely only apply to Germany, so everyone else would be out of luck.

Apple will most likely not take on each one of these Mac cloners that popup. However, keeping Mac OS X proprietary and making sure that others are not able to install and sell the system is extremely critical for Apple. As Psystar seems to be the biggest cloner around at the moment, Apple has entered a legal tango with them. The results of this lawsuit will most likely cast a shadow on what to expect from other Mac cloners out there.

Apple Sues German Website Over ‘Misuse’ of iPhone Imagery

Aviv — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 01:42:02 +0000

Apple has sent a cease and desist letter to a German website that sells iPhone 3G’s independent of a Simlock or T-Mobile contract, as well as a $2,271 bill for legal costs surrounding the misuse of Apple’s own iPhone imagery.

3Gstore.de is an online store based out of Germany that sells iPhone 3G’s. By importing these iPhones from surrounding countries, where they are sold unlocked, 3Gstore.de is not breaking the rules. Because they are legally allowed to sell the device, they assumed it was alright for them to use official photos provided by Apple, of the iPhone 3G.

However, as one blogger by the name of Randolf Jorber points out, this was not the case. Apple, without any preemptive warning sent a Cease and Desist letter to German site 3Gstore.de demanding they remove all iPhone 3G imagery and pay the $2,271 bill attached to the letter.

When a German magazine Macnotes.de asked Apple about whether other stores and publications can use the official iPhone images, Apple remained tight-lipped and pointed the magazine to its Image Use Agreement.

In response to the legal demands thrown at them, 3Gstore.de hired a photographer/artist that goes by the name Lukas Palik to create their own sets of iPhone images. The end result is two sets of incredibly professional looking iPhone images that are being licensed under the generous Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. This allows for the images to be edited and shared for anything including commercial usage.

You can find the original resolution photos done by Lukas Palik here and on flickr.

Mark Papermaster Case Settled, Begins Work at Apple on April 24th

Aviv — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:02:34 +0000

An ongoing legal battle between Apple and IBM over a poached expert chip designer named Mark Papermaster has finally been put to rest.

In a press release, printed verbatim below, Apple announced the arrival of Papermaster, who begins work on April 24th, 2009.

Mark Papermaster to Begin at Apple as Senior Vice President of Devices Hardware Engineering on April 24

CUPERTINO, California—January 27, 2009—Apple® today announced that Mark Papermaster will be coming to Apple as senior vice president of Devices Hardware Engineering, reporting to Apple CEO Steve Jobs, on April 24. Papermaster, who comes to Apple from IBM, will lead Apple’s iPod® and iPhone™ hardware engineering teams. The litigation between IBM and Mark Papermaster has been resolved.

Papermaster has 25 years of product and technology experience, and was previously a vice president at IBM. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Texas, and a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering from the University of Vermont in 1988. Papermaster is active with the University of Texas where he is a member of the Electrical and Computer Engineering Advisory Council.

Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Today, Apple continues to lead the industry in innovation with its award-winning computers, OS X operating system and iLife and professional applications. Apple is also spearheading the digital media revolution with its iPod portable music and video players and iTunes online store, and has entered the mobile phone market with its revolutionary iPhone.

IBM has also issues a statement (via Cnet):

IBM and Mr. Papermaster have now agreed on a resolution of the lawsuit under which Mr. Papermaster may not begin employment with Apple until April 24, 2009, six months after leaving IBM, and will remain subject thereafter to all of his contractual and other legal duties to IBM, including the obligation not to use or disclose IBM’s confidential information.

Following commencement of his employment with Apple, Mr. Papermaster will be required to certify, in July 2009 and again in October 2009, that he has complied with his legal obligations not to use or disclose IBM’s confidential or proprietary information.

The preliminary injunction will be replaced by a court order (PDF) under which the court will have continuing jurisdiction over this matter, including compliance enforcement powers, until October 24, 2009, one year after Mr. Papermaster’s departure from IBM.

Get caught up on the Mark Papermaster Saga below:

READ → – Papermaster Ordered to Stop Working, Claims He Did Nothing Wrong
READ → – Mark Papermaster’s Bio Removed From Apple’s Website
READ → – Judge Orders IBM to Pay $3 Million Papermaster Bond
READ → – Senior VP of Enterprise Sales Leaving Apple, No Replacement
READ → – Apple and IBM Set to Clash Over Executive Poaching
READ → – Apple Poaches Top IBM Chip Designer, IBM Sues Back
READ → – Tony Fadell, Senior VP of iPod Division, Leaves Apple

Apple Awarded iPhone and Multi-Touch Device Patent

Aviv — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:08:22 +0000

Fresh on the heels of what would seem to be an innovation war between Apple and Palm, the United States Patent Office has awarded Apple the patent on the multi-touch and touch-screen input methods in question.

The massive patent is titled Touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics, and can be found here. Of note, some of the applications within this patent date back to September 2006, before the original iPhone was even announced.

The patent reads: A computer-implemented method for use in conjunction with a computing device with a touch screen display comprises: detecting one or more finger contacts with the touch screen display, applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device, and processing the command. The one or more heuristics comprise: a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command, a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a two-dimensional screen translation command, and a heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a command to transition from displaying a respective item in a set of items to displaying a next item in the set of items.

Interestingly, as of late Apple and Palm have made statements that seem directed towards the other company. Apple COO Tim Cook said that Apple would vigorously defend its multi-touch patents, and Palm snapped back explaining that they would defend their proprietary technology as well.

“We approach this business as a software platform business. We are watching the landscape. We like competition as long as they don’t rip off our IP. And if they do, we will go after anyone who does,” Cook has explained. “I don’t want to talk about any specific company. We are ready to suit up and go against anyone. However, we will not stand for having our IP ripped off.” This of course has led many to believe that we may see a mammoth lawsuit filed over the use of multi-touch input methods. Which in turn may negatively affect competitive innovation, which is never good for the industry.

As MacRumors and WorldofApple both note, Apple CEO is Steve Jobs is listed as the primary inventor along with Scott Forstall and a slew of Apple engineers.

Apple Settles for $22 Million in Longtime iPod Nano Lawsuit

Aviv — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:46:14 +0000

Apple has agreed to settle a lawsuit in which customers were claiming that the company’s iPod nano “scratched too easily.” The lawsuit, which has been brewing for nearly four years has finally come to an end with iPod owners being given $25 for their scratched iPods.

Apple iPod nano owners were able to apply for to receive the $25 check from Apple, but those pushing the case from the top (legal teams), are raking in nearly $4 million according to CNBC’s Jim Goldman.

Dating back to October 2005, the case has been around for some time now. The lead plaintiff was Jason Tomczak, after he complained on several Apple websites that his nano was easily scratching and had become unreadable. “He said then that he was contacted by attorneys at Meyer and Associates who had also received similar complaints. That firm joined forces with Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, who contacted Tomczak to try to sign him as a client as part of this case,” CNBC explains.

Tomczak claimed he was the target of numerous online attacks for his lead role in what some perceived as a “frivolous” suit, and he reportedly tried to have his name removed from the action. Instead, the original law firms filed actions against Tomczak to keep his name attached to the suit, forcing Tomczak to retain his own attorney to fight the original lawyers.

In a note sent out to owners involved in the lawsuit this week, Apple explained, “Apple has agreed to provide a cash settlement fund of $22.5 million,” and for those consumers who did not receive a “slip case from Apple when you purchased your iPod nano, you may be entitled to a cash payment of $25. If you received a slip case, you may be entitled to a cash payment of $15.”

A judge still needs to pass the settlement through and sign off on it, and a hearing has been set for Aple 28. Tomczak did not reply for comment this morning, however Apple did confirm the settlement.

Another Fake Steve Jobs Heart Attack Rumor Published Online

Aviv — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:24:02 +0000

Wired.com’s open image viewer had been used today in another disgraceful attempt to spread false rumors about Apple CEO Steve Jobs going into cardiac arrest.

Apparently, even amidst all of the incredibly heated reports regarding Jobs’ health, some people thought it would be amusing to post more fake rumors about the CEO going into cardiac arrest. As you can see from the screenshot below, Wired’s image viewer allows pretty much anybody to post anything online.

As we learned with iReport the first time a fake Steve Jobs heart attack story was published, user generated content (when not even slightly moderated) can lead to manipulated and unethical results. Not to mention potential lawsuits and investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Image via Gizmodo of Wired’s “Image Viewer”

Reports regarding Steve Jobs’ health have been incredibly heated over the last few weeks. First Apple announced they were pulling out of Macworld, then there was this letter directly from Jobs, then this letter from Jobs. In a nutshell, this has left Apple and Steve Jobs entangled in endless speculation. Every analyst around has weighed in with their own “analysis” regarding the situation, most notably Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak.

All of the ongoing reports, letters and seemingly smudged information has adversely sprung the SEC into action, probing Apple about “who knew what, and when they knew it” about Jobs’ health conditions.

The bottom line? LeaveSteveJobsAlone.com should sum it up pretty nicely.

Tim Cook’s Aggressive Stance Towards Suing Patent Violaters (Palm?)

Aviv — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:29:08 +0000

In Apple’s Q1 financial results earnings call, COO Tim Cook made some particularly aggressive statements pertaining to competitors violating patents Apple holds. When looking at the marketplace, Palm should most likely be prepared to defend the newly announced Palm Pre.

After reiterating Apple’s stance on the netbook category, COO Tim Cook shifted positions to talk about iPhone competitors and how Apple will react to those seemingly “ripping off” Apple’s IP. As TechCrunch notes, some of Cook’s comments sound particularly aggressive.

We approach this business as a software platform business. We are watching the landscape. We like competition as long as they don’t rip off our IP. And if they do, we will go after anyone who does.

This definitely seems directed squarely at Palm. Seeing as how former Apple engineer Jon Rubinstein is spearheading the Pre project over at Palm, there definitely seems to be conflicting issues here. We’ve already stated that Apple should take notice of the Pre, as we’re sure they have. But a heavyweight lawsuit between Apple and Palm over the use of multi-touch technology could be substantial.

Even though the messages seem to be directed at Palm, when asked about a specific company, Cook didn’t name names, which is to be expected. However, Google’s Android phone is developed with a completely open source platform, and with respect to the device, multi-touch technology is in question here, which the G1 lacks.

I don’t want to talk about any specific company. We are ready to suit up and go against anyone. However, we will not stand for having our IP ripped off.

On one hand, suing Palm and wrestling control away from competition would favor Apple, but in turn it may hinder global innovation. We were rather surprised and relieved to see the Pre, even though we knew deep down a lawsuit may brew. But the give and go with this level of innovation between two companies like Apple and Palm would only make for better results for the end users and consumers.

Instead of lawsuits, we’d like to see this settled with the separation of proprietary technology. But for that to happen, Palm needs to reveal how its multi-touch interface and operating system function. If that technology impedes on Apple’s patents, Palm might need a plan B.

Apple Sends Wired a Cease-and-Desist Letter for Netbook Video [U]

Dave — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:34:29 +0000

Apple’s legal hounds have sent Wired’s Gadget Lab and Brian Chen a cease-and-desist letter demanding they remove a detailed video explaining how to hack Mac OS X onto a netbook PC.

Chen has disclosed via Twitter that a past video tutorial on how to install Mac OS X onto a netbook, has gotten Wired into legal trouble as they are now being sued by Apple.

Gizmodo still has a copy of the video posted online.

The video tutorial in question gives an in depth play-by-play of how to install Mac OS X on a netbook, even discussing where to obtain copies of the software from a popular torrent site, The Pirate Bay, essentially being a Hackintosh for Dummies.

Gizmodo points out that it is more probable that Apple will be issuing Wired a cease-and-desist as opposed to actually bringing about financial sanctions. While the video explicitly breaks Apple’s EULA, Chen did offer this Disclaimer: “The following process potentially violates Apple’s End User License Agreement for Mac OS X. Please ensure you own a copy of Mac OS X Leopard if you wish to follow the procedure.” – if only he knew he needed more.

Update: Apparently we should disregard the following information as Brian Chen has released an additional tweet citing the whole situation to be one big misunderstanding. Apple is not suing Wired over the video tutorial.

Apple, Google and Microsoft Sued Over File Preview

Christina — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 01:09:22 +0000

Technology giants Apple, Google and Microsoft are all being sued over “file preview” functionality both in web browsers, and operating systems, that allows users to preview files before actually opening them.

Cygnus Systems is suing the three companies saying that they infringed on its patent (#7346850) which was filed back in 2001, but only granted to them in March of this year.

As PCWorld explains, Cygnus Systems claims that products such as Windows Vista, Internet Explorer 8, Google Chrome, Mac OS X, the Finder, iPhone and Safari all infringe on its patent. Quite a massive claim, clumping such a ubiquitous technology between all three companies shouldn’t hold over well in court.

It seems as though Cygnus Systems is just another company trying to exploit the legal system. A few quotes from the law firm representing them even further that argument. Matt McAndrews, a partner with Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro, says the following: “They were a logical starting place for us…We’ve identified many other potentially infringing products that we’re investigating.” Sounds just like any other company hoping to cling on to legal loopholes, in the hopes of falling backwards into money. McAndrews continues to explain that Cyngus’ owner and president Gregory Swartz developed the “file previewing” technology while working on IT consulting projects. If the case gets into patents regarding the development of User Interface elements, Cyngus may as well cut their losses. Battling these tech juggernauts over “file preview” would not make any waves at all, let a lone a splash.

Cyngus Systems is looking for “a reasonable royalty” in addition to a court injunction preventing further infringement.