Crave

The cracked Kindle 2 that's at the center of the lawsuit.

Here's quick update to the story we posted the other day on a couple filing a class-action lawsuit over a potential design flaw in Amazon's Kindle 2 involving the company's cover and cracks developing around the clasps where the cover attaches to the device.

Amazon has decided that it will now replace Kindles that have been cracked by the cover free of charge, reversing its earlier stance that the Kindle 2's warranty didn't cover such cracks and required a $200 fee to repair. As expected, Amazon wouldn't comment on the lawsuit itself, which will apparently continue for the time being.

The couple's lawyer, Beth Terrell, told the Seattle Times that the lawsuit would proceed: "If they [Amazon] would like to resolve the matter, I think the way to do it is through a court-approved process."

We'll see how the settlement plays out, but I think the plaintiff is looking at free Kindles for life and lot of free e-books.

Comments?

(Via Engadget via Information Week)

The cracked Kindle 2 that's at the center of the lawsuit.

Amazon prides itself on customer service, but it now finds itself the target of a $5 million class action lawsuit because it failed to replace a Kindle 2 that a customer alleges was damaged by Amazon's own $30 protective case.

Matthew Geise, executive director of a Seattle property management firm, and his wife, Alisa Brodkowitz, are behind the suit (the $5 million sought represents damages for all Kindle owners who are affected by the problem, as well as legal costs).

The story goes like this. Brodkowitz's Kindle 2, which she received as a gift from her husband, developed cracks around around the points "where the cover attaches with metal clips," Geise told Seattle Times reporter Brier Dudley. On July 6, the screen froze and the device stopped working.

In user reviews of the e-reader, other Kindle owners have complained about cracks in the area around the clasps, so the issue is apparently not isolated.

Brodkowitz spoke with a customer rep, who said the screen freeze was covered under the Kindle 2's warranty, but not the cracks, which the rep allegedly said "were caused by improperly opening the cover backwards." A $200 repair fee was required to fix the maimed Kindle.

Instead of paying, Geise and his wife decided to file a class action lawsuit. According to the suit, what seems to have ticked the couple off was an Amazon customer service supervisor telling Brodkowitz that the cracks are a "common problem," but that the $200 repair fee still had to be paid. Brodkowitz says she never did any backward bending of the cover.

Here at CNET, we didn't have any issues with the cover causing damage to our initial review sample, but we only had it for three weeks. ... Read more

Our good buddy Russ Frushtick of MTV Multiplayer (formerly of UGO) comes onto the show today to talk shop and give us the inside scoop on Project Natal, "Ghostbusters," and the Nintendo Wii Motion Plus.

Russ of MTV Multiplayer

(Credit: CNET/Dan Ackerman)

We're always stoked when Russ Frushtick drops into the studio because he always brings us the best news, and today is no different. Russ recently accepted an offer to work at MTV Multiplayer as the only guy covering video games! Now that he's the head honcho, we feel extra special that he's willing to talk with us about E3. Granted, E3 was awhile ago, but Russ gives us his take on Project Natal and how he thinks it will effect the industry as a whole. Believe it or not, I'm actually kind of psyched to play the handball game despite how weird I'll probably looking flailing my arms around like a maniac in that 3-foot square. Russ also talks about the Milo demo, where you apparently have to establish a relationship and "connect" with a young boy in order to win the game? Maybe they should've called it "Project Wilson Tang."

After the break, we jump right back into more video game talk. We chat about the a game called Scribblenauts for the Nintendo DS. From how Russ described it, it sounds pretty cool: you just wander around and when you encounter a problem, all you have to do is write in what you'd need to get out of it and the object appears onscreen. And the game has 10,000 words you can write in! Listen in for more details about Prototype and a hilarious rant about the Wii MotionPlus.

EPISODE 367

Since the launch of the Wii, Nintendo has been the subject of no fewer than 15 patent-related lawsuits. While many of those suits are still winding their way through the courts, Nintendo on Thursday issued a statement touting victory over Guardian Media Technologies in one of the more recent patent suits.

U.S. District Court Judge Manuel Real in Los Angeles struck down allegations that the Wii could play DVD movies.

"We are very pleased with the court's decision," Rick Flamm, Nintendo of America's senior vice president of legal, said in a statement. "Nintendo vigorously defends patent lawsuits. At the earliest stages of this case, Nintendo convinced the court to dismiss this case as Guardian's patent had nothing to do with Nintendo's products."

Flamm is correct about the suit having nothing to do with Nintendo's products. The Wii maker was one of dozens of defendants in the suit, which alleged violations of Guardian's patent for parental-control technology in TV programs and DVD video playback. While the Wii does include parental control functions, it does not feature DVD video playback. Nintendo's early dismissal from the case comes a scant six months after the suit was first filed.

Earlier this year, a federal judge in Texas dismissed a patent suit against Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft. That suit was brought by Fenner Investments and centered on a patent the firm holds for a "low-voltage joystick port interface." It was originally filed in January 2007.

In still another patent case, a judge in 2008 failed to overturn a verdict ordering Nintendo to pay $21 million to Anascape, a Texas company that holds a patent on motion-sensitive controllers.

Brendan Sinclair reported for GameSpot.

There's some speculation that the Kindle for iPhone app may have sparked the lawsuit.

(Credit: CNET)

Earlier this month Apple got hit with a lawsuit over an "exploding" iPod Touch. Now it appears to be getting hit with a suit over the exploding e-book market.

A couple of blogs, including Apple Insider, are reporting that a Swiss communications firm, Monec Holding, has filed suit in a Virginia district court. Monec accuses the iPhone maker of "patent infringement, unfair trade practices, monopolization, and tortious interference for allegedly treading on its January 2002 patent No. 6,335,678 titled 'Electronic device, preferably an electronic book.'"

We've never heard of Monec, but the mission statement on its rather austere Web site claims it's "a leading innovator for mobile, globally usable communication solutions...with user-friendly products and pioneering solutions, Monec provides companies and users with secure, wireless access solutions which offer highest degree of flexibility, functionality, speed and independence."

Apparently, last year Monec also sued HP for patent infringement.

Apple Insider says Monec's beef centers on "Apple's move to distribute digital book reading applications through the App Store, which it subsequently sees as an endorsement by the Cupertino-based company that its touch-screen handset can serve as a capable eBook reader."

According to Monec, that violates a patent it filed for a "lightweight" electronic device with a "touch-screen" LCD display having the "dimensions such that (...) approximately one page of a book can be illustrated at normal size, this display being integrated in a flat, frame-like housing."

It's unclear what exactly set off the lawsuit but there's some speculation that it may have been prompted by Amazon's Kindle for iPhone e-book reader software appearing in Apple's App Store--even though Apple has had other e-book reader applications in the App Store for a while.

Apple had no comment about the lawsuit. How about you?

A 15-year-old iPod Touch user did not have all that much fun with his new iPod.

(Credit: James Martin/CNET)

Apple has been sued by the mother of a 15-year-old boy who said his 16GB iPod Touch exploded in his pants pocket, burning his leg.

Ars Technica spotted the case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Apparently one day in class the boy "heard a loud pop and immediately felt a burning sensation in his leg," according to a copy of the complaint. (Click here for a PDF copy.)

According to the complaint, the boy "realized his Apple iTouch (sic) had exploded and caught on fire in his pocket. ....Plaintiff A. V. immediately ran to the bathroom and took off his burning pants with the assistance of a friend. The Apple iTouch had burned through Plaintiff A. V.'s pants pocket and melted through his Nylon/Spandex underwear, burning his leg."

The plaintiff suffered second-degree burns as a result of the explosion, according to the complaint, and is seeking in excess of $225,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. An Apple representative said the company does not comment on pending litigation.

Mobile device explosions causing injuries are unfortunately an old story, but in many cases those explosions can be traced to faulty mobile phone batteries that are often cheap knock-offs added by the user. The battery on the iPod Touch, however, is not replaceable by the user.

There are an awful lot of facts that must come to the surface before we know exactly what happened with this particular iPod Touch, but the case bears watching.

A California court has tossed out Gibson Guitar's patent infringement lawsuit against Guitar Hero maker Activision, saying Gibson's arguments "border on the frivolous."

The iconic guitar manufacturer filed suit in March 2008, charging that Guitar Hero's mock guitars infringed on a 1999 patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,990,405 (PDF).

(Credit: Activision)

That patent, also known as "The '405 Patent," covers "a system and method for generating and controlling a simulated musical concert experience." Specifically, it details a head-mounted display that includes stereo speakers and is worn while playing an instrument along with a simulated concert.

Earlier that same month, in a series of legal volleys preceding the suit, Gibson filed for declaratory relief--asking for compensation, in other words. But Activision decided it didn't need a license under Gibson's patent and said so in a legal countermeasure. Then came Gibson's suit.

In last week's ruling (PDF), a U.S. District Court basically decided that Gibson's patent only applies to devices that output an analog signal. "As a general observation, no reasonable person of ordinary skill in the relevant arts would interpret the '405 Patent as covering interactive video games," the ruling stated.

The court added that Gibson's interpretation of its patent could be extended to cover things from a "button of a DVD remote...to a pencil tapping a table."

But Activision isn't Gibson's only target. It sued major retailers--including Amazon, Target, Wal-Mart, and K-Mart--that sell games like Guitar Hero and Rock Band. Plus, it added MTV, Harmonix, and Electronic Arts to its list of plaintiffs. MTV, which acquired Guitar Hero developer Harmonix in 2006, uses EA as the distributor for Rock Band and is likely turning up the celebratory tunes following the Activision ruling.

I woke up this morning to a special deal from Amazon.com on a TomTom GPS device. While its one-day, 33 percent discount almost certainly has nothing to do with Microsoft's announcement that it is suing TomTom for eight counts of patent infringement, the appearance of Amazon trying to clear its inventory of the TomTom One-S couldn't have better comic timing:

I don't want to prey upon TomTom's misfortunes, however. I'm going to be waiting for the "75 percent off" sale next week. :-)

Follow me on Twitter at mjasay.

Updated at 9:15 a.m. PST with official comment from Intel.

Bit-tech.net tipped us off Wednesday morning that Intel has sued Nvidia over the latter's right to create and sell motherboard chipsets that support Intel's Nehalem (aka Core i7) class of desktop processors.

We haven't heard much about this fight since May 2008, although since that time Nehalem has come to market and Intel remains the only manufacturer with a supporting chipset.

We spoke to Derek Perez, Nvidia's head of public relations, Wednesday morning, and he provided some clarity on the nature of the court filing, as well as Nvidia's take on the filing, which he says is actually a request for an injunction to prevent Nvidia from manufacturing a Nehalem chipset.

"We have a cross-licensing agreement with Intel, entered into about four and a half years ago. Intel is now basically saying the cross-license agreement doesn't apply to future bus interfaces, specifically DMI, (the direct media interface Intel uses to link the Nehalem CPU to a system's memory, a new feature for Nehalem chipsets). Intel has now filed an injunction against us, basically trying to stop us from innovating on DMI.