Apple

Hot on the heels of its win against Mac clone-maker Psystar, Apple is suing another company that's making knockoffs of its products, but this time its power adapters.

(Credit: Apple)

Apple filed the lawsuit against Media Solutions Holdings in the California Central District Court on Monday, according to InformationWeek. Apple claims the power adapters violate a patent the company holds on the design of its own adapters.

The power adapters in question come with Apple's MacBook and MacBook Pro line of notebooks. Apple also sells the adapters separately for $79 from its online and retail stores.

While several of Media Solutions Holdings Web sites, including Laptopsforless.com, Laptopacadapter.com, and Ereplacements.com, have Apple replacement parts in stock, none currently has the power adapter in question when CNET checked on Friday.

Media Solutions Holdings sells replacement parts for many of today's popular brands of computers like Sony, Toshiba, Lenovo, Acer and HP, among others.

Nokia is suing Apple over 10 patents the Finnish phone maker says it owns related to wireless handsets.

The largest handset maker in the world is suing the maker of one of the most popular, the iPhone, because, according to a statement released by Nokia on Thursday, Apple has refused to license any of the patents in question. All iPhone models dating back to the original introduced in 2007 are infringing, according to Nokia. Nokia is asking the U.S. District Court in Delaware for an injunction (PDF) on sales of iPhones and for unspecified damages.

"The basic principle in the mobile industry is that those companies who contribute in technology development to establish standards create intellectual property, which others then need to compensate for," said Ilkka Rahnasto, vice president, legal and intellectual property at Nokia. "Apple is also expected to follow this principle. By refusing to agree to appropriate terms for Nokia's intellectual property, Apple is attempting to get a free ride on the back of Nokia's innovation."

Nokia has already reached licensing agreement on the patents in question with 40 other companies, including "most of the major device makers," according to Nokia spokesman Mark Durrant. Apple has thus far refused to cooperate, and filing the lawsuit was a "last resort." The two companies have been in negotiations for "some time," he added.

Nokia says it has spent more than $60 billion (40 billion euros) on R&D related to wireless technology. The 10 patents it accuses Apple of violating are related to making phones able to run on GSM, 3G, and Wi-Fi networks. They include patents on wireless data, speech coding, security, and encryption, according to Nokia.

Apple did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

For every kind of technology you can think of (USB, wall plugs, video game controllers) there's an agreed upon standard. It's arrived at by companies making products that use the technology in question in the context of a standards-setting organization. They'll gather, debate over whose patented technology is best, and also agree in advance that every other company in the standard group will be able to license their patent at a reasonable rate.

Apple is one of a few companies--Nokia wouldn't expand on who the others might be--that is not licensing Nokia's 10 patents. Nokia says that for any phone to run on a GSM, 3G, or Wi-Fi network, it would have to license one of its patents.

Though it is asking the court to halt sales of the iPhone, the general consensus by legal observers and those who follow Nokia, is that it's not actually trying to pull the iPhone off the market permanently--injunctions are always used as leverage in these cases--but rather that it wants Apple to pay its fair share.

"There are companies that are patent trolls, that don't participate in the creation of technology, or they secretly acquire them. Nokia's not one of these companies. They're pretty up front about the patents they own," noted Jason Schultz, director of the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at the UC Berkeley School of Law. "They're probably not trying to put Apple out of business...but force Apple to play the same game that every other phone company has to play."

Apple analyst Gene Munster thinks Nokia is looking to extract a royalty payment of 1 percent to 2 percent of every iPhone sold from Apple, which would be about $6 to $12 per phone. With 34 million iPhones sold to date, that would be $204 million to $408 million in back payments Apple would have to pay if Nokia were successful in court. There's also the added risk of something called "willful infringement." Basically, if Apple were to be found in violation it'd have to pay three times the amount of whatever the judgment won by Nokia.

Apple could settle out of court, or it could try to show that Nokia either doesn't own the patents or that they're not valid in this case, both of which would be difficult, said Schultz.

"Invalidating 10 patents is a lot, that's like running the Boston Marathon. It's really hard to do. You might get one, two or even five," he said. "But 10 is a lot."

If it does go to court, strap in for a long ride. This kind of case could take up to two or three years of litigation.

This post was updated throughout at 12:35 p.m. PDT.

(Credit: Apple)

For at least the third time this month, Apple and AT&T are being sued by a consumer complaining of being duped into believing that multimedia messaging, or MMS, was already available on the iPhone.

Filed in the Northern District of Ohio on Wednesday (PDF hosted by Wired), plaintiff Deborah Carr says Apple and AT&T misled the public into believing that the iPhone 3GS was capable of sending and receiving MMS messages on the device. The lawsuit claims that Apple's "print and video advertisements...on television, the Internet, the radio, newspapers, and direct mailers" all mention the availability of MMS on the device.

Two similar cases--one in Illinois and another in Louisiana--were also filed against the companies in August.

According to the latest lawsuit, first reported by InformationWeek, customers were told that MMS would be enabled on June 17, 2009, when iPhone OS 3.0 was released.

That seems rather strange, considering that Apple and AT&T announced on June 8, during Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference keynote that MMS would not be available until later in the summer. AT&T confirmed that time frame to Wired on Friday.

"We absolutely will offer MMS on iPhone 3GS and iPhone 3G with 3.0 upgrades in late summer, once we complete some system upgrades that will ensure our customers have the best experience with MMS," an AT&T representative said in a statement cited by Wired.

Carr's lawsuit does admit that Apple has a notice on its Web site explaining that support for MMS would be available from AT&T in late summer. However, the suit characterizes the note as a "mouseprint disclaimer," referring to the small print.

Technically, Apple has enabled MMS in iPhone OS 3.0. The proof is that 29 carriers around the world activated MMS on the iPhone when the new operating system was released on June 17. It's not available in the United States because AT&T isn't ready to activate it yet, which was disclosed on June 8.

Gregory McKenna, of Florissant, Mo., is suing Apple because he says two of the company's iPods contained illegal receivers that allowed the Mafia to send him threatening messages, according to court documents obtained by CNET.

(Credit: Apple)

Filed Wednesday in a St. Louis district court, the suit names as defendants the St. Louis Police Department, unknown agents of the FBI, Apple, a private investigator, and an auto mechanic.

The alleged motive for the threats was that the Mafia wanted McKenna to work as a fashion model for them at a New York modeling agency. McKenna said he called local police and the FBI field office, but allegedly nothing was done. This allegedly allowed the Mafia members to "stalk, threaten, attempt rape, and kidnap" him.

McKenna said that in 2005, he purchased an iPod Shuffle on eBay and discovered that when listening to the device the Mafia was able to send audio threats to the device. This was allegedly enabled through a receiver installed by Apple.

A second device, an iPod Mini, was also enabled to allow the Mafia to generate death threats, according to the lawsuit.

McKenna also said he hired a private investigator to search his home and car. He claims the investigator found listening devices in his bedroom, living room, upstairs bathroom, and his Toyota Camry. When asked to confirm his findings by police, the private investigator said he found nothing.

The lawsuit is claiming damages in the amount of $14.2 million.

Illinois residents Daniel and Barbara Owens are suing Apple, accusing the company of fraud related to its iTunes gift cards.

(Credit: Apple)

The suit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in southern Illinois and obtained by CNET, shows that the couple is seeking monetary damages for Apple's "wrongful, illegal, improper and fraudulent acts."

The Owens claim that Apple markets the gift cards as selling individual songs on iTunes for 99 cents each. The couple argues that not all songs in the iTunes Store are that cheap--some actually cost $1.29. They contend that they have been "denied the benefit of their bargain to purchase any song" from iTunes for 99 cents.

In April, Apple changed the pricing structure of the iTunes Store from 99 cents per song to a variable model in which songs cost 69 cents, 99 cents, or $1.29. The Owens say they purchased several iTunes cards including two $25 cards on March 1, 2008, from Sam's Club and a $15 card on May 19, 2009, from Wal-Mart.

Apple has expanded its presence in many retail outlets over the years, allowing stores like Target, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Walgreens, and others to sell gift cards.

The company is being sued on four counts including two counts of breach of contract, one count of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and one count of violating the Consumer Protection Statutes.

Apple could not immediately be reached for comment.

It's been a busy 24 hours for Apple and Cartier lawyers.

Luxury watchmaker Cartier on Friday sued Apple for trademark infringement because of a pair of applications available on its App Store. By Saturday, however, Cartier decided to withdraw the suit, The Wall Street Journal reported.

(Credit: Digitopolis Game Studio)

At the heart of Cartier's infringement claim was a pair of apps called Fake Watch and Fake Watch Gold Edition. The apps are made by Digitopolis Game Studio, which interestingly enough, was not named in the lawsuit.

Filed in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, the lawsuit claimed the applications give people the ability to tell time on the iPhone and iPod Touch with a display that simulates famous wristwatches.

Jonathan Lagarenne, Cartier's lawyer, said the lawsuit would be withdrawn because the company was satisfied that Apple had removed the apps from the store.

Representatives from Apple were not immediately available for comment.

Correction 5/18: Gracenote was incorrectly listed as a partner of Shazam.

Earlier this week, a company called Tune Hunter accused music-finding service Shazam as well as a host of consumer electronics makers, wireless service operators, and digital music retailers of infringing on its patent on a music identification system.

Shazam is named along with Samsung, Apple, Amazon.com, Napster, Motorola, Gracenote, Verizon Wireless, LG Electronics, AT&T Mobility, and Pantech Wireless in a suit filed Tuesday over U.S. Patent No. 6,941,275, which was issued to Remi Swierczek/Tune Hunter in September 2005. The suit accuses Shazam's music discovery and identification service of violating the patent and the other companies of benefiting directly from Shazam's alleged infringement. Tune Hunter is asking for unspecified damages and an injunction from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern Division of Texas that would prevent "further infringement" on Tune Hunter's patent.

Tune Hunter's patent covers "a music identification/purchasing system, specifically to a method for marking the time and the name of the radio station in portable device such as a key holder, watch, cellular phone, beeper or the like which will allow the user to learn via internet or regular telephone the name of the song, artist and/or music company by matching the stored data with broadcast archive."

Shazam is available on several different mobile devices. It is a popular iPhone application sold through Apple's App Store, which "listens" to songs and identifies them. Samsung is a partner with London-based Shazam on a mobile music store. Amazon.com is a retail partner of Shazam. Gracenote is a competitor.

Shazam was founded in 2002 in London and says by the end of the year its service will be available on 250 million devices.

Shazam, AT&T, Apple, and Gracenote each said they had no comment on the suit, and Samsung and Verizon had not yet heard about it.

Shazam is also available on many platforms not named in the lawsuit, including Research In Motion's BlackBerry, Facebook, and Android-based phones like T-Mobile's G1.

CNET News reporters Maggie Reardon and Greg Sandoval contributed to this story.

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.