Although a judge recently ruled in favor of Apple in its copyright infringement case against Psystar, the two companies have reached a new settlement, according to Computerworld and other reports.
Details are sketchy at this point, and there's no confirmation from Apple, but Psystar claimed in a motion filed Monday that a partial settlement has been reached.
"Psystar has agreed on certain amounts to be awarded as statutory damages on Apple's copyright claims in exchange for Apple's agreement not to execute on these awards until all appeals in this matter have been concluded," noted Psystar's motion filed in federal court in San Francisco. "Moreover, Apple has agreed to voluntarily dismiss all its trademark, trade-dress, and state-law claims. This partial settlement eliminates the need for a trial and reduces the issues before this Court to the scope of any permanent injunction on Apple's copyright claims."
Psystar also seems to be looking for a loophole against any injunctions. Apple had asked the court to prevent Psystar from selling clones not just with Leopard, but also Snow Leopard, which was released after the lawsuit began. But in its filing, Psystar argued that it should be allowed to sell its Rebel EFI utility, which lets customers install Snow Leopard on clones sold by the company, thus moving the legal burden away from Psystar.
Psystar's motion also indicated that another motion with further details would be filed Tuesday with Judge William Alsup.
Apple's lawsuit against Psystar began in July 2008 after Psystar started selling Mac clones with OS X installed on them. Apple has argued that its end user license lets people install its operating system on Apple computers only.
On November 13, Alsup ruled in favor of Apple, finding that Psystar's use of OS X on its clones was not "fair use" as the company contended and further finding that Psystar violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by "circumventing Apple's protection barrier."
Since then, Apple has been keen to shut down Psystar's Mac clone business permanently, calling for an injunction against the company and potentially millions of dollars in damages, substantially more money than the clone maker has.
Alsup's findings and Apple's fervor in going after Psystar raise the question of why Apple would agree to any kind of settlement at this point. A hearing was set for December 14, with a full trial scheduled to start in January. But if the latest news from Psystar is true, then the company may be able to avoid further courtroom drama.
Neither Psystar nor Apple has responded to requests for comment. We'll provide further details of this latest development as court documents become available.
eBay is criticizing a French court's ruling that orders the company to pay a $2.55 million fine to European conglomerate LVMH.
The auction giant and its European unit were fined 1.7 million euros on Monday by the Commercial Court of Paris, which ruled that the company violated a 2008 court order by not preventing the sale of legitimate LVMH perfumes and cosmetics. LVMH's brands include Christian Dior, Guerlain, and Givenchy perfumes.
In June 2008, the Commercial Court fined eBay $61 million in a lawsuit filed by the conglomerate, which is officially known as LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton. LVMH had asserted that eBay had not done enough to stamp out the sale of fake LVMH goods on its site. The court went a step further, ruling that eBay-traded LVMH products--even authentic ones--were not being sold by an authorized reseller. As a result, eBay was ordered to remove all listings of these products.
eBay criticized the ruling then, saying it was an attempt by LVMH to "protect uncompetitive commercial practices." eBay likewise condemned the new ruling.
"Today's outcome hurts consumers by preventing them from buying and selling authentic items online," Alex von Schirmeister, general manager of eBay in France, said in a statement. "The injunction is an abuse of 'selective distribution.' It effectively enforces restrictive distribution contracts, which is anti-competitive."
Despite its objections, eBay argued that it has complied with the 2008 court order. The company said it has used state-of-the-art filtering software to check millions of listings each day, making thousands of authentic LVMH products invisible or inaccessible to French eBay users.
eBay also discounted the proof brought against it, claiming that LVMH offered details on only 1,341 listings out of 200 million posted on the auction site each day. eBay believes those listings were deliberately posted by people to sneak past the filters. In 1,091 of the listings targeted by LVMH, the seller did not accurately describe the item, using misspelled brand names, no brand names at all, or only pictures to describe the product.
As a result, eBay asserts that both the fine and ruling are unjustified. The fine itself is disproportionate given that eBay complied with the injunction," said von Schirmeister. "It is out of step with our legal victories in France, U.K., Germany, Belgium and the U.S."
eBay plans to appeal the new ruling and two other cases tied to LVMH. "We believe that the higher courts will overturn this ruling and ensure that e-commerce companies such as eBay will continue to provide a platform for buyers and sellers to trade authentic goods," said von Schirmeister.
eBay has been in and out of U.S. and European courtrooms for years, sued by companies trying to clamp down on the sale of fake versions of their legitimate products. It's faced courtroom battles with several European powerhouses, winning cases against L'Oreal and Tiffany, but losing suits filed by LVMH.
NEW YORK--Former Six Apart executive and well-read blogger Anil Dash has a new gig: he announced at the Web 2.0 Expo here on Wednesday that he will be the director of Expert Labs, a new nonprofit that will take the dot-com incubator model and apply it to new digital tools for the federal government.
"Despite what our ego tends to think in the tech industry, the issue is not that we need to have more tweeting from the White House," Dash said onstage. "(We can) help them learn the lessons that we've seen over the past half decade of Web 2.0's ascendence."
Expert Labs, which is a division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that's funded by the MacArthur Foundation, will match digital voids and holes in government and policy with the developers who can fill them, with grant money paying for the work. The organization also hopes to host developer competitions, a similar move to some municipal projects like New York's "Big Apps."
It's not a government agency, but the Expert Labs Web site explains that "we've been privileged enough to connect with agencies and departments across the federal government, from the White House on down." Cutting through bureaucracy, needless to say, will still be a challenge. Dash is unfazed.
"If we tap into the expertise of each community, there's enormous potential," he said. "So we're going to ask policymakers for their expertise in defining the questions that we need answered." Then, Expert Labs plans to hook those projects up with technologists who can build the requisite systems, and then to members of the science and academic communities to help solve the issues at hand.
"No matter how smart the policymakers are in our government...there's always going to be more experts outside the Beltway," Dash said. "The tactics thus far have been a closed-door meeting with a half dozen people for an hour."
He asserted, "The Web has changed the way that works."
Could a legal challenge threaten the launch of Barnes & Noble's Nook e-reader?
In a new lawsuit, start-up Spring Design is seeking not only monetary damages from Barnes & Noble, but also is looking to get an injunction barring sales of the Nook, which it says misappropriates its trade secrets.
Spring Design said in a statement Monday that it had filed a lawsuit against Barnes & Noble, but the statement did not specify what damages it was seeking.
However, it turns out that the lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Jose, Calif., seeks both monetary damages as well as a halt to sales of the Nook.
According to the lawsuit, a copy of which was seen by CNET News, Spring Design says it is seeking "preliminary and permanent injunctive relief... restraining and enjoining B&N from use or disclosure of Spring's confidential information or trade secrets, including the sale of the Nook."
The Nook, like Spring Design's Alex, combines a color touch screen with an e-ink display, and both readers use the Android operating system. In its lawsuit, Spring Design says it showed its plans for the Alex to Barnes & Noble, which showed interest in the product and gave no indication it was working on a similar device.
The Nook, a clear and present challenger to Amazon's Kindle, is due to go on sale later this month for $259.
Barnes & Noble has declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying it does not discuss litigation matters.
Court papers filed by Spring Design also include a confidentiality agreement, signed in February, between the company and Barnes & Noble, as well as early Spring Design presentations and e-mails between Barnes & Noble and Spring executives.
As a reminder, here's a look at Spring Design's Alex (left) and Barnes & Noble's Nook (note--the images are not to scale):
(Credit:
Spring Design)
(Credit:
Barnes & Noble)
A Silicon Valley start-up said it sued Barnes & Noble on Monday, claiming that the bookseller misappropriated trade secrets in creating the Nook e-reader.
Cupertino, Calif-based Spring Design said it had a nondisclosure agreement with Barnes & Noble and had been discussing its e-reader plans with the bookseller since early this year.
"Since the beginning of 2009 Spring and Barnes & Noble worked within a non-disclosure agreement, including many meetings, emails and conference calls with executives ranging up to the president of BarnesandNoble.com, discussing confidential information regarding the features, functionality and capabilities of Alex," Spring Design said in a statement. "Throughout, Barnes & Noble's marketing and technical executives extolled Alex's 'innovative' features, never mentioning their use of those features until the public disclosure of the Nook."
The press release from Spring Design did not say in what court the suit was filed, or mention what damages were being sought.
Spring Design announced its Alex e-reader just days before Barnes & Noble formally unveiled the Nook. Both e-readers use the Android operating system and combine an e-ink screen with a color touch screen.
Eric Kmiec, Spring Design's vice president of sales and marketing, said that the company has been working on the Alex since 2006.
"Spring Design unfortunately had to take the appropriate action to protect its intellectual property rights," Kmiec said in a statement. "We showed the Alex e-book design to Barnes & Noble in good faith with the intention of working together to provide a superior dual screen e-book to the market."
A Barnes & Noble representative was not immediately available to comment. (Update, 9:30 a.m. Nov. 3: A Barnes & Noble representative said that the company does not comment on litigation.)
Barnes & Noble's Nook, which competes head-on with Amazon's Kindle, is due to go on sale later this month for $259.
Here's a look at the Alex:
(Credit:
Spring Design)
as compared to the Nook:
(Credit:
Barnes & Noble)
Note: This story originally misstated the day that the lawsuit was filed. It was filed on Monday.
The accidental disclosure of a House ethics investigation has kicked up quite a fuss on Capitol Hill as it turns out that more than 30 congressman and aides are under investigation. But after committee chairman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) disclosed the breach on the House floor late Thursday, her colleague, Rep. Jo Bonner (Ala.), who is the committee's ranking Republican, spoke next, telling fellow members that the breach was an isolated incident.
Not exactly.
In February, a company that monitors P2P networks said that it had found blueprints and avionics about the president's helicopter, Marine One, on a computer in Tehran. An investigation later found that a third-party defense contractor with access to that data was using a computer that also had P2P file-sharing software on its hard drive...
Read more of "File Sharing's Mysteries Again Stump Uncle Sam" on CBSNews.com.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation on Tuesday rebutted legal assertions by Texas Instruments that enthusiasts who figured how to install their own operating systems on TI calculators violated the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
In a letter sent to the processor and calculator maker, Jennifer Granick, civil-liberties director at the EFF, argued that TI calculator enthusiasts Brandon Wilson, Tom Cross, and Duncan Smith didn't deserve letters TI sent them August 27 demanding that they remove various online posts about installing alternative operating systems. The three had taken down the posts but plan to restore them October 26, unless TI supplies evidence of a violation, Granick said.
The TI-83 Plus calculator
(Credit: Texas Instruments)In the posts, the three discussed use of reverse-engineered digital keys that made it simple to install alternative operating systems on the TI calculators. Wilson and Smith posted the actual keys that could be used to perform the installation.
But none of that violated the DMCA's anticircumvention provision, which states, "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work" protected under the copyright act, Granick said.
... Read moreEolas Technologies, a company that ground through a years-long patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft, now has sued a large swath of corporate powers for infringement of that same patent and another related patent concerning interactive programs on Web sites.
The list of defendants includes many high-profile companies inside and outside the tech world: Adobe Systems, Amazon, Apple, Blockbuster, Citigroup, eBay, Frito-Lay, Go Daddy, Google, J.C. Penney, JPMorgan Chase, Office Depot, Perot Systems, Playboy Enterprises, Staples, Sun Microsystems, Texas Instruments, Yahoo, and YouTube.
Eolas' suit is not to be taken lightly. Although the earlier Microsoft case took many years to resolve, and Eolas by no means won a complete victory, the patent involved did overall withstand heavy legal challenges despite many on the Web rallying to Microsoft's aid. Microsoft and Eolas won't describe terms of their 2007 settlement of the patent case, but Eolas did say it expected to pay its shareholders a 2007 dividend afterward.
"What distinguishes this case from most patent suits is that so many established companies named as defendants are infringing a patent that has been ruled valid by the Patent Office on three occasions," said Mike McKool, head of the national law firm McKool Smith and Eolas' lead attorney.
This diagram shows one example of the newly granted Eolas patent 7,599,985 in use.
(Credit: Eolas)The U.S. District Court suit, filed in the eastern district of Texas, seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the plaintiffs from using the patented technology; payment for damages from infringement, including treble damages because the alleged infringement was willful; attorney's fees; and a jury trial.
Eolas conducts research and development but also has a separate licensing department. "Eolas seeks to return value to its shareholders by commercializing these technologies through strategic alliances, licensing and spin-offs," the company says of itself.
The earlier Microsoft case involved U.S. patent 5,838,906, "Distributed hypermedia method for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document," which involved browsers launching a helper application such as Adobe Flash.
In the new case, that patent is joined by a newer one granted Tuesday, No., 7,599,985, with a very similar title: "Distributed hypermedia method and system for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document."
"The '985 Patent is a continuation of the '906 patent, and allows Web sites to add fully-interactive embedded applications to their online offerings through the use of plug-in and Ajax (asynchronous JavaScript and XML) Web development techniques," Eolas said in a statement about the lawsuit.
Ajax caught on midway through the decade as a way to endow Web pages with interactive features based in part on the JavaScript programming language. Ajax is used in many Web sites including Google Maps and Yahoo Mail.
The '985 patent, originally filed Aug. 9, 2002, involves a program embedded in a Web page--or "hypermedia document," as the patent language calls it more generally. Here's an excerpt from the patent abstract's description of the technology:
A system allowing user of a browser program on a computer connected to an open distributed hypermedia to access and execute an embedded programming object. The program object is embedded into a hypermedia document much like data objects.
The user may select the program object from the screen. Once selected the program executes on the user's (client's) computer or may execute on a remote server or additional remote computers in a distributed processing arrangement.
After launching the program object, the user is able to interact with the object as the invention provides for ongoing interprocess communication between the application object (program) and the browser program.
And later, in a bit more detail:
The present invention allows a user at a client computer connected to a network to locate, retrieve, and manipulate objects in an interactive way. The invention not only allows the user to use a hypermedia format to locate and retrieve program objects, but also allows the user to interact with an application program located at a remote computer.
Interprocess communication between the hypermedia browser and the embedded application program is ongoing after the program object has been launched. The use is able to use a vast amount of computing power beyond that which is contained in the user's client computer.
Apple, Google, Yahoo, Texas Instruments, and Office Depot each declined to comment on the suit. Staples, Playboy, Sun, Blockbuster, Citigroup, eBay, Frito-Lay, J.C. Penney, JPMorgan Chase, Adobe, and Perot Systems didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
Elizabeth Driscoll, vice president of public relations for Go Daddy, said in a statement, "We have not seen the lawsuit and, therefore, cannot comment on it. However, we are unaware of the basis for any such claims and we will defend the case vigorously."
Updated 1:26 p.m., 2:09 p.m., 2:35 p.m., and 4:08 p.m. PDT with comment from companies.
An adviser to the European Union has sided with Google in the company's battle with Louis Vuitton and others over alleged trademark infringement.
The search giant is fighting a lawsuit in the European courts against several companies that claim Google is infringing on their trademarks by allowing advertisers to buy keywords that match those trademarks.
Led by LVMH's Louis Vuitton, the companies are upset that makers of imitation items can buy those keywords through Google's AdWords, allowing their products to pop up in searches alongside the genuine article.
But in a statement released by the European Court of Justice on Tuesday, adviser and Advocate General Poiares Maduro said that "Google has not committed a trademark infringement by allowing advertisers to select, in AdWords, keywords corresponding to trademarks."
Maduro's opinion is that the use of trademarks is limited to the selection of keywords internal to AdWords and as such only concerns Google and its advertisers. When selecting keywords, no product or service is being sold to the public, therefore, neither Google nor its advertisers are infringing on any trademarks, said Maduro.
In response to the concern that makers of imitation products can grab certain keywords, the Advocate General put the responsibility firmly in the hands of consumers.
"The mere display of relevant sites in response to keywords is not enough to establish a risk of confusion on the part of consumers as to the origin of goods or services," said Maduro in the statement. "Internet users are aware that not only the site of the trademark owner will appear as a result of a search in Google's search engine... These users will only make an assessment as to the origin of the goods or services advertised on the basis of the content of the ad and by visiting the advertised sites."
Maduro's opinion doesn't leave Google totally in the clear. Maduro said the company might be liable if found to feature content in AdWords that infringes on a trademark. But even in this case, the trademark owner would have to cite specific instances of damage to their trademarks in order to hold Google accountable.
Trademark issues over AdWords have plagued Google for years, both in the U.S. and especially in Europe where Louis Vuitton and others have taken the company in and out of court. French justice has generally found in favor of the trademark owners, usually ordering Google to pay a fine. But the issue has never been definitively settled.
In response to the latest round of legal squabbles, the French court has asked the European Court of Justice to now settle the issue.
The Advocate General's statement is not binding on the court, but the opinion is strongly considered. The court is now reviewing the case and will render its judgment at a later date.
Mike Volpi's battle with his former employer Joost is now headed to court.
Joost announced on Friday that it has filed a lawsuit against Volpi, alleging that the former CEO used trade secrets and other confidential information in a bid to acquire a majority share in Skype from eBay.
The lawsuit comes just days after Joost relieved Volpi of his duties as chairman and a member of the board, saying that it was investigating his actions while he was chairman.
The fracas has its roots in the complicated relationship between online video provider Joost and VoIP provider Skype.
Joost was launched in 2006 by Janus Friis and Niklas Zennstrom, who also co-founded Skype. Volpi met and befriended the pair after serving on Skype's board of directors.
Once considered a contender for CEO at his former company Cisco, Volpi was tapped by Friis and Zennstrom to become CEO of Joost in June of 2007.
After a two-year stint, Volpi left Joost this past July to take a position as a partner at the venture capital firm Index Ventures. This same firm was part of a group that made a deal to buy a 65 percent share of Skype from eBay.
The question of Skype ownership between eBay and Friis and Zennstrom has been a dicey one. Though they sold Skype to eBay in 2006, Friis and Zennstrom kept certain rights via a company they formed called Joltid, and claim they still own the core technology and source code behind Skype. A licensing issue between the two companies triggered a suit that's set to hit a U.K. courtroom next summer. And a separate copyright suit was filed by Joltid this week in Northern California alleging Joltid's technology is being infringed on by Skype users "in the United States at least 100,000 times each day."
Joost's lawsuit filed against both Volpi and Index Ventures alleges that Volpi accessed and used confidential information while at Joost to help his group's bid for Skype. It alleges breach of fiduciary duty against Volpi and Index Ventures, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Index, interference with prospective business advantage, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract against Index, breach of confidence, and civil conspiracy.
Joost is looking for an injunction requiring Volpi and Index Ventures to return all confidential documents and files that were allegedly taken from Joost. The suit also is seeking to prevent both defendants from using the alleged misappropriated trade secrets.
Among the specific claims in the suit:
"This action arises out of the acts of a faithless fiduciary, who has taken advantage of the trust and confidence placed in him to steal confidential, highly proprietary information relating to an extremely popular Internet-based technology...Using that misappropriated information and in utter disregard for his fiduciary obligations, Volpi, acting in concert with other participants, put together a successful bid for Skype that has shocked the investment community."
"Numerous sophisticated strategic bidders (including, among others, Google and Microsoft) who initially expressed an interest in Skype could not get comfortable proceeding with formal bids. The reluctance of these sophisticated parties is hardly surprising given that intellectual property that is essential to Skype's business currently hangs under a cloud of litigation. Yet somehow the successful bidder, led by Volpi, was able to get comfortable with the enormous risks of proceeding with a Skype transaction. That comfort level could have been obtained only with knowledge of and an intent to use confidential information that had been misappropriated by Volpi..."
A phone call placed to Index Ventures for comment was not immediately returned.
Joost was launched more than two years as another portal for online videos but has struggled to gain a foothold in the market against competitors such as YouTube and Hulu.
Note: CBS, which owns CNET News, is investor in Joost.
