#lawsuits

Mike Masnick:

Ministry of Sound, the well-known nightclub/record label in London that puts together various compilations of dance music is suing Spotify, claiming copyright infringement in a case that will fascinate copyright fanatics. This one goes a few layers deep, so stick with it: MoS is not suing because the music on Spotify is unauthorized. Nor is it suing because of anything that Spotify itself did. Rather, it’s suing because some users of Spotify have put together and published “playlists” (a feature found on pretty much any music playing software ever) that mimic some of the compilations that MoS has released. Again, the music itself is all legally authorized and licensed to be on Spotify. The complaint from MoS is merely that some Spotify users have put them together in the same order.

Probably a bad sign if your business is so reliant on the order in which music is ordered that you feel compelled to sue to protect such nonsense.

Alright, not really funny (or new), but come on — it’s a must-share anytime something reads like an Onion article, but isn’t. SFGate on a man who got stuck in “It’s A Small” world in 2009:

Jose Martinez, a resident of San Pedro (Los Angeles County) who is in early 50s, was stuck in the “Goodbye Room” when the ride broke down the day after Thanksgiving in 2009, said David Geffen, a Santa Ana attorney.

Disneyland employees evacuated other riders but had no way to help Martinez, who is paralyzed and uses a wheelchair, Geffen said.

Martinez suffers from panic attacks and high blood pressure, both of which became an issue as he sat in the boat, the “Small World” song playing over and over and over, Geffen said.

“He was half in the cave of the ride and half out,” Geffen said. “The music was blaring. They couldn’t get it to go off.”

The world is not small enough, apparently. (And Martinez won $8,000 in damages from Disneyland.)

Marco Arment, reacting to Andy Ihnatko’s thoughts that the consumers lose as a result of Apple’s win over Samsung:

What’s really going to disrupt the iPhone is going to be something completely different, not something that tries so hard to clone the iPhone that it hits Apple’s patents.

Unoriginal manufacturers will need to pay for their unoriginality. The most reasonable course of action, therefore, is to truly innovate and design products that aren’t such close copies.

I fail to see how consumers lose.

I completely agree that what will end the iPhone’s run is something totally different, not a copycat. Maybe Apple will make that product, or maybe someone else will. This case does nothing to stop that. It simply stops people from copying the current iPhone.

What does worry me about this lawsuit is that it’s going to lead to many more. And it makes patents even more important, and as such, more valuable. That could end up hurting many companies, both large and small. And it could distract from innovation because everyone will be so preoccupied with filing patents, looking for ones that they might be infringing upon, or in court.

wired
wired:

Samsung owes Apple more than $1 billion in damages for violating Apple hardware and software patents, a California jury ruled on Friday.
The jury found that Samsung infringed upon Apple patents having to do with physical design and user interfaces, often willfully, and that several of the South Korean company’s products diluted Apple’s trade dress, especially as it related to various iPhone models.
More @ Gadget Lab.

$1,049,343,540, to be exact.

wired:

Samsung owes Apple more than $1 billion in damages for violating Apple hardware and software patents, a California jury ruled on Friday.

The jury found that Samsung infringed upon Apple patents having to do with physical design and user interfaces, often willfully, and that several of the South Korean company’s products diluted Apple’s trade dress, especially as it related to various iPhone models.

More @ Gadget Lab.

$1,049,343,540, to be exact.

Google never uses their patents for offensive purposes. Except when they do.

This is the problem with these self-righteous stands. Time ends all promises, eventually. And the result is extreme hypocrisy even though you’re just doing what your rivals are doing.

Google is already trying to spin this as a defensive maneuver, but come on: it’s a new patent-infringement claim which Apple will have to defend against or risk an import ban of their devices. 

Yours truly, predicting this six months ago:

They also may find themselves suing Apple over patents and demanding a royalty for each iPhone sold.

The problem Google is likely to face is that if they aren’t agressive with the patents in the way that Motorola has been, how can they possibly hope to license them in the way they say they will? Who would license something when they don’t have to? This is a slippery slope. 

Bigger picture: after going on and on about the dubious patent tactics by rivals like Apple and Microsoft (and rightfully so in most cases), Google may find themselves in the same position thanks to this Motorola deal.

thisistheverge
thisistheverge:

The iPad that never was: kickstands, curves, and ‘highly confidential’ Apple prototypes revealed
We already got a look at some early iPhone designs inspired by Sony and the iPod, but court documents have revealed an assortment of different looks that were considered for Apple’s various iOS products — including several iPad designs featuring kickstands. Multiple versions of both the iPhone and the iPad are featured, and while we’ve seen some of these before — the iPad prototype with dual dock connectors was sold on eBay back in May — many of the designs are being revealed for the first time. 

It’s sort of fascinating that Apple wants to win this lawsuit badly enough that they’re willing to put up with tons of their previously confidential designs and documents being put into the public domain. You’d think that alone might be worth some sort of quick settlement to them — and maybe that’s something Samsung was betting on as well.
But, nope.

thisistheverge:

The iPad that never was: kickstands, curves, and ‘highly confidential’ Apple prototypes revealed

We already got a look at some early iPhone designs inspired by Sony and the iPod, but court documents have revealed an assortment of different looks that were considered for Apple’s various iOS products — including several iPad designs featuring kickstands. Multiple versions of both the iPhone and the iPad are featured, and while we’ve seen some of these before — the iPad prototype with dual dock connectors was sold on eBay back in May — many of the designs are being revealed for the first time. 

It’s sort of fascinating that Apple wants to win this lawsuit badly enough that they’re willing to put up with tons of their previously confidential designs and documents being put into the public domain. You’d think that alone might be worth some sort of quick settlement to them — and maybe that’s something Samsung was betting on as well.

But, nope.