Patent Infringement? Clear With Computers sues Apple and HP re: Online Ordering Systems

            It seems yet another company is looking for a big payday from Apple.  This time it is a Texan company named Clear With Computers and they are suing regarding (any guesses?) patent infringement regarding two of CWC’s patents. 

            CWC claims that Apple infringed on their patents that allow for custom online ordering of products and parts.  CWC claims the dispute stems from Apple’s online store, their main website and relevant sales and supply systems.  The patents together allow users to sign in to the system and build a list of products and parts, which also includes descriptions (either text or visual) of the options.  Basically, the patented system allows for customized computer ordering, making shopping easier for the customer.  CWC has also joined HP as a defendant in the above-described action claiming HP also uses a system that is similar to the patented system for the selling of their computer products. 

            The ridiculous part of the entire lawsuit is that CWC’s patents vaguely reflect the systems that Apple and HP are using for ordering.  CWC’s patent does not include online transaction; rather the company would print out the custom offer and work to make the sale in person (antiquated, I know).  It seems to me that CWC’s case is more one of wishful thinking than a legitimate patent infringement.  Further, has CWC forgotten about other computer giants such as Dell?  They also use a similar system and have been using this system for over ten years. 

            Regardless of the seemingly different online ordering systems, CWC is pressing forwarded and seeking relief through damages for deliberate infringement and a permanent injunction on both Apple and HP.  Possible dismissal?  We’ll just have to wait and see how this one turns out!

This blog is based on an article from www.appleinsider.com

This Week in Apple Lawsuit History: Flashback to Carl Sagan v. Apple Computer Inc.

            In my attempt at a “retro” blog, I ask you to take a spin in your time machine and see if you remember when Carl Sagan, famed astronomer and scientist, sued famed technology giant, Apple Computer.  It was this week in history that Apple settled with Sagan in 1994 regarding two defamation suits.  The legal battle began when Apple’s internal minds decided to honor Sagan by code-naming the Power Macintosh 7100 after him.  The name was used internally only and therefore posed no problem until Apple released models of the Power Macintosh 7100 code-named as “Cold Fusion” and “Piltdown Man.” 

            When Carl Sagan learned of the names he sued for defamation claiming that the names defamed his character.  A defamation suit with a public figure plaintiff such as Sagan against a public giant like Apple is normally protected by the First Amendment.  Such a case leaves the plaintiff to prove that Apple had knowledge that the information was false and that they advertised the names with reckless disregard of whether or not the names were false.  In this case, Apple won the lawsuit but then changed their Power Macintosh 7100 to an equally defaming internal codename: BHA or “Butt-head Astronomer” 

            The name change lead to the Sagan's second lawsuit against Apple. Sagan again, had to prove that Apple stated the name with knowledge that it was false and that the name was with reckless disregard of whether or not the names were false.  Sagan lost the suit on the grounds that Apple claimed the right to free speech under the First Amendment, which protect big names like Apple from suits of defamation.

            Apple’s last word was when they changed the computer’s internal name to be “LAW,” which is better known as “Lawyers Are Wimps.”  Sagan was again offended by the name and Apple eventually settled in June of 1994. 

Information for this blog found on :

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Did-You-Know-Carl-Sagan-Fought-Apple-87985.shtml

Jobs in the clear? SEC most likely not to file suit against Steve Jobs

As an update to the SEC’s investigation of Apple and Steve Jobs regarding stock options backdating, it appears, Steve may be in the clear. Not only did the internal audits conducted by the SEC prove to be ok, Steve has made a clear case that as CEO he may not have known about the legal subtext of backdating that may have been carried out by his second-in-command employees. The SEC sued both Apple’s Chief Financial Officer Fred Thompson and ex-General Counsel Nancy Heinen last year for apparent backdating-related fraud, leaving Jobs, at this point, out of focus.

While Steve may be in the clear with the internal audits conducted, that does not necessarily mean that the SEC does not have a case. The SEC only has to prove that the executive, in this case Steve Jobs, knew the alleged backdating was occurring and therefore disregarding the accounting rules put in place by the SEC to regulate such behavior. If the SEC feels they would have evidentiary support to make this case, they can proceed with action.

The interesting part is that the government may in fact do nothing even if some evidence is found. A few high profile attorneys commented on the case, including Anthony Sabino, who is a white collar defender and professor at St. John’s University in New York, stating that because of Steve Jobs “immensely well-known and well-respected” status in the business world, the government may not want to press the matter any further.

While it is still pending whether action will be taken against Steve or not, I’d have to agree with Mr. Sabino’s sentiments on the matter that could be facing the bar. Especially in a high profile case, where a jury will serve, the jury represents the American public’s opinion and that may leave for a very one-sided jury, no matter what the selection process.

This blog is based an article found at reuters.com regarding the SEC options suit

http://www.reuters.com/article/PBLSHG/idUSN0736611420080530?pageNumber=4&virtualBrandChannel=10112

Apple Defends "Made for iPod" Label in Apple v. Atico International

            Oyez, Oyez, Oyez!  This being my first official blog as the new “lawsuit of the week” correspondent, I’d like to first introduce myself.  My name is Becca and I am currently a law student with the ambition to become a lawyer. Each week I will be mixing my passion for Apple and the law by bringing you the most up-to-date lawsuits involving Apple. 

            This week’s lawsuit is regarding the iPod and an outside company who makes products, which are compatible with the iPod.  Unlike the recent “lawsuits of the week,” Apple appears as the Plaintiff, suing Atico International, in what seems to be an effort to test their “Made for iPod” label.  Attorneys for Apple filed a ten-page complaint against Atico, a company who manufactures several products compatible with the iPod including a dock connector, remote controls, portable speakers and three dock adapters which are made to fit different sized iPods for one standard dock model.  Apple claims in their suit that these products infringe upon key patents that Apple obtained between 2007 and 2008.  Furthermore, Apple claims that Atico has failed to license their use of Apple’s docking design for their speaker units therefore denying Apple of royalties they claim they are owed due to their “Made for iPod” campaign.  Atico’s products also display similar logos to Apple’s indicating their products compatibility with iPods.  Apple’s lawyers claim this is in exploitation of their name and “violating the federal Lanham Act (found in Title 15 of the U.S. Code and includes the federal statutes which govern trademark law in the United States) by falsely suggesting an endorsement by Apple.”

            Apple has asked in their complaint for a permanent injunction (a final order from the Court which would tell Atico to permanently stop selling these products if they are without a license from Apple) in addition to Atico paying damages to Apple for the use of their design without being a part of the “Made for iPod” program.

            This suit makes a mark in Apple’s history book by being the first known case of Apple defending their “Made for iPod” licensing program, which began in January of 2005.

            It seems to me that Apple is looking to make an example of Atico in order to promote other companies to join their “Made for iPod” campaign.  Overall, this program really seems to be an easy way to make money for Apple, instead of a simple way for consumers to tell which outside company’s products may be compatible with their iPods.

The article related to this blog entry was found on :

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/05/16/apple_files_first_lawsuit_in_defense_of_made_for_ipod_licensing.html

Dither Me This: Apple Settles Display Lawsuit

As first reported by Appleinsider.com, Apple has settled a lawsuit brought by two photographers, regarding Apple's claim of millions of colors on the MacBook and MacBook Pros. So how many colors were there? Can't we just count them? Well, yes and no.

Essentially, the suit claims Apple reached the millions of colors through a process called dithering. Essentially, pixels next to each other that were two different colors could be used to give the look of a third, separate color.  No big deal, you say? Well, it can be to a photographer, which is probably why this wasn't thrown out.

Color accuracy at the pixel level is an essential for a professional photographer. Admittedly, I've never looked at a photo, and pointed out a flaw in a single pixel, but I see the point.

What does this mean to you? Well as a class action suit, this case may very well end in some sort reparation to all MacBook and MBP buyers. Don't quit those day jobs just yet. If history is our guide, this will most likely end with a discount on Apple hardware/software. Hmmm... Aperture anyone. Our prediction: a $50 off Aperture coupon. You heard it here first.