An apple a day might keep the doc away , but there ’s no such sententious apothegm for the sound professing . judicial proceeding is the talent that keeps on give — or , learn , depending what side you ’re on . Still , if there ’s a gavel in our vicinity , you may bet dollar sign to donuts that we ’ll beunderit .
Not literally , of course . That would be crazy talk of the town .
European staycation
think back last hebdomad when Apple got the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 — or , at least , the Australian version of it — ban in the land Down Under ? Well , did you , did you learn the thunder ? Because that ’s the speech sound made by Tuesday ’s news that Apple has been granted a preliminary cease and desist order against Samsung in Germany , which could block the latter from selling its 10 - in tablet anywhere in the European Union ( except for the Netherlands , where Apple has filed a disjoined suit ) .
The sound situation is a routine tangled : AsFOSSPatent ’s Florian Mueller reports , the determination stems from a case that Apple filed in a district court in Düsseldorf , Germany . Apple alleges that Samsung has infringed a [ European ] Community innovation on the iPad ; since that design readjustment is egress by a European agency , however , the enjoinment can ripple throughout the EU , without the pauperism for Apple to file disjoined suit of clothes in each nation .
Mueller tell that extending the cease and desist order to the rest of the EU could require additional employment , but that it may no more than a formality . And , as always in legal cases , the situation is fluid : The decision could be repeal by a court , or might hang on until the hearing is conclude . But combined with Apple ’s place in Australia , as well asits pending wooing against Samsung here in the U.S. , Cupertino would seem to have impulse on its side .
ITC to give HTC case some TLC
Samsung ’s not the only Android licensee feeling some hotness . The U.S. International Trade Commission ( ITC ) has voted to investigate Apple ’s former patent infraction claims against Taiwan - based HTC . The call in question were filed last month and allege a ravishment of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 ( or , if you opt the more colorful title — and I do — the Smoot – Hawley Tariff Act ) .
This is n’t the first ITC charge that Apple has charge against HTC : Cupertino launch its offensive in March 2010 ; in July , the ITC ruled thatHTC had violated two of the ten patent of invention that Apple had aver . One final complaint against HTC is pending , as is HTC’sreturn salvo at Apple .
It ’s unclear precisely which patents are at issue in this special complaint , but Apple has unsurprisingly asked for a Bachelor of Arts in Nursing on the importation of HTC smartphones into the U.S.
Still notably absent in all the legal haggling , however , is Google . The company ’s Android operating arrangement range many of the smartphones and tablets manufactured by both HTC and Samsung . So far , though , Apple is play the part of revulsion picture show slasher , tardily whittling away the cast of character one - by - one .
Staging an intervention
Frankly , we ’d love to block all about patent firmLodsys ’s courting against a number of iOS and Android developer , but mass amnesia is deplorably not yet a legal option . Apple on Monday ingeminate its desire to intervene in the Texas territory court case , replying toLodsys ’s attempt to block Cupertino ’s entranceand ask for a hearing on the affair .
FOSS Patent ’s Florian Mueller does an excellent line of work ofrunning down Apple ’s reception , which he believes relieve oneself curt workplace of all of Lodsys ’s objections . Among those were Lodsys ’s argument that Apple ’s pastime in the display case was purely “ economic , ” to which Apple point out that the fact that it holds a licence for the technology at the heart of the case would be sufficient unto itself . And though Lodsys ’s had tried to counter Apple ’s argument that the defendants were small companies bylater suing the the likes of of Electronic Arts , Rovio , and Atari , Apple maintain that none of those companies have neither innate noesis of the Apple - provided technology at subject , nor of the terms of the license that , just as a monitor , Appleholds .
But my favorite counter - argument is when Apple argue that Lodsys ca n’t consider its motion to interpose “ prematurely ” because it ’s tooearly . Unless , of course , Lodsys is alleging that Apple has a meter political machine .
By my count , we ’re just one pony short of a full - fledge dog - and - shot glass show .
Shake it up, baby
California - ground Calibrait ( see what they did there ? ) says that Apple ’s iOS devices rape its patent of invention on accelerometer engineering . The society has litigate both Apple and sure third - party iOS apps that utilise the accelerometer for infringing onU.S. patent 7,446,565 , “ Electronic alliance organization . ” We ’re certain the case will get a middling shake .
( I regret nothing ! )
