Legal Archive

"In its case against Samsung Electronics in the Netherlands, Apple is demanding an extensive ban on all Galaxy series smartphones and tablets, including a complete recall of stock by European distributors and resellers. Apple's complaint against Samsung in The Hague district court is much more comprehensive than previously thought. It's not only broader in its legal scope than a separate, ongoing Apple complaint against Samsung in Germany, but an injunction could have a 'huge impact' on the entire European market for smartphones and tablets, according to Alastair Edwards, principal analyst at Canalys." That's how far Apple is willing to go. They are willing to screw over countless resellers - some big, some small, one-shop affairs - because they don't like competition. I wonder how the Grubers of this world are going to spin this one. Hey Steve, I've got another extremely successful Android phone maker for you to sue.

Day 2 is underway in the Apple v. Samsung case in The Netherlands, a microcosm of what would have happened in Germany, had Germany implemented the concept of due process. Most interesting bit so far? Samsung is using the Knight Ridder tablet from 1994 as a case of prior art. I was unaware of this device, but be sure to watch the video - this is an iPad. Amazing. This doesn't actually surprise me though - my father worked at a large newspaper company his entire life until he retired a few years ago, and in the early '90s, he already attended demonstrations of devices like this, taking home promotional material that amazed my child brain. This was supposed to be the future of newspapers, until development on these kinds of devices suddenly halted - my father never understood why. Update: Forgot to mention that like yesterday, Andreas Udo de Haes, editor at WebWereld.nl, present in the court room, is covering this. This time, in English. Update II: Samsung has presented 20 cases of prior art for both tablets and smartphones. Update III: I'm liking Samsung's lawyers.

Okay, the court case between Apple and Samsung started in The Netherlands today, over Samsung's various Android devices. The day has been pretty uneventful - up until just now. Andreas Udo de Haes, editor at WebWereld.nl, present in the court room, just tweeted that Samsung is accusing Apple of 'tampering' with the evidence - they claim it has been Photoshopped. The story is ongoing, more sure to follow. Update: The tampering of photos will be fully covered tomorrow. Update II: The general gist is that Apple supposedly manipulated photos of the iPad and Galaxy Tab to make the similarities stand out. This is a pretty harsh claim, I'm dying to see the evidence Samsung has for this one.

Yesterday, the web was ablaze about how the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 wouldn't be sold in Australia due the patent dispute between Apple and Samsung. Turns out the story was blown out of proportion. Official statement from Samsung explains it all: "Apple Inc. filed a complaint with the Federal Court of Australia involving a Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1 variant that Samsung Electronics had no plans of selling in Australia. No injunction was issued by the court and the parties in the case reached a mutual agreement which stipulates that the variant in question will not be sold in Australia. A Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1 for the Australian market will be released in the near future. This undertaking does not affect any other Samsung smartphone or tablet available in the Australian market or other countries. Samsung will continue to actively defend and protect our intellectual property to ensure our continued innovation and growth in the mobile communication business."

Two different graphs. Both happen to be published at Ars Technica, with one of them coming from a different source. Seemingly completely unrelated, but when you ponder the waterfall of recent lawsuit-related news, these two graphs suddenly tell all there is to tell. These two innocent little graphs illustrate why Apple is attacking Android so ferociously.

"Aaron Swartz, a 24-year-old programmer and online political activist, has been indicted in Boston on charges that he stole more than four million documents from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and JSTOR, an archive of scientific journals and academic papers." The weird part? JSTOR dropped all claims against him, because "they've suffered no loss or damage, and asked the government not to prosecute". Weird.