Legal Archive

Yesterday, we discussed the claims made by Oracle about Google allegedly copying their code, and quickly enough, the web - I included - concluded that it looked like the code in question originally came from Apache's Harmony Project - although no one could find it in the current code repository. Earlier this morning, I contacted the Apache Software Foundation, and they cleared everything up: the contested class library does not, and did not, come from the Apache Harmony project.

Now, this is an interesting development in the ongoing war against Android. Oracle didn't just sue Google for allegedly infringing its Java patents; it also claimed copyright infringement. Oracle has amended its complaint, and, fair is fair, they've got the code to prove it: indeed, Android contains code that appears to be copied verbatim from Java - mind you, appears. However, the code in question comes straight from Apache's Harmony project, which raises the question - would a respected and long-established cornerstone of the open source world really accept tainted code in the first place?

Britain's Attorney General has said that website owners should be made legally responsible for comments made by visitors. According to a report on Out-law.com, Dominic Grieve told members of the Criminal Bar Association that the spiralling number of internet news web sites meant it was becoming more and more difficult for courts to ensure that trials were fair, and that juries were not exposed to material that could prejudice a hearing.

And we have another interesting development in the ongoing and ever-expanding idiocy that is the War of the High-Fiving Lawyers Mobile Patent World War. Motorola, now a central player in this worldwide conflict that is hurting consumers' wallets and clogging legal systems all over the world, has come to HTC's rescue by seeking to invalidate the patents Apple sued HTC with earlier this year.

Speaking of patent lawsuits - somebody pointed out to me that both Oracle and Google are members of the Open Invention Network. This struck me as odd - doesn't the OIN license require you to promise not to assert your patents against Linux systems? And, uhm, isn't that kind of what Oracle is doing right now? Well, yes, they might be suing a Linux System - but they're not suing a Linux System as defined by the OIN.

And so, the idiocy in the mobile industry continues. Motorola has just upped the ante in this already ridiculous spider web of lawsuits by suing the pants off Apple. Eighteen patents are involved, most of which seem to be actual hardware patents, but that doesn't make some of them any less obvious (apparently, you can patent the location of your antenna). Anywho, like Nokia, Motorola claims that Apple is unwilling to license Motorola's patents, and as such, suing was the only option.

So, Apple has to pay boatloads of money to some patent troll over cover flow and Time Machine-related patents.

Today EFF, joined by Public Knowledge, the Computer & Communications Industry Association and the Apache Software Foundation, filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case in which Microsoft is trying to make it easier to invalidate an issued U.S. patent. If successful, this challenge should help in the fight against bad patents by lowering the standard required to prove that the patent is invalid to the same one required to prove infringement. It should especially help the free and open source community.

Yesterday's news regarding the lawsuit Skyhook has filed against Google seems to have made quite an impact here and there. If you read through the complaint (at Daring Fireball), Skyhook makes some interesting claims about how Google abuses its position to strongarm OEMs into using Google Location services, but the big claim, something everyone seems to overlook, is this one: Skyhook says Google tried to gain access to Skyhook's data.

It looks like Google has a serious lawsuit up its tailpipe. Skyhook Wireless, the company that develops technologies for determining the location of cell phones and similar devices, has filed a patent infringement and a tortious interference lawsuit against the search giant, claiming Google's interference cost Skyhook tens of millions of dollars.

EULAs, and whatever nonsense they may contain, are legally binding in the US. Have a great weekend!

Ars Technica: "Today 377 members of the European Parliament adopted a written declaration on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) in which they demand greater transparency, assert that ISPs should not up end being liable for data sent through their networks, and say that ACTA 'should not force limitations upon judicial due process or weaken fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and the right to privacy'."

We've all heard of patent trolls who buy up patents without using them to make any products. Their only goal is to seek out possible infringers and sue them, making money via the justice system. It was only a matter of time, but we've now got something new: copyright trolls.

Well, this was rather unexpected. As it turns out, Commodore USA's CEO Barry Altman isn't particularly pleased about the article I wrote earlier today in which I placed a considerable amount of scepticism with regards to Commodore USA and its business (and website). He (not his lawyer) sent us a threatening email demanding we take down the article, post a new correction article, the whole shebang. The entire email - as an image, you'll want the original formatting - after the break. Our reply? We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.