Legal

Where there’s smoke, there’s class action payments

Posted on May. 9, ’08, 8:19 AM PT by Dan Moren

Category | Legal

Ah, the yo-yo power adapter. I always though it was a bit of a misnomer, since if you ever tried to actually use it as a yo-yo, you quickly discovered that it was worthless. Frankly, it wasn’t much better as a power adapter, either. Though I appreciated the built-in cable management, I was far more distressed by the fact that it often seemed to spark and flash when I plugged it in. I ended up burning through a couple of these suckers while I owned a Pismo and later a G3 iBook.

And apparently, I was not alone. A story in this morning’s Los Angeles Times says that Apple has agreed to pay refunds of $25 to $79 to as many as 2.3 million Mac users who ended up buying replacement power adapters for certain PowerBooks and iBooks because of faulty power adapters. A class action suit was launched in 2006, contending that Apple had misrepresented problems with its power adapters after recalling just 570,000 of them in 2001.

I really like the current era power adapters over the yo-yo, but they have their share of problems too; I had to buy a replacement a month or two ago after MagSafe cord frayed where it connected to the brick. Still, at least they haven’t caught on fire yet.

Anyway, there’s a final approval hearing scheduled for September 8th, so I imagine we’ll have details on where you can queue up for your cash after that.

Apple sued for patent infringement over something to do with iPods and stuff

Posted on Apr. 30, ’08, 10:29 AM PT by Aayush Arya

Category | Legal

Thomas Claburn, writing for InformationWeek, brings word of yet another patent infringement lawsuit filed against Apple, this time about how Apple attaches solid state drives in its iPod nano and iPod touch lines (and possibly even the iPhone). It has been filed by law firm Butzel Long on behalf of Henry Milan, in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan.

Mr. Henry’s claim seems to be that the patent rights to the particular method which Apple uses to connect the drive to the connection port, which allows them to easily use the same setup on various devices, belong to him. The patent application in question was filed on 12 November 2004 and granted on 31 January 2006.They’ve tried to get Apple to license “their” technology and haven’t met with any success so far.

Quite frankly, if I were them, I wouldn’t have bothered at all. Then again, if I were them, I probably would’ve looked at better ways to make money than randomly suing giant corporations and hoping to win. I might’ve paid some heed to this whole thing and taken it seriously, if these things didn’t crop up out of nowhere practically every other week. We’ve all heard the story of the boy who cried wolf a little too often, haven’t we?

Break out your subpoenas: backdating suits are back in fashion

Posted on Apr. 24, ’08, 9:18 AM PT by Dan Moren

Category | Legal

I was realllllly hoping I would never have to utter—or, more to the point, type—the word “backdating” ever again. Then again, I was also hoping that I might be able to some day afford an island shaped like Djibouti. Neither of these things was apparently destined to be.

The Boston Retirement Board, who last September requested access to minutes from Apple board meeting, has now announced that they’re pursuing a suit against Apple for wasting $105 million by granting backdated options for Steve Jobs. While other, similar suits have been dismissed, the BRB claims to have new information gleaned from the above-mentioned documents—that information, however, is not being listed in the complaint, as it is technically confidential, and the court has yet to determine how it should be treated.

To these ends, the court is summoning a number of Apple’s executives and board, both current and former, to testify, including William Campbell, Millard Drexler, Arthur Levinson, Jerome York, Gareth Chang, Edgar Wollard, Fred Anderson (pictured), Nancy Heinen, and Steve Jobs himself. I hope they scheduled Anderson and Jobs on different days, because otherwise sparks are going to fly! Catfight!

[via The Mac Observer]

Judge says Ramone suit not even Halfway to Sanity

Posted on Apr. 23, ’08, 9:59 AM PT by Dan Moren

Category | Legal

On the musical heels of a Texas district judge dismissing a lawsuit filed by a rap mogul, Apple’s dodged a second bullet. Back in September of last year, punk rocker Richard Reinhardt, better known—or, well, known anyway—as Richie Ramone said that he was owed some serious dough for several songs that he’d written that were being sold online without his authorization.

U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin (and clear Judge Judy impersonator) apparently wasn’t much of a Ramones fan. The Manhattan-based justice tossed Richie’s case against Apple, Wal-Mart, and Real Networks, saying:

“This argument is without merit. The distinction Reinhardt attempts to draw departs from the most reasonable reading of the contract and he therefore bears the burden of justifying this departure. Reinhardt has failed to meet this burden, particularly because he alleges that the digital recordings were sold, contradicting his own argument that digital recordings are licensed but not sold.”

Or, in layman’s terms, “tough luck, Richie.” Fortunately, he’s still got a second shot at success by litigation; his case against the Ramones’ management, the estate of band co-founder John Cummings, and others continues apace.

[via Listening Post]

Judge opines rap lawsuit has no rhyme, reason

Posted on Apr. 21, ’08, 8:04 AM PT by Dan Moren

Category | Legal

That was a close one. It seemed perhaps that Apple was on the brink of an all-out war with rap mogul J Prince who, if you remember, named the company in a defamation suit last December, along with BET and parent company Viacom. The assertion? An episode of BET’s American Gangster labeled Prince and his employee Thomas Randle as “murderers.”

Prince wanted to prevent the episode from being shown on air or downloaded via iTunes, but U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes (pictured) tossed the case out on its ear, calling the photo in question—which depicted Prince and Randle with jailed gang leader Larry Hoover—“a broadcast of accurate pictures of their social choices.”

Man, that is street. Personally, I know pretty much nothing about Prince and Randle, and while I imagine that being called a murderer when you aren’t one is craptastic, suing Apple for having the episode online is a bit tangential to say the least.

BET, for its part, has been rebroadcasting the episode with Prince and Randle’s faces obscured. I’m just glad we’ve avoided open hostilities: it’s what Tupac and Biggie would have wanted.

[via Macworld UK]

If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat. If you listen to MP3s, I’ll tax your iPod.

Posted on Apr. 15, ’08, 9:21 AM PT by Dan Moren

Category | Legal

While we here in the US complain about our ability to rip DVDs to our computer, at least we can get by for the most part with ripping our CDs (despite occasional claims to the contrary from the RIAA)—not so for our friends across the pond, where making a copy of something without the permission of the copyright holder is a big no-no.

There has been a movement afoot to change this, with Government officials like the Minister of Intellectual Property Lord Triesman having argued that the practice should be made legal (as a sidenote, I’d like to point out that nobody in the US government has either a name or a title that awesome). However, the Music Business Group (MBG), a trade group, has rejected the proposal, which didn’t require extra compensation for creators and copyright holders. They, in turn, have suggested a tax on MP3 players, the rate for which—in the words of 2 Unlimited, y’all ready for this?—they would determine. I know, I know—shocking!

The MBG claims that the transfer of music from physical to digital medium implies value; a Government-sponsored consultation, on the other hand, concluded that in the case of a one-time shift for personal use, “there is no significant harm to the right holder which would need to be compensated.”

Like DVD-ripping, however, I imagine CD-ripping will pretty much continue unabated in the UK. But knowing the record companies, I somehow doubt we’ve heard the last of this.

Rocking former HP lawyer joins Apple

Posted on Apr. 11, ’08, 9:52 AM PT by Dan Moren

Category | People

Here at MacUser, we’re dedicated to bringing you all of the news about Apple. News, for example, about its lawyers. Sure, you might know that Apple’s general counsel is Daniel Cooperman, who formerly held the same position at Oracle. Now Apple’s added a member to Cooperman’s ragtag team of legal misfits: Charles Charnas will serve as Apple’s head of corporate law, a position that has not been filled since the former head, Michael Wyatt, departed in 2000.

As much as I know you’ll be glad to know that Charnas is well qualified, having served as deputy general counsel at HP and headed up their corporate department for nine years of his 18 year stint at the company, we imagine that you’ll be even more excited about the kind of contribution Charnas will make to Apple’s corporate culture. Charles is apparently quite the accomplished musician: witness this YouTube video of him singing and playing guitar at a goodbye party for HP’s former CFO Bob Wayman.

This just goes to show you, once again, that the Internet is the best thing since bread, sliced or unsliced.

Display lawsuit is itself an excessive amount of dithering

Posted on Mar. 31, ’08, 2:51 PM PT by Dan Moren

Category | Legal

I had reeeeeealllly hoped we’d be done with lawsuits about Apple’s displays, but apparently, it was not to be. As MacNN reports, law firm Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP has filed a class action suit against Apple for misleading customers about the display on the 20” iMac.

“Apple is duping its customers into thinking they’re buying ‘new and improved’ when in fact they’re getting stuck with ‘new and inferior,’” said Brian Kabateck, Managing Partner of Kabateck Brown Kellner. “Beneath Apple’s ‘good guy’ image is a corporation that takes advantage of its customers. Our goal is to help those customers who were deceived and make sure Apple tells the truth in the future.”

Once again, it appears to all go back to Apple’s description of the 20” iMac as supporting “millions” of colors, which the lawsuit contends that it is incapable of doing. The suggestion says that 20” and 24” iMacs use totally different technology for their displays, with the 24” using a 8-bit, in-plane switching (IPS) screen and the 20” having a cheaper 6-bit twisted nematic film (TN) LCD screen. The real problem, it appears, stems from the fact that the previous generation of 20” iMac used an IPS screen, meaning that Apple’s taken a step backwards to cut prices and lessen corresponding performance—without, the lawsuit suggests, informing its customers.

My folks have a 20” G5 iMac, which I’ve always thought had a very nice display, but I haven’t spent a lot of time with the new Aluminum models. Readers, your thoughts? Lined up a 20” iMac against a 24” and found it wanting? Or is it all just hot air? Let us know.

Millions served: color lawsuit settled

Posted on Mar. 26, ’08, 10:04 AM PT by Dan Moren

Category | Legal

You know, it’s so often that we bring you news of new lawsuits against Apple, that we’ve almost forgotten what it’s like to tell you about the end of a lawsuit. Now, we tell you this: it feels good.

Last May, a pair of San Diego photographers sued Apple for allegedly misrepresenting the specifications of their MacBook and MacBook Pro displays. The contention was that the displays were not capable of displaying millions of colors, as Apple said they were; they could only achieve that setting through excessive use of dithering, which meant that the displays were not suitable for professionals who needed extremely accurate color reproduction. That case has now been settled.

The case generated a lot of discussion and argument about precisely who was at fault, whether the lawsuit was frivolous, what precisely “millions of colors” really entailed, and what was to be done about fixing it, if possible. In the end, however, it appeared that the case was going nowhere; the plaintiffs reputedly had trouble finding other parties who were felt wronged because of the inaccuracy of that claim, and so they dropped the matter.

And so, it appears that our long national color nightmare is finally over. I, for one, will sleep soundly tonight, knowing that even if my MacBook can’t display millions of colors, I at least can’t tell the bloody difference.

Frankly, as happy as I was to hear about this development, I was even happier to hear that an unrelated suit, alleging that rainbows also exhibit from excessive dithering, was similarly dropped. Thank heavens.

[via Daring Fireball]

Apple sued over Leopard, iPod, iPhone: the whole shebang

Posted on Mar. 19, ’08, 10:00 AM PT by Aayush Arya

Category | Legal

The latest entrant in the “lawsuit of the week” category, according to AppleInsider, is Mirror Worlds, who is suing Apple for “willful and deliberate” violation of its software patents (don’t they all?). The company believes that Apple is guilty of violating several patents and is seeking not just damages, but triple wordscore damages.

Mirror Worlds’s patents describe a way to have your files visually arranged in windows according to the timestamps as well as searching through them. Sound familiar? Apparently, it did to Mirror Worlds: they claim that Mac OS X and, by extension, all Macs are guilty of infringing upon the patents.

The lawsuit also ropes in the iPod and the iPhone for good measure, because even though they don’t present your data à la Time Machine, they’ve still been using timestamp-based organization ever since their release—and that should be reason enough for anybody.

The suit was filed in a Texas court and charged Apple for being guilty of violating not just one but four of Mirror Worlds’ patents, dating back to as early as 1999.

You’d think Mirror Worlds would’ve realized this sooner, what with the iPod line having been around for the past seven years [and hell, the MacOS has let you sort by date for, er, almost a quarter century -DM]—but no, it was only when Apple released Leopard with Time Machine that they realized they could sue. Apparently timeliness is not next to godliness.

[Hat tip to reader Shrenique.]