apple legal posts

Apple has expanded its trademark on "iPhone" with the inclusion of the US Patent and Trade Office's (USPTO) "category 28," which reads as "handheld unit for playing electronic games." Other USPTO categories included in the trademark are number 9 (mobile phone and digital audio player) and number 38 (electronic data-transmitting device). Note that Apple filed to include category 28 way back in December of 2007, so don't take it as a sign that the next gen iPhone will be a gaming monster.

This news is no great shakes, but an example of Apple covering its bases. For example, back in 2002, Apple applied to register the iPhone trademark in China, but that application was limited to computer hardware and software, not mobile phones. Earlier this year, Apple took control of the "i-phone" trademark in China (yes, "i-phone") from manufacturer Hanwang Technology, who briefly sold a device with that name in 2003 (three years before the iPhone's introduction).

[Via Engadget]

It's Monday, let's sue Apple!

Chinese manufacturer Shenzhen Great Loong Brother Industrial is reportedly considering suing Apple over the design of the iPad, claiming that it bears too close a resemblance to their P88.

in an interview with El Mundo, Shenzhen Great Loong Brother Industrial's president Xiaolong Wu said that the two devices are "completely identical." In fact, the P88 features that are "completely identical" to the iPad include:

1. Windows XP
2. A webcam
3. A 250GB internal hard drive
4. A thicker and heavier body
5. A resistive touch display (the iPad uses multi-touch)
6. 1.5 hours of battery life

Plus they're both rectangles. With black borders.

Ed Sutherland summed it up best at Cult of Mac: "How do you get more attention for a largely unknown netbook at a time when the tech press has the vapors for Apple's iPad? You sue Apple and claim its new device is just a clone of your netbook."

Now that suing Apple is practically an Olympic event, Kodak is having a turn. They've filed two actions against Apple and RIM, and a third against Apple only.

The first two claim that Apple and RIM infringe upon Kodak's method of previewing images with the iPhone and Blackberry. The third complaint, pointed at Apple only, addresses processing images at different resolutions. Finally, Apple is also accused of infringements on processes of software programs calling to each other.

What a litigious lot we are. To be fair, Kodak says they're just after fair license terms and don't want any products taken off of the market. We'll watch this story for you.

[Via Engadget]

Back in 2002, Apple applied to register the iPhone trademark in China, but that application was limited to computer hardware and software, not mobile phones. A year later (three years before the iPhone's introduction), Chinese manufacturer Hanwang Technology applied for the trademark "i-phone" for a device they briefly sold. I

Since then, Apple has been working to acquire the trademark "i-phone," and this week they finally succeeded. According to Macworld, the record for the trademark now shows Apple's name where it used to list Hanwang Technology. On Monday a Hanwang representative stated that Apple has indeed acquired the trademark, but refused to give any details.

The iPhone's performance in China has been interesting, as the government's communication restrictions, a bustling black market and cheaper competition in Hong Kong got things off to a slow start. Just last week, China Unicom reported that they had sold 300,000 iPhones, which tripled claims of only 100,000 units sold by the start of December.

UPDATE 2: Be sure to read Engadget's analysis of what appears to be a non-event here.

Apple is apparently getting hot and bothered over Australian/New Zealand supermarket chain Woolworths' new logo. Woolworths insists the logo is merely a stylized "W," but Apple's copyright lawyers aren't buying it. They're trying to knock down Woolworths' copyright application for the logo by claiming it violates Apple's intellectual property.

Apparently, according to trademark lawyer Trevor Choy, Apple does this fairly often, trying to make sure that some other company's branding can't be mistaken for its iconic logo.

I'll admit that at first glance the logos look similar (to me, anyway – my ex-graphic designer wife doesn't agree). Even so, it seems kind of a stretch to assume anyone is going to confuse Woolworths, a supermarket chain based only in Australia and New Zealand that mostly sells, you know, food, with Apple, a worldwide company that sells computers. Trust me, I shop at the Woolworths here in Palmerston North every week; it's a decent grocer, but nobody's going to wander in there looking for a MacBook Pro.

What do you think? Does Apple have a case here? Or is it sort of ridiculous for Apple to claim that anything roundish with a leaf on top endangers its trademark? Sound off in the comments.

UPDATE: A couple of points we should clear up on this post. First, Apple is not, in fact, the aggressor in this case. No one is, really. It is a trademark action, and as far as we know it has NOT become a lawsuit. It appears to be a part of the trademark process as it happens down under. Apple is free to object, and since Woolworths is attempting to register their mark across a huge range of products (like computers), they are practically obligated to do so. We'll keep an eye out for any interesting developments, however. - Ed.

Earlier this week, David Welker (co-founder of lawfirm Welker and Rosario) left Psystar's legal team. He will be succeeded by Eugene Action, who is already listed as the council of record.

If you're unfamiliar with this story (and who could blame you, it's so ridiculous), here's a primer. Psystar sells Mac clones with Leopard installed. Apple played the conspiracy theory card and then declared copyright infringement and sued. Psystar responded with a counter suit, filed Chapter 11, recovered, sued over Snow Leopard ... you know what? Just check the history here. It's an epic exercise in red tape manufacturing.

At this point, Psystar is like that cricket you hear but can't find. Ultimately harmless, hard to ignore and supremely annoying.

Eminem's publisher, Eight Mile Style LLC, is preparing to go to trial against Apple this week over the rapper's iTunes sales, Reuters reports.

This comes just months after Eminem's production company, FBT Productions, lost its royalties case against Apple.

This is an on-going battle since 2007, when Eminem sued Apple claiming that his music was being sold through iTunes without his consent. Apple claims that the deal, done through Aftermath Entertainment with distributes Eminem's music, is not only legal, but Eminem is making money off of it. Aftermath Entertainment is also being included in the lawsuit.

Reuters says that if the two sides do not reach a deal, the trial will start on Thursday.

Eminem has also previously sued Apple over its use of "Lose Yourself" in an iTunes Store ad that aired in 2003.

[Via Apple Insider]

Eminem's production company, FBT Productions, has been arguing that their artist is entitled to half of all royalties generated by sales of his music in the iTunes Store. Of course, Apple takes a commission before the artist receives their compensation. FBT's argument hinged upon whether the arrangement constitutes a licensing agreement.

MacNN reports that a Los Angeles jury decided no, iTunes is simply another distribution channel, so Em will not be receiving the $1.47 million he was after. Bummer, dude.

This certainly isn't the first time Eminem's legal team has clashed with Apple's. Back in May of 2005, Apple was forced to pull an iPod ad that featured a young user singing (Rapping? Speaking?) the lyrics to "Lose Yourself." The story at the time was that Eminem refused to give Apple permission to use the song, but they did anyway.

Later that same year, the folks at Lugz footwear had Apple pull an Eminem-approved TV ad that looked a lot like their own. Oops.

Earlier this year, manufacturer Psystar began selling computers capable of running Mac OS X Leopard. They've gotten the Mac community's attention, and Apple's. Of course, Psystar found themselves involved with Apple legal shortly after their announcement. That was no surprise, but this week's news kind of is.

Apple is claiming that Psystar is part of a larger group of individuals or corporations. Here's a quote from the recently amended claim:

"...persons other than Psystar are involved in Psystar's unlawful and improper activities described in this Amended Complaint. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of these persons are unknown to Apple. Consequently they are referred to herein as ... the "John Doe Defendants"...Apple will seek leave to amend this complaint to show the unknown John Doe Defendants' true names and capacities when they are ascertained."

Yikes. What does make sense in light of this accusation, if proven to be true, is Psystar's apparent brashness. When faced with an opponent as high-profile and well-funded as Apple, they've continued to sell machines. Either they're crazy or they've got some serious backbone. We shall see.

[Via World Of Apple]

It seems that Apple's legal department have got their knickers in a knot* over an ad campaign for the iGasm, which is a rather intimate accessory for the iPod. The ads look just like the original "silhouette" iPod spots (see the ad at right), just not so much, you know, for the family.

Now, this certainly isn't the first iPod sex toy we've seen (or benign iPod case that only looks like a sex toy), nor is it the first time Apple has sued such a manufacturer for their advertising. And it probably won't be the last.

*I know, I know. I just couldn't resist.

[Via MacDailyNews]

Nancy Heinen, Apple's former general counsel who was just replaced by Donald Rosenberg, has retained a Berkley white collar crime lawyer just in case she needs to defend herself against charges resulting from the whole messy options backdating problem. Heinen abruptly exited her post at Apple last spring with no explanation given and neither Apple nor Heinen has bothered to elaborate on what exactly went down or even whether she was fired or resigned on her own.

Heinen has hired Cristina Arguedas of Arguedas, Cassman & Headley, who said in an interview last week that federal authorities have not contacted Heinen about her possible role in Apple's option grants and Miles Ehrlich, a lawyer at Ramsey & Ehrlich. "Every executive, CEO, CFO, general counsel, any high-up person in Silicon Valley in their right mind is getting themselves legal representation because of this legal environment right now," Arguedas said. "I have a number of clients who are executives who think it would be a good idea to be represented. It doesn't mean anything that they have chosen me to do that."

Fellow TUEWstress Erica Sadun discovered that Cristina Arguedas, aside from being Apple's ex-lawyer's lawyer is go-to-lawyer for lawyers in general, according to the Wall Street Journal law blog. In addition to defending Nancy Heinen, she has also defended legal eagle Ann Baskins, Hewlett Packard general counsel, among others. Is there a special Counsel the Counselors class in law school we wonder?

More than 90 companies are the subject of stock option inquiries right now. The FBI said Wednesday that it's investigating 45 backdating cases, while prosecutors in the past three weeks have charged five former executives of two companies, including two ex-CEOs. Sounds to me like Heinan is very wise to retain counsel at this stage of the game.

An appeals court has ruled that Apple is not entitled to subpoena information from a blog's email service provider in order to uncover the identity of  Apple employees who allegedly leaked secret  information to several blogs about Asteroid, a firewire interface for GarageBand that Apple was developing. The decision against Apple has implications beyond the facts of this case. It was a major victory for bloggers, webmasters, and email service providers.

One of the issues in the case was whether bloggers are entitled to protect the identity of their sources to the same extent as offline journalists. In the opinion in favor of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), who represented the blogs Powerpage.org and AppleInsider, the court rejected Apple's contention that the blogs were not engaging in legitimate journalism, writing:

"We can think of no workable test or principle that would distinguish 'legitimate' from 'illegitimate' news. Any attempt by courts to draw such a distinction would imperil a fundamental purpose of the First Amendment, which is to identify the best, most important, and most valuable ideas not by any sociological or economic formula, rule of law, or process of government, but through the rough and tumble competition of the memetic marketplace."

EFF says that the decision is also a victory for anyone who uses email, because it means that litigants in a civil lawsuit can't subpoena your email from your service provider.

The text of the court's opinion is available from EFF. For background on the case, take a look at our earlier post.

A California appellate court heard arguments yesterday on a highly charged discovery issue about a subpoena issued by Apple in its trade secret lawsuit, Apple v. Does. The twists and turns of legal process can be a mystery to non-lawyers and even to those of us who had the dubious honor of sweating through law school and years of practice. So here's some background that may help put yesterday's proceedings in context.

The discovery issue is an offshoot of the main Apple v. Does case, filed in December 2004, in which Apple alleges that unnamed defendants ("Does"), leaked trade secrets about an unreleased Apple product to several blogs, including PowerPage.org and AppleInsider.com, which published the information. The unreleased product, code-named Asteroid, was a firewire interface for GarageBand.

The discovery dispute argued yesterday is a side issue about a subpoena that Apple sent to nFox, the email ISP for PowerPage.org, seeking emails and other information that might reveal the identity of the sources who leaked the alleged trade secrets. PowerPage.org publisher Jason O'Grady, along with two other online publishers, filed a motion for a protective order against Apple in February, 2005 asking for a stay of the nFox subpoena. Neither nFox, O'Grady, nor the other online publishers in the discovery action are named parties in the main lawsuit. O'Grady et al are represented in the discovery suit by The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

Here's the situation. A young girl (3rd grade) has ideas on how Apple can improve her iPod. So, she writes a letter expressing her ideas as a class project, and sends it off to 1 Infinite Loop. She received a reply...from Apple legal. The letter stated that Apple does not accept or appreciate unsolicited product ideas with all the warmth and humanity that you would expect from the legal department of a billion dollar company. I don't know what this girl's teacher expected to happen, but I'm guessing it wasn't this.

Apple has since apologized to the girl and is now thinking of implementing a new policy for interacting with kids.

[Via Cult of Mac]

A group of Mac fans started collecting the various different Apple Keynote addresses into one place, AppleKeynotes.com. It was developing into an interesting community site where people could watch or re-watch some of the Keynote addresses from the past. Were I a marketing or speech instructor, I'd have been pointing my students there to see fine examples of the art of the sale and exemplary delivery style.

Unfortunately, it is no more. This morning, the site shut down because they received a letter from Apple Legal. Presumably, republishing the Keynotes was violating Apple's copyright on them, but it's not clear from the notice.

I agree with both sides here. Apple has a right to protect their copyrighted material, including Keynote Addresses. But at the same time, Apple was not making these available for public perusal, and so a few people stepped up to do so in a non-profit, community-driven manner. Perhaps we can hope Apple will make the Keynotes available themselves.