Canadian owners of first-, second- or third-generation iPods may want to keep an eye on their email boxes (provided that they purchased said iPod(s) before June 24th, 2004). The Montreal Gazette is reporting that up to 80,000 Canadians (including 11,310 Québécois) could be eligible for a $45 credit from Apple as the result of two class action lawsuits. The suit involved the iPod battery's dramatic decrease in capacity after two years of use.

Though the deal is still tentative, it is expected to be finalized by a Montreal court on May 26th.

[Via iPodNN]

Sometimes you have to think that we'd all be better off if Apple's marketing and trademark folks just dropped the corporate legal department out of their Rolodexes. Last week Bloomberg & Wired reported that Apple is still challenging the New York City environmental initiative GreenNYC's logo, which does look like an apple but not all that much like this Apple's apple. The trademark dispute hinges on the likelihood of public confusion and the possible dilution of Apple's mark, both of which seem to fail the silly test -- but you never do know.

Considering that Apple was on the receiving end of a trademark fight with the Beatles for decades, it's not clear why it's prudent or necessary for the company to pick a fight with a city known as "the Big Apple" since before the invention of the vacuum tube. I guess once you stake out your orchard, you have to make sure those darn kids don't steal the fruit. More on this story from BloggingStocks and the NYT.

Update: Nilay Patel at Engadget (who is a lawyer) describes the opposition filing as a normal part of the trademark process. Still seems kind of petty.

Almost a year after those two photogs first tried to bring a class-action suit against Apple for supposedly underperforming colors on MacBook and MacBook Pro LCD screens, our own Mike Rose has been proven right -- Apple has "quietly settled" the suit, and presumably Apple didn't have to pay much: the plaintiffs apparently had trouble finding other people who had purchased the laptops solely for the "millions of colors" claim.

Which makes sense -- why would you need any more than a few hundred thousand colors on a single screen? Of course, the drawback here is that we'll never find out if you really can get millions of colors on a MacBook screen, as the photographers wanted. For all we know, they might actually be technically correct -- widely recognized as the very best kind of correct.

[Via Engadget]

Apple just keeps getting hit with lawsuits this month. AppleInsider reports on yet another new lawsuit seeking to bring the iPhone down. Romek Figa of Abraham & Sons filed a 5-page complaint in a Massachusetts district court that alleged Apple violated a patent from 1990. The patent is described as a way for a phone to look up an incoming number and match it with a stored contact, allowing the phone to display the stored contact information.

However, the 1990s-based patent references technologies such as a two line LCD and separate receiver. Figa's complaint requests that Apple be tried by a jury; and if he were to win, Apple would have to stop selling the iPhone and further infringing on the patent. He is also seeking damages for Apple knowingly infringing on the patent.

This suit seems to be a little "over the top," meaning that most phones already do some form of this to retrieve information from a contact list and display it for an incoming call. At least, that's the case with every cell phone I've had. Why hasn't this suit had an impact on any other cell phone manufacturers? What do you think about the suit? Be sure to express your opinions in the comments!

[via AppleInsider]

AppleInsider is reporting that Apple and Starbucks are being sued because of their recent iTunes promotion cards. James and Marguerite Driessen claim to hold a patent on, what they call "RPOS" (or retail point of sale for online merchandising). The patent in question allows customers to buy a gift card from brick-and-mortar stores and then go home and redeem the card online. However, Apple has an excuse, because while the Driessens' patent was under review, Apple developed their own similar concept for redeeming the iTunes gift cards.

Apple's gift cards allow a person to enter a code on the iTunes Store and receive a whole artist's album, along with the artwork. However, due to legal pressure from the Driessens, Apple apparently pulled the iTunes gift cards from the stores, but left them in UK Stores.

Now, here's where this may get a little sticky. I've been wondering why this is only affecting the Apple iTunes cards. Why aren't other gift card manufacturing companies getting hit with this suit? This patent application seems to describe pretty much every gift card that I have seen; such as those credit-card-gift-cards that you can buy at most malls -- you can also use those online as a credit card. And not to mention those Zune music cards! What do you think? Should Apple be forced to remove their cards that provide convenience to customers, or should they fight back? Be sure to sound off in the comments below!


[via AppleInsider]

Information Week is reporting that Apple has been accused of monopolizing the online music industry in an antitrust lawsuit. Specifically, the suit states that Apple has placed "...unneeded and unjustifiable technological restrictions on its most popular products in an effort to restrict consumer choice, and to restrain what little remains of its competition in the digital music markets."

Here we go again with "restricting consumer choice." First of all, no one is being forced to use iTunes or an iPod. But, what if you want to use iTunes with a player other than an iPod? Or, what if you want to use an iPod but not the iTunes Store?

Mac users can choose from a number of players that work with iTunes, including the Nomad Jukebox, SonicBLUE Rio and Nakamichi SoundSpace 2. It's true that music purchased from iTunes will not play on these devices (unless it's from the growing library of DRM-free songs), but Mp3 files and unprotected AAC files will.

For iPod users looking beyond the iTunes Store, there's the Amazon Mp3 Store. In some ways, in fact, the Amazon Store is more appealing than iTunes: all of their tracks are DRM-free and many are cheaper.

Of course these aren't perfect solutions. To get the most out of iTunes and an iPod, one must use them in conjunction. However, this suit feels like sour grapes: punishing Apple for their success. There's a difference between dominating a market and preventing others from succeeding. So far, no one has created a more successful alternative and that's not Apple's fault.

Thanks, Dave.

ComputerWorld reports that Timothy Smith, an iPhone owner in California, plans to sue Apple for violating antitrust law. His claim rests on the fact that Apple forces consumers to use AT&T as their sole wireless carrier and that the 1.1.1 update bricked phones that were unlocked for other carriers. This sole agreement with AT&T is, according to his suit, anticompetitive, forcing customers to pay more for their phones and for the cell phone service than they would in a competitive market. The suit goes on to add that Apple knew that the probable result of the update would brick unlocked iPhones.

If you're feeling in a litigious mood or if you just want to rubberneck to see what the fuss is about, check out this website set up by the Law Offices of Van Smith and Fernandez. It's got some spiffy photos at the top with a guy on a phone (it's probably not an iPhone) and a couple of lawyers talking (probably neither Van Smith or Fernandez).

People like to sue each other (Americans at least), and they love to sue Apple.

Supposedly, the iPhone's keyboard infringes upon a patent awarded to Florida's SP Technologies LLC in 2004. They're seeking compensation for iPhones sold, as well as an injunction against the continued "...willful and deliberate" use of their intellectual property.

We'll see where this goes. In the meantime, we'll say it again: People love to sue Apple.

I hope somebody somewhere made a bit of cash from betting on when the first iPhone class-action lawsuit would appear, cuz this one gets us off to a strong start: Gizmodo is reporting that Jose Trujillo has filed a lawsuit over one of the most hotly debated un-features of the iPhone: its non-removable battery. Quoting from the lawsuit:

The battery enclosed in the iPhone can only be charged approximately 300 times before it will be in need of replacement, necessitating a new battery annually for owners of the iPhone.

How anyone could think the iPhone battery's longevity could be any different from the plethora of other Lithium ion-based devices we've been living with for so long is beyond me (especially since it's been officially put to rest time and time again), but I guess in today's world, someone had to fill the village idiot's shoes by using lies and mis-information to bring a lawsuit against this moment's hot new gadget. Anyone want to place bets on just how far this might get?

[via The iPod Observer]

One could allow Fred Greaves and Dave Gatley some latitude for extreme frustration. Both Mac-toting photographers found themselves, along with other MacBook and MacBook Pro owners, dealing with 'sparkly' and 'grainy' color on their laptop screens; as color-sensitive professionals, this rankled. Being told by Apple support that they were hypersensitive and they should get over themselves? Not good. Seeing discussion threads on the issue squelched on Apple's support boards? Infuriating. So, the two men decided to avail themselves of the last tech support refuge of the American consumer: the class-action lawsuit.

At the heart of Greaves and Gatley's action is the belief that Apple deceptively promoted its laptop screens as having superior color performance, when in fact the displays are only capable of displaying 18-bit color (6 bit * 3 channels, about 262,000 colors; contrast with 24-bit color, 8 bits per channel for 16.7 million colors). While almost all laptop panels are 6-bit models, and other laptop manufacturers use similar dithering methods (Frame Rate Control) to achieve the perceived wider gamut of millions of colors, this seems fishy to G&G. Additionally, the subjective experience of some MBP owners indicates that the banding/sparkling issues are nonexistent when the machines are booted into Windows; hence, a software or firmware issue on the Mac side would seem to be degrading the display/adapter performance.

I'm no stranger to the hardware problem that's oddly OS-specific, and I sympathize with those who expected Pro color on Pro laptops. The 6-bit vs. 8-bit issue aside -- it's industry-standard, and some Apple tech notes even acknowledge the distinction -- and as frustrating as the color conundrum must be for those affected, I can't imagine that this lawsuit is going to allow anyone to see green (aside from plaintiff's attorneys, that is).

[via Ars Technica]

Gadget Mag T3 published a little article listing several little-known iPod facts. Before anyone jumps out of the woodwork shouting "I knew that stuff already! Pwned!", remember that the story is written to a general audience.

Take the factoids-on-offer with several grains of salt, though, as I do not believe the judge of the Apple vs Apple case, Edward Mann, was asked to recuse himself, and not entirely sure that he offered let alone was "nearly unseated." That being said, you might learn a thing or two about iPods thanks to Gadget Mag T3.

Apple Inc. and the Beatles' record label Apple Corps Ltd. have finally buried the hatchet and settled their very, very on-going dispute over 'Apple' related trademarks. After more than a decade of fighting over Apple's use of the name in selling music-related products, as well as music itself with the iTunes Store, the two companies are calling it a day. From the press release:

"Under this new agreement, Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to "Apple" and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use."

In other words: it seems as though Apple Inc. has won the trademarks, but we don't really know how or why. In fact, both parties are eating their own legal fees. A quote from Steve Jobs doesn't help much either:

"We love the Beatles, and it has been painful being at odds with them over these trademarks. It feels great to resolve this in a positive manner, and in a way that should remove the potential of further disagreements in the future."

Unfortunately, this hasn't heralded the much rumored debut of the Beatles' catalog in the iTunes Store, despite Mr. Jobs' open invitation - yet.

Hey, it's Monday! Let's sue Apple!

PhatRat Technology is the latest company to bring a suit against Apple, claiming that the Nike+ Sport Kit uses their technology (in part). PhatRat makes wireless performance products for athletes, including the AirRat, which lets snowboarders, BMX riders, etc., record airtime via devices in their shoes. It's this data collection and transmission via footwear that has PhatRat up in arms.

We have no information on the case, of course, but it does seem like suing Apple is the fashionable thing to do lately. We'll see how this plays out.

It's good to see two major putting down legal weapons of trademark war and setting an example for the children. Forbes is reporting that Cisco has agreed to give Apple some extra time to respond to their iPhone trademark lawsuit (perhaps they know they might not have a leg to stand on?) so the two companies can sit down and maybe work things out peacefully.

The actual discussions are forthcoming, but since Cisco is apparently still seeking interoperability, I'm betting these 'discussions' aren't going to last much longer than a 'chat.' Apple doesn't share a bed with another 3rd party very often, and the iPhone means they're joined at more than just the hip with Cingular already.

As you all know by now (and saw Scott post last night), the trademark discussions between Apple and Cisco over the use of the iPhone name did not resolve cleanly and Cisco has filed suit. Negotiations were apparently in progress up until Monday night, with the remaining issues focused on interoperability between the Linksys iPhone and Apple's new cellphone, according to Cisco's spokesman. Cisco didn't expect Apple to introduce the phone as "iPhone" without a completed agreement.

Apple's response? Spokeswoman Natalie Kerris pointed out that the iPhone trademark has been poorly defended: there are several other VoIP products and at least one set of headphones that are already using the "iPhone" or "IPhone" brand.

The New York Times reports that companies like Comwave, Nuvio and Teledex already sell products with an iPhone name; there's also a full rundown in this preannounce post at the Barron's blog.

Quoting Ms. Kerris, via News.com:

"We think Cisco's trademark suit is silly...We believe (their) trademark registration is tenuous at best," said Natalie Kerris, an Apple spokeswoman.

"There are already several companies using the iPhone name for VoIP (voice over IP) products," Kerris said. "We're the first company ever to use iPhone for a cell phone. If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we're confident we'll prevail."

As noted previously, I am not a lawyer; my minimal knowledge of trademark law tells me, however, that when a trademark falls into disuse, is not defended against infringement, or becomes a generic word (aspirin), it's fair game for other companies to use. Cisco claims that it has pursued infringement actions against these other companies, but it seems that many of them have been selling "iPhone" products for some time.

OK, time to call on the TUAW Law Squad: any professional opinions out there?

Update: Cisco's general counsel blogs on the suit here; Harvard Law on the loss of trademark here. If Infogear/Linksys/Cisco had a three-year lapse in using "iPhone" for a product at any time between 1996 and today, that's abandonment. If not, they have a case.

Update II: Check the Internet Archive to see Cisco's iPhone support page from 2000-2006. Not an aggressive defense of trademark, but the product was there...