Megaupload Faces Mega Problems Before Relaunch

Kim Dotcom leaves court in New Zealand. Michael Bradley/AFP/Getty Images.

What do you do when your once-thriving Internet company has the U.S. Justice Department breathing down your neck?

You relocate your site from the states to West Africa, naturally.

That’s exactly what the founder of Megaupload did when U.S. Feds shut down the popular site in January, charging that engaged in piracy — providing copyrighted material for free.

The seven-year-old website was once a well-known file sharing site with close to 150 million registered users, including Kim Kardashian, Diddy, and other high-profile celebs. In terms of megabytes transmitted, Megaupload accounted for about 4 percent of total Internet use.

Megaupload no longer has a .com domain in the U.S., but it continues to be involved in criminal court proceedings in Washington, D.C.

Earlier this year, a federal indictment charged that Megaupload, along with a shell company linked to it, caused an estimated half-billion dollars in copyright losses to others and made an estimated $175 million in proceeds.

Despite those allegations, Megaupload is pressing forward with the online file-sharing concept. Megaupload founder and New Zealand entrepreneur Kim Schmitz, who has been charged in the U.S. with fraud and money laundering, has appeared in photos online showing his opulent lifestyle. The indictment listed a Rolls Royce, Lamborghini, numbers electronic items, artwork, and televisions among his possessions.

Schmitz — better known as Kim Dotcom — has now announced he will launch a brand-new site called Me.ga that would supersede Megaupload in both speed and storage space while giving users direct control and responsibility over their files. Me.ga would go live at the beginning of the new year. Two months later, the German-born Schmitz will face a scheduled extradition hearing to the U.S.

Me.ga will live under the domain .ga, which is used in Gabon, the country on the west coast of Central Africa.

Kim Dotcom believes this move will allow the new site to thrive because it will not be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. and therefore protected from legal action in the states.

“It’s a little bit like a nightmare, I would say, unexpected, horrifying for my family,” Kim Dotcom revealed in an interview on Campbell Live, a current affairs program hosted by John Campbell based out of New Zealand.

“My wife is pregnant with twins has nightmares and is feeling miserable and I’m facing a very interesting situation.”

Interesting might be an understatement. Kim Dotcom’s new site may be blocked even before its 2013 launch.

Gabon Communications Minister Blaise Louembe suspended Me.ga, according to Business Insider, saying the site cannot “serve as a platform or screen for committing acts aimed at violating copyrights, nor be used by unscrupulous people.”

Shortly after the announcement, Kim Dotcom tweeted he already had plans to find another domain. A statement from his attorney Ira Rothken proclaims his innocence.

“It sounds like a lack of net neutrality in Gabon,” said the statement. “We’re just going to use a different domain.”

When Campbell asked whether he used the business to make a profit for himself, Kim Dotcom replied those claims were “complete nonsense.”

“I’m an innovator, I create software, I create solutions. I create a website that is popular and that people want to use.”

Source : abcnews[dot]go[dot]com

Apple adds Android 4.1 Jelly Bean, Galaxy Note 10.1 to Samsung lawsuit

Apple is trying to add Android 4.1, Jelly Bean, and the Galaxy Note 10.1 to yet another patent infringement court case against Samsung in California.

Apple argued yesterday that Samsung’s Galaxy Note 10.1 tablet and the Android 4.1 Jelly Bean operating system infringe on its patents and should be added to an existing California lawsuit against Samsung.

Appearing in a federal court in San Jose, before U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal, Apple’s lawyers sought to expand the lawsuit against Samsung with additional patent infringement claims. This follows Samsung’s attempt to add patent infringement claims against the new iPhone 5 back on October 1.

The judge has not issued a ruling yet.

Most notable among Apple’s claims is the inclusion of Google’s Android 4.1 operating system, also known as Jelly Bean. Apple insisted that the Galaxy Nexus is the only phone with Jelly Bean that it is seeking to add to the patent complaint, for now. The implications of this are serious for Google and it’s the first time that Apple has included the Android platform specifically in its cases against Samsung.

It seems the Cupertino-based company is also now looking to add devices with a stylus, such as the Galaxy Note 10.1, and Apple’s attorney mentioned adding a further 17 devices that could use a stylus, but don’t ship with one.

This case is not scheduled for trial until 2014.

We will find a resolution to the highest profile case so far sooner than that. The jury verdict saw Apple awarded $1.05 billion in damages. As we reported before, Apple is seeking more money while Samsung is claiming juror misconduct. Those arguments will be heard in December and there will also be a decision on Apple’s attempt to get eight Samsung smartphones banned from sale in the U.S.

We’ll keep you posted on all the news about Judge Grewal’s decision and the December hearing as it breaks.

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

Apple apologizes to Samsung again, but thanks to some cunning code, you may not notice

Apple has had another go at following the UK court's instructions on apologizing to Samsung, but has let some code slip in that makes it a little more awkward than it has to be to see said apology.

After editorializing its original statement and subsequently being reprimanded by the UK courts once again, Apple has complied and re-published the statement on its website saying Samsung didn’t copy the iPad’s design. No, really it has, you just have to look for it.

This is Apple’s second try at saying sorry to Samsung, plus — as all children should be made to do — it has to say sorry about making a mess of it the first time too; but before we get to that, let’s look at the statement’s positioning on the site first. Visiting Apple’s UK homepage shows a massive picture of the new iPad Mini and all the usual links above it, but no statement. Instead, visitors will have to scroll down to see it, where it hides out below the privacy policy and the region selector.

While this could be passed off as an idiosyncrasy of the site’s design, a Reddit user says it’s completely intentional, and offers up some unique-to-the-UK-page Javascript which Apple has used to manipulate the way the page is viewed, ensuring the statement is out of sight regardless of screen resolution. Cunning, Apple, very cunning.

If you think that sounds like conspiracy nonsense, have a go at resizing your browser window, and watch that iPad Mini get bigger and bigger each time.

The statement printed at the bottom of the page isn’t an apology to Samsung either, but an apology to the UK courts that leads to a link to the apology to Samsung. Yes, Apple has been very naughty indeed, recently, and needs to apologize to a growing number of parties with each new statement.

It reads “On 25 October 2012, Apple Inc. published a statement on its UK website in relation to Samsung’s Galaxy tablet computers. The statement was inaccurate and did not comply with the order of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales.” Follow the link and you get the simple statement Apple should have published last time.

The irony of all this is that if Apple had just printed the statement properly in the first place, it would have been forgotten about by now. Instead, all the coverage about their childish attempts to get around the court order, do nothing but remind the reader that Samsung didn’t copy the iPad.

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

UK Court slams Apple for the “Samsung/Apple UK judgement” text, orders changes to be made in 48 hours

Following the UK Court of Appeal ruling, Apple had to put a clear statement on its website saying that Samsung didn’t infringe on the iPad patents. And Apple did, but in a way that wasn’t what the judges really had in mind.

According to the official ruling, the guys from Cupertino had to clearly state on their UK website that “Samsung didn’t copy” the company’s designs. Instead, Apple posted a few paragraphs explaining in long how despite the UK’s ruling, courts in the US and Germany acknowledged that Samsung did infringe the company’s highly popular tablet. And that’s not what the court ordered.

Now, infuriated by Apple’s poor execution of the order, the UK Court has given the company 48 hours to carry out the ruling the way it was intended: publish on its front page with a link to the corrected statement in a font no less than 11 points.

As Bloomberg reports, Apple’s lawyers argued that this couldn’t be done in just 2 days and it’d need 14 days to make the changes. However, the judges weren’t having any of that and in the end, in two days we’ll be witnessing how Apple is eventually going to handle the situation with its UK website.

Source : blog[dot]gsmarena[dot]com

Apple carries out the UK court order, posts “Samsung didn’t copy us letter” on its website

Today Apple executed the UK’s High Court order that ruled the company should acknowledge that Samsung didn’t copy the iPad’s design in its Galaxy Tab slates.

Apple posted a link on the UK front page of its website to a “Samsung/Apple UK judgement” page, where it has posted the UK Court of Appeal’s ruling.

Just to refresh your memory, the court order states that the text should be published in a font no smaller than Arial 11 and Apple has done just this.

In the acknowledgement, Apple confirms that Samsung didn’t infringe on its iPad patents and hasn’t copied the tablet’s design in the UK, but also states other courts, like the one in Germany, have ruled the opposite.

Still, we can’t imagine Apple taking much joy in doing what it had to do – the letter may not sound like a sincere apology, but having to post such a thing on its website at all must have hurt quite badly.

Source : blog[dot]gsmarena[dot]com

Apple accepts its punishment, says Samsung didn’t copy the iPad’s design

After losing a court battle in the UK, Apple has carried out its punishment by publishing a statement on its website saying Samsung didn't copy the iPad's design. But, this being Apple, that's only the beginning.

When Apple lost a court case in the UK, where it accused Samsung of copying the design of its iPad tablet, it was ordered to publish a statement confirming the outcome of the trial on its website. This was to help avoid Samsung’s reputation being damaged by Apple’s overzealous litigation around the world.

Apple appealed the decision, saying that not only would such a statement ruin the look of its website, but also that it had no wish to start advertising for its competitor in its own “shop window.”

Earlier this month, the appeal was turned down, and Apple’s punishment stood, albeit with a few changes. The statement would still have to be printed on its website, but it could be placed elsewhere with only a link appearing on the homepage, and the initial six month period was reduced to a month instead.

Today, that link and webpage have gone live. By visiting the UK branch of Apple.com, you’ll find the link, named “Samsung/Apple UK Judgement,” next to the region selector at the very bottom of the page, alongside such often visited links including “Use of Cookies” and “Privacy Policy.”

Click it and you’re taken to an apple.com URL called “legal-judgement,” except you wouldn’t know it was an Apple page if you didn’t check the address bar in your browser, as there is no branding and no return link to Apple.com. It’s a white page with five paragraphs of text in the center.

Yep, five paragraphs. All Apple was required to publish was a statement provided by the UK courts, and a link to the official case documentation. However, Apple has also added a few other quotes from the trial too, such as a glowing review of the iPad’s design and the Judge’s comment that Samsung’s tablets are simply “not as cool” as Apple products.

It also mentions the recent $1 billion judgement in the US, and a similar patent trial in Germany, which had the opposite outcome.

The statement will remain on Apple’s website for now, and it’ll be joined by print advertisements — presumably featuring the same statement — in several UK daily newspapers and technology magazines soon.

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

Apple loses appeal in UK court, will have to run adverts saying Samsung didn’t copy the iPad

Earlier this year the High Court in London ruled in favor of Samsung and dismissed the Apple’s claims the Galaxy Tabs copied the iPad’s design. The judge went even further ordering Apple to advertise the court’s decision for a month in various websites.

As expected Apple appealed the court’s decision, but today the Cupertino-based company lost there, too.

The appeal court once again dismissed Apple’s claims and ordered the US company to run the ads and compensate Samsung for the bad publicity.

Apple might decide to appeal in front of the UK Supreme Court, but somehow I really doubt the effort will be worth it.

If you want to know more about the first case, the ruling and the appeal, just hit the source link below.

Source : blog[dot]gsmarena[dot]com

Samsung win: Patent violation case brought by Apple in Japan dismissed by judge

Apple had been hoping to score another win over Samsung in its ongoing global patent infringement battle with the Korean tech firm. However, its latest claim, heard in a Tokyo court on Friday, was dismissed by the judge.

Apple may well have scored a big win against Samsung last week in the patent battle between the two tech giants, but it’s not all going the Cupertino company’s way.

In a Tokyo court on Friday, a judge dismissed Apple’s claim that Samsung had infringed on a patent relating to the synching of music and video data with servers.

Tokyo District Judge Tamotsu Shoji told the court it was “hard to believe the products belong to the range of technologies of the claimant.” Apple was ordered to pay the costs of the lawsuit following the court’s decision.

In a statement given in response to the ruling, Samsung said, “We welcome the court’s decision, which confirmed our long-held position that our products do not infringe Apple’s intellectual property.”

Friday’s decision comes exactly a week after a California court ordered Samsung to pay Apple just over $1 billion dollars in damages after a jury ruled the Korean firm had violated a number of Apple patents related to its mobile devices. The Korean firm now faces the prospect of having eight of its smartphones banned from sale in the US, with a hearing set to take place on December 6.

After last week’s decision, Samsung shares slumped 7.5 percent, wiping $12 billion dollars off the firm’s market value.

Courts around the world are dealing with a number of patent violation cases where Apple and Samsung are accusing one another of infringement regarding various aspects of their respective mobile offerings.

In another case last week – this time in South Korea – a Seoul court ruled that Apple and Samsung had violated each other’s patents, resulting in the judge slapping a national sales ban on a number of products made by both companies. Besides the sales bans, the court ordered Apple to pay 40 million won ($35,500), and Samsung 25 million won ($22,000). Such sums pale into insignificance when compared to the billion dollar fine that Samsung has to pay to Apple in the US.

Still, Samsung can take at least a crumb of comfort from the fact that not all court decisions in its various patent infringement battles with Apple are going against it.

[Source: Bloomberg]

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

Apple court hearing requesting ban of Samsung products set for December 6

Apple will have to wait until December 6 to see whether it can get sales bans imposed on a number of Samsung devices.

A US court will decide on December 6 whether Apple has justifiable grounds for a ban to be imposed on sales of eight Samsung handsets following the Cupertino company’s big win in the courts last week.

The devices, all smartphones, are:

- Galaxy S 4G

- Galaxy S2 AT&T

- Galaxy S2

- Galaxy S2 T-Mobile

- Galaxy S2 Epic 4G

- Galaxy S Showcase

- Droid Charge

- Galaxy Prevail

At the same hearing, Samsung will argue for the jury’s decision to be set aside, AllThingsD reports.

“Having considered the scope of Apple’s preliminary injunction request, the additional post-trial motions that the parties have already filed and will file, and the substantial overlap between the analysis required for Apple’s preliminary injunction motion and the parties’ various other post-trial motions, the Court believes consolidation of the briefing and hearing on the post-trial motions is appropriate,” Koh said in a written order released on Tuesday.

Last week Samsung was ordered to pay Apple $1.05 billion in damages after a nine-person California jury ruled unanimously that the Korean firm had willfully infringed on a number of Apple’s patents.

The decision came at the end of a trial that lasted almost a month, with both sides accusing each other of patent violation. Unfortunately for Samsung, the jury ruled that Apple had not violated any of its patents.

Following the conclusion of the case, Apple CEO Tim Cook issued a memo to his employees in which he said that the jury’s verdict sent a “loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right.” Samsung, meanwhile, called the verdict “a loss for the American consumer.”

Before the December 6 hearing, the two sides will face each other in court again on September 20 as Samsung attempts to have a US-based preliminary sales ban lifted on its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet, a product which was found in the recent trial not to have infringed on any of Apple’s design patents.

For an overview on what last week’s trial verdict might mean for Android users, head over to here for a piece by DT’s mobile expert Jeffrey Van Camp.

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

Following courtroom win, Apple wants to ban eight Samsung phones from sale in the US

Apple has submitted a list of eight Samsung smartphones to the court, with a view to seeing them removed from sale in the USA.

Following Apple’s $1.05 billion win against Samsung in its ongoing patent war, Apple has now submitted a list of Samsung devices that it believes should be withdrawn from sale to the court.

The list contains eight Samsung smartphones: The Galaxy S2 AT&T, Galaxy S2 T-Mobile, Galaxy S2 Skyrocket, Galaxy S2 Epic 4G, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S Showcase, Galaxy Prevail and the Droid Charge.

A total of 28 Samsung phones were found to have used Apple patents without permission and to have copied key designs; but many of them are considerably older devices than those listed above, and therefore rarely found on sale anymore.

This is just the first stage in Apple’s efforts to see the offending phones removed from sale in the USA, and it will have to wait until September 20 for the official hearing, but even then it won’t be smooth sailing.

According to The Guardian, Apple’s legal team must prepare for a four-part test to show the court that irreparable injury has been caused by the devices being on sale. It must prove that the $1.05 billion already awarded isn’t compensation enough, and that further action is needed. Even if the team gets that far, it has to show that such a ban doesn’t harm the public interest.

Judge Lucy Koh has already shown she’s not afraid to ban products from sale, having passed an injunction against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet and the Galaxy Nexus smartphone in the recent past.

Analysts at Jefferies and Co. told the newspaper that it expects “a two-thirds chance of an injunction against Samsung products.”

In the days following the court’s verdict, Samsung’s stock took a fall, resulting in its largest single-day loss in four years. An injunction against some of its products, no matter how old they may be, can only make things worse. Especially when Apple will shortly be riding the wave of excitement generated by the unveiling of its next-generation iPhone.

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

South Korean court bans Apple and Samsung devices for patent infringement

South Korean court finds Apple and Samsung are infringing each other’s patents and imposes a small fine and limited ban on both companies.

The patent war between Apple and Samsung has many fronts. Before we heard that Samsung lost a billion dollar case in the US on Friday, a three-judge panel in the Seoul Central District Court found that both companies had infringed patents and decided on a limited ban on national sales of various devices.

These devices banned from sale in South Korea:

• iPhone 3GS
• iPhone 4
• iPad
• iPad 2
• Samsung’s Galaxy S
• Galaxy S2
• Galaxy Tab
• Galaxy Tab 10.1

Just to make that slap on the wrist sting a little more, the court also imposed fines for damages of $35,300 on Apple and $22,000 on Samsung. Apparently, Samsung was found guilty of violating Apple’s “bounce back” patent, a feature that lets you know when you’ve scrolled to the end of something with a fun little animation. Apple’s infringement related to Samsung’s telecom standards and technology concerned with the transfer and transmission of data between devices.

It’s nice to see both sides losing out in the courtroom, but these paltry fines are hardly going to discourage them. The sales bans should have more of an impact, but since they are related to older devices it seems unlikely that either company will be overly concerned.

This battle, on home turf for Samsung, is a sideshow to the main event. In the U.S. trial Apple now seeking to ban many Samsung devices and Samsung is itching for an appeal.

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

Samsung’s value drops by $12 billion after court loss to Apple

Samsung loses 7.5 percent of its value in the first day of trading after Apple's court victory. It looks like the real cost of that losing verdict for Samsung could be high.

In the aftermath of the Apple vs. Samsung verdict, everyone is trying to work out what it really means. Is Google’s Android platform really at risk now? Will Apple continue to sue everyone? How will Apple’s victory over Samsung affect you?

The $1.049 billion that Samsung has to pay to Apple is less than one percent of its revenue in 2011, but focusing on the award is to ignore the real cost of this loss for the South Korean company.

Samsung Electronics shares slumped 7.5 percent after the Apple victory. According to The Guardian that’s $12 billion in market value and it is Samsung’s biggest daily drop in nearly four years. A staggering 1.27m Samsung shares changed hands on Monday, although the share price recovered slightly before the Seoul market closed.

Early indications are that Samsung’s rivals, LG and Nokia, will benefit with share prices rising for both companies. However, other Android manufacturers like HTC and ZTE saw share prices drop as well. That could signal a loss of confidence in the platform. That could also be good news for Microsoft with a Windows Phone 8 launch on the horizon and Nokia as a partner.

While Samsung has fingers in a lot of pies in the consumer electronics industry, it is sales of mobile devices which have driven recent profits. A number of Samsung devices will probably now be banned after the Californian jury found the company had infringed six Apple patents. The hearing to decide on that is scheduled for next month. Samsung’s flagship Galaxy S3 was not included in the case, but there are obviously fears that Apple will now go after it and other devices in Samsung’s line-up.

Ultimately this loss may cost Samsung a lot more than the $1 billion that the jury awarded.

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

Patent palaver: Apple and Samsung banned from selling some products after S Korean court ruling

A court in South Korea has imposed a national sales ban on a number of Apple and Samsung products in the conclusion of a patent infringement case in the country.

While all the focus has been on the Apple-Samsung patent trial in the US in recent weeks, another court case focusing on the same issues has been going on in the South Korean capital, Seoul.

On Friday local time, the court ruled that both companies had infringed each other’s patents. As a result, the judge slapped a national sales bans on products made by both tech giants, among them Apple’s iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 handsets, as well as the iPad and iPad 2. Samsung products ordered to be removed from store shelves include the Galaxy S I and S II smartphones, together with the Galaxy Tab and the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet PCs.

These may not be Apple or Samsung’s latest products, but the ruling will nevertheless be annoying for Korean consumers who’d been hoping to pick up a cheaper phone or tablet made by one of the two companies. They may just look elsewhere now. Apple and Samsung, meanwhile, will have the hassle of removing their products from sale, losing revenue in the process.

Patent infringements

The court ruled that Apple had infringed two Samsung patents, while the Korean company had infringed one of Apple’s.

The judge said Samsung had violated an Apple patent concerning the ‘bounce back’ fuction, which serves to indicate to users that they have reached the end of a page when scrolling down on their device. Apple, on the other hand, was ruled to have infringed patents relating to the transfer and transmission of data between devices.

Design OK

On the design of the iPhone and Galaxy S handsets, the judge said it was hard to agree with Apple’s claim that consumers would confuse the two devices.

“There are lots of external design similarities between the iPhone and Galaxy S, such as rounded corners and large screens….but these similarities had been documented in previous products,” Reuters reported a Seoul Central District Court judge as saying.

“Given that it’s very limited to make big design changes in touchscreen based mobile products in general … and the defendant (Samsung) differentiated its products with three buttons in the front and adopted different designs in camera and (on the) side, the two products have a different look,” the judge said, adding that the respective company logos were also shown on the devices, further decreasing the chances of someone mixing them up.

Fines

Besides the sales bans, the court also imposed fines on both companies, with Apple told to pay 40 million won ($35,500). Samsung’s fine was slightly less at 25 million won ($22,000).

Such amounts pale into insignificance when you consider that at the trial in California, where the jury is currently deliberating, Apple is seeking $2.5 billion from Samsung for patent violation. The verdict in that case is expected soon.

[via BBC, Reuters]

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

Apple, Samsung CEOs talk, but fail to find a way forward in patent dispute

So that's it, folks. Apple's Tim Cook talked with Samsung's Choi Gee-sung on the off-chance that they might be able to reach an out-of-court settlement, and you know what? They agreed to disagree. So the next chapter of the story of the battle for smartphone supremacy will be written by a nine-person jury.

An out-of-court settlement in the billion-dollar patent infringement court case between Apple and Samsung always seemed unlikely, despite the presiding judge, Lucy Koh, telling the two tech giants last week to talk at least once to try to reach some kind of agreement.

On Monday, it was confirmed in the San Jose courtroom that the two sides had indeed been in contact in the last few days. However, no progress was made.

“The CEOs did speak….There was no resolution,” Samsung attorney Kevin Johnson told Judge Koh.

This means that, as expected, the nine-person jury will get to deliver a verdict on the case. With closing arguments set for Tuesday, the jury should begin their deliberations on Wednesday.

In the patent trial, Apple accuses Samsung of copying elements of its iPhone and iPad devices in the design of a number of its own smartphones and tablets, including Samsung’s Galaxy range of mobile devices. The Cupertino company is pressing for a sales ban on these products, and is also fighting for monetary damages.

Samsung, meanwhile, accuses Apple of infringing a number of its patents, including some linked to the way smartphones deal with email attachments, photos and the playing of music files.

On Wednesday last week, Judge Koh, in a last ditch attempt to resolve the case without it going to the jury, told both sides, “It’s time for peace,” urging them to meet outside the courtroom to try to find a resolution to the dispute.

But the chances of success were always slim. Apple boss Tim Cook and his Samsung counterpart, Choi Gee-sung, had already met once before, prior to the start of the trial. That meeting, in April, also came to nothing.

[via The Verge]

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

‘It’s time for peace’ – Judge calls on Apple and Samsung to settle before verdict

As the Apple and Samsung patent infringement court case nears its end, presiding judge Lucy Koh has urged the two sides to settle before the jury delivers its verdict, telling them "it's time for peace."

As the patent infringement court battle between tech giants Apple and Samsung draws to a close in California following three weeks of arguments and testimony, presiding judge Lucy Koh has come up with a rather novel idea: she’s told the two companies to talk on the phone at least once to try to reach a settlement before the jury comes to give its verdict.

But many who’ve been following events at the San Jose federal court would probably agree there’s about as much chance of that happening as there is of Apple boss Tim Cook and Samsung chief Choi Gee-sung parachuting off the Burj Khalifa together wearing penguin suits singing “You Are My Sunshine.”

In the multi-billion dollar patent battle, Apple is accusing Samsung of ripping off the design of its iPhone and iPad devices in the creation of some its own smartphones and tablets, including the Korean company’s Galaxy range of mobile devices.

The Cupertino company wants a permanent sales ban imposed on these Samsung products, as well as monetary damages. But it’s not all one-way traffic. Samsung accuses Apple of infringing a number of its patents, including ones linked to the way smartphones deal with email attachments, photos and the playing of music files.

Peace

Speaking in court on Wednesday, Koh told lawyers for Apple and Samsung, “It’s time for peace.”

Reuters reported that the judge told both sides they had “succeeded in raising awareness about the importance of their intellectual property rights.”

She added that she saw risks for both companies in leaving the outcome of the case to the nine-member jury – risks highlighted in this recent DT article by Simon Hill. He suggests that if Apple and Samsung don’t settle by themselves and it’s instead left to the jury, there’ll be “a storm” in the world of tech.

But both Cook and Gee-sung have already met once in a bid to resolve the long-running dispute. When the two company bosses sat around a table in April, they failed to reach any agreement – hence the current court case.

And after three weeks of costly court-based back-and-forth between Apple and Samsung, does anyone really believe Koh’s plea will come to anything?

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

British man sentenced to four years for linking to pirated content

Despite an American court striking a ruling against a website for providing links to pirated video content last week, a British man has become the first UK citizen to face jail time for doing the same thing, receiving a sentence of four years for a site that lasted only one year.

For all we know, Anton Vickerman may have had simple aims when he launched his website surfthechannel.com – Likely just providing a service to the Internet at large, and getting himself a bunch of traffic (and maybe a little profit) in the process – but both he and the website have ended up going down in Internet history nonetheless as Vickerman becomes the first UK citizen to be sentenced to jail time for linking to illegally-uploaded copyright infringing material.

The 38-year old Vickerman was said to be making somewhere in the region of £35,000 per month from the site through advertising, according to prosecutors in the case. He had originally set up the site in 2007 as an online index to video content both legal and otherwise throughout the Internet; the following year, he attempted to sell it for £400,000, claiming that it had generated a profit in the twelve months previous of around £250,000. Both Vickerman and his wife, Kelly, were arrested later that year following an elaborate sting operation during which investigators gained access to his house by pretending to be potential homebuyers interested in the property; Kelly Vickerman was charged with conspiracy to defraud, but cleared in June of this year.

Perhaps tellingly, Vickerman was not charged with copyright offences directly, but instead faced – and was ultimately convicted on – two counts of conspiracy to facilitate copyright infringement. Initially faced a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, the sentence finally handed down at the end of the eight-week trial was a far more lenient 4 years.

According to Kieron Sharp of the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT), one of the organizations that led the investigation against Vickerman, “This case conclusively shows that running a website that deliberately sets out to direct users to illegal copies of films and TV shows will result in a criminal conviction and a long jail sentence.” That stands in opposition to last week’s overturning by the US 7th Circuit Court of Appeal of a judgment against MyVidster.com, an American-based social video site that essentially does the same thing; in that ruling, Judge Richard Posner likened the sharing of/linking to pirated videos to the reading of stolen books, explaining that “MyVidster is giving web surfers addresses where they can find entertainment,” likening it to entertainment listings: “By listing plays and giving the name and address of the theaters where they are being performed,” Posner reasoned, “the New Yorker is not performing them. It is not ‘transmitting or communicating’ them.”

Such legal discrepancies between nations and jurisdictions are unlikely to give Vickerman much comfort, however; in addition to the jail term, his lawyer David Walbank told the court that the case had not only led to his bankruptcy, but also the break-up of his marriage. Crime doesn’t pay, we’re often told, but this particular one appears to have cost more than anyone might have anticipated.

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com