In Round Two, Apple Succeeds In Getting Samsung Tablet Banned In The US

from the who-wants-one-now dept

Apple has continued its legal effort to make it clear to the world that the best tablet you can buy... is a Samsung Galaxy Tab. Honestly, I'm still at a loss to understand Apple's strategy in suing Samsung because its Galaxy Tab looks too much like Apple's iPad, and (Apple claims) infringes on its design patent. Apple had succeeded in getting sales of the device blocked in Europe and Australia, but had a bit more trouble in the US. The district court had rejected the injunction saying that letting sales continue wouldn't be harmful to Apple. However, CAFC, the appeals court that loves patents and never sees anything wrong with them, sent it back telling the district court to try again -- so this time around an injunction has been issued.

As I've said before, all this is really doing is signalling, repeatedly, to the market which tablet Apple thinks is the closest in terms of a competitor to the iPad. The whole thing is really silly of course. Apple could (and should) focus on just competing with the Galaxy Tab in the market. Make a better product and sell it. Forcing a competitor out of the market because it looks similar really highlights how insecure Apple is concerning its own products, and how easy it thinks others can compete with it.

Filed Under: australia, cafc, desing patents, europe, galaxy tab, injunction, ipad
Companies: apple, samsung

US Judge Forbids Motorola From Using German Injunction Against Microsoft

from the do-as-you-would-be-done-by dept

Here's an interesting development in the legal battle between Microsoft and Motorola in Germany that we discussed recently. It seems that Microsoft is worried that the German court might award Motorola an injunction against it, and so has asked a US judge to stop Motorola from using it in that case -- and he agreed:

In an unusual case, a U.S. judge ruled on Wednesday that Motorola cannot enforce an injunction that would prevent Microsoft from selling Windows products in Germany, should a German court issue such an injunction next week.

So this is a US judge forbidding a company from applying an injunction that it might be awarded in Germany, by a German court. That sounds rather like one jurisdiction is interfering with another, but Microsoft apparently thinks that's reasonable:

Microsoft argued that if the judge would allow that German injunction to go forward, which ultimately might compel Microsoft to negotiate a license according to German law, the U.S. court would lose its opportunity to make its own ruling on similar licensing issues. The U.S. court should be the one to rule on that issue, Microsoft argued, because Microsoft filed its lawsuit against Motorola over the terms of a licensing deal before Motorola filed its suit in Germany.

It's striking that Microsoft isn't such a big fan of patent courts -- especially efficient ones that produce their judgments rapidly -- when it is on the receiving end of patent lawsuits, rather than the one making the threats.

It's also pretty rich that Microsoft should complain about the possibility of an injunction being granted against it by another jurisdiction when that is precisely what it is trying to do by filing an action against Motorola in the International Trade Commission as well as in a US District Court. If Microsoft says German courts shouldn't get involved in its dispute with Motorola, it's equally ridiculous that an international trade body should be dragged into a domestic dispute between two US companies, as Techdirt has noted before.

Basically, Microsoft is just whining because it thinks it's going to lose in Germany, and has gone running to the US judge in an attempt to subvert that country's judicial system. It's a huge pity that he acceded to this ridiculous request: it creates a terrible precedent that's likely to lead to more such interference in the legal systems of other countries -- including foreign courts ordering companies not to obey US rulings -- and a general weakening of respect for the rule of law around the world.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: germany, injunction, jurisdiction
Companies: microsoft, motorola

As Germany Becomes Europe's East Texas, Microsoft Moves Its Distribution Center

from the makes-you-think dept

Just as companies often try to file their patent lawsuits in East Texas, so Germany is emerging as a favorite forum for patent litigation in Europe -- and for precisely the same reason:

Germany's specialized court system, where cases are ruled on relatively quickly and it can be easier than in other countries to get an injunction, is increasingly leading technology companies to file patent lawsuits there, say patent law specialists.

That ought to place Germany in an enviable position. After all, a common argument from supporters of patents is that foreign companies will be more willing to set up in countries with strong patent regime. So it's curious that the article about Germany's patent-friendly courts quoted above goes on to say:

Motorola sued Microsoft over patents it has on the H.264 video standard, which led Microsoft to move its European distribution center from Germany to the Netherlands even before the German court of Mannheim ruled in the case.

It explains that move as follows:

Apple tried to get an injunction against Samsung in the Netherlands. Samsung's European distribution center is located in the Netherlands, so if Apple would have won, this would have effectively paralyzed Samsung's business in Europe. The judge denied the injunction, meaning Samsung could continue its business in Europe.

This ruling is why Microsoft chose the Netherlands for its distribution center when it decided that Germany was too risky with Motorola's standard-essential patent litigation in mind, said Agé.

This exposes the fundamental flaw in the argument that a patent-friendly legal system will encourage inward investment. However much foreign companies may welcome the ease with which they can sue their rivals and obtain injunctions against them, they also know that they are also more likely to be sued and blocked by injunctions themselves.

Microsoft's hurried decision to withdraw its entire distribution center from Germany shows a possible consequence of this double-edged sword: companies pull out so that patent-friendly courts can't be turned against them. As patent litigation balloons, and more cases head to Germany, other foreign companies may come to the same conclusion as Microsoft, and start taking the same defensive precautions. In which case, Germany will find that far from attracting foreign investors, its patent-friendly courts are actually driving them away.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: east texas, germany, injunction
Companies: apple, microsoft, motorola, samsung

Finnish Court Orders ISP To Kick Accused File Sharers Off The Internet

from the alert-the-UN dept

Despite a recent UN report that condemns the idea of kicking people off the internet as a civil rights violation, a court in Finland has agreed with a request by the record labels to kick three accused files sharers off the internet with no notice at all. This isn't three strikes. It's basically one-strike. Record labels accuse... court tells ISP to kick them off. I'm so sure that'll make people start buying music again.

Filed Under: file sharing, finland, injunction, internet access

Insanity Rules: UK Judge Says Mass Revealing Of Ryan Giggs Name Means Injunction Is Even More Necessary

from the wtf? dept

It is difficult to comprehend just how out of touch UK judges appear to be on the issue of these speech-blocking injunctions that the rich and famous are taking out in weak attempts to protect their actions from scrutiny. Yesterday, we noted that MP John Hemming had named Ryan Giggs as the person who had taken out an injunction concerning an affair with Imogen Thomas, confirming what pretty much all of the internet already knew. Many have assumed this meant "game over" for the injunction. And, that's an entirely reasonable and logical response.

Except, apparently, to UK judges.

Glyn Moody directs our attention to the latest ruling from the judge concerning that injunction, which is just three paragraphs of stunning inanity, arguing that the widespread knowledge of Gigg's situation is only further evidence of the need for the injunction, to prevent "harassment." Here's the entire ruling:

Mr Justice Tugendhat :

At about 1430 this afternoon Eady refused NGN's application to remove the anonymity he had granted to the claimant on 20 April. He said at para 23 ([2011] EWHC 1326 (QB)) that "It is important always to remember that the modern law of privacy is not concerned solely with secrets: it is also concerned importantly with intrusion". Intrusion in this sense includes harassment.

Very shortly afterwards a name was mentioned by Mr Hemming MP in the House of Commons in the course of a question which was interrupted by the Speaker. On that basis NGN asked me to hear a further application shortly after 5pm for the anonymity of the claimant to be removed. As the public now know, anyone who wanted to find out the name of the claimant could have learnt it many days ago. The reason is that it is has been repeated thousands of times on the internet. NGN now want to join in.

It is obvious that if the purpose of this injunction were to preserve a secret, it would have failed in its purpose. But in so far as its purpose is to prevent intrusion or harassment, it has not failed. The fact that tens of thousands of people have named the claimant on the internet confirms that the claimant and his family need protection from intrusion into their private and family life. The fact that a question has been asked in Parliament seems to me to increase, and not to diminish the strength of his case that he and his family need that protection. The order has not protected the claimant and his family from taunting on the internet. It is still effective to protect them from taunting and other intrusion and harassment in the print media.

Yes, read this again: "The fact that tens of thousands of people have named the claimant on the internet confirms that the claimant and his family need protection from intrusion into their private and family life. The fact that a question has been asked in Parliament seems to me to increase, and not to diminish the strength of his case that he and his family need that protection." There seems to be a ridiculous level of cognitive dissonance from "Mr Justice Tugendhat" who doesn't seem to recognize that the only reason why Giggs has been named so widely is because of the ridiculous injunction. If such an injunction had never been issued, then no such "harassment" would have occurred. And, is it really "harassment" to have someone accurate report something you did?

Filed Under: free speech, injunction, ryan giggs, uk

BBC Journalist Admits He Took Out Super Injunction

from the disgrace dept

We've been discussing the ridiculously anti-free speech super injunctions in the UK, which block the press or anyone from reporting on certain things (even if factual). What's amazing is how frequently these seem to be used by famous people in the UK, basically, to avoid being embarrassed by their own actions (having an affair seems to be a big one). Most of the folks in the press seem to find these quite ridiculous, which is why it's surprising to many to find out that the BBC's Andrew Marr took out one such super injunction himself a few years back to avoid having details come out about an affair he had with another journalist. The only reason it's come out now is that he's admitting he's "embarrassed" that he got the super injunction in the first place. As others point out, it's pretty hypocritical as a journalist to then seek to censor other journalists.

Mr Hislop, who has twice challenged Mr Marr's super-injunction, said: "As a leading BBC interviewer who is asking politicians about failures in judgment, failures in their private lives, inconsistencies, it was pretty rank of him to have an injunction while working as an active journalist.

Filed Under: andrew marr, free speech, hyperinjunction, injunction, uk
Companies: bbc

Bizarre UK Free Speech Ban Bars People From Telling Anyone -- Including Elected Officials & Lawyers -- About Potential Toxic Chemicals

from the say-what-now dept

Having just mentioned a bizarre superinjunction against free speech in the UK, I should also mention an even more bizarre "hyperinjunction" that was apparently issued by the UK High Court years ago, and goes so far as to ban people talking to their own elected officials or lawyers about a claim that "paint used in water tanks on passenger ships could break down and release potentially toxic chemicals." This hyperinjunction was apparently issued years ago, but is only coming to light now, because a Member of Parliament brought it up -- and he's protected by "parliamentary privilege" from getting into trouble for mentioning the otherwise secret order. Honestly, the details are pretty sketchy, but it appears that the court flat out ordered someone not to discuss a particular legal dispute concerning such toxic chemicals:

with "members of Parliament, journalists and lawyers", along with the US coastguard and any ship owners, and also forbids any speculation linking chemicals in the paint with the illness of any individuals.

I'm trying to figure out how this could possibly make sense in a country that has even marginal respect for free speech. Even worse, it appears that the individual that this hyperinjunction was targeted at later got in trouble for daring to talk to a lawyer about the case. What kind of country allows such a ridiculous suppression of basic rights?

Filed Under: free speech, hyperinjunction, injunction, uk

UK 'Superinjunction' Bans Anyone From Identifying Plaintiff In Libel Case

from the mr-z,-who-are-you? dept

The UK's ongoing attack on free speech continues, with a judge issuing a "superinjunction" against anyone in the UK identifying who "Mr Z" is in a libel case. This is apparently the first time such a superinjunction has been used in a libel case. Apparently, Mr Z is upset at some relatives who are accusing him of "misappropriating money from the trust fund and of a sex offence," both of which the mysterious Mr. Z insists are not true. Apparently the allegations have been published on a blog somewhere, but UK publications are forbidden from even giving people enough information to find that. Of course, all of this makes me wonder how effective any of this can be. It's really only a matter of time until people figure out who he is, and all this "super" secrecy is probably only increasing interest in what sounds like a pretty boring family feud otherwise.

Filed Under: free speech, injunction, libel, uk