Apple v. Samsung: Early Days of iPhone in the Courtroom

In the famous multibillion-dollar patent showdown, Apple Inc, on Friday, deployed two of its executives as ammunition, including a software chief who assembled the design team for the original iPhone. 

In the court room, the Apple Software Chief Scott Forstall narrated the early days of iPhone development. According to the testimony the secret design work was codenamed as the “Purple Project”. He further added that he pinned a note on the door of the dorm, “Fight Club,” a reference to the movie’s screed to ensure what happened behind closed doors remained there.

The entire aim of the testimony was strengthening Apple’s legal argument and to prove that it was too much involved to develop products such as the iPhone and iPad, which have been “slavishly copied” by rival Samsung. Forstall further added that there was need of secrecy as Apple was making a new phone “out of whole cloth.”

Apple marketing chief Phil Schiller, used a video slide showing that Apple spent more than $1 billion on U.S. advertising on the iPhone and iPad between 2008 and 2011 and told the jury how Samsung’s copying has fostered consumer confusion and made it harder to market Apple products.

Facing the questions from the rival as to whether the iPhone 5, (set to be released in September), would have a different design than the iPhone 4S, Schiller declined to discuss the design, saying it was confidential.

The trial continued on Friday after the U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh rejected Apple’s bid to end the case immediately with a judgment in its favor.

Koh also condemned Samsung’s legal team for its “theatrics” and “sideshow,” but refused to stop the trial. The trial resumes Monday morning with the testimony of another Samsung executive and several Apple experts.

Source

EA Files Copyright infringement suit against Zynga

Electronic Arts Inc,an American developer, marketer, publisher and distributor of video games on Friday filed a copyright infringement suit against Zynga, a Social games service provider from San Francisco. EA inc claims that Zynga's  "Ville" game violates their rights over " Sims social", an EA game that runs over Facebook.

EA filed a complaint before a Federal court in San Fracnsico alleging that Zynga's lately released Facebook game "VILLE" contains original elements of their game "Sims social" . EA claims that Zynga has " Willfully and intentionally copied and misappropriated the original distinctive expressive elements of Sims social". 

Launched in August 2011 Sims social is claimed to be viewed and used by several millions of users over Facebook. Lucy Bradshaw in his statement called Zynga's new game as unmistakable infringement of sims social. He claims that " the copying was so comprehensive that the two games are to an uninitiated observer, largely indistinguishable " . He claims the case to be a matter of principle and alleges that Zynga has violated copyrights of other companies in several instances.

EA arts calls its step to be a a stand intended to protect the value of original creative works of the industry as well as of those who work tirelessly to create them.

Zyng's counsel, Reggie Davis,  in his statement denied the claims put forwarded by EA and calls it unfortunate and " lack of understanding of basic copyright principles by them". The Ville according to him is the newest branch of Ville franchise including Cityvill, YoVille and CastleVille and introduces new features which are unknown to the entertainment industry. Further he makes clear their intention to defend the case to the " Fullest extent possible and win with the players".

Smartphone Patent War: Apple versus Samsung

On 15^th April, 2011, Apple sued Samsung, alleging that the later copied the look and feel of its iPhone and iPad in its product Galaxy S line. Apple said “Rather than innovate and develop its own technology and a unique Samsung style for its smart phone products and computer tablets, Samsung chose to copy Apple's technology, user interface and innovative style in these infringing products,” according to the Wall Street Journal

This suit was later expanded to include 13 more products, including the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Nexus S 4G, and the Droid Charge.

Samsung filed a countersuit, targeting Apple for infringing on five patents relating to wireless networking technology (though it later dropped one countersuit that was filed in a U.S. federal court to simplify its proceedings).
In 2010 Apple had also dragged HTC (for 20 instances of patent infringement) and Motorola (alleging that its multi-touch smart-phones use Apple-owned intellectual property) in the patent battle. By August, 2011, there were 19 ongoing lawsuits (at present the number of lawsuits is more than 50) in 12 courts in nine countries on four continents.
Judgment of Various Courts across the Globe.

Country	Judgment	At present
Germany	Court blocked the sale of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Europe, with the exception of the Netherlands. Later the court tightened its ruling and only applied the ban to sales within Germany	Appeal by Samsung
Australia	Samsung agreed not to sell the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia until it settles an ongoing patent dispute with Apple.
Netherlands	A Dutch court in The Hague, imposed a ban on the Galaxy smart-phones but not the tablets, at the request of Apple.

Apart from the abovementioned courts, the parties are also fighting in France, Japan, USA, International Trade Commission (ITC), United Kingdom, Italy and South Korea.

Current Status.

In the lawsuit pending before a US District Court, on 1^st August, 2012, Apple said in its filing with U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh that a July 31 statement from Samsung’s lawyer, (wherein Samsung intended to convey to jurors, through the media, arguments contesting Apple’s central allegations that Samsung copied the iPhone and iPad) was “bad faith litigation misconduct”, which was meant to prejudice the jury. Hence, it requested the court to issue sanctions granting judgment that Apple’s asserted phone-design patent claims are valid and infringed by Samsung.

Samsung, in an 2^nd August filing, countered that Apple’s request should be rejected because Samsung’s statement was protected free speech.

The court dismissed Apple’s request for a judge to punish its lawyer’s public disclosure of evidence excluded from trial

The case is Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 11- cv-01846, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).

Another Tamil Film gets copyright cover

Another Tamil film,  "Mirattal" has managed to secure a John Doe Protection order from Madras High Court last Tuesday  prior to its release barring any one from uploading the film or any part of it in any websites without  authorization of  the producers.

John Doe orders or Ashok Kumar Injunctions are granted against persons/ infringers whose identity is unknown at the time when injunction is sought. Tamil movie "3" was the first movie in India to obtain a  John Doe order which started the debate on utility of blocking the entire website containing pirated materials. Madras high court later came up with a clarification that only specific urls containing the film name are only hit by this order and not the entire website.

According to Times of India, R Subbiah J, on Tuesday issued an interim injunction restraining at least 12 websites and telecom companies from putting "Mirattal" or any part of the film online as well as  five John Doe's against prospective yet unidentified copyright infringers. The said orders are not applicable against uploading trailers or songs of the film.

Tirupati Temple to keep Laddu GI

Indian Express has reported yesterday that Tirupati Venketeshwara Temple has won the rectification petition filed against granting of GI status to their deity offering, "Tirupati  Laddu".

India's richest temple was granted GI tag for their unique deity offering in September 2009. Grant of GI was severely criticized on several grounds and specifically on giving monopoly status on a religious offering.  Registry's order was challenged by Mr Praveen Raj, an IP enthusiast and former Patent examiner at Patent and Design Office, Chennai . Praveen in his claims indicated that TTD'd claims violates Section 9 and 11 of GI Act.

Indian Express now reports that the on Monday, Mr Chinnaraja G Naidu, Assistant Registrar of Trademarks and GI, Chennai has uphold TTD's claim over GI and even fined Mr Praveen Raj.

Source