Tag - Court
A lawyer for the Chinese company that won a court case against Apple over the trademark name "iPhone" has now admitted that the trademark it holds was bought from a Russian company in 2011 rather than registered by the firm itself, a fact that might help Apple ultimately prevail in its quest to re-secure the exclusive use the "iPhone" brand name in China. In the court case, Xinton Tiandi Technology asserted its right to use the word "IPHONE" in all caps for its line of leather products.
Apple is "disappointed" in a recent Beijing Higher People's Court ruling that allowed Xintong Tiandi Technology to use an all-caps "IPHONE" trademark on a line of leather goods, and will appeal the cas to the country's highest court. While the court's ruling only concerned the trademark with regards to "imitation leather, leather, wallets, purses, leather thread, leather passport wallets, leather key cases, leather straps and leather trimmings for furniture," the ruling has effectively weakened Apple's trademark on the term "iPhone" for any other use.
The FBI, in a new case involving a murder, has applied for a new warrant to renew expired ones in an effort to extract further data from a seized iPhone 5s running an unknown version of iOS which the agency believes has further information than it originally extracted with the help of its contractor Cellebrite. The latter company was able to obtain location data from the iPhone, according to the court filing, but failed to go further, which caused older warrants to expire. The FBI now seems to be planning to use its recently-obtained new tools and its own San Diego forensics facility to unlock additional location information.
Recently-revealed court documents show that -- in three similar court cases where the US government was attempting to decrypt seized iPhones by seeking to force Apple's compliance using the All Writs Act -- the score at present is win, lose, and draw. A court in Brooklyn flat-out rejected the US Department of Justice's appeal to force Apple to weaken its security, though the government is appealing the decision. In San Bernardino, the FBI won an initial order, but later retreated from the case; and it turns out that in the Boston gang-activity case, the judge did order Apple to assist the FBI -- but specifically excluded decrypting the suspect's iPhone contents, or developing a way to decrypt, from being part of the order.
Owing to the timing of the Apple Event later today and the encryption dispute hearing on Tuesday, Charles and Mike of The MacNN Podcast realized that most of the things they would say on Friday would be made irrelevant by today, so there won't be an episode this week. There will, however, still be an episode of the UK crew's One More Thing podcast, and that will be their chance to comment on the events of Monday, the court hearing, and much more.
Apple's three-year legal case over price-fixing of e-books has ended, with the US Supreme Court saying that it will not allow the company to appeal. The court will not listen to Apple's contention that a 2014 settlement requiring it to pay $450 million in costs and damages is wrong. That's the Supreme Court's right, and all legal cases have to end somewhere, even if more nebulous ones do seem to go on for a lot longer. Yet this isn't a nebulous case -- and the result, in my opinion, is wrong.
In a very different case in which Apple was fighting a law-enforcement agency that was trying to compel it to weaken security on its iPhones, the US Department of Justice is asking a higher court to reconsider a ruling in a Brooklyn case involving a methamphetamine dealer (who has already admitted guilt) that the All Writs Act -- also the center of the skirmish between Apple and the FBI in a California case -- cannot be used to force a third-party to weaken security on its product.
In addition to a number of amicus curae ("friend of the court") briefs filed both opposing and supporting the FBI's attempt to force Apple to crack the security of its iPhone, the district attorney's office of the county in which a workplace massacre took place that initiated the current dispute has filed a claim with the court that the work-issued iPhone issued to gunman and former employee Syed Farook may "contain evidence that can only be found on the seized phone that it was used as a weapon to introduce a lying dormant cyber pathogen that endangers San Bernardino's infrastructure."
Shortly after winning a sales injunction against old but infringing Samsung devices in the second patent trial, Apple has suffered a reversal of the verdict from an appeal by Samsung. The US Court of Appeals in Washington on Friday overturned the jury verdict in the second patent trial, which awarded Apple a largely-symbolic $120 million award after finding that Samsung had infringed on three Apple patents. In the appeal, the court found no infringement in one case, that two other Apple patents were invalid, and that Apple was liable for infringing a single Samsung patent.
Apple has now presented a legal response that officially challenges the Department of Justice over its demands that the company creates access to an iPhone sized as part of the San Bernardino workplace violence case, which the FBI has consistently characterized as a "terrorist" incident -- a move critics say is really the agency leveraging the tragedy in an effort to weaken privacy laws, and which Apple's attorney's called "forbidden" by the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.