A judge in The Hague just issued a ruling in Apple's patent infringement case against Samsung, prohibiting "the marketing of Samsung smartphones Galaxy S, S II and Ace for violation of Apple Inc. EP 2,058,868." In an official press release, the court explains that The Hague judge ruled to "ban trading of Samsung smartphones Galaxy S, S II and Ace," adding that Samsung also violated other Apple patents with its Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1v, though it's not clear whether or not sales of those devices will be banned as well. The specific patents cited include 2,058,868, which deals with "method of scrolling," 2,098,948 for "recording a flag in connection with multiple screen taps," and 1,964,022, which relates to dragging a slider to unlock the phone. We haven't been able to confirm, but from an online translation it appears that the ban will
Showing posts with label judge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label judge. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Netherlands judge rules that Samsung Galaxy S, S II violate Apple patents, bans sales
A judge in The Hague just issued a ruling in Apple's patent infringement case against Samsung, prohibiting "the marketing of Samsung smartphones Galaxy S, S II and Ace for violation of Apple Inc. EP 2,058,868." In an official press release, the court explains that The Hague judge ruled to "ban trading of Samsung smartphones Galaxy S, S II and Ace," adding that Samsung also violated other Apple patents with its Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 10.1v, though it's not clear whether or not sales of those devices will be banned as well. The specific patents cited include 2,058,868, which deals with "method of scrolling," 2,098,948 for "recording a flag in connection with multiple screen taps," and 1,964,022, which relates to dragging a slider to unlock the phone. We haven't been able to confirm, but from an online translation it appears that the ban will 
New York judge denies government warrant for Verizon location data
By Lydia Leavitt 
posted Aug 23rd 2011 8:34PM 
Beating the man at his own game on Monday, a federal judge from the Eastern District of New York denied the US government's application asking Verizon Wireless to hand over 113 days of customer location data. Washington has long debated whether or not the Constitution protects modern day communications that include a third party (like cell phone conversations supported by a carrier company), and non-conversational meta data (like cellular GPS location data). Some say that buying a cell phone and using a carrier's services waives one's privacy rights in that data, while others claim we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such info under the Fourth Amendment. In making his decision, Judge Nicholas Garaufis held that "the fiction that the vast majority of the American population consents to warrantless government access to the records of a significant share of their movements by 'choosing' to carry a cell phone must be rejected."
posted Aug 23rd 2011 8:34PM Beating the man at his own game on Monday, a federal judge from the Eastern District of New York denied the US government's application asking Verizon Wireless to hand over 113 days of customer location data. Washington has long debated whether or not the Constitution protects modern day communications that include a third party (like cell phone conversations supported by a carrier company), and non-conversational meta data (like cellular GPS location data). Some say that buying a cell phone and using a carrier's services waives one's privacy rights in that data, while others claim we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such info under the Fourth Amendment. In making his decision, Judge Nicholas Garaufis held that "the fiction that the vast majority of the American population consents to warrantless government access to the records of a significant share of their movements by 'choosing' to carry a cell phone must be rejected." As communications tech continues to change, these questions will likely be revisited. That's why Judge Garaufis went on to say that "in light of drastic developments in technology, the Fourth Amendment doctrine must evolve to preserve cell-phone user's reasonable expectation of privacy in cumulative cell-site-location records." Get the full opinion by clicking the source below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)