Bringing you information on nearly everything!

How do we know we’re years away from a final resolution to the Nokia / Apple patent lawsuit? It’s been six months since Nokia first filed its complaint, and the two parties are just now starting to argue about which specific substantive claims they’re eventually going to argue about. Let’s do a quick refresh: at the heart of the lawsuit is a conflict over Nokia’s wireless patents, some of which are almost certainly essential to how cell data and WiFi operate. As a member of the ETSI and the IEEE licensing groups which oversee GSM and WiFi, Nokia’s required to license its patents to anyone who asks on fair terms, but those terms aren’t set in stone — Nokia can negotiate separate licenses as it sees fit, and it apparently wanted Apple to cross-license its touchscreen patents as part of the deal. Apple said no, and now we’re all in court, with both sides alleging patent infringement in three different lawsuits (one of which is on hold) and Apple claiming that Nokia is also liable for breach of contract, because it promised fair licensing terms and didn’t deliver. Got all that? Right.

So that brings us to yesterday, when Nokia asked the court to dismiss all of Apple’s contract-related claims, saying that they’re simply a distraction from the real issue, which is patents, and that its license offers aren’t unfair simply because Apple doesn’t like them. In short: Apple and Nokia’s patent lawsuit is currently not really about patents at all, but about whether or not it should also be a fight about contract terms in addition to a fight about patents, and that question won’t be resolved for months. And that’s why vigilante justice is the future of America’s tarnished civilization something like 90 percent of patent cases eventually settle out of court.

P.S. Oh, and in case you’re wondering, today Reuters reported that the first trial date isn’t expected until 2012. So, yeah.

Nokia asks court to dismiss part of Apple patent lawsuit originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:57:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |  BusinessWeek, Motion to Dismiss (PDF)  | Email this | Comments

digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/world_news/Microsoft_loses_second_Word_patent_appeal’; And the intellectual property rollercoaster continues. Microsoft’s second appeal of that $240m judgment banning sales of Word with features infringing on i4i’s XML-related patents has been rejected, leaving the Redmond giant with a huge fine to pay atop its undoubtedly sky-high lawyer bills. The appeals court held that Microsoft was explicitly aware of i4i’s patents before implementing the relevant XML code into Word — undoubtedly because i4i had been selling an extremely popular XML plugin for years and had approached Microsoft about licensing it. Yeah, oops. Don’t worry, though, there shouldn’t be any consumer impact here: old versions of Word aren’t affected, and current versions of Word 2007 and Office 2010 don’t have the offending features. Still, Microsoft might be able to appeal yet again, depending on a panel ruling on the matter — at this rate, we’d expect it.

Microsoft loses second Word patent appeal, on the hook for $240 million in damages originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:54:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |  BBC  | Email this | Comments

Facebook may have secured a patent for its news feed technology, and Google for location-based ads, but that doesn’t make the two companies immune to other patent challengers. In fact, both Google and Facebook are being sued by Winksite over mobile social networking technology.

The complaint, first reported by Bloomberg, was said to be filed by Winksite yesterday in a Manhattan federal court, and points to patent infringement claims around Facebook Mobile and Google Buzz. The company is looking for reparation in financial form (though specific amounts have yet to be disclosed). More importantly, it is also seeking “a court order to prevent further use of its invention.”

Winksite was awarded the patent in question — United States Patent No. 7,599,983 “Method, apparatus and system for management of information content for enhanced accessibility over wireless communication networks”  – in October of last year, though its mobile application technology dates back to 2004. Given this, Winksite’s lawyer Jeremy Pitcock believes that both the social networking and search giant were aware of the patent and are thus liable for damages.

The patent summary reads:

“In accordance with one aspect of the invention, information content is managed in a network-based communication system by providing a content management site accessible to a user of the system. The content management site is configured so as to permit the user to enter information in accordance with a specified format comprising a plurality of selectable mobile information channels each corresponding to an information category. The entered information is processed to generate for the user a mobile site comprising information content that is accessible via one or more mobile devices over a wireless network of the system.

“By way of example, the content management site and the mobile site may each comprise web sites accessible over the Internet. A given mobile site may be shared by a group of members having a common interest. The mobile site may comprise, for example, a collaborative workspace, a data mailbox, a collaborative community, or other similar element(s). The information content of the mobile site is preferably configured such that a persistent version of the content is accessible via one or more mobile devices over the wireless network.

“In accordance with another aspect of the invention, the information content of the mobile site is configured so as to integrate therewith information associated with at least one messaging action, collaboration action, location-based service action, or other wireless networking functionality of the wireless network. The information associated with the wireless networking functionality of the wireless network may be determinable based on one or more parameters associated with one or more of the mobile information channels of the content management site. “

Both Google and Facebook are said to be reviewing the complaint but have yet to put out public statements addressing the matter.

We’re curious to see how the court and companies respond, but until then we will dig into the case and original patent to see if we can get more clarity on the specific technologies that Winksite feels are being unlawfully used in Buzz and Facebook Mobile.

[img credit: KLH49, iStockphoto]

Reviews: Facebook, Google Buzz, iStockphoto

Tags: facebook mobile, google buzz, lawsuit, patent, patent infringement

Lindsay Lohan apparently called her mom bawling after seeing the E-Trade commercial about a “milkaholic” baby named Lindsay and it looks like Dina’s in on the suit, according to The New York Post: “They’re little babies doing this, mocking… …read full story

Because not all cokedealers accept blowjobs, Lindsay Lohan is suing E-Trade for $100 million over a Super Bowl ad featuring a “milkaholic” baby named Lindsay (after the jump). The New York Post reports: The ad — part of a… …read full story

We normally wouldn’t cover something so procedural, but given the heightened interesting Apple’s patent dealings this week, we thought we’d note that Cupertino’s tiff with Nokia in the federal courts has been put on hold while both companies argue their case before the US International Trade Commission. We expected the ITC to be the primary front in this fight from the start, but now we’ll be particularly focused on the Commission’s ruling, since several of the patent claims Apple’s asserting against Nokia in this case are also being claimed against HTC. We don’t have a timeline on when the Commission will reach a decision, but we’ll keep an eye on things.

Apple / Nokia federal lawsuit put on hold pending ITC investigation originally appeared on Engadget on Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:39:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink iLounge  |  AP  | Email this | Comments