Bloomberg broke the story and said that Google is the second company to fight back against NSLs. Challenges are rare — of 300,000 government-issued NSLs since 2000, only a handful of companies have resisted. The letters enables intelligence organizations to send secret requests to Web and telecom companies to gather data that is “relevant” to an investigation. They do not need a judge approval and come with a gag order, so people who receive the requests cannot talk about them.

Google filed a petition to “set aside the legal process,” citing a provision that enables judges to modify or deny NSLs that are “unreasonable, oppressive, or otherwise unlawful.” It is unknown why Google received the request, but in a blog post earlier this month, Google’s director of law enforcement and information security Richard Salgado said the company has been “trying to find a way to provide more information about the NSLs we get — particularly as people have voiced concerns about the increase in their use since 9/11,” and would include data about NSLs in their Transparency Report.

While civil rights groups aren’t always thrilled about how Internet companies use their customers’ private data, they are responding positively to Google’s stance against unwarranted government probes. The Electronic Frontier Foundations attorney Matt Zimmerman told Bloomberg “the people who are in the best position to challenge the practice are people like Google. So far no one has really stood up for their users.”

The FBI’s ability to issue NSLs was expanded under the Patriot Act. In 2007, the Justice Department found “serious misuse” of the FBI’s surveillance powers through its unlawful obtainment of information. Illston, Google, and others are taking steps to challenge the NSLs on the basis that they are “unreasonable, oppressive, and otherwise unlawful.”

Photo Credit: Cliff 1066/Flickr

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

The U.K. judge who ruled that Samsung’s tablets did not ape the iPad and forced Apple to apologize to Samsung on its website and in advertisements has been hired by Samsung to help it defend itself against patent infringement complaints by Ericsson.

This isn’t illegal, apparently, but it is a bit of a shake-your-head moment.

FOSS Patents uncovered Sir Robin Jacob’s new gig in documents relating to the new Erisson-Samsung case. One positive: He’s not working on projects — that we know of — that affect Apple. But it’s obviously something that has massive potential for conflict of interest if judges who make rulings affecting companies start getting hired by those very same companies.

Sir Robin was one of the judges that forced Apple to acknowledge publicly on its website that Samsung’s tablet was not a copy of the iPad. When Apple did not comply satisfactorily, he and two other judges then admonished Apple for doing it in confusing, roundabout legalese, and they also told Apple to place ads in U.K. newspapers (how antique!) with a similar message.

Interestingly, Sir Robin had publicly criticized Apple for what he thought was a lack of integrity, adding that he hoped “that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple.”

I’m fairly sure most companies and people hope that the possible conflict of interest implicit in this judge’s new job is entirely atypical of U.K. jurisprudence.

photo credit: JD Hancock via photopin cc

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

Remember that “terms not disclosed” patent licensing agreement between Apple and HTC? After a court order today, Samsung — Apple’s bitter rival and HTC’s competitor — will get a chance to review that complete and unredacted contract, including the details of how much HTC pays Apple for each and every Android phone.

Score one for Samsung in the long-running court battle that started way back in August with that billion-dollar judgement against the Korean company.

As a result of that win, Apple is seeking a ban on the importation of Samsung’s Android smartphones and tablets. Samsung, of course, is arguing that this is unnecessary, while also trying to overturn that judgement. U.S. District Court judge Paul Grewal’s decision today makes a ban on Samsung products much less likely.

Essentially, the legal logic is this: Apple can’t have its cake and eat it too.

In other words, Apple cannot both argue that Samsung’s infringements are so severe that basically all of its Android smartphones must be banned from importation into the U.S., and at the same time cut a licensing deal with HTC that allows substantially similar products to enter the American market.

Danger for Apple

Knowing what HTC has already negotiated with Apple, of course, is a major advantage to Samsung if and when it chooses to seek a licensing agreement of its own. HTC’s royalty payment, reached at the end of negotiations, would be the new deal’s starting point, and Samsung — especially with its vastly great volumes of shipped product — could hardly fail to negotiate a better deal.

HTC had argued to the court that the agreement should not be shared — at least not with all financial data — because of the agreement’s competitive value to Samsung.

Judge Grewal, however, disagreed.

In his order, Grewal said that “the court is not persuaded by HTC’s argument.” Citing legal precedent, he added that “many third parties to this case have had their licensing agreements disclosed – without any redaction of financial terms.” In addition, Grewal further wrote that “the confidential financial terms [are] clearly relevant to the dispute between Apple and Samsung.”

Danger for Samsung

There is some danger for Samsung here as well, however.

It cannot argue in good faith that a full injunction is not necessary (because licensing worked for HTC) if it really has no intention whatsoever of actually working out some kind of licensing agreement with Apple. Which, of course, at least one company executive has gone on record saying the company has absolutely no intention of doing.

So committing itself to this course puts it on the path, at least temporarily of working out some kind of arrangement with Apple, perhaps based on the HTC model.

That path can be altered, of course, if Samsung successfully overturns the original judgement.

The saga will doubtless continue after a Thanksgiving hiatus.

photo credit: andyi via photopin cc, hat tip: Apple Insider

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

Samsung is planning to ask a court that’s considering Apple’s request for a sales ban of Samsung’s Android smartphones and tablets to force Apple to reveal the deal it recently reached with HTC, according to a Reuters report.

Although terms of that deal have not been released, analysts believe that HTC is paying Apple between $6 and $8 per Android phone in exchange for Apple licensing its iPhone and iPad patents. At that rate, Apple stands to collect between $160 million to $200 million each year, based on HTC’s current shipping volumes.

An agreement with Samsung would be much more lucrative, perhaps $1.5 billion each year, but Samsung has made it fairly clear that it is more interested in fighting than in paying. Or at least, it appeared to do so.

This, however, is a sign that perhaps Samsung does have some interest in negotiating — but with its eyes open, knowing what HTC is already paying. Or it is simply a tactic to avoid a sales ban in the U.S., since courts are generally reluctant to solve infringement issues with a complete ban when a licensing agreement is at least in theory possible.

My guess is that much of the tech world is now hoping that Samsung is successful in its attempt, as the HTC agreement would reveal precisely how much Apple values its patents and doubtless other interesting and until-now private information about Apple, its business dealings, and its licensing strategy.

photo credit: Johan Larsson via photopin cc

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

Apple launched iPhone in 2007. iFone, a telecommunications and call answering service doing business in Mexico and Latin America, registered its name in 2003. That means game over, according to a Mexican judge in a trademark case between the two companies.

The Mexican 18th District Appellate Court denied Apple’s appeal of a decision that confirmed iFone SA de CV as the owner of the iFone trademark just a few days ago. As a result, according to iFone’s lawyers, Apple must now pay “sanctions up to the amount of 20,000 days of minimum wage” — at $5/day, that’s pocket change for Apple’s executives, never mind the company — but also “no less than 40% of the sales of iPhone services in Mexico.”

Ouch.

“It’s the third time Apple has lost,” iFone’s lawyer told Fox Latino News yesterday.

Perhaps someone should tell Apple to let sleeping dogs lie. Apple, not iFone, originally brought the suit in 2009, only to have iFone, understandably enough, countersue for damages … and the right to block iPhone sales in Mexico.

Apple doesn’t report iPhone sales by country but sold $57 billion total in the Americas in fiscal 2012. Only 50-60 percent of that figure would be iPhone-related, given Apple’s most recent financials, and only a fraction of that percentage would be from Mexico.

But a small piece of a very large pie is still a lot.

I phoned the company to confirm the ruling, but after spending five minutes in phone tree hell, en español, I failed to reach a live human being, much less an English-speaking one.

Realistically, some kind of settlement will be made. Given this decision, however, it doesn’t look like Apple will be in the driver’s seat.

photo credit: HockeyholicAZ via photopin cc

It may sound like a lot, especially with your pinky finger nestled next to your lips. But it’s $700 million too little, says Apple.

Apple won the billion dollar-judgment in late August when the U.S. District Court jury found Samsung guilty of willful patent infringement after just 21 hours of deliberation. The number was always going to rise due to that “willful” word, which can result in tripled damages.

But according to a Reuters report of a court filing late yesterday, Apple has decided to seek only $700 million more. Oh, that and a complete and permanent ban on the importation of infringing Samsung smartphones.

Apple had initially requested $2.5 billion, and it could have asked for a tripling of the $1 billion that was actually awarded. When paired with the fact that Apple filed with the court late on Friday — bound to be missed by most journalists — the $700 million would seem to indicate that Apple is sensitive to public opinion about patents, lawsuits, and competition by law versus competition in the market.

Especially when the permanent ban would cover more than 20 Samsung devices and could possible be extended to Samsung’s flagship Galaxy S3 as well. That would be a massive blow — and frankly would likely earn Apple more negative publicity than any size of court fine.

Samsung, of course, disagrees with the entire verdict and filed a motion in response, this one asking the court for a new trial. Essentially, Samsung also called the court unfair, saying that “the Court’s constraints on trial time, witnesses and exhibits … prevented Samsung from presenting a full and fair case.”

Samsung also recently struck out at Apple in another courtroom, attaching the iPhone 5 to an existing lawsuit.

At some point you would hope that Apple, Samsung, and Google (whose Android mobile operating system is, of course, central to this entire dispute) could sit down and negotiate a lasting settlement.

Because thermonuclear war — or even a ever-escalating cold war — doesn’t really serve anyone well.

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

In the apparently never-ending back-and-forth courtroom battle between Apple and Samsung, the South Korean electronics firm told an Australian judge Monday that the Cupertino, Calif. iPad maker “refused to negotiate” about licensing 3G-related patents.

Instead, Apple sued the Galaxy tablet maker for patent violations, Samsung claims. The charge was made at the start of a patent trial in Australia that’s expected to last a week.

Apple sued Samsung in April 2011, alleging the Galaxy tablet violated its design patents. Now Samsung is claiming the lawsuit was forced by Apple after the iPhone maker refused to negotiate fair and reasonable licensing terms. “Our position is Apple has refused to engage in negotiations,” Samsung attorney Neil Young told Computerworld.

The hearing today in Sydney justice Annabelle Claire Bennett’s courtroom centers on the two patents dealing with power control and how 3G packet headers are formed. Samsung is charging that Apple violated the patents. A third patent won’t be discussed in court until October.

You almost need a map to wind your way through this legal landscape, which is littered with courtroom arguments and counter-claims. Last week, Samsung lost an appeal of a preliminary injunction in the U.S. blocking sales of the Galaxy 10.1 tablet. The South Korean company also struck out in an early July, with its failed attempt to remove a preliminary injunction against sales of the Android-powered Galaxy Nexus phone.

Overseas, Apple is the one getting frustrated by court decisions. On July 9, a UK court declared the Samsung tablets “are not as cool as the iPad,” hence Apple’s design was not infringed upon. Last month, a Netherlands court found Apple was guilty of infringing upon Samsung’s 3G technology, using the Intel and Infineon chips in the iPhone 3G, 3GS and iPhone 4, as well as the iPad 1 and 2. Apple had used the technology without paying a licensing fee since August 2010, the court ruled.

Once friendly competitors, Apple and Samsung have long maintained a type of symbiotic relationship as supplier and buyer. That frenemies stance has gradually grown to all-out cold war fought in courtrooms throughout the world.

In the notification from FriendThem, chief executive Charles Sankowich is quoted as saying: “I was amazed on Sunday to read that Facebook is blatantly stealing our idea with what they are calling, ‘Find Friends Nearby.’”

FriendThem’s app works by finding friends of your friends who are nearby and then allowing users to make a connection.

Sankowich goes on to claim that the feature was part of FriendThem’s trademarked materials, and that Facebook has aped the company’s marketing language. Then he threatens a lawsuit:

“We are consulting attorneys and assuming this is true and expect to commence a lawsuit very shortly. One would think that Facebook would have learned to play fair after being through the mud previously with legal difficulties, but now they are doing it again.

We may not be billionaires, but we are damn tough New York entrepreneurs, and we believe in this idea and will keep working to connect people.”

However, Facebook may not be guilty of what Sankowich alleges. It just acquired Glancee, a service that “helps you discover and connect with new interesting people around you,” in May. It’s entirely possible that the new Facebook local friend-finding ideas and technology came from that acquisition.

In addition, I’m not sure it’s common practice for companies planning a lawsuit to pre-announce their strategy, or to attempt to use the court of public opinion, before they’ve attempted the actual courts.

Facebook did pull the Find Friends Nearby feature out of its mobile app earlier today. Whether this has anything to do with the FriendThem announcement is unknown.

VentureBeat has reached out to both FriendThem and Facebook for comments and will update this story as we get responses.

Image credit: ShutterStock