The top execs of Apple and Samsung will meet to resolve a patent infringement case, the first move towards a detente in one of technology's most complicated legal battles.
A California court will examine the rights of jurors and social media activity, questioning online privacy when public interest is at stake.
A Sacramento, Calif.-based court will hear an appeal later this month on a case over whether a juror must turn over Facebook posts made during a trial. If one particular juror's posts about the trial constitute misconduct, it could overturn a conviction in a multi-defendant assault case.
Both Twitter and Facebook posts caused issues in trials, even causing some verdicts to get thrown out, such as in a recent Arkansas murder case. As the law tests individual cases to see what juror behavior is appropriate or what is a violation, the verdicts will forge new territory over jurors and social media use while serving.
In the California case, the juror originally lost, and the court ordered him to turn over the Facebook posts, as the defense attorneys in the trial are hoping to use them as grounds to overturn the conviction. But on appeal, the juror's attorney asserts giving up the posts violates Fourth Amendment privacy rights and Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
The juror admits to making a post describing testimony on phone records as boring, and saying how many days he was serving jury duty, according to a Reuters report. The juror also says he deleted some of the entries, but Facebook's attorneys gave him and his legal team a transcript of all posts to allow him to turn them over at his own free will.
The case has the potential to set up a new precedent for rules for jurors during trials for online behavior, and setting limits on how far courts and attorneys can go to prove such misconduct occurred.
"The case involves the significant and novel issue of whether a trial court's power to investigate a claim of juror misconduct includes the power to compel an accused juror to forfeit the protections the juror would otherwise enjoy under the federal Stored Communications Act," said the California Attorney General's Office.
Before a trial begins, judges instruct jurors not to communicate about the case, to family, friends or other jurors. But when people Facebook and Tweet any and all details of their life at their own discretion, sharing facts, no matter how seemingly inane, chatting about jury duty may feel rather normal despite the threat to a fair trial it can cause.
The results of the California case could leave jurors open to investigation in future matters if they are prone to share details through social media, especially if the case proceeds to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Some jurors likely surmise details shared on a Facebook page aren't going to affect the outcome of the case, but recent events suggest otherwise. In Florida, a court kicked a man off a jury after sending a Facebook friend request to a defendant in a car-crash trial.
Courts are also always aware of juror behavior and social media. Roughly three-quarters of the judges who responded to a survey from the Federal Judicial Center said they had no way of knowing whether jurors had violated a social-media ban, says The Wall Street Journal. Such instances are causing some attorneys to think ahead, like Illinois-based attorney Joel Brodsky requesting Facebook and Twitter handles of jurors in order to monitor conduct during the course of the trial.
As cases in juror misconduct shift from talking or reading about the case to Tweeting or posting about it, courts will determine what behavior, if any, is appropriate -- under jurors' rights, and the rights of the defendant to a fair trial.
The California case will help determine if the court has a right to search the juror's Facebook page when it suspects misconduct. Jurors in future cases should proceed with caution when using the trial as status fodder, or risk an investigation by federal courts.
California's phone ban is saving lives, according to reports, pointing to the benefits of government regulation to fuel similar support in other states.
In the first study of its kind examining the success of cell phone bans, University of California-Berkeley research showed overall accidents are down 22 percent, while collisions directly related to cell phone use on the road are down 47 percent. Advocates say these numbers show the state's ban on mobile phone use is reducing the number of accidents.
The California law's success could hush critics in the nine other states that outlaw talking and driving and the 35 states that prohibit text messaging in the car, including New York. Opponents to New York's harsher ticketing law say it is not effective, but the California study indicates law enforcers just need more time to prove the laws' success.
Another study blamed distracted driving for one in 11 auto-accident related deaths, pointing to how serious the problem has become. The rising accident rate puts pressure on lawmakers to take action to keep citizens safe and highlights how common and socially accepted distracted driving is. As mobile technology use rises in general, users are unlikely to cast aside their devices unless faced with a tough penalty.
"Distracted driving laws can and do save lives," said Rep. Joe Simitian (D., Calif.), adding, "As good as these numbers are, they could be better" with steeper fines and more education.
Most people agree texting and talking on the phone heightens risks of car accidents, but opinions differ on the solution. Critics of distracted driving ticketing point to personal responsibility and private companies for answers.
Research suggests people are over-confident about their distracted driving capabilities, casting doubt on whether shifting responsibility to drivers reduces accidents. Private companies within the industry also support government regulation, showing automakers approve of dealing with distracted driving with more harsh ticketing.
Auto companies are also considering measures that block phone reception while users are driving. Urged on by the U.S. Department of Transportation, some automakers may stop providing in-car perks designed to encourage distracted driving, like Wi-Fi.
Some companies are reluctant to pull attractive features, but most are concerned enough to consider making changes. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers announced support for a ban on text messages and conversations while driving, illustrating car companies support the U.S. government's belief that distracted driving needs regulation.
California's study shows that government-regulated cell phone bans make driving safer. Although this kind of ban takes away personal freedom, the overall benefit to society may make regulation like this necessary.
Proview filed another lawsuit against Apple, expanding the trademark battle to the U.S. and upping the stakes for both companies in the high-profile case.
The Chinese manufacturer claims its $55,000 deal with Apple in 2009, which gave the Cupertino, Calif.-based company the rights to the trademark, is fraudulent because it involved an intermediary company known as IP Application Development. Proview is seeking $2 billion from Apple in the U.S. and an additional $1.6 billion in damages in its China lawsuit.
Apple's primary defense is that it is common practice for a company of its size to use a middleman in deals of this nature, and it contends Proview's lawsuits in China and the U.S. are a direct violation of their agreement.
Proview's lawsuits against Apple come after the Chinese company filed for bankruptcy and is in need of money to stay afloat.
The company's decision to file a suit against Apple in the U.S. also comes as its chances of victory in China took a hit. Yesterday, a Shanghai court agreed to postpone the decision to ban the iPad in China until a higher court can hear an appeal. Apple is treading delicately in China, an important market and manufacturing base for the company, but in its own country it will likely assert itself strongly against the claim.
Proview's current financial status makes a victory in one of its cases against Apple pivotal to the future of the company. However, the large payout the manufacturer seeks would also be a large blow to Apple, as the U.S. company would be forced to pay billions of dollars to maintain the iPad name. If Proview's lawsuit gains traction in the U.S, it could loom over the launch of the iPad 3, which analysts believe will happen in March.
As one of the richest companies in the world, Apple can afford the hit to its bank account if Proview were to win one or both its cases. However, it would set a precedent that may haunt the iPad maker for years.
Apple faces lawsuits from small companies regarding naming rights on a weekly basis, and a victory for Proview may likely lead to even more small businesses targeting the tech giant.
Tech companies agreed to stronger privacy policies for mobile apps, as scrutiny ramps up among lawmakers and consumer advocates about how apps handle personal information.
Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Hewlett-Packard and Research in Motion entered into the agreement with the California Office of the Attorney General. Going forward, these firms must require developers to include clear privacy policies in apps, and inform users before they download or purchase an app about what data it will access, use or share, California Attorney General Kamal Harris said in a news conference yesterday.
In the wake of news that several apps, including Path and Twitter, upload and store address books and other personal information without users' knowledge or consent, the agreement holds technology companies and app store owners to a higher standard of transparency and disclosure regarding app activity.
Companies that run app stores, such as Apple and Google, will need to display privacy policies in a prominent place and set up a way for users to report apps that don't provide a clear privacy explanation prior to download. And, if technology companies fail to hold their developers to these tightened regulations, they risk violating California online privacy laws.
The new rules hold the biggest potential implications for Apple and Google, because their app stores are the largest and most widely used.
Apple has strict rules on its curated apps and does not allow software in its App Store that takes user information without asking first. However, after an iOS application called Path was found to collect user address book data and store it on remote servers without prior permission, it became clear not all Apple's developers follow the rules.
The new regulations will require Apple to curate apps in terms of privacy as well as safety.
Google prides itself on offering an Android marketplace that is open to all app developers, even though the open-source nature of the Android OS and its app store led to malware infections and privacy issues in the past.
Google must now require developers to adhere to strict, clear privacy policies in order to offer their apps to Android users, adding a new layer of scrutiny to a fairly open app marketplace.
Privacy inquiries are also reaching the national level. Congress is investigating Apple about how its apps store user data, and questions whether its closed-door screening process prevents disclosure about how it apps use consumer data, as well as other vulnerabilities.
App development races ahead, as users turn to apps for a range of mobile activities in increasing numbers. More scrutiny by lawmakers and consumer advocates could force tech companies to slow the pace, strengthen app standards and fully disclose how they use personal information.
Apple is targeting Samsung's Galaxy Nexus in court, changing strategy as it aims to take down Android through patent legal battles.
Apple is asking a California court to block sales of the Galaxy Nexus, claiming the device infringes on four unique Apple patents. Apple's preliminary injunction alleges the Android device infringes on Apple's patents for data-tapping technology, a unified search feature, a new slide-to-unlock patent, and a word-completion patent for touch screen typing.
While designing the Nexus, Samsung said it took careful steps to avoid any infringements, but three of the four patents are newly filed by Apple. The patents at issue are interface- and software-related and not design-based, the focus of Apple's earlier suits against Samsung. The change in direction suggests Apple is targeting Android OS as a whole instead of solely the Samsung device, and the company is now focusing on aspects of Android's software performance.
If the California court grants the injunction and rule in Apple's favor, the decision could require Google to redesign Ice Cream Sandwich, possibly holding up innovation on other fronts.
Google is angling to cash in on iPhone sales over its own patent concerns, but Apple is looking to stop Android devices from hitting shelves at any cost. Samsung's Galaxy Nexus is a prime target, since the new device runs Ice Cream Sandwich and is the frontrunner in the Android lineup to compete with iPhone.
Apple's past attempts to block Galaxy sales, among other lawsuits pending against Samsung, include a previous injunction denied in December. The legal dispute between the two companies started last year, with Apple targeting the Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets for their design.
Since then the two are battling in an all-out global patent war. Samsung fired back and eked out some victories, but some claims resulted in wins for Apple, though not as many as it likely hoped for.
Despite the accusations of intellectual property theft, Samsung and Apple are closely intertwined, as iPhones use Samsung technology in its iPhone devices. But both are racing to outpace each other in sales and new technologies, and the legal battles are only expected to win as the competition grows fiercer.
Apple likely believes the Android line, particularly Galaxy, copycats the iPhone, and Apple founder Steve Jobs excoriated Android before his passing. The latest claims take issue with features central to smartphone operation and prove Apple is going to fight Android on any front. With other manufacturers aiming to take on the iPhone in their designs and Google adjusting its Android OS for a more unified experience, Apple will likely continue to be aggressive in its attack.
A new Apple store in California demonstrates the painstakingly careful design of the iPhone maker's retail outlets, in another example of the company's dedication to detail.
Apple's designers for the Berkeley, Calif.-based store ensured that both outward-facing glass panes and the edges of the sidewalk were lined up with the floor tiles laid inside the store -- ensuring a symmetrical design that is in perfect alignment, according to a report from ifoAppleStore.
In order to achieve this design standard, nearly universal in Apple's retail locations, workers tore the existing sidewalk apart and replaced it with a new one whose contraction lines matched the interior stone tiles, exhibiting a close attention to detail characteristic of the tech giant.
Passersby will more likely "feel" than see the change, though it took a lot of time and effort to achieve.
This intense attention to detail that gives Apple stores their iconic look may be part of the bigger business practice that propelled Apple to become the fastest-growing retailer in the U.S. It now represents 20 percent of total U.S. retail sales growth, according to recent sales figures.
Apple's first-quarter sales of $4.6 billion marked an 80 percent increase from the same period last year and was largely attributed to Apple's retail outlets, according to analyst David Berman. Apple Stores pulled in $3.2 billion in sales, mostly from its U.S. locations, nearly doubling from the same quarter last year.
The Cupertino, Calif.-based company recently revamped its stores to mark their 10th anniversary, and will likely continue to make its retail presence a cornerstone of Apple's business.
Apple visionary Steve Jobs himself had a strong hand in the design of the retail stores, designing the glass staircases in many of the spaces, among other elements.
This retail growth is based, of course, on its products and services, demonstrating the strength of a tightly knit, controlled product line. But the intangible Apple experience, which extends to the spaces outside its stores, cannot be underestimated.
California's State Assembly approved a bill that would require law enforcement officers to secure a warrant before searching cell phones, another example of how state governments grapple with balancing mobile technology privacy and public safety.
If the measure makes it to the desk of Governor Jerry Brown and he signs it into law, it would overturn the January California Supreme Court ruling allowing officers to search cell phone contents from anyone who is arrested.
"This will not interfere with the legitimate needs of police," said Assemblyman and former police officer Steve Knight. "All established exceptions that currently exist will still apply."
Knight is referring to the fact that the new measure will still allow police to search phones without a warrant if they believe it necessary to prevent injuries, stop the destruction of evidence or prevent a crime from occurring.
While these exceptions alleviate some of the state's public safety community's concerns, many still stand in opposition to the bill.
"There are circumstances where it's just not practical to get a search warrant, no matter how expedited the process is in that county," said Ron Cottingham, president of the Peace Officers Research Association, California's largest public safety organization. "We still believe that the California Supreme Court was correct, and that subsequent to an arrest (searching a cell phone) is appropriate."
Because smartphones can, and often do, store unlimited personal data, supporters of the bill compared searching cell phones to combing through a person's bedroom or office desk.
"If you are caught with a laptop, they need a warrant. If they come to your home for some reason, they can't walk into your bedroom, personal office or look at your computer without a warrant," said the bill's author and state senator Mark Leno. "Everything inside your phone requires a warrant wherever else it can be found, so why should the smartphone be different?"
The legislative news regarding warrants for cell phones in California comes at a time when other states are examining similar measures.
This past spring, Michigan State Police reportedly searched drivers' cell phones, accessing contacts, pictures, texts, and even geo-location data, using specialized devices from Cellebrite. The news sparked debate, with advocacy groups taking sides.
"Cell phones contain information that many people consider to be private, to be beyond the reach of law enforcement and other government actors," said Mark Fancher, ACLU attorney. "There is great potential for abuse here by a police officer or state trooper who may not be monitored or supervised on the street."
The Michigan practice raises questions on how and when law enforcement can and should collect mobile data, an area that is arguably fuzzy since technology has far outpaced legislation in recent years. For example, one guideline for law enforcement, the Electronics Communication Privacy Act, is 25 years old and doesn't cover Twitter, Facebook or smartphones.
Despite the controversy, states aren't standing still. California's 68-0, bipartisan assembly vote calls into question law enforcement groups' argument that the bill would thwart police officers as they investigate crimes. Amendments to the bill may reduce this likelihood and at the same time protect citizens' safety and privacy rights, but the question of protecting information on cell phones while protecting public safety will continue to arise.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation today raided the homes of potential Anonymous hackers, as the U.S. government retaliates in the war against computer hacking.
The FBI made more than a dozen arrests, seizing computers and accessories from homes in New York, both in Brooklyn and on Long Island. Agents, who also raided locations in California, New Jersey and Florida, called the raids a "major" law enforcement operation.
These raids mark the U.S. government's first big effort to crack down on the Anonymous hackers reportedly responsible for hacking into several different government websites and major corporations.
In June alone, the loosely organized group initiated attacks on major banks, electronics giants Sony and Apple and the Malaysian government.
The Anonymous hackers also attacked major music labels, releasing user passwords for Universal's uMusic.com website and revealing information about Viacom's internal network.
The group even went as far as to say yesterday that it planned to create its own social network completely free of censorship, after Google+ banned Anonymous' page from its network.
Anonymous may have eluded capture until now, but the raids hint the government may be closing in. Still, officials are likely bracing for the group's reaction to this most recent intervention of law enforcement.
Last month, Spanish police made three arrests of members of the Anonymous hacking group. The hacking group responded by issuing a warning to Spanish police, saying it would target the police's website. Shortly after, the policia.es site went down, though it's never been confirmed Anonymous was to blame.
Several arrests of random hackers have been made in the past, but haven't slowed down hacking overall. As a result, the Obama administration last month proposed new anti-hacking security laws. Under the new law, hackers would face 20 years in prison for endangering national security, 10 years for stealing data and three years for accessing a government computer.
Only time will tell if the FBI's actions today will put a big enough dent in the Anonymous group and deter the hackers from targeting the U.S. governments websites again, and if this demonstration was enough to stop others from venturing down the same road.
The Supreme Court ruled California cannot ban the rental or sale of violent video games to children, putting more responsibility on parents as games continue to mature on mobile platforms.
The court voted seven to two against the proposed law, which would have prevented retailers from selling or renting violent games to anyone under 18. The nation's highest court determined the law was unconstitutional because it violated free speech.
If the law had passed, it would have imposed a $1,000 fine on retailers who sold or rented a violent video game to a minor. Violent games are defined as featuring the "killing, maiming, dismembering or sexual assaulting" or a human image and "appeals to deviant or morbid behavior."
"Like books, plays and movies, video games communicate ideas," said Justice Antonin Scalia, adding there was "no tradition in this country of specially restricting children's access to depictions of violence. Grimm's Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed."
Though the law was shot down, the judges were divided five to four over whether the law could ever regulate violent media enough to protect children.
Scalia strongly supported free speech even when children are present, but said the law should limit free speech to protect children from sex and pornography, not from violence.
The decision likely pleased the video game industry because violent games are high-selling titles. But those who believe the media needs more regulation over the content it releases are undoubtedly unsatisfied.
"This ruling replaces the authority of parents with the economic interests of the video game industry," said Tim Winter, president of the Parents Television Council in Los Angeles. "With no fear of any consequences for violating the video games industry's own age restriction guidelines, retailers can now openly, brazenly sell games with unspeakable violence and adult content to even the youngest of children."
The Supreme Court's decision now puts more responsibility in the hands of parents. More than 46 million U.S. households have at least one video game system, but millions more have smartphones and tablets, which are quickly becoming the go-to gadgets for gaming.
Today, more than ever, children have access to games, including violent ones, on their smartphones. These devices, becoming more advanced with each updated model, allow game developers to create games with increasing detail, better graphics and sometimes more violence.
Violent titles are also just a click away from Web-connected marketplaces like Apple's app store, which has become the world's largest video game store.
In addition, mobile games often retail for less than $5, a stark difference from console games that often carry $60 price tags. This lower cost may allow underage gamers to conveniently purchase more titles, in addition to drawing in broader audiences beyond hardcore gamers.
Whether the rise in mobile gaming leads to a corresponding scrutiny for violence remains to be seen, but the Supreme Court decision may allay possible app makers' fears about regulating their work.
The rise in mobile gaming on smartphones has led to a decline of nearly 20 percent in traditional handheld console sales. Consumers prefer to have one device in their pocket that can do it all, and they're choosing smartphones capable of playing video games.
In the end, it is up to parents to monitor the games their children are bringing home or purchasing on their smartphone.
Tags:
