Judge in Google, Oracle case seeks names of paid reporters, bloggers

A photo of the Google Inc. logo is shown on a computer screen in San Francisco, California July 16, 2009.

Credit: Reuters/Robert Galbraith

By Alexei Oreskovic

SAN FRANCISCO | Wed Aug 8, 2012 12:38am EDT

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Google Inc and Oracle Corp's copyright and patent battle took a strange twist on Tuesday, after a judge ordered the companies to disclose the names of journalists, bloggers and other commentators on their payrolls.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup said he was concerned that Google and Oracle and/or their counsel may have retained or paid people who may have published comment on the case.

The order, several months after a jury found that Google did not infringe on Oracle's patents, hints at the possibility of a hidden world of for-pay press coverage and injects uncertainty into the widely-followed case.

Alsup issued a one page order but did not go into full details of the court's concerns.

"The court is concerned that the parties and/or counsel herein may have retained or paid print or internet authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have and/or may publish comments on the issues in the case," Alsup wrote in Tuesday's order.

He said the information "would be of use on appeal" and could "make clear whether any treatise, article, commentary or analysis on the issues posed by this case are possibly influenced by financial relationships to the parties or counsel."

The companies must submit the information by noon August 17.

Oracle sued Google in federal court, claiming the search engine giant's Android mobile platform violated its patents and copyright to Java, seeking roughly $1 billion on its copyright claims.

But the jury ruled in Google's favor and the judge decided Oracle could not claim copyright protection on most of the Java material that Oracle took to trial.

Oracle has said it will appeal.

The trial, which featured testimony from high-profile technology executives including Oracle Chief Executive Larry Ellison and Google CEO Larry Page, attracted heavy media coverage from the mainstream press and technology-focused blogs.

One of the more well-known bloggers on intellectual property matters and on the Oracle vs Google case, Florian Mueller, revealed three days into the trial that Oracle had recently become a consulting client of his. People who followed the case said they weren't aware of any other similar examples.

An Oracle spokeswoman said in a statement that the company has "always disclosed all of its financial relationships in this matter, and it is time for Google do to the same. We read this order to also include indirect payments to entities who, in turn, made comments on behalf of Google."

Google said the company would comply with the order.

What impact the order could have on the case remains unclear, legal experts said.

"I haven't seen anything quite like this before. I think the judge is in uncharted territory with this order," said Eric Goldman, a professor of Internet law at Santa Clara University School of Law.

Goldman said two potential reasons for the order would be if there were evidence that the jury had been swayed by extensive press coverage of the case or if the jury had relied on evidence not properly labeled as unbiased, such as a for-pay news article offered as an exhibit in the trial.

Goldman, who blogged about the case, said that he might likely appear on the list, since his website features ads distributed by Google's online advertising network.

"The court has really wide discretion in granting a remedy to fix any kind of wrongdoing," said Julie Samuels, an intellectual property attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Samuels said the judge could order a retrial, but stressed that would be a highly extreme and unlikely scenario.

The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California is Oracle America, Inc v. Google Inc, 10-3561.

(Editing by Michael Perry)

View the original article here

Read More

Judge who shelved Apple trial says patent system out of sync

Federal Judge Richard Posner poses in his Chambers in Chicago July 2, 2012. The U.S. judge who tossed out one of the biggest court cases in Apple Inc's smartphone technology battle thinks policymakers should examine whether patents should cover software at all. Picture taken July 2, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/John Gress

By Dan Levine

CHICAGO | Thu Jul 5, 2012 8:42am EDT

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The U.S. judge who tossed out one of the biggest court cases in Apple Inc's (AAPL.O) smartphone technology battle is questioning whether patents should cover software or most other industries at all.

Richard Posner, a prolific jurist who sits on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, told Reuters this week that the technology industry's high profits and volatility made patent litigation attractive for companies looking to wound competitors.

"It's a constant struggle for survival," he said in his courthouse chambers, which have a sparkling view of Monroe Harbor on Lake Michigan. "As in any jungle, the animals will use all the means at their disposal, all their teeth and claws that are permitted by the ecosystem."

Posner, 73, was appointed as a federal appeals court judge by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and has written dozens of books, including one about economics and intellectual property law.

Posner, who teaches at the University of Chicago, effectively ended Apple's lawsuit against Google Inc's (GOOG.O) Motorola Mobility unit last month. He canceled a closely anticipated trial between the two and rejected the iPhone maker's request for an injunction barring the sale of Motorola products using Apple's patented technology.

Apple is in a pitched battle with its competitors over patents, as technology companies joust globally for consumers in the fast-growing markets for smartphones and tablet computers.

Posner said some industries, like pharmaceuticals, had a better claim to intellectual property protection because of the enormous investment it takes to create a successful drug.

Advances in software and other industries cost much less, he said, and the companies benefit tremendously from being first in the market with gadgets - a benefit they would still get if there were no software patents.

"It's not clear that we really need patents in most industries," he said.

Also, devices like smartphones have thousands of component features, and they all receive legal protection.

"You just have this proliferation of patents," Posner said. "It's a problem."

GENERATION SMARTPHONE

The Apple/Motorola case did not land in front of Posner by accident. He volunteered to oversee it.

Federal appellate judges occasionally offer to preside over district court cases. Posner had alerted the district judges of his interest in patents, so after part of the smartphone battle landed in Wisconsin federal court, the judge there transferred the case to him.

When Posner began working on the smartphone case, he told the litigants he was "really neutral" because he used a court-issued BlackBerry made by Research In Motion Ltd (RIM.TO). He soon accepted an upgrade to an iPhone, but only uses it to check email and call his wife, he said.

"I'm not actually that interested in becoming part of the smartphone generation," he said.

Posner's corner office is filled with the requisite library of law tomes, and a row of books he wrote sits alongside his family photographs. He also has a signed photograph from the late Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr., for whom he clerked in the early 1960s.

Judges rarely speak openly to the press, but Posner is outspoken on a range of topics. Last week in online magazine Slate, he penned a withering critique of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's recent dissent in the Arizona immigration case.

"It wouldn't surprise me if Justice Scalia's opinion were quoted in campaign ads," Posner wrote.

MOTOROLA V. APPLE

Motorola sued Apple in October 2010, a move that was widely seen as a pre-emptive strike. Apple filed its own claims against Motorola the same month.

In canceling the trial, Posner said an injunction barring the sale of Motorola phones would harm consumers. He also rejected the idea of trying to ban an entire phone based on patents that cover individual features like the smooth operation of streaming video.

Apple's patent, Posner wrote in his June 22 order, "is not a claim to a monopoly of streaming video!"

Not all judges in the patent wars share Posner's skepticism of injunctions. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, granted Apple two critical pretrial injunctions against Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (005930.KS) last week: one against the Galaxy Tab 10.1, and the other against the Galaxy Nexus phone.

In Friday's 101-page ruling barring the Galaxy Nexus, Koh cited the harms to Apple due to competition from phones that infringe its patent on the Siri search feature. Samsung is appealing both injunctions.

Posner said he had not read Koh's orders.

In his own ruling, Posner also barred Motorola from seeking an injunction against the iPhone because the company had pledged to license its patent on fair and reasonable terms to other companies - in exchange for having the technology adopted as an industry standard.

Posner's idea of examining whether industries like software should receive patent protection is a mainstream one, especially in the computer industry, said John Allison, a professor at University of Texas at Austin who studies intellectual property rights.

However, recent patent law reforms passed by the U.S. Congress did not directly address the issue, and Allison said classifying industries for the purposes of intellectual property protection - as Posner suggests - was "completely impractical" because talented lawyers could game the system.

When it comes to the smartphone litigation wars, Posner said tech companies should not be blamed for jumping into court since they are merely taking the opportunities that the legal system offers.

Given the large cash reserves in Silicon Valley, high legal fees are not a deterrent. Apple, for instance, had $110 billion in cash and securities as of March 31.

"It's a small expense for them," Posner said.

Posner said he had been looking forward to presiding over a trial between Motorola and Apple, but had no other choice than to toss the case.

"I didn't think I could have a trial just for fun," he said.

(Editing by Martha Graybow and Lisa Von Ahn)

View the original article here

Read More

Judge approves Netflix privacy settlement

By Jonathan Stempel

Fri Jul 6, 2012 10:14am EDT

n">(Reuters) - A federal judge has granted preliminary approval to Netflix Inc's $9 million settlement of class-action litigation accusing the video rental company of violating consumer privacy laws.

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, California, said the accord reached in February "compares favorably" to recent settlements of other consumer privacy cases, including with Google Inc and Facebook Inc.

The judge also certified a nationwide class of current and former Netflix subscribers estimated in the tens of millions, according to his order issued late Thursday.

Subscribers accused Netflix of violating the federal Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 by keeping records of DVD and Internet videos they watched for at least two years after they canceled service, and also keeping credit card information.

They said Netflix used the data in marketing and advertising without consent, violating a legal requirement that it purge "personally identifiable information" within one year after it was no longer needed for the purpose for which it was collected.

Most people would feel "extremely uncomfortable" that the Los Gatos, California-based company could keep their viewing histories and credit card data for so long, the complaint said.

The settlement calls for Netflix to "decouple" subscribers' rental histories from other identification data once a year has passed since service was canceled. Money will also be used to educate consumers and regulators on privacy protection.

The case had been brought by former Netflix subscribers and Virginia residents Jeff Milans and Peter Comstock.

Netflix did not admit wrongdoing, and accounted for the settlement in its results for the fourth quarter of 2011.

A hearing to consider final approval is set for December 5.

The video privacy law was passed after Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's video rental history was leaked in the press during his 1987 confirmation proceedings.

The case is In re: Netflix Privacy Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 11-00379.

(Reporting By Jonathan Stempel in New York; editing by John Wallace)

View the original article here

Read More

U.S. Judge rejects Samsung request to lift stay on Nexus sales

By Erin Geiger Smith

Tue Jul 3, 2012 8:55pm EDT

n">(Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Tuesday rejected a request by Samsung Electronics Co. to lift a pre-trial injunction against sales of its Galaxy Nexus phone, another legal setback for the South Korean firm ahead of an upcoming court battle with Apple Inc..

Last week, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, granted Apple's request to block sales of the smartphone. Samsung had asked the court to stay the injunction pending resolution of an appeal.

On Monday, Koh rejected a similar request to lift a ban on the U.S. sales of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1, a tablet computer that runs on Google Inc's Android and is a competitor of Apple's iPad.

The two injunctions were significant victories for Apple, as such pre-trial injunctions are rarely granted.

Apple and Samsung, the world's largest consumer electronics corporations, are waging legal war in around 10 countries, accusing each other of patent violations as they vie for supremacy in a fast-growing market for mobile devices.

Apple sued Samsung last year, accusing the South Korean electronics maker of "slavishly" copying the iPhone and iPad. Samsung denies the claim and countersued. The case is due to come to court late this month and could have implications in other jurisdictions.

The district court is not the last chance for Samsung to get the injunctions lifted. Samsung has also appealed to a federal appeals court in Washington, DC, which has exclusive jurisdiction over intellectual property disputes.

As a condition of the Galaxy Nexus injunction, Apple was ordered to post a bond in the amount of more than $95 million to secure payment of any damages sustained by Samsung should the injunction be deemed a wrongful decision later.

Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet reiterated her previous statement in the case, saying Samsung blatantly copied Apple's products and that Apple must protect it's intellectual property.

Samsung did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The smartphone case is U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, is Apple Inc v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al, 12-00630.

(Reporting By Erin Geiger Smith; Editing by Richard Pullin)

View the original article here

Read More

U.S. Judge rejects Samsung request to lift stay on Nexus sales

By Erin Geiger Smith

Tue Jul 3, 2012 8:55pm EDT

n">(Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Tuesday rejected a request by Samsung Electronics Co. to lift a pre-trial injunction against sales of its Galaxy Nexus phone, another legal setback for the South Korean firm ahead of an upcoming court battle with Apple Inc..

Last week, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, granted Apple's request to block sales of the smartphone. Samsung had asked the court to stay the injunction pending resolution of an appeal.

On Monday, Koh rejected a similar request to lift a ban on the U.S. sales of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1, a tablet computer that runs on Google Inc's Android and is a competitor of Apple's iPad.

The two injunctions were significant victories for Apple, as such pre-trial injunctions are rarely granted.

Apple and Samsung, the world's largest consumer electronics corporations, are waging legal war in around 10 countries, accusing each other of patent violations as they vie for supremacy in a fast-growing market for mobile devices.

Apple sued Samsung last year, accusing the South Korean electronics maker of "slavishly" copying the iPhone and iPad. Samsung denies the claim and countersued. The case is due to come to court late this month and could have implications in other jurisdictions.

The district court is not the last chance for Samsung to get the injunctions lifted. Samsung has also appealed to a federal appeals court in Washington, DC, which has exclusive jurisdiction over intellectual property disputes.

As a condition of the Galaxy Nexus injunction, Apple was ordered to post a bond in the amount of more than $95 million to secure payment of any damages sustained by Samsung should the injunction be deemed a wrongful decision later.

Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet reiterated her previous statement in the case, saying Samsung blatantly copied Apple's products and that Apple must protect it's intellectual property.

Samsung did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The smartphone case is U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, is Apple Inc v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al, 12-00630.

(Reporting By Erin Geiger Smith; Editing by Richard Pullin)

View the original article here

Read More

Single trial for three accused in Dell insider case: Judge

A Dell computer logo is seen on a laptop at Best Buy in Phoenix, Arizona, February 18, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Joshua Lott

By Basil Katz

NEW YORK | Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:07pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Two former hedge fund portfolio managers and an analyst charged in a $62 million insider trading scheme will go to trial together in October, a U.S. judge ruled on Thursday.

Lawyers for each of the defendants had sought to convince U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan in Manhattan that they were entitled to separate trials.

Prosecutors in Manhattan announced the charges against the three in January in a sweep dubbed "Operation Perfect Hedge" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Their arrest was part of the government's campaign to root out illicit trading on Wall Street, in which a total of 70 people have so far been charged.

A lawyer for Todd Newman, who worked at hedge fund Diamondback Capital Management, told the judge that a jury would be prejudiced against his client if it was allowed to hear the size of the illicit gains one of the other defendants, Anthony Chiasson, is accused of reaping.

"We have all seen the protests, the 99 percent..." attorney Stephen Fishbein said. Given the ongoing "financial crisis," Fishbein said, "I can't think of a more emotional issue in this day and age."

The judge, however, was not sympathetic.

"I tried a murder trial with the shooter and the look-out at the same time. How do you think they felt?" Sullivan said.

Chiasson and Newman are accused of illegally trading ahead of computer maker Dell Inc's earnings announcements for the first and second quarters of 2008, netting them profits, respectively, of $57 million and $3.8 million.

An attorney for analyst Jon Horvath, of Sigma Capital management, a unit of Steven Cohen's hedge fund SAC Capital, had also argued for a separate trial.

Horvath was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and one count of securities fraud. Chiasson and Newman both face one count each of conspiracy to commit securities fraud as well as several counts of securities fraud.

All three men have pleaded not guilty and are contesting the charges.

The government's case is based in part on testimony by three former analysts turned government cooperators: Sandeep "Sandy" Goyal, Jesse Tortora and Spyridon Adondakis. All three previously pleaded guilty to related insider trading charges.

The trial is scheduled for October 29.

The case is US v. Todd Newman et al, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 12-mj-0124 and 12-cr-00121.

(Reporting By Basil Katz; editing by Carol Bishopric)

View the original article here

Read More

U.S. judge sets 2013 trial date for Apple e-book lawsuit

The Apple Inc corporate logo is pictured on rear side of the Macbook Pro notebook computer in Warsaw February 6, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Kacper Pempel

By Basil Katz

NEW YORK | Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:32pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Friday set a 2013 trial date for a lawsuit from the U.S. government accusing Apple and book publishers of conspiring to fix the prices of electronic books.

Following a hearing in Manhattan federal court, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote said a bench trial in the case will begin June 3, 2013, for Apple and two publishers who are fighting the antitrust charges.

The U.S. Justice Department sued Apple in April, saying it colluding with five publishers to boost e-book prices in early 2010, as the Silicon Valley giant was launching its popular iPad tablet.

Amazon Inc, which makes the Kindle e-reader, had long sold e-books for as little as $9.99. The government complaint quoted Apple's late co-founder Steve Jobs as wanting to offer publishers a means to boost prices, and "create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99."

Apple argues it has not conspired with anyone or fixed prices for e-books in an effort to thwart Amazon's dominance of that fast-growing market.

Apple says that its foray into e-books has actually fueled demand for e-books by forcing Amazon and rivals, including Barnes & Noble Inc, to compete more aggressively, including by upgrading e-reader technology.

The publishers Macmillan and Penguin Group, which are respectively units of Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH and Pearson Plc, are fighting the antitrust case.

News Corp's HarperCollins Publishers, CBS Corp's Simon & Schuster and Lagardere SCA's Hachette Book Group settled the case with the U.S. Justice Department.

The three publishers are also on track to submit a settlement proposal to the judge by the end of the summer to resolve claims by a group of U.S. states, lawyers for the book companies and the states said on Friday.

"I am confident that we'll get all 50 states and six territories and common wealths to sign on" to the settlement, said Gary Becker, a Connecticut assistant Attorney General.

The case is In Re: Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-2293.

(Additional reporting by Jessica Dye; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

View the original article here

Read More