Visual Voice Mail lawsuit seeks $360 Million

Seeking $360 Million in damages Klausner Technologies Inc has sued Apple, AT&T, EBay, Comcast & Cablevision Systems Corp over Klausner's patent of technology that by allows users to selectively retrieve and listen to voice messages via message inbox displays.

*sigh*

Yet another case *cough* one-click-buy *cough* of someone holding a patent that falls under the "duh obvious" category. It's the email version of voice mail for pete's sake.

These are the same people who sued Vonage. Along with AOL they are now a licensee of Klausner's voicemail technology for its Vonage Voicemail Plus service according to Klausner.

Source: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=corrected-klausner-sues-a

Locked vs. Unlocked

The New York Times has a very interesting article discussing the various point's of view when it comes to unlocking cell phones. They pose a fundamental question: Does locking the phone protect copyright or is it merely a way to stifle innovation?

From the Article:

A subsection of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 could be interpreted as saying that anyone who unlocks a phone for someone else or tells others how to do it might face legal action.

Some legal scholars ... have argued that interpreting the act that way has little to do with protecting copyrights, and more to do with limiting competition. The Librarian of Congress, the office that determines what things are covered under the copyright act, exempts the unlocking of mobile phones from the law.

Several recent cases support Professor Crawford’s view. In one of those cases, Lexmark, a printer manufacturer, tried to use the act to sue a company that made compatible ink cartridges. In another, a garage door opener manufacturer tried to sue a rival company for making a universal door opener.

In both instances, federal courts ruled that these cases were not about preventing copyright infringement, but rather about stifling competition, Professor Crawford said.

Greenpeace admits iPhone Euro compliance

In a not-so-shocking turn of events it appears that Greenpeace may have been a little over the top with their accusations. Greenpeace has now admitted that the iPhone meets Euro chemical rules. While the iPhone does contain the chemicals mentioned the European Reduction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) legislation only bans the toxins for products meant for children.

From the Article:

In short, while Greenpeace's point that Apple really should have shown some materials leadership with the iPhone is a valid one to make, why get stroppy when Apple has not exceeded the limits it has set itself or those imposed upon it by Europe's RoHS regulations? What about all the other phone makers out there?

We'd guess it's because Apple is an easy target, and Greenpeace knows iPhone related commentary gains press coverage. Perhaps that's why it's chosen to lay into the Apple handset rather than others. Greenpeace's write-up doesn't once compare and contrast the iPhone's use of hazardous substances with that of any other mobile phone from any other vendor.

It's worth noting that they may be in violation of California laws though.

Although the iPhone may meet ROHS standards, the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) is asserting the Apple has violated California law, which says that products that can expose consumers to phthaltes or other such chemicals must carry a warning label.

I'm not a big fan of Greenpeace in the first place. While I agree with their goals I do not agree with their methods. In some cases violent, and usually overly dramatic, I feel their actions put environmentalists like myself in a bad light. Making us look like tree hugging unrealistic hippies.

iPhone made with hazardous chemcials

According to a recent greenpeace report on the iPhone, it contains dangerous levels of bromine, chlorine and "phthalates," chemical compounds used to increase the flexibility of plastic. This, of course, is leading to another iPhone lawsuit filed by a nonprofit environmental law group.

From the Article:

The level of phthalate esters, a chemical linked to birth defects, in plastic coating of iPhone earphones wires is greater than that allowed in toys or childcare items sold in Europe, according to Greenpeace.

"If a pregnant woman is winding and unwinding that cord a number of times each day, like we all would, she is getting exposed to this chemical," center chief executive Michael Green told AFP.
...
The notice sent to Apple and the California state attorney general gives the nonprofit environmental law group legal standing to sue Apple in 60 days.

A lawsuit could compel Apple to put warnings on iPhone packaging but doesn't require the renowned maker of iPods and Macintosh computers to recall devices or alter the composition of models yet to be sold.

Sober Opinion of iPhone Lawsuit

Ted Frank over at PointOfLaw.com has pejorative opinion about the iPhone lawsuit.

From the Article:

Antitrust? you might ask. Doesn't that only apply to monopolists? How can Apple have market power when they have less than 1% of the market for cell phones? The plaintiffs get around this by claiming that Apple iPhones are a market in and of themselves, and that Apple has a monopoly over the sale of iPhones.
...
The suit makes no economic or legal sense, but it's been brought in California, home of the Ninth Circuit, which has countenanced the irrational theory of leverage before in such cases as Image Technical Serv., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co.

How soon Apple forgets

An interesting post talking about Apple's initial success as an open platform in the 1970's.

From the Article:

How soon Apple forgets. Jobs and Wozniak came to prominence only because the Apple-II they designed back in the mid-'70s was an open platform. The entire PC industry that followed the Apple II came to exist only because theIBM (NYSE: IBM) PC was an open platform.

So, now Grandpa Jobs wants a closed iPhone, and he has his company spending considerable resources fending off the hackers who open it up in a futile battle. In offense/defense, the offense has always had the advantage as it only needs to find a single remaining weakness to exploit, whereas the defense has to protect from all possible vulnerabilities.

Hacked iPhones "Unbricked"

It appears that hackers have managed to come up with a method of "Unbricking" iPhones that were rendered useless by the 1.1.1 update a couple weeks ago. They have also found a way to allow owners of locked and updated iPhones to run 3rd party apps. They are using a TIFF image buffer overflow flaw in Safari to run code.

From the Article:

So the ball is once again back in Apple's court. It will almost undoubtedly release additional firmware upgrades that lock down the device - mobile phone operators who've agreed to hand over sizable percentages of their revenues from iPhone users in exchange for exclusive rights in particular countries will expect nothing less.

However, the smart money is on a softer line on third-party applications. Informed sources reckon Apple will soon start selling authorised applications from its closest development partners, who'll be offered access to software development kits.

iPhone lawsuit seeks Billions in damages

Yes that billions with a B! According to Computer World the damages in the Federal iPhone lawsuit could reach well over $3.6 Billion.

From the article:

The suit seeks compensation for $1.6 billion in damages, plus punitive and other damages that could push the total to well over $2 billion.

While I'm not so concerned about the amounts it could encourage Apple and AT&T into cutting some sort of deal. Let's just hope that any deal will leave the rest of us with an unlocked iPhone.

T-Mobile gets hit with phone locking lawsuit

From Techdirt comes news the California Supreme Court has ruled that a lawsuit against T-Mobile's phone locking policy is not subject to binding arbitration.

From the article:

"How the courts will actually rule on the issue could make a big difference in the Apple/iPhone case -- as there is the possibility that the courts may find that (in California at least) locking a phone to a single network is not allowed."

Lawsuit alleges locked iPhones constitute a monopoly

Does restricting a phone to a single carrier constitute a monopoly by the two companies involved? According to an AP article yesterday multiple lawsuits have been filed that claim Apple and AT&T are engaged in monopolistic behavior. Nobody can deny the furor that erupted on the internet after the last update that disabled so many iPhones and Apple had to expect more than just bad PR. We will have to wait and see how this lawsuit pans out, but if the plaintiffs succeed it will have implications that stretch far beyond the iPhone.

Exciting news for those of us who want an iPhone but don't want or are unable to use AT&T.

From the article

"Complaints over Apple Inc.'s use restrictions and recent software update for the iPhone have erupted in two lawsuits alleging Apple and its carrier partner, AT&T Inc., engaged in illegal monopolistic behavior .... [b]y not allowing consumers to modify their iPhones to work on other carrier networks.

...

It is unclear how many iPhones were disabled or how many iPhone owners have modified their handsets.

Some hacker communities estimated that thousands of people have downloaded their "unlocking" programs, while AT&T's Siegel says the company has heard from "very few" customers that have done so.

The federal lawsuit stated it didn't know how large the affected class could be but pegged the number at 100 or more and anticipates "there will be millions.""