iPhone digital keyboard lawsuit

These are starting to get really old. In 2000 someone patented

"method of providing a user interface for receiving information from a user using a user immutable graphical keyboard linked to an input area, [...] invoking the graphical keyboard on a touch screen display to receive input from a user, and [...] maintaining the graphical keyboard on the touch screen display such that the user cannot move, resize, remove, or close the graphical keyboard through the user interface while the input area remains and requires input."

.

Ok, pretty lame and obvious, but what makes this amusing is that the man holding the patent is a doctor who was recently fined $900,000 and sentenced to 51 months for defrauding the healthcare system in texas.

Source : AppleInsider

Inside the iPhone Gray Market

MSN has an interesting and fairly detailed article covering the history and direction of the iphone unlocking market. From the article:

In January, Walberg [owner of pdacable.com] found a cheap Turbo SIM knockoff sold by a Chinese supplier. He packages the device to create an altered SIM card and sells them for $44. His customers include London businessmen and retailers in Mexico, Brazil, and other locales. He's even getting calls from carriers that don't want to share their profits with Apple, as AT&T and others have agreed to do. That way, customers can come in with their iPhone, buy Walberg's device, and skirt Apple's exclusive provider. "I don't know if [these carriers] can legally encourage unlocking, but they're not going to discourage it," says Walberg. "This market will go on forever, because I don't think there's a way for Apple to stop us."

Patent reform anyone? Yet another iPhone lawsuit

Here we go again. File it under the "let's patent something that millions of users have been asking for" department the latest iPhone related lawsuit comes from little known Minerva of Los Angeles. The filed for the patent back in November and despite Apple's submission of prior art last week the patent office granted Minerva a patent for a device that has

mobile entertainment and communication device in a palm-held size housing (that) has a cellular or satellite telephone capable of wireless communication with the Internet and one or more replaceable memory card sockets for receiving a blank memory card for recording data directly from the Internet and, in particular, musical performances that then can be selectively reproduced by the device for the enjoyment of the user, including both audio and visual recordings and reproductions.

I don't know about the rest of you but I've been saying for years that I would like a device that combines my cell-phone with my i-pod and a hand held computer. Maybe I should file a patent? Then again I don't have something as damning as this drawing that is included in the patent:


I can see all 3 guys at Minerva now sitting around a decrepit table and one of them pipes up "Hey, I found this old drawing we did in 1997 ... hmmm, lets make 200 the memory card slot, 202 can be the headphones and BAM! we have ourselves an iphone-is-infringing-on-our-patent meal ticket. "

In typical "obvious patent" form

Minerva on Tuesday also filed two additional suits of similar nature. One targets Research In Motion and Cricket Communications, while the other names 29 defendants, including AT&T Mobility, LG, Palm, Motorola, Nokia, Alltel, Dobson Cellular, Helio, HP, MetroPCS Wireless, Sprint Spectrum, Nextel, T-Mobile USA, Tracfone Wireless, Cellco Partnership, Virgin Mobile, HTC, Kyocera Wireless, Pantech Wireless, Sanyo, Sony Ericsson, and Samsung.

sources: Macnn.com & AppleInsider.com

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.