Candy Crush developer wins trademark for “Candy”

One of the most popular mobile games in the world is Candy Crush Saga from King.com Limited. The company field for a trademark about a year ago for the very generic word "Candy." That trademark has now been granted by the US Patent and Trademark Office.

The trademark granted gives King's exclusive use of the word candy for games, software, educational services, and clothing. With the newly minted trademark in hand, King's is now trying to force any game developer with an app using candy in the title to remove the app or change it. Alternatively, the users can prove somehow that their use of the word candy doesn’t infringe the trademark.

Game developers are not happy with the trademark seeing the term candy as being very generic. King.com is already going after at least one app titled "Candy Casino slots- Jewel Craze Connect: Big Blast Mania Land" for using candy in its title. The developer of that slots app was told that the use of candy in the title directly infringes the trademark,

Candy Crush Saga is one of the most popular mobile games on the planet. The developers claim that players of the game have played more than 150 billion times and that 500 million users have downloaded the game globally. Candy Crush Saga first appeared as a Facebook game before moving into the mobile realm. The popularity of the game led to King.com filing for an IPO last year.




SOURCE: HNGN

[Continue reading...]

Facebook slapped with lawsuit over ads reportedly displaying false endorsements

Facebook has been hit with another lawsuit this month, this one by a user who states the social network falsely showed that he "Liked" USA Today when, in fact, he never had. Such an advertisement appeared to the people on his friends list, showing them an endorsement from him that he states he never performed. The user is seeking financial compensation for this action, as well as compensation for all other users who experienced the same phenomenon.

Facebook user Anthony Ditirro has filed a class-action lawsuit against Facebook in a San Jose court for displaying his endorsement of a publication he claims to have never visited or "Liked," in the actionable sense of the word. Though, according to the lawsuit, Ditirro has nothing against USA Today, it is also not something he has endorsed and so he takes umbrage with the falsely-generated "Like" on the advertisement.

The false use of his endorsement, according to the class-action lawsuit, runs afoul of various federal and state-level privacy and related rights, and the $750 in damages comes by precedent of a California law allowing for such a figure in the event a personal image is used in the manner specified without the owner's permission. As mentioned, this isn't the first privacy-related lawsuit the social network has received in recent weeks.

During the last days of December, two Facebook users filed a lawsuit against the social network under claims that it reads the contents of private messages that contain a link to a third-party, doing so to mine data for advertisers and marketers. That claim -- which Facebook has called "without merit" -- is said to be in violation of the Electronics Communications Privacy Act and related California laws. In that instance, the plaintiffs are seeking $10,000 in damages for all users who allegedly fell prey to these claimed privacy violations.






SOURCE: GigaOm

[Continue reading...]

Laptop searches by U.S. border agents ruled legal

For most people, one's laptop is a like a trusted friend, packed full of data that one would not give out part and parcel to just anyone, particularly not strangers. Random laptop searches at United States borders have been taking place for years, and have been the subject of much outcry, particularly due to the complete lack of suspicion needed to perform the search. Civil rights attorneys filed a lawsuit against this activity, citing reasons of being unconstitutional, but a New York judge has dismissed their complaint, giving border agents the go-ahead.

Travelers, when entering the United States, are vulnerable to potential laptop searches by border agents. These searches aren't guaranteed to take place, but if you're one of the unfortunate travelers who gets tagged, you have no say in having your digital data picked through. There have been instances where laptops have been confiscated, such as the case regarding Pascal Abidor, a French-American citizen who, upon entering the U.S. border territory, had his laptop confiscated by the border personnel.

It is being argued that allowing border agents to search laptops -- which includes the machines of news photographers and those of similar professions -- will give access to both sensitive and confidential information. The judge had a different view of this however, saying that, in the case of Abidor, who was abroad researching Shiite history, he "cannot be so naive to expect that when he crosses into Syrian or Lebanese border that the contents of his computer will be immune from searches and seizure at the whim of those who work for Bashar al-Assad or Hassan Nasrallah."

Thus was part of U.S. District Judge Edward Korman's final decision, dismissing the lawsuit and ruling that reasonable suspicion is not needed to perform a laptop search. The plantiffs, it was ruled, did not show any injury resulting from the searches, and legal precedents were used to conclude that US border crossings allowed for government searches -- reasonable suspicion aside -- in the name of national security.

Said ACLU lawyer Catherine Crump: "Unfortunately, these searches are part of a broader pattern of aggressive government surveillance that collects information on too many innocent people, under lax standards, and without adequate oversight." The organization is debating about appealing the judge's decision, though whether it will is yet to be determined.





SOURCE: Associated Press

[Continue reading...]

Apple motion seeks to renew bid to ban some Samsung products in US

Apple filed a motion this week that seeks to renew the tech giants attempt to win a sales ban on certain Samsung products in the US. Apple wants to stop the sales of certain Samsung products in the US that were found to infringe on Apple patents for utility and design. These patents were at the heart of the Apple vs. Samsung trial back in 2012.

In November of this year, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered Judge Lucy Koh to look at the case again as far as how it pertains to the three utility patents at its heart. Those patents have to do with rubber-banding, tap-to-zoom, and pinch-to-zoom UI functions. The appeals court did reaffirm the denial of an injunction against the Samsung products on the basis of design patents.

Apple filed a motion to renew its bid to have the violating Samsung products banned as soon as the verdict was handed down. The products that the sales ban has to do with have been on the market for almost two years and are no longer big money makers for Samsung.

One of the patents at the core of this case, called the Apple '915 patent, covering pinch-to-zoom has had doubt cast on its validity. A Patent and Trademark Office examiner found the claims of the patent invalid in November. As a result, Apple field a notice of appeal with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board this week in response. Apple wants the court to renew the sales injunction proceedings as soon as January 30.





SOURCE: Apple Insider

[Continue reading...]

Google sues Rockstar Consortium for unfairly targeting Android partners

Google has been tied up in court over allegations of patent infringement with the Rockstar Consortium. Rockstar is a consortium of companies that banded together to enforce copyrights backed by several major technology firms. Some of the major backers of Rockstar include Apple and Microsoft.

We mentioned earlier this week that Google was wanting a US court to say Android didn't infringe on patents held by Rockstar. The search giant has now taken its action a step further and filed suit against Rockstar alleging that the litigation campaign is placing a cloud over the Android OS and threatening sales of Nexus devices sold by the company and its partners.

The suit by Rockstar was field against Google and companies building devices that run Android including Asus, HTC, Huawei, LG, Pantech, Samsung, and ZTE. The legal case against Google and its partners focuses on seven patents.

The friction between Google and Rockstar began in 2011 when both firms tried to buy patents being sold off by Nortel Networks. The patent portfolio included 6000 patents that covered a number of mobile and networking technologies.





SOURCE: ZeeNews

[Continue reading...]

Hulu will face privacy suit in court

Hulu has been fighting to get a case thrown out that as to do with it allegedly sharing the viewing habits of its users illegally. The plaintiffs in the case claim that Hulu illegally shared viewing habits of its users with Facebook and comScore. Hulu had gone before a US Magistrate Judge named Laurel Beeler in an attempt to get the suit dismissed.

The judge didn’t agree with Hulu's assertion on the case and has said that the case will move forward. Hulu maintained that viewers would need to show actual injury by the sharing of the information to recover any damages. Hulu says that the viewers needed to prove damage even if the qualified as "aggrieved" persons under a 1988 law protecting the privacy of video renters.

The law is called the Video Privacy Protection Act or VPPA and was adopted after a newspaper ran an article in 1987 about movies rented by Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. The judge decided against Hulu stating that the stature requires only injury in the form of wrongful disclosure.

The suit is a class action on behalf of all Hulu users across the country. The case is seeking damages of at least $2500 per violation plus punitive and other damages. The suit claims that the information shared by Hulu allows Facebook to link viewing habits with personal identifying information.





SOURCE: Reuters

[Continue reading...]

'Google' will not answer to British court over UK privacy claim

Google has been called "arrogant and immoral" for arguing that a privacy claim brought by internet users in the UK should not be heard by the British legal system.

The search giant will tell the high court on Monday that it should throw out claims that it secretly tracked the browsing habits of millions of iPhone users.

In the first group claim brought against Google in the UK, the internet firm has insisted that the lawsuit must be brought in California, where it is based, instead of a British courtroom.

Hundreds of internet users are preparing to sue Google if the test case gets the green light.

Google is accused by the claimants of secretly monitoring their behaviour by circumventing security settings on the iPhone, iPad and desktop versions of the Safari web browser.

Judith Vidal-Hall, one of the claimants suing Google, said: "Google is very much here in the UK. It has a UK specific site. It has staff here. It sells adverts here. It makes money here. It is ludicrous for it to claim that, despite all of this very commercial activity, it won't answer to our courts.

"If consumers are based in the UK and English laws are abused, the perpetrator must be held to account here, not in a jurisdiction that might suit them better. Google's approach that British consumers should travel all the way to California to seek redress for its wrongdoings is arrogant, immoral and a disgrace."

Google will argue on Monday that the case does not meet the standard required to be heard at the high court in London. Lawyers for the search firm are expected to tell the judge that a similar privacy claim was recently struck out in the US and that no European regulators are currently investigating this issue.

But lawyers for the claimants will argue that Google should answer to the British legal system for allegedly breaching the privacy of internet users on UK soil.

"British users have a right to privacy protected by English and European laws," said Dan Tench, a solicitor from the law firm Olswang, which represents the claimants.

"Google may weave complex legal arguments about why the case should not be heard here, but they have a legal and moral duty to users on this side of the Atlantic not to abuse their wishes. Google must be held to account here, even though it would prefer to ignore England."

A Google spokesman said: "A case almost identical to this one was dismissed in its entirety two months ago in the US. We're asking the court to re-examine whether this case meets the standards required in the UK for a case like this to go to trial."

[Continue reading...]

Google, Microsoft, Apple & more demand government surveillance reform

Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and other big names in tech have joined forces to protest government surveillance worldwide, calling for “Global Government Surveillance Reform” to better balance keeping citizens safe while also preserving their privacy. The group, which also includes AOL, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Yahoo, sets out five principles for transparency, oversight, accountability, and respect, penning a collective letter to President Obama and the US Congress in which they allege the balance of power has tipped too far away from the people and too much toward the stat

According to the eight firms, while they recognize that governments have a responsibility to protect citizens, they nonetheless believe that it’s time to rework the current laws which no longer address the digital age. Instead, they must be “rule-bound, narrowly tailored, transparent, and subject to oversight” in order to permit privacy and free expression.

The five guiding principles the companies set out echo and expand on those concepts. For instance, governments must be constrained in what user-information they collect, it’s argued, with “sensible limitations” on how much disclosure they can force out of service providers. Google and others have been vocal in recent demands for permission to reveal how many national security requests they receive each year.

Bulk data collection – potentially including the sort of huge location tracking the NSA is believed to be undertaking – is also name-checked, as is the need for a “clear legal framework” in which the right to protest disclosure is supported. Such laws should be set up in such a way that “the courts are accountable to an informed citizenry” it’s suggested.

Meanwhile, there’s also a request that governments be more open-minded about where data is stored – not requiring it to be within a country’s borders, for instance – and for countries to work together on better, more transparent sharing of information between each other.

Whether the pleading for reform will fall on deaf ears remains to be seen, but it’s clear that none of the key tech industry players is keen to go quietly along with increasing surveillance and government intrusion. Google has accelerated plans to encrypt all Drive data as a result, while Microsoft is similarly strengthening its security. The Obama government is yet to comment on the open letter.




SOURCE: slashgear

[Continue reading...]

Apple seeking million in attorneys fees from Samsung

The patent war between Samsung and Apple has been long and, to whatever extent possible, bloody, with both sides seeing some victories and defeat. Ultimately, Samsung has suffered some major financial blows, and now Apple wants to add upon that burden, filing a motion to have the Korean company take on some of its legal fees — to the tune of $15.7 million.

That’s not the sum total of Apple’s legal fees, with it representing less than 30-percent, according to the document that was filed. This is regarding a case that kicked off quite a while ago up through March, which is the stopping point at which Apple is including in its attorney fee figures. As part of its seeking, Apple is using the Lanham Act, which allows for payment of a certain portion of legal fees in what is regarded as exceptional cases.

The question, then, is whether this case falls under the Lanham Act’s definition of an exceptional case, which Apple believes it does. The qualifying factor is a willful, fraudulent, and deliberate act, and Apple has made it quite clear that it feels Samsung’s actions fall under this requirement.

On one hand, Apple points out the Relative Evaluation Report from Samsung showing it discussing elements of the iPhone and, according to the filing, seeking ways to make its own devices function in a similar manner. It also says that there is ample evidence that Samsung’s infringements were deliberate, with Apple having a victory on 26 of 28 named products. Samsung hasn’t commented on the matter.




Source : tuaw.com

[Continue reading...]

Philips and Samsung raided in Europe anti-competition investigation

Samsung and Philips have confirmed' that they are under investigation by the European Commission' about potential anticompetitive behaviors, after EU inspectors raided a number of companies' earlier this week. The EC did not name the targeted companies; however, both firms revealed to the BBC that they' were co-operating with investigators around concerns that they have forced' higher prices by restricting availability of certain consumer' electronics and small appliances in Europe.

The Commission has concerns that the companies' concerned may have violated EU antitrust rules that prohibit' anticompetitive agreements or concerted practices' the EC said in a statement. “The Commission has grounds' to suspect that the companies subject to the inspections may have' put in place restrictions on online sales of consumer' electronic products and small domestic appliances.

Although the Commission' is keen to point out that being raided isn’t necessarily' a sign of presumed guilt, the potential penalties' should Samsung, Philips, or other firms involved be found' guilty are significant.

These restrictions, if proven, may lead to higher consumer' prices or the unavailability of products through' certain online sales channels the EC points out. As a result, it has the right to impose' fines of as much as 10-percent of global annual' turnover.

Were the maximum' penalty applied to Samsung something highly unlikely that could mean a fine' in the region of billions of dollars.

Exactly which products are proving' contentious is unknown, the practice of limiting availability of particular models to different' countries or even specific retailers is not especially unusual. What would incur EC wrath, however, would be if that exclusivity' was also used to artificially buoy' pricing to the point that it was deemed anticompetitive' for consumers.

It’s not the only 'anti-competition issues Samsung is facing in Europe at the moment. The company is under investigation for alleged antitrust' behaviors around patent licensing, after Apple complained that it was 'refusing to agree to fair terms for vital 3G standards. Back in October, Samsung offered a portfolio' of concessions to the EC in the hopes of escaping' a fine over the issue.


Source : definefreak

[Continue reading...]

Cell phone data collection by law enforcement requires warrant, rules New Jersey

New Jersey saw a bill proposal surface last month that would allow law enforcement to confiscate a cell phone at the time of a crash to investigate whether a driver was distracted, leading to the incident. Such a proposal caused quite a bit of backlash, but at least one area in the state’s battle between police needs and consumers’ privacy has been resolved: a warrant must be obtained to get cell phone location data, according to a ruling.

The ruling came down from the New Jersey Supreme Court today, and with it is a requirement for law enforcement to acquire a warrant in order to get tracking information about a cell phone from the owner’s carrier. Montana was the first state to require such a measure, and California nearly became the second before it was vetoed by the governor under the grounds that it didn’t meet the needs of both law enforcement and citizens.

According to the state’s supreme court, which ruled unanimously in favor of requiring a warrant, by entering into a contract with a carrier, the subscriber can “reasonably expect” that the private data resulting from their handset usage will remain private. Part of the ruling came in part from a US Supreme Court ruling in 2012 declaring it unlawful for law enforcement to place a GPS unit on a car without having a warrant. Says New Jersey, a smartphone functions in the same way.

Chief Justice Stuart Rabner said: “Using a cellphone to determine the location of its owner can be far more revealing than acquiring toll billing, bank, or Internet subscriber records. Details about the location of a cellphone can provide an intimate picture of one’s daily life and reveal not just where people go … but also the people and groups they choose to affiliate with. That information cuts across a broad range of personal ties with family, friends, political groups, health care providers and others.”

The case cited one example where tracking information from a cell phone was used by law enforcement without a warrant, leading to the arrest of an individual discovered in a motel room with the goods he had stolen from various homes. The court has pushed the issue of whether an “emergency aid exception” to the ruling will be admissible to an appeals court.

[Continue reading...]