Apple Inc. litigation Wikipedia.This article needs to be updated.Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.November 2. The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc.In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests.From the 1. Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries.Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media.Apples litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.BackgroundeditApple is a member of the Business Software Alliance BSA, whose principal activity is trying to stop copyright infringement of software produced by BSA members Apple treats all its intellectual property as a business asset, engaging in litigation as one method among many to police its assets and to respond to claims by others against it.Apples portfolio of intellectual property is broad enough, for trademarks alone, to encompass several pages of the companys web site and, in April 2.Ne. XT products and services, and 2 trademarks related to File.Maker. 4 Apple claims copyright interests in multiple products and processes and owns and licenses patents of various types as well and, while it states it generally does not license its patent portfolio, it does work with third parties having an interest in product interoperability.Steve Jobs alone was a named inventor on over 3.Between January 2.May 2. 01. 0, Apple Inc.U. S. Patent and Trademark office USPTO alone, most in opposition to or taking exception to others use of the terms apple, pod, and safari those cases include sellers of apples the fruit, as well as many others less unassuming use of the term apple.AntitrusteditApple i.Pod, i. Tunes antitrust litigationeditThe case In re Apple i.Pod i. Tunes Antitrust Litigation was filed as a class action in 2.Microsoft Expression Web 2 Trial By Fire Wow' title='Microsoft Expression Web 2 Trial By Fire Wow' />Get the latest science news and technology news, read tech reviews and more at ABC News.Microsoft. The fiercely competitive software giant is positioning its wares for cloud computing with software and services.The companys two cash cows operating.Apple violated the U.S. antitrust statutes in operating a music downloading monopoly that it created by changing its software design to the proprietary Fair.Playencoding in 2.Pod. 9 The suit initially alleged that five days after Real.Networks released in 2.Harmony technology making its music playable on i.Pods, Apple changed its software such that the Real.Networks music would no longer play on i.Pods. 1. 0 The claims of Apples changes to its encoding and its refusal to license Fair.Play technology to other companies were dismissed by the court 2.Apples monopoly on the i.Pods music download capabilities between 2.July 2. 01. 2. 1.In March 2. 01. 1, Bloomberg reported that, after a related 3 year inquiry by the Competition Commission, Apple agreed in 2.Tunes tracks sold in the United Kingdom and that Steve Jobs had been directed by the court in March 2.Apples Fair. Play changes as they relate to the plaintiffs monopolization claim.Apple and AT T Mobility antitrust class actioneditIn October 2.Phone was introduced, Paul Holman and Lucy Rivello filed a class action lawsuit numbered C0.Microsoft Expression Web 2 Trial By Fire WalkerNorthern District of California.The lawsuit referenced Apples SIM lock on the i.Phone and Apples at the time complete ban on third party apps, and alleged that the 1.SIM cards and apps.The lawsuit said that this was an unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practice see False advertising under Californias Unfair Competition Law that the combination of AT T Mobility and Apple was to reduce competition and cause a monopoly in violation of Californias antitrust law and the Sherman Antitrust Act and that this disabling was a violation of the Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act.Shortly after this initial filing, other lawsuits were filed, and these were consolidated with the original Holman suit, bringing in additional plaintiffs and complaints Timothy Smith, et al., v.Apple, Inc. et al., No.C 0. 7 0. 56. 62 RMW, adding complaints related to ringtones,1.Kliegerman v. Apple, Inc., No.C 0. 8 9. 48, bringing in allegations under the federal MagnusonMoss Warranty Act.The combined case title was changed to In Re Apple AT TM Anti Trust Litigation.The court appointed lead counsel from the various plaintiffs lawyers, and several versions of a combined complaint were filed.In October 2. 00.California, New York, and Washington, but gave the plaintiffs leave to amend those claims.In December 2. 01.Apple and AT Ts motions to compel arbitration, following the Supreme Court decision in AT T Mobility v.Concepcion, and decertified the class in April 2.Ninth Circuit denied plaintiffs permission to appeal.In December 2. 01.Robert Pepper won the race to the courthouse by filing a complaint in the Northern District, which was combined with some slightly later filers and titled In re Apple i. Livro Contabilidade De Custos Facil Pdf Reader . Phone Antitrust Litigation, case 1.YGR. The new case is essentially the same but is filed only against Apple, not AT T Mobility.In late 2. 01. 3, the various parts of the case were dismissed by the district court.The parts relating to SIM locking were rejected because AT T was not a party and the plaintiffs were not willing to add AT T.The remaining claim, in its final version, was that Apple monopolised the market for i.Phone applications and that the plaintiffs were damaged by paying Apples 3.App Store, which the court rejected saying that the commission was a cost passed on to consumers by independent software developers, not paid by the consumers directly, and so the plaintiffs did not have standing under the Illinois Brick doctrine.European antitrust investigationeditIn 2.Apple agreed to cut the price UK consumers pay to download music for their i.Pods after a formal complaint to the European Commission from the UK consumer group Which UK for the same i.Tunes songs sold elsewhere in the European Union EU.The Commission began an antitrust investigation in 2.Apples business practices after the complaint was made,1.Commission probe found no agreements between Apple and major record labels on how i.Tunes is run in Europe,2.Apple had been paying higher wholesale prices to UK music labels and was passing the cost along to UK customers.Book price fixing lawsuiteditIn April 2.U. S. Justice Department DOJ and 3.U. S. states brought a civil antitrust action against Apple, Harper.Collins, Macmillan Publishers, Penguin Books, Simon Schuster, and Hachette Book Group, Inc., alleging violations of the Sherman Act.The suit was filed in the Southern District of New York and alleges the defendants conspired to restrain retail price competition in the sale of e books because they viewed Amazons price discounting as a substantial challenge to their traditional business model.Regarding Apple in particular, the federal complaint alleged that Apple facilitated the Publisher Defendants collective effort to end retail price competition by coordinating their transition to an agency model across all retailers.Apple clearly understood that its participation in this scheme would result in higher prices to consumers.In such an agency model, publishers set prices rather than sellers.Fifteen states and Puerto Rico also filed a companion federal case in Austin, Texas, against Apple, Penguin, Simon Schuster and Macmillan.In the same month, Harper.Collins, Hachette and Simon Schuster settled with both the DOJ and the state attorneys general, with Harper.Collins and Hachette agreeing to pay Texas and Connecticut 5.Apple, Penguin, and Macmillan as remaining defendants.As of July 2. 01.On July 1. 0, 2. 01.District Court Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan found Apple Inc.Apple played a central role in a conspiracy with publishers to eliminate retail competition and the prices of e books.High Tech Employee Antitrust LitigationeditIn 2.Apple settled out of court both an antitrust lawsuit and a related class action suit regarding cold calling employees of other companies.Consumer class actionseditTechnical support class actioneditFrom 1.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |