Items tagged with Supreme Court
Apple is about to have its day in court; but we're not talking about a federal circuit court due to its long-standing battle with Qualcomm. Instead, Apple is set to appear before the U.S. Supreme Court over antitrust allegations stemming from its popular App Store. If regular consumers want to install software on their iPhones or iPads (without jailbreaking, of course), the only way that this is permitted is via Apple’s App Store. This is Apple's curated walled garden for apps and games, and is strictly controlled. Developers must submit their apps to Apple for approval, and if they meet...
Read more...
Privacy advocates are celebrating a Supreme Court ruling that bans law enforcement from tracking a user's cellphone location without first obtaining a warranty. In a majority 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found that allowing police officers to access a cellphones location data without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, and that it is precisely the type of surveillance that the Constitution protects against. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority decision, likened warrantless cellphone tracking to wearing an electronic ankle bracelet, such as those worn by criminals on house...
Read more...
Score one for the little guys. In a precedent-setting decision handed down this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a company’s patent rights are forfeited once they sell an item to a consumer under the “first sale” doctrine. This idea was central to Impression Products, Inc. v Lexmark Int’l, Inc. and is a major blow to companies that sell their printers for (relatively) low prices and then recoup any losses on the sale of expensive ink and toner cartridges. Lexmark originally set its sights on Impression Products, which is a small company that specializes in remanufacturing print cartridges...
Read more...
Printers are expensive. Recycling and selling used/refilled printer ink cartridges has often been seen as a way to recoup the money that often gets sunk into the cash cow of the printer business - the ink itself. The ruling of Impression Products, Inc. v Lexmark Int’l, Inc, a recent and rather obscure court case, could potentially change how printer ink cartridge items are used, recycled, restored and resold, once they have been purchased by a customer. Impression Products is a small business that specializes in buying and re-manufacturing used printer cartridges. Lexmark International, Inc. recently...
Read more...
We may never which came first, the chicken or the egg, but if it comes as any consolation the highest court in the land has agreed to settle a longstanding and tired dispute between Apple and Samsung over smartphones. Specifically, the United States Supreme Court will decide how much of a $399 million patent infringement award Apple is entitled to. This is a case that's been weaving through the court system for the past six years. Apple sued Samsung in 2010 for patent infringement, saying the South Korean electronics maker copied the look and feel of its iPhone handset. Apple ultimately won its...
Read more...
A dispute involving scratched Xbox 360 discs that stems back nearly will be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States, which will decide if there's enough cause for Microsoft to face class-action lawsuit. While that sounds like an easy task, lower courts have disagreed on the matter, hence how it was able to reach the Supreme Court.At issue is a lawsuit alleging that Xbox 360 consoles had a tendency to scratch optical discs and that Microsoft knew it was a problem. The lawsuit essentially blames the symptom on a design flaw, one in which there was little to no protection in place to prevent...
Read more...
Today, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on data privacy, holding 9-0 that neither police officers nor federal law enforcement have a unilateral right to search cell phones without first procuring a warrant. Prior to today, the government had previously argued that the police could search a cell phone under previous court rulings that extended such rights in limited cases, including incidents where the officers on the scene had reason to believe evidence could be destroyed or that the evidence was on the individual (or within arms' reach). What the Court recognized today is that a cell...
Read more...
In what amounts to a victory for bloggers, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that Crystal Cox, a blogger, is protected by the same free speech rights as a traditional journalist and therefore can't be held liable for defamation unless it's proven that she acted negligently. The ruling came after Cox lost a defamation trial in 2011 over a blog post accusing a bankruptcy trustee and Obsidian Finance Group of tax fraud. At the time, the lower court ruled that Obsidian didn't need to prove that Cox acted negligently since Cox did not submit evidence proving her status as...
Read more...
The right to free speech as defined in the First Amendment is not an absolute, but the US Supreme Court has historically exercised great caution when limiting its scope. Yesterday, the USSC rejected a California law that restricted the sale/rental of violent video games to minors. Prior to now, multiple states have passed similar laws, all of which have been struck down by various judicial courts. The USSC rejected the California law for multiple reasons. In the US, most of the restrictions to free speech are procedural. These are collectively referred to as the "time, place, and manner" restrictions....
Read more...
You've heard all the arguments before: violent video games are corroding our youth, Grand Theft Auto makes kids want to beat up pedestrians, Doom and other first person shooters corrupt young minds into going on shooting sprees, and so forth and so on. The Supreme Court will hear these same arguments and decide whether a California ban on the sale of violent games to minors is unconstitutional. Why now? You can thank California's governator, otherwise known as Mr. Universe, Conan the Barbarian, and The Terminator, to name just a few of Arnold Schwarzenegger's more popular alter-egos. At heart of...
Read more...
In 2004, Jeremy Jaynes was the first person to receive a felony conviction in Virginia for sending Spam. He got nine years in jail. His case has made its way through the state court system, losing all the way; and now in a closely divided decision, The Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that the only Spam Jaynes will be allowed to enjoy is in the prison cafeteria. Virginia's law prohibits sending unsolicited bulk e-mail by fraudulent means, such as changing the header or routing information to prevent recipients from contacting or determining the identity of the sender.The decision against...
Read more...
