The Tech News Blog
iPad Hacker Sentenced to 41 Months in Prison
A hacker convicted of improperly accessing the accounts of AT&T iPad owners was sentenced to 41 months in prison today.
As reported by Wired, Andrew Auernheimer will spend the next three years and four months behind bars. The sentence was handed down after Auernheimer reportedly got into a scuffle with court officials over a mobile device he had. The Verge said he was not supposed to be using a computer with a keyboard, and ultimately, the exchange led to him being cuffed.
Auernheimer - known online as Weev - and Daniel Spitler, believed to be members of the Goatse Security coalition of hackers, were arrested in mid-January 2011 on two counts each: one for fraud and the other for conspiring to access an unauthorized server, in this case, AT&T's. In June 2010 the carrier disclosed the theft of 114,000 e-mail addresses and ICC-IDs (identity numbers stored in SIM cards) of Apple iPad 3G owners, including Michael Bloomberg, Harvey Weinstein, and blogger Kara Swisher.
The hackers provided the stolen email addresses to gossip blog Gawker, which posted the data in redacted form, and said a group known as Goatse Security was claiming responsibility.
THX Sues Apple, Claims iPhone, iMac, iPad Speakers Infringe Patent
THX has filed suit against Apple, claiming that the tech giant has infringed on one of THX's patent's for "Narrow profile speaker configurations and systems" within the company's iPhones, iPads, and iMacs.
The result? The violations cause THX "monetary damage and irreparable harm," reports Bloomberg, and the company is seeking monetary damages or royalty payments, as well as a court order that would force Apple to cease its alleged infringement.
According to THX's complaint, filed Thursday in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Apple's infringing the patent on its iPhone 4 (and later models), iPads, and iMacs, "which incorporate narrow-profile speaker units that output sound through a duct or aperture having a narrow dimension."
Here's where it gets interesting. The patent that THX is holding over Apple's head was granted to the company in 2008. U.S. Patent No. 7,433,483 describes, in part, "A narrow profile speaker unit comprises at least one speaker outputting sound towards an internal surface and through a duct with an output terminus, such as a slot, having a narrow dimension, effectively changing the cross-section of the speaker's audio output wave. A pair of speakers may face one another, outputting sound towards a common output slot."
Nintendo Hit With $30M Fine Over 3D Patent
Nintendo found itself on the losing end of a patent infringement case Wednesday, resulting in a $30 million fine.
A federal judge this week ruled that Nintendo's 3DS video-game system infringed on an inventor's 3D display technology patent, Reuters reported. That inventor, Seijiro Tomita, was awarded $30.2 million in compensatory damages.
The suit dates back to June 2011, when Tomita, a former longtime Sony employee, filed a complaint against Nintendo, claiming that the Japanese company stole from his 2008 patent covering glasses-less 3D technology.
Tomita's law firm, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, sent PCMag the following statement in regards to the final verdict: "Mr. Tomita's distinguished career, both with Sony and his own company, is a testamtent to his innovative and pioneering character. It has been a privilege representing him and we are thankful to the jury for their diligence in this case."
Nintendo did not immediatley respond to a request for comment. The company did, however, tell Kotaku that Tomita's patent did not relate to the 3D games available on the Nintendo 3DS. "Nintendo is confident that the result will be set aside," the company told the blog. "The jury's verdict will not impact Nintendo's continued sales in the United States of its highly acclaimed line of video game hardware, software, and accessories, including the Nintendo 3DS. Nintendo has a long history of developing innovative products while respecting the intellectual property rights of others."
Judge Cuts Damages, Orders New Trial in Apple, Samsung Patent Case
Apple was dealt a major setback in its patent battle against Samsung today when a California judge ordered a new trial on 14 Samsung products and dropped more than $450 million in damages from the $1.05 billion the jury awarded to Apple last summer.
California district court Judge Lucy Koh found that the jury awarded damages "based on a legally impermissible theory," so Samsung is entitled to a new trial on more than a dozen of its gadgets.
That includes the Galaxy Prevail, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, AT&T Galaxy S II, Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Tab, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, and Transform.
"This amounts to $450,514,650 being struck from the jury's award," Judge Koh said.
However, Samsung is still on the hook for almost $600 million in damages related to the Galaxy Ace, Galaxy S (i9000), Galaxy S II i9100, Galaxy Tab 10.1 Wi-Fi, Galaxy Tab 10.1 4G LTE, Intercept, Fascinate, Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S II Showcase, Mesmerize, Vibrant, Galaxy S II Skyrocket, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, and the T-Mobile Galaxy S II.
"The total award for these 14 products is $598,908,892," the judge said.
Apple Offers Refunds, iTunes Credit to Settle In-App Payment Suit
Apple has reached a deal with customers who sued Cupertino in 2011 for the "unlawful exploitation" of children (and their parents' wallets) via in-app purchases.
As part of the arrangement, Apple will refund customers whose children inadvertantly ran up bills via in-app purchases, and offer a $5 iTunes credit for their troubles.
A California judge will consider the deal at a March 1 hearing.
The case started in April 2011 when Pennsylvania resident Garen Meguerian sued Apple after his 9-year-old daughter racked up about $200 in in-app purchases while playing games like Zombie Café, Treasure Story, and City Story. Meguerian said he was "completely unaware" that these games included in-game currency and was shocked to find the charges on his account.
The purchases were made in Feb. 2011, before Apple started requiring a password for in-app purchases via the iOS 4.3 ugrade in March.
Four other people filed similar lawsuits around the same time; those suits were consolidated into one case in June 2011. Early on, Apple tried unsucessfully to have the case tossed and to prevent the release of evidence. Ultimately, the two sides were ordered into mediation; they met on Oct. 23, 2012 and Jan. 17, 2013 and eventually reached a deal.
Rumor: ‘Six Strikes’ Copyright Plan Starts Rolling Out Monday
Watch out, U.S. copyright violators. According to a few sources, the "big five" American Internet Service Providers are allegedly set to roll out a new six-strikes anti-piracy system starting this Monday.
The Copyright Alert System, as it's been named, will allow an individual to receive up to six "alerts" when it's been detected that said user is sharing copyright content – after said copyright owner complains, that is. These alerts, according to the Copyright Alert System's website, will eventually result in a "mitigation measure" for those who continue to share copyright material.
Said "mitigation measures" aren't as severe as some of the copyright-protection measures found in other countries – namely, France's "three strikes" HADOPI law that allows an ISP to completely cut off a user's service after a few accusations of copyright violations.
Nevertheless, they could include the throttling of a user's Internet speed, or a prompt that forces a user to contact the ISP or complete an educational session about copyright before being allowed to access the Web once again.
The new measures have been a long time coming, in that it was expected that the aforementioned "major ISPS" —AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon — would begin sending out these "alerts" to users by the end of 2011. As reported by Torrentfreak's Ernesto, that deadline of-sorts was first pushed back to mid-2012, and then pushed back to the end of 2012.
Amazon, Publishers Face Class-Action Suit Over E-book ‘Monopoly’
A trio of independent bookstores this week filed a class-action lawsuit against Amazon its largest publishing partners over their use of digital rights management (DRM) technology to create what the plaintiffs claim is a monopoly on the sale of e-books in the United States.
Along with Amazon, the "Big Six" publishing houses—Random House, Penguin, Hachette, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, and Macmillan—are named in the suit, according the Huffington Post, which published a copy of the class-action complaint on Wednesday.
Last Friday, Albany, N.Y.-based Book House of Stuyvesant Plaza, Greenville, S.C.-based Fiction Addiction, and New York City-based Posman Books filed the suit in New York on behalf of "all independent brick-and-mortar bookstores who sell e-books," the Huffington Post reported.
At issue are the DRM locks Amazon places on e-books purchased for its Kindle e-readers which prevent users from transferring their purchase to another e-reading device like the Barnes & Noble Nook or another computing platform entirely. The major publishers named in the suit all utilize Amazon's AZW DRM on e-books they sell through Amazon, though two of Macmillian's imprints, Tor and Forge, do not, according to the news site.
The independent book sellers who brought the complaint claim that none of the Big Six publishers have entered into an agreement with any U.S.-based independent bookstore to sell e-book versions of titles they publish, essentially giving Amazon, and to a lesser extent Barnes & Noble and Apple, a monopoly position in the e-book market relative to the independents.
Google’s Silence on Privacy Policy Irks EU Regulators
European officials today criticized Google for not responding to their privacy-related inquiries in a timely fashion.
As a result, France's CNIL (Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés) - which is representing the European Commission's Article 29 Working Party - said today that it would set up a working group that would examine the search giant's policies.
That group should be in place by summer. CNIL said it will submit its proposal at the next Article 29 Working Party plenary session on Feb. 26.
Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but last year, the company said its "new privacy policy demonstrates our long-standing commitment to protecting our users' information and creating great products. We are confident that our privacy notices respect European law."
The CNIL's battle with Google goes back almost a year. At issue is an update to Google's privacy policy that went into effect on March 1, 2012. The revamp consolidated 70 or so privacy policies across Google's products down to one. But with this change, Google also switched to one profile for users across all services rather than separate logs for offerings like YouTube, Search, and Blogger.
Judge Dismisses Shareholder Suit Against Netflix
A federal judge this week dismissed a shareholder lawsuit brought against Netflix more than a year ago for allegedly concealing rising costs to inflate its share price, Reuters reported Thursday.
The class-action suit, filed by the City of Royal Oak Retirement System in California district court in January 2012, alleged that Netflix "issued materially false and misleading statements regarding [its] business practices and its contracts with content providers. "Specifically, defendants concealed negative trends in Netflix's business," the plaintiffs claimed.
The suit drew attention to Netflix pricing changes and attempted to draw a connection between the company's alleged financial misbehavior and the sale of stock by Netflix CEO Reed Hastings and others. The plaintiffs claimed that Netflix raised prices without keeping shareholders in the loop when it faced the expiration of contracts with content providers that would be expensive for the company to renew.
But U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti said Wednesday that the plaintiffs "failed to show that Netflix materially misled them about its accounting, its pricing trends, the relative profitability of its streaming and DVD businesses, and its dealings with U.S. securities regulators," Reuters reported.
Judge Conti "also said Hastings did not materially mislead investors in a conference call on Dec. 8, 2010, when he said Netflix would benefit from a 'virtuous cycle' where it could add subscribers and streaming content while lessening its DVD-by-mail costs," according to the news service.
Lawmakers: CISPA Will Help Battle Cyber Attacks From China, Iran
The authors of the controversial CISPA information-sharing bill today argued that the legislation is necessary to protect against cyber attacks from countries like China and Iran, and said they are working to resolve issues that the White House has with the bill in its current form.
In a conference call with reporters, Rep. Mike Rogers - chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence - said today that his bill protects civil liberties while preserving the open and free Internet. "[CISPA] protects privacy by empowering Web services and providers to protect their services," argued Rogers, a Michigan Republican.
CISPA would allow for the government and private companies to exchange information about cyber threats. If Homeland Security became aware of a planned hack of Facebook, for example, it could notify the appropriate people at the social network. Where it gets controversial is that CISPA would also allow Facebook to tell the feds - or other tech firms - if detected hackers on its network.
Specifically, CISPA would "empower American businesses to share anonymous cyber threat information with others in the private sector and enable the private sector to share information with the government on a purely voluntary basis."
CISPA supporters argue that this type of information sharing just makes sense; how can you thwart or battle an attack if you don't know about it? Opponents, however, argue that CISPA would allow for companies like Facebook or Google to hand over personal information about their users in the name of cyber security. Those companies are provided with good-faith immunity in the event of an attack and theft of personal information.