NEWS Google’s book settlement torn up
Apple gets ready to rumble with Amazon
iPhone-maker Apple has accused online retailer Amazon of infringing its ‘App Store’ trademark with the recently launched Amazon Appstore for Android.
Apple filed its complaint on March 18 at the US District Court for the Northern District of California. It said that Amazon’s mobile application developer programme and download service constitutes unauthorised use of its ‘App Store’ trademark.
Te US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) approved the trademark on January 5 for coverage in classes 35, 38 and 42. Soſtware company Microsoſt opposed this five days later.
In January, Russell Pangborn, associate general counsel of trademarks at Microsoſt, said: “Like ‘shoe store’ or ‘toy store’, [‘app store’] is a generic term that is commonly used by companies, governments, and individuals that offer [mobile phone applications].”
Microsoſt’s opposition is currently with the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
In its trademark infringement complaint, Apple said: “Apple coined the term APP STORE as a means of branding its new service. Te term APP STORE was not in general use in connection with the distribution of soſtware programs prior to Apple’s adoption of the term as a trademark.”
It added: “On or about January 19, February 9, and March 14, 2011, Apple communicated with Amazon and demanded that Amazon cease its use of the APP STORE mark. Amazon has not provided a substantive response to any of Apple’s communications.”
Apple is seeking an injunction preventing Amazon from using its trademark, as well as damages and any profits that Amazon has made from its “unauthorised use” of Apple’s trademark.
Amazon and Apple did not respond to requests for comment.
www.worldipreview.com
Google’s plan to digitise millions of books and create an online library has been temporarily thwarted by a US judge.
US Judge Denny Chin rejected a settlement agreed between the Author’s Guild, the Association of American Publishers (AAP) and Google on March 22 in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Judge Chin said that the settlement is “not fair, adequate, and reasonable”.
Authors and publishers—represented by the Author’s Guild and the AAP—filed separate complaints against Google for copyright infringement in 2005, because the search engine began digitally copying books owned by major research libraries aſter securing their permission to do so in 2004.
Google has scanned more than 12 million books since it began.
Chin said: “[Te proposed settlement] would permit [the plaintiffs]
...to implement a forward- looking business arrangement that would grant Google significant rights to exploit entire books, without permission of the copyright owners.”
FTC won’t let NPEs be
Non-practicing entities (NPEs) can deter innovation by raising costs and risks without making a technological contribution, according to a March 7 report by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
In the report, the FTC singled out “patent assertion entities”—a type of NPE that buys and asserts patents—operating in the US information technology industry. Te FTC said: “Increasing activity by...[patent assertion entities]...has amplified concerns about the effects of ex post patent transactions on innovation and competition.”
Te FTC’s report makes recommendations for improving the US patent system as companies such as Google and Microsoſt join forces to take on GeoTag, a company based in Delaware and the holder of a patent that has changed ownership “at least five times”.
GeoTag recently sued more than 300 companies—many of which use Microsoſt and Google web-mapping services—for infringing its patent with their online store locators. Microsoſt and Google want GeoTag’s patent to be made invalid, according to their March 1 complaint.
World Intellectual Property Review March/April 2011 9
He added that the settlement would give Google a “significant advantage over competitors, rewarding it for engaging in wholesale copying of copyrighted works without permission”.
Te settlement was filed in the New York district court in October 2008 as part of a motion for preliminary approval to resolve the actions brought against Google.
Under the settlement, Google would have made $125 million available for compensating affected copyright owners. Tis money would also pay for searching for the rightful owners of ‘orphan works’.
Hilary Ware, a managing counsel at Google, said: “Tis is clearly disappointing, but we’ll review the Court’s decision and consider our options. Like many others, we believe this agreement has the potential to open up access to millions of books that are currently hard to find in the US today.”
Judge Chin did not entirely rule out the possibility of a settlement. He said that objections to the settlement would be “ameliorated” if rights holders could opt in to Google’s scanning programme, rather than having to opt out under the rejected settlement.
©
iStockphoto.com / parema
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76