Apple, Sony, Reach Legal Settlement Regarding Battery Fire Case
15 April 2008 09:29 EST
Chris Barylick
Last summer proved to be an interesting time for Apple laptops with Sony-manufactured batteries and the results are being seen now.
According to The Mac Observer, Apple and Sony have reached a legal agreement in which the companies will jointly pay a Japanese couple 1.3 million Yen (US$12,800) after they sued for damages when an Apple computer sporting a Sony battery caught fire.
The man apparently suffered burns on his fingers as he tried to get the computer out of the house. Part of the carpet and floor were also damaged in the process and the woman claimed to have suffered from shock after the incident. The couple originally sought damages of two million Yen (US$19,700).
In the trial, Apple Japan accepted liability with the 1.3 million Yen settlement being reached on April 2nd.
After a number of fires were reported in 2006, Sony has recalled nearly 10 million lithium ion batteries.
As always, feel free to throw your two cents in over in the comments or forums.
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
Category: Legal
Buy from: Apple
...............................................................................................
Apple Settles MacBook Display Lawsuit
27 March 2008 07:49 EST
Chris Barylick
On Wednesday, Apple quietly settled a 10-month-old lawsuit regarding its MacBook notebook displays. Though a figure was reached out of court and terms were not disclosed, two California professional photographers files a class-action suit last May claiming they were duped into purchasing MacBook Pro laptops via Apple's claim that the MacBook and MacBook Pro could display millions of colors.
"The displays are only capable of displaying the illusion of millions of colors through the use of a software technique referred to as 'dithering,' " the lawsuit said.
"They made a misrepresentation," said Peter Polischuk, attorney for Greaves and Gatley, referring to Apple. "They have a drop-down menu [in the Mac operating system] that lets you choose to display millions of colors."
According to the Chicago Tribune's Eric 2.0 blog, a clerk in the San Diego County Superior Court notified the press that the suit had been settled. Polischuck said the plaintiffs didn't pursuit it further because it was difficult to find other people who were wronged because they had bought Macs solely based on the "millions of colors" claim.
Stay tuned for more details as this story develops and if you've heard anything about the terms reached, please let us know in the comments or forums.
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
Category: Legal
Buy from: Apple
...............................................................................................
Apple Threatens Legal Action Against Unlocked iPhone Resellers in Singapore
07 December 2007 09:32 EST
Chris Barylick
Even if the iPhone isn't officially available in Singapore, there seems to be a demand there.
According to the Straits Times (free registration required to read the article), Apple has threatened retailers in a local mall with legal action if they continue to sell unlocked iPhones. The threat has apparently prompted many vendors to stop selling the iPhone, especially with damage threats of S$1,000 (US$691).
The Straits Times report indicates that Apple’s legal threats rest on a claim that unlocking the iPhone was a violation of the software license agreement. That is not the case in the U.S., where laws provide a specific exemption that allows users to unlock cell phones.
“We used to sell it, but not anymore,” said a sales manager at Royal Plus Pacific, an electronics shop in Sim Lim Square. The shop stopped selling iPhones because they ran out of stock, he said, adding they hadn’t received a threatening e-mail from Apple.
Apple has yet to offer comment on the situation.
When in doubt, deploy the legal hounds.
A penny for your thoughts over in the comments or forums.
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
Category: Legal
Buy from: Apple
...............................................................................................
Apple, AT&T Named in Visual Voicemail Suit
04 December 2007 08:55 EST
Chris Barylick
On Monday, Klausner Technology announced that the company has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against both Apple and AT&T for selling the iPhone. Klausner claims the iPhone utilizes the firm's existing patents and estimates damages and royalties owed at US$360 million.
The suit was filed in the Eastern District of Texas in the United States District Court. Klausner is represented by Santa Monica, California-based law firm Dovel & Luner.
According to Macworld News, the suit also names Comcast, Cablevision and Skype, firms which Klausner Technologies alleges have also violated the same patents as Apple and AT&T through features offered in their services to customers.
The suit cites U.S. Patents 5,572,576 and 5,283,818, which mentioned "a telephone answering device linking displayed data with recorded audio message.” The company has previously sued Time Warner’s America Online (AOL) and Vonage Holdings for infringing on these copyrights. Klausner later settled with those other companies and has licensed its patents to them.
The technology in question via the iPhone is Visual Voicemail, which allows the handset's owners to selectively identify and listen to messages in their voicemail through the iPhone's interface. Here, users can glance at the iPhone interface to see who called at what time and decide if they want to listen to the message without having to use a keypad interface to navigate through multiple messages.
Klausner Technologies was founded by Judah Klausner, who claims to have invented the Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) and electronic organizer. Klausner claims that Apple’s Newton PDA was covered under an OEM patent license granted twenty years ago under his patent 4,117,542.
An Apple spokesperson stated that the company was unable to provide comment regarding the suit, as it concerns pending litigation.
Let us know what you think over in the comments or forums.
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
Category: Legal
Buy from: Apple
...............................................................................................
Apple Reaches US$10 Million Settlement Over iPod Patent Dispute
23 November 2007 08:30 EST
Chris Barylick
On Wednesday, Apple agreed to settle a two-year patent dispute with outfit Burst.com.
The suit, which alleged that Apple had infringed four patents for compression of compressed audio and video files in iTunes, iLife, QuickTime and the iPod, was settled out of court with Apple agreeing to pay Burst.com US$10 million.
In exchange for the US$10 million, Apple will receive access to Burst.com's patent portfolio, with some exceptions. According to Macworld News, the company won't have access to four of Burst.com's current and pending patents, including three pending patents relating to digital video recorder technologies. In addition, Burst.com has stated that it has agreed not to sue Apple over current or pending DVR patents.
The settlement itself will reduce Burst.com's proceeds down to roughly US$4.6 million after court costs, expenses and attorney's fees.
The history of the conflict began back in 2004 when Burst.com asked Apple to license some of its patents, which they stated were at the heart of the iPod. Legal action began in January of 2006 when Apple sued Burst.com in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in pursuit of a judgement stating that the Burst.com patents were invalid and hadn't been infringed. Burst.com launched a counter-suit in April of 2006, citing that Apple had infringed upon four of its patents.
Burst.com had also settled a similar case with Microsoft for US$60 million in 2006.
Got an opinion to share on this matter? Let us know over in the comments or forums.
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
Category: Legal
Buy from: Apple
...............................................................................................
Apple Shareholders to Pursue Suit Over Stock Options
21 November 2007 10:04 EST
Chris Barylick
Even when you think you've outrun the bears, jumped over the quicksand and escaped the robots with laser arms, there are always the shareholders to contend with.
According to Macworld UK, a group of Apple shareholders have confirmed plans to re-file a lawsuit against Apple regarding its backdating of stock options.
The decision comes after judge Jeremy Fogel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California rejected claims of fraud raised by the shareholders back on Monday. Fogel did not allow the litigants the chance to revise their complaint, which the shareholders have confirmed they intend to do.
Instead, the judge sided with Apple, stating that the alleged false proxy statements cited in the case landed beyond the statute of limitations and granted the plaintiffs an option to amend their complaint in order to change their argument. Describing the plaintiff's argument as "too general", Fogel requested more detail.
Earlier this year, an SEC probe was launched into Apple to investigate options grants which had been awarded despite the dates of these grants being changed to allow for better profits.
The initial lawsuit was filed on June 30th, 2006 and claimed that Apple directors and officers, including CEO Steve Jobs, failed to perform their jobs correctly and lied to shareholders when they backdated option awards made between 1997 and 2001. The shareholders are currently requesting that any backdated options or profits on strength of these option grants be returned to the company.
Last week, the same judge rejected a similar shareholder lawsuit involving a New York pension scheme but also offered the plaintiffs in that case the chance to re-file their claims by joining the Apple case.
Let us know what you think over in the comments or forums.
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
Category: Legal
Buy from: Apple
...............................................................................................
T-Mobile Responds to Vodafone Injunction, Offers €999 Unlocked iPhone
21 November 2007 08:04 EST
Chris Barylick
Over on the other side of the pond, things are getting interesting. Wireless carrier and exclusive German iPhone provider T-Mobile has issued a statement regarding the injunction brought against the company by rival carrier T-Mobile.
According to Pocket-lint, Vodafone received the order through a court in Hamburg citing that the terms under which the iPhone was being sold in Germany (wherein customers are pushed to sign up for a two year contract) was illegal.
German Vodafone chief executive Friedrich Joussen offered the following statement, citing that he wanted consumers to be able to buy the iPhone without having to enter into an extended contract:
"We want it to be available to buyers without a mandatory calling plan", he said. "If I had wanted to halt sales, I could have, but I didn't."
T-Mobile, which currently has two weeks to respond to the court and file an appeal, has defended its sales of the popular handset. The company is continuing to offer the iPhone, but it's been reported that the company will also offer an unlocked iPhone for a price of 999 Euros (about US$1,478.97).
For that price, you better like your iPhone.
Let us know what you think over in the comments or forums.
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
Category: Legal
Buy from: Apple
...............................................................................................
Vodafone Files Legal Action Against T-Mobile iPhone Sales in Germany
20 November 2007 08:45 EST
Chris Barylick
Despite legal protests filed by rival Vodafone, wireless provider T-Mobile has continued to sell the iPhone in Germany. According to Macworld News, the debate stems from Vodafone charging that the sale of an unsubsidized, locked handset with a 24 month contract violates a German competition law.
On Monday, a German court in Hamburg granted a temporary injunction against T-Mobile, albeit the terms of the order don't stop the carrier from selling iPhone handsets.
T-Mobile representatives have refuted the accusation that its sales of the iPhone have violated German law.
“We have an exclusive device in our portfolio, but if you look at the market, that’s normal,” said a T-Mobile spokesman in Germany. “The main thing is we will sell the iPhone. There is no stop to selling the iPhone.”
Another court hearing is scheduled in about two weeks time.
A Vodafone representative stated that it did not ask the court to stop T-Mobile from selling the iPhone, but claimed it would like to see the court mandate that T-Mobile sell an unlocked version of the iPhone for the same price or cheaper than the locked version which is currently for sale.
T-Mobile has stated that the company sold about 15,000 iPhones on its November 9th launch day. The 8 GB iPhone sells for €399 (US$589) including 19 percent value-added tax. The price in the U.S. is US$399 excluding sales tax.
Got an opinion on this? Let us know over in the comments or forums.
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
Category: Legal
Buy from: Apple
...............................................................................................
IGM: Apple wins dismissal in shareholder suit
15 November 2007 11:16 EST
Jason D. O'Grady
Bloomberg reports that Apple won dismissal of a shareholder lawsuit claiming company officers, including His Steveness, were overpaid with illegally backdated option awards.IGM: Apple wins dismissal in shareholder suit"While the subsequent disclosure that the options were backdated might require a restatement, without a discernable drop in the stock price there is no basis upon which to establish an injury to shareholders," US District Judge Jeremy Fogel in San Jose, California wrote in his opinion.
Tags: AAPL, shareholder, suit
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
Category: Legal
Buy from: Apple
...............................................................................................
iPhone Draws Legal Criticism, Suit From Greenpeace
16 October 2007 07:57 EST
Chris Barylick
From the legal side of things, Greenpeace has posted a report citing Apple's iPhone as containing hazardous materials for which the environmental advocate has brought suit against Apple.
According to iLounge, research performed by Greenpeace's research laboratories in the United Kingdom have show the presence of toxic compounds via the flame-retardant materials and PVC used in the iPhone.
Following this, the Center for Environmental Health announced that it's suing Apple based upon materials from the Greenpeace report. The Center is citing California's Proposition 65 law which states that products which expose consumers to phthalates and other chemicals known as either reproductive toxins or carcinogens must carry an appropriate warning label, which the iPhone currently doesn't.
Apple and Greenpeace have gone back and forth in recent months regarding the company's products and Greenpeace's environmental critique of them, Apple CEO Steve Jobs penning an update in which he stated that according to Macworld News, “Apple plans to completely eliminate the use of PVC and BFRs in its products by the end of 2008.”
Let us know what you think over in the comments or forums.
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
Category: Legal
Buy from: Apple
...............................................................................................
Apple, AT&T Face US$2.6 Billion Class Action Law Suit
12 October 2007 09:56 EST
Chris Barylick
When it rains, it pours.
A class action suit filed last week in San Fancisco specifically targets Apple and AT&T for conspiring to tie iPhone customers to AT&T's wireless network. The claim, brought forth by lawyers for Paul Holman in Washington state and Lucy Rivello in California, files six charges that the two companies broke numerous state and federal laws as well as regulations and seeks punitive and other damages in excess of US$2.6 billion.
According to Macworld UK, the companies have also conspired to block all modifications to the iPhone in an attempt to prevent users or competitors from diminishing or tapping into the Apple/AT&T revenue stream. The suit also specifically charges that Apple blocked third-party applications, non-Apple ring tones sold through its iTunes Store and disabled unlocked iPhones with September's iPhone 1.1.1 firmware update.
Law firm Holman-Rivello asserts that the 1.1.1 firmware update amounts to digital bullying, alleging that Apple's warnings of "irreparable damage" to the handset through unlocking it was a lie. "Apple and AT&T agreed to go beyond these [previous] tactics and to take affirmative steps to break the iPhones of consumers who lawfully unlocked the AT&T SIM card or who installed third-party apps," the suit read.
Beyond the aforementioned damages, the suit is looking to void any agreement between Apple and AT&T as well as bar the firms from similar actions in the future.
A spokesperson from AT&T declined to comment on the suit while Apple has yet to reply to requests for comment as well.
Let us know what you think over in the comments or forums.
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
Category: Legal
Buy from: Apple
...............................................................................................
Apple Moves iPhone Battery Case to Federal Court
06 September 2007 12:16 EST
Chris Barylick
Amid several lawsuits regarding the iPhone battery, Apple has moved one of the cases to a federal court in an effort to level the playing field against impending legal actions.
On Friday, Jose Trujillo's pioneering suit against Apple was taken from its home setting in Cook County, Illinois to a federal institution in the northern district of Illinois. The suit alleges that Apple and AT&T concealed the need to replace the iPhone's battery every year while locking its customers into a two-year contract.
According to AppleInsider, Apple was able to shift the suit's location under a recent but increasingly used law known as the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, or CAFA. Under this law, any suit wherein the defendants are based in a different state from the plaintiff and the damages would total over US$5 million, can be moved to a federal court level.
A cautious estimate of the Trujillo complaint has placed potential damages at more than US$17 million and force replacement of at least 200,000 four gigabyte iPhones and their battery replacement bills.
The CAFA law would allow Apple to transfer the suit to a different court without any input from the plaintiff. Although this seems one-sided to casual observers, the law is designed to remove potential biases in judgement that might stem from a defendant's home territory should a suit go to trial.
AT&T has yet to officially comment on the decision, although its involvement isn't required under CAFA, which allows any defendant to remove a case sans the agreement of any other companies named in the suit.
"Apple disputes [the] Plaintiff's allegations, believes the Complaint lacks merit, and denies that [the] Plaintiff or the putative class have been harmed in any way," the company's lawyers said.
What's your take on this? Let us know in the comments or forums.
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
Category: Legal
Buy from: Apple
...............................................................................................
Third Class Action Suit Emerges Over iPhone Battery Replacements
05 September 2007 07:27 EST
Chris Barylick
A third class action law suit regarding the iPhone battery has emerged. The new case, filed by a Mr. and Mrs. Stiener, cite that the battery in the iPhone will only last for 300 cycles before being completely exhausting. According to the complain, the battery would cost US$115 to replace as well as the time necessary to wait for a replacement.
The couple alleges that by not placing a warning about this apparent limitation in or on its packing materials, Apple and wireless carrier AT&T have violated both good faith and the California Commercial code, which demands that manufacturers in the state honestly reflect how their products will perform in real-world conditions. The Stieners have gone on record to state that the two companies responsible for the iPhone and its service meant to defraud customers.
According to The iPodObserver, the nine-page argument that the case is using as its central core is being written by the Hoffman and Lazear as well as Folkenflik and McGerity law firms. Both of these firms handled a similar suit regarding the iPhone battery in mid-August. If found guilty, Apple and AT&T would be forced to pay restitution to any affected customer in the state of California.
If you have any ideas or feedback on this, let us know in the comments or forums.
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
Category: Legal
Buy from: Apple
...............................................................................................
California Law May Ban Cell, Laptop Use in Cars by Teen Drivers
30 August 2007 09:04 EST
Chris Barylick
A new bill which just passed the California assembly on Monday by a 62-5 vote may ban California drivers under 18 from using a cell phone, pager, text messaging device or laptop while driving.
The amendment aims to improve driver safety, one of the cited studies finding that while teenagers make up 6% of licensed drivers, they compromise 16% of auto accident fatalities.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the bill, which was previously approved by the state senate, will head back there for expected final approval of amendments before being placed on Governor Schwarzenegger's desk. It's unknown as to whether the Governor is expected to sign or veto it.
Opponents of the bill have argued that other distractions, such as CDs and music, continue to exist. Others have cited that hands-free devices, help remove the danger from using a device such as a cell phone in the car.
Click the jump for the full story...
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
Category: Legal
Buy from: Apple
...............................................................................................
Additional Class-Action Suit Filed Against Apple Over iPhones
29 August 2007 08:33 EST
Chris Barylick
You can't please all the people all the time.
Apple is facing yet another class-action lawsuit over its iPhone handset. The most recent action comes on behalf of New York state resident Herbert H. Kliegerman, who cites that the company failed to adequately disclose to its customers that the iPhone would be locked to AT&T's network and that using the handset would incur substantial data roaming charges.
According to AppleInsider, the nine-page complaint, filed Monday in New York Supreme Court, accuses Apple of engaging in deceptive and misleading practices by failing to properly disclose that the iPhone would only work with AT&T SIM cards and that unlock codes would not be provided to bring the device to alternate carriers.
In the complaint, Kliegerman cites a week-long trip to Mexico, where he used his iPhone to check e-mails and go online. He did so, according to the suit, after reading a statement on Apple's iPhone website stating that "[y]ou can browse the Internet and send emails as often as you like without being charged extra."
Upon his return, the plaintiff claims he received a bill from AT&T with approximately US$2,000 in international data roaming charges. Kliegerman then stated that, being a frequent traveler, he returned the iPhone to AT&T in order to obtain an unlock code for the iPhone, but was told that these would not be provided to him.
Click the jump for the full story...
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
Category: Legal
Buy from: Apple
...............................................................................................
Users File Second Class-Action Suit Over iPhone Battery
20 August 2007 08:15 EST
Chris Barylick
You can't please them all.
A second class-action law suit has been filed against Apple and AT&T accusing the companies of failing to inform its iPhone customers that fees of more than US$100 would be needed to replace the battery as well as maintain service.
The suit, which according to Computerworld, was filed last Monday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Sydney Leung, is purported to represent a group that could represent hundreds of thousands of iPhone owners. Leung's case seeks more than US$5 million in compensatory and punitive damages and a court conference to discuss the matter has been set for November 28th.
Click the jump for the full story...
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
Category: Legal
Buy from: Apple
...............................................................................................
Apple Faces Patent Infringement Suit Over iPhone Keyboard Technologies
07 August 2007 10:02 EST
Chris Barylick
On Monday, Apple was notified this its iPhone handset allegedly infringes on a 2004 patent issued to Florida-based SP Technologies, LLC.
According to MacNN, the patent outlines a "method and medium for computer readable keyboard display incapable of user termination." SP Technogies is currently asking that Apple pay what it considers to be "reasonable royalties" for each iPhone sold and is also seeking a permanent injunction against the Cupertino, California-based firm in order to prevent the use of its intellectual property in the popular handset.
SP Technologies has cited Apple's "willful and deliberate" infringement of its patent, as described in the complaint, which was issued on August 2nd in a federal court in Tyler, Texas.
Should Apple be found guilt of the charges described in the complaint, the company could be forced to pay punitive damages equal to three times the economic the plaintiff can prove it has suffered.
In the past year, Apple has filed dozens of patents related to the iPhone and its unique touch-screen and gesture-based technologies.
Have two cents to throw in about this? Let us know in the comments of forums.
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
Category: Legal
Buy from: Apple
...............................................................................................
Class Action Suit Filed Against Apple Over iPhone Battery
31 July 2007 03:24 EST
Chris Barylick
A class-action law suit has been brought against Apple and AT&T accusing the company of unfairly steering its user base towards buying frequent and expensive iPhone battery replacements via a non-replaceable battery.
The suit, represented by lead plaintiff, Illinois-based Jose Trujillo, alleges that the lithium-ion battery found in the current version of the iPhone will exhaust itself in approximately 300 charges - roughly a year of consistent use. The situation thereby guarantees that users will need to have the battery replaced on a yearly basis, a situation that could have been avoided via an easily accessible battery compartment.
According to Gizmodo, Trujillo has stated that the customer is essentially tricked into buying a unit wherein users can't easily replace the battery by on their own:
"Unknown to the Plaintiff, and undisclosed to the public prior to purchase, the iPhone is a sealed unit with it's [sic] battery soldered on the inside of the device so that it cannot be changed by the owner," the suit notes.
Click the jump for the full story...
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
Category: Legal
Buy from: Apple
...............................................................................................
Law and Order - Cupertino
26 April 2007 12:01 EST
Bob Snow
I have watched enough TV to know that when you catch a small fish you offer them a deal and get them to flip on the ring leader. Fred Anderson took a deal and has certainly implicated Mr. Jobs in the public statement issued by his attorney. It appears that Nancy Heinen will be taking her chances in the courtroom and she has a lot more to lose than Fred Anderson. Will she plead out and testify against Mr. Jobs or follow the code of omerta?
How did this happen? Apple management awarded themselves something like US$100M in options and then picked earlier strike dates that allowed them to say it was less, let's say $80M. Management performance had been stellar and US$20M amounts to just peanuts when you look at the profits and performance this team delivered. If these laws were written in order to protect shareholders, where is the harm in all this?
Well, presumably they also told Uncle Sam the same story at tax time. Now I am only a "contributing" editor here at the PowerPage, but for the sake of argument, let us say that Jason started paying me US$100K a year to write this drivel. If I told the IRS it was only US$80K, where would the harm be in that? And if I did that a thousand years in a row, it would amount to just about the same thing. If subpoenaed and asked to testify at Nancy Heinen's upcoming trial, I would suggest Mr. Jobs have a sit-down with Martha Stewart to find out what it's like to do hard time or whatever sort of time it is you do in minimum security.
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
Category: Legal
Buy from: Apple
...............................................................................................
Apple Admits Backdating; CFO Fred Anderson Resigns
05 October 2006 01:05 EST
Jason D. O'Grady
Apple (AAPL) said late Thursday that stock options granted on 15 dates between 1997 and 2002 were apparently backdated, and though CEO Steve Jobs was aware of favorable grants, he didn't benefit personally and "was unaware of the accounting implications.
"In addition, the company announced that Fred Anderson, who served as Apple's CFO from 1996 to 2004, resigned from the company's board, believing it is in "Apple's best interests" that he go.
The Street.com :: Apple Owns Up to Backdating
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
Category: Legal
Buy from: Apple
...............................................................................................
Apple Goes After "Podcast"
25 September 2006 10:01 EST
Jason D. O'Grady
Now that Apple's lawyers have scared the pants off of small entrepreneurs selling products like the Profit Pod and TightPod -- items that have nothing to with portable audio in any way, mind you -- it seems that the next targets are companies that have the audacity to use the word "podcast" in their names.
With "pod" on lockdown, Apple goes after "podcast" - Engadget
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
Category: Legal
Buy from: Apple
...............................................................................................
Journalists Appeal to Apple CEO on Behalf of Chinese Reporters
29 August 2006 11:21 EST
Jason D. O'Grady
The Reporters Without Borders organization has sent a letter to Apple Computer CEO Steve Jobs asking him to implore iPod supplier Foxconn to drop a lawsuit against two Chinese journalists who wrote an article critical of working conditions at a Foxconn Electronics factory.
Wang You and Weng Bao of China Business News have been hit with a libel suit filed by Foxconn after they wrote a story critical of working conditions at a Foxconn plant where iPods are manufactured.
Apple | News.blog | CNET News.com
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
Category: Legal
Buy from: Apple
...............................................................................................
Apple Drops Asteroid Action
13 July 2006 12:08 EST
Jason D. O'Grady
Apple has decided to drop its contentious case against online news journalists at Apple Insider and O'Grady's PowerPage. The company has decided not to appeal against the recent judgement in the case which favoured the US writers.
Macworld UK - Apple drops Asteroid action
Digg This |
Post to del.icio.us |
Post to Furl
Category: Legal
Buy from: Apple
...............................................................................................
Apple Removes the Word "Lap" From Web Site
26 June 2006 08:00 EST
Jason D. O'Grady
AppleDefects.com has the scoop on Apple's further expung