Domain name registrations made before a product is launched can be used to find out the name of the product, in this case the Xbox One, a title Microsoft kept top secret. For this reason, companies avoid filing domains that will reveal the product’s name, and after its launch then move in to register whatever domains it would like involving its trademark.

There is always speculation about what an anticipated product will be named, however, and domain squatters will register multiple domains with different variants of the trademark based on either name rumors or the probability of the product matching the guessed name. Such seems to have been the case with the two domains in question, both of which are registered to an unknown individual in the United Kingdom: XboxOne.com and XboxOne.net.

A WHOIS search on the domains does not reveal a name, but does show that both were registered in December, with the XboxOne.com domain in particular having been created in December and set to expire in 2016. One could be tempted to say the individual who registered the names didn’t do so for the purpose of domain squatting because the domains were registered years before Microsoft announced the gaming console.

A quick trip to both URLs show that they’re parked, however, displaying a stock GoDaddy listing with no content on either site. Neither appear to have ever hosted any content, Xbox-related or otherwise. Regardless, Microsoft is holder of the trademark, and as such likely has a legal leg to stand on in its dispute, which was filed with the National Arbitration Forum and posted online today.

SOURCE: Fusible

For instance, Nokia claims HTC infringes its patent on the video encoding/decoding with Android’s VP8 codec, something FOSS Patents suggests might even force Google to look instead to H.264 which may be more legally palatable. H.264 would involve royalties, but at least avoid wholesale import bans of the sort which Nokia is chasing.

“We began actions against HTC in 2012 to end the unauthorized use of our proprietary innovations and technologies” Nokia said in a statement on the newly added patent action. “Since then, despite the German courts confirming infringements of Nokia patents in HTC products, HTC has shown no intention to end its practices; instead it has tried to shift responsibility to its suppliers. We have therefore taken these further steps to hold HTC accountable for its actions.”

Last month, Nokia alleged that the high-amplitude microphone HTC used in the One breached an exclusivity agreement the Finnish firm has with supplier STMicroelectronics. However, despite Nokia’s claims, HTC protested its own ignorance about the existing deal the component maker had, arguing that the injunction did not impact the One.

Back in March, meanwhile, HTC was hit with a German injunction over power saving technologies used by its Qualcomm chipset. The company opted to disable the feature – which it said was “trivial and contributes only a negligible reduction in power-consumption” – as “a precaution against any attempt by Nokia to extend the scope of the judgment unfairly.”

Meanwhile, a second suit filed at the US District Court for the Southern District of California San Diego covers three patents which Nokia also alleges infringement on, by the HTC One and HTC First “Facebook Phone” as well as eight others.

We’ve asked HTC for a comment and will update when we know more.

VIA: AllThingsD; FOSS Patents; ZDNet

The comments were made on Thursday this week, at a pre-trial hearing to decide on aspects like expert witnesses along with how long the case was expected to last. However, Justice Cote made waves by announcing that she had already been working on the draft of the final written decision – which would be published after the trial had been completed – and agreeing to give participants an insight into which way she is already leaning.

“I believe that the government will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books,” the judge said, “and that the circumstantial evidence in this case, including the terms of the agreements, will confirm that.”

Cote described her stance as a “tentative” view of the case, pointing out that it had been based for the most part on evidence the DoJ had submitted. However, it did not take into account affidavits submitted both by the DoJ and Apple.

Unsurprisingly, Apple isn’t impressed by Cote’s comments. “We strongly disagree with the court’s preliminary statements about the case today,” lawyer Orin Snyder said, going on to suggest that Apple’s own evidence would sufficiently counter that of the Justice Department. “We look forward to presenting our evidence in open court and proving that Apple did not conspire to fix prices,” he concluded.

The Cupertino firm is the final hold-out in the case, after the five publishers agreed at various points over the past year to cough up penalties. Simon & Schuster, HarperCollins, and Hachette Book Group all rolled over immediately, followed by Pearson in December 2012, and MacMillan in February.

Justice Cote’s early stance is being interpreted by some as an attempt to pressure Apple into settling, likely without necessarily accepting blame; MacMillan, for instance, said that it had capitulated “because the potential penalties became too high to risk even the possibility of an unfavorable outcome.”

Apple’s deeper war chest may make it a tougher nut to crack that way, however. Apple CEO Tim Cook is expected to appear to give evidence, among others, after the DoJ convinced the court that his conversations with Steve Jobs give him unique insight into the case.

According to the Washington Post, the investigation is the result of Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick back in 2008 for a hefty $3.1 billion. Such a purchase raised the FTC’s hackles over whether possessing the advertisement platform, in addition to its own AdSense, could put the Internet giant in a position to harm its competitors. Google went ahead with the buyout, and has been under the FTC’s eye in that regards since then.

One of the biggest concerns specified by the FTC was something referred to as tying, which shoehorns consumers into having to buy multiple products from a single company. This is anti-competitive, and likewise would put Google in violation of the law. This concern was raised shortly before the DoubleClick acquisition, and since then the percentage of the advertisement market Google controls has increased.

Beyond its newly launched preliminary investigation, not much else is known at the moment. We’ll have to wait to see if Google has violated any laws, but it is possible the investigation will be wrapped up and will fade away without any hoopla, as has been the case many times. When asked about the investigation, both the FTC and Google declined commenting on the matter.

This follows the antitrust debacle Google went through with the FTC throughout last year, eventually settling with the agency back in January for terms many criticized as being a mere slap on the hand. While that investigation partly concerned the advertisement aspects of Google, in addition to a variety of other issues, including prioritizing its own results over competitors, the issue was separate from this one.

SOURCE: Washington Post

Following the ruling on March 22, a final initial determination was made on April 23, both of these concerning the last remaining patent of what was several when the legal battle was initiated by Motorola before Google acquired it. Four patents that were part of the spat were dropped, those concerning video patents and the last remaining one concerning the wireless technology used by the Xbox for communication with controllers and other devices.

Originally, a Commission judge had ruled in Google’s favor, having pegged Microsoft for infringement of four of those five original patents. As with the other rulings, that went to review, where it was overturned, and later became moot as most of the patents were dropped, two because they’re about to expire and weren’t worth battling over, and two following a settlement with the FTC.

As we reported, Google sought to have the finding reviewed, but the US International Trade Commission wasn’t game with that plan, and has instead filed an official notice that it will not review the final initial determination from the previous months, instead upholding the finding by the initial judge back in March, and subsequently in April. As such, Google is out of legal maneuvers in this battle, and because this is the last patent remaining in the spat, the investigation has reached its close with Microsoft as the victor.

Said the statement filed earlier today by the US ITC: “Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s final ID and RID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined not to review the RID … The investigation is terminated.” Such a ruling comes mere days after Microsoft unveiled the Xbox One.

SOURCE: US International Trade Commission

The issue concerns many companies’ use of two-step verification, something Dotcom alleges he created and holds the patent for, which was filed in 1997. He goes on to link to his patent, which details the kind of two-step verification process mostly any Internet user will be familiar with. The information comes from Dotcom himself, who said in one tweet: “Twitter introduces Two-Step-Authentication. Using my invention. But they won’t even verify my Twitter account?!”

This tweet was followed by another two tweets that hour, the next saying that Google, Twitter, Citibank, Facebook, and more all utilize two-step verification that infringes on his patent. The following tweet then offers the “big reveal,” saying that in excess of 1 billion two-step authentications take place online every week.

All was silent for an hour, then another tweet popped up, this one stating that Dotcom has been aware of the mass violations of his patent but “never sued them” due to a belief in the mutual sharing of ideas and knowledge that better society in some way. He then insinuates that a lawsuit against one – or all – companies could take place, however, over “what the U.S. did to me,” regarding the legal turmoil resulting from the Megaupload debacle.

This is rounded out by a tweet telling Facebook, Google, and Twitter that they can continue to use his patent for free. He implores them to help fund his legal defense, saying they “are all in the same DMCA boat.” He goes on to explain that his defense case is looking to have a price tag of at least $50 million, linking to a whitepaper on the matter. At the end of it all came a tweet asking if anyone wants to buy a world-wide license to use his patent.

SOURCE: The Verge

The advertisement, which you can watch in the video below, was replaced shortly after the allegation arose with a different video, which ended up being the ad shown on television and elsewhere. Eight Mile Style contacted the ad agency Wieden+Kennedy that made the advertisement in April, and received a response back via an attorney working with the company on April 29, according to the Detroit Free Press. In the response, the publisher was reportedly told it couldn’t “assert copyright” because Eminem’s song had been copied from Michael Jackson’s “Give In To Me,” released back in 1991.

Wieden+Kennedy is no stranger to using Eminem’s music in advertisements, having done so (with permission) in 2011 during a Chrysler commercial. Rather than denying the accusations that it ripped its beat from the rapper’s song, the company instead says that copyright infringement can’t be claimed because the song that was infringed was itself an infringement of another song.

Eight Mile Style’s Joel Martin said in response to the attorney’s statement: “I find it so arrogant, after they did so well with the Chrysler-Eminem campaign, that they would say Dr. Dre stole this from Michael Jackson.” That’s not the only claim the attorney made, however, saying that steps have been taken to make “Airplane” no longer available to the public, which is strange considering that it is still available on the social network’s YouTube account (we have it attached above, after all).

The advertisement agency is also claiming that the Facebook Home advertisement’s soundtrack “simply is not substantially similar” to the song cited in the lawsuit. Facebook isn’t the first company to offer an advertisement that used the artist’s music without permission: Audi and Apple have both done the same. Thus far, Facebook hasn’t made a statement regarding the allegations.

SOURCE: Detroit Free Press

Apple avoided paying $74 billion in taxes from 2009 to 2012, doing so using a variety of subsidiaries scattered throughout the world, according to investigators. According to the New York Times, some of these subsidiaries do not have employees, instead being run by “top officials” at Apple’s Cupertino headquarters. Such subsidiaries not only skip out on paying taxes, but also aren’t required to file tax returns.

Said Senator Carl Levin (D. Michigan), Chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations: “Apple wasn’t satisfied with shifting its profits to a low-tax offshore tax haven. Apple successfully sought the holy grail of tax avoidance. It has created offshore entities holding tens of billions of dollars while claiming to be tax resident nowhere … I’ve never seen anything like this and we don’t know anybody who’s seen anything like this.”

Despite the means it used to avoid paying taxes, Apple has not been pegged as having violated any laws. The investigation does, however, underscore the reality of tax loopholes, and will be used in a possibly volatile meeting between the Congressional committee and Apple tomorrow. The committee will also show findings that Apple’s effective tax rate was lower than its disclosed tax rate by at least 4-percent.

Not surprisingly, Apple disagrees with the results of the investigation, saying that it does not use gimmicks and other similar methods to avoid paying taxes. Likewise, says the company, its biggest subsidiaries don’t reduce the amount of taxes it pays. Says a statement from the company, “[Apple] welcomes an objective examination of the U.S. corporate tax system, which has not kept pace with the advent of the digital age and the rapidly changing global economy.”

SOURCE: Facebook

The new version of COPPA comes into effect on July 1, and impacts apps and services which could be used by those under 13. If the app has some sort of “persistent identifier” which is used to recognize that user, it will likely need to modify its privacy and permissions policies. Notably, that identifier need not be a username or involve active registration: a cookie or device ID will count as well.

“Companies whose apps collect, store or transmit this information, as well as other personal information previously covered by the rule like a child’s name or address, must get parents’ consent before collecting the information. In addition, companies must also ensure that any third party receiving the information can keep it secure and confidential, as well as abiding by new rules affecting how the information is stored and retained” FTC

Four different versions of the notification letter have been prepared, depending on whether the recipient is a domestic US or foreign firm, and the nature of the data collection. For domestic companies, there’s an images/sounds version [pdf link] and a persistent identifiers version [pdf link]; the same counterparts for foreign apps collecting images/sounds [pdf link] of children in the US, or assigning them identifiers [pdf link].

Actually receiving a letter doesn’t mean that the FTC has actively evaluated a company and found it wanting in terms of COPPA compliance, the Commission is keen to point out. Instead, they’re intended to prompt a “COPPA check-up” ahead of the new rules coming into effect.

The changes to COPPA were announced back in December, as a way to bring the Act up to speed with the changing nature of applications and the user-data they collect. Among the tweaks are a new requirement that developers not only be responsible for a compliant privacy policy that covers their own data collection, but of any data that’s collected by third-party services – such as ad networks – that are incorporated into the software.

The list of companies which have received the letters has not been revealed, though ustwo – developer of randomized photo-sharing app Rando – took to Twitter to confirm that it had been couriered one. There’s more on COPPA compliance at the FTC; violating the rule can result in civil penalties of up to $16,000 per violation.

VIA ustwo

The request for responses to privacy concerns was sent in a formal letter on behalf of eight Congressmen via the Bipartisan Congressional Privacy Caucus. The letter poses eight questions, all of which are things – or variations of things – we’ve heard before, such as how Google plans to protect non users’ privacy, if it will be updating its privacy policy and what those updates could look like, and what data it will collect from users

One big question posed concerned the debacle that happened a couple years ago regarding Google’s mining of data from unprotected wireless networks, an action that ultimately got it slapped with a $7 million settlement across 38 states. The eight individuals behind the formal request are wanting Google to detail how it will prevent the unintentional collection of data about Glass users and non-users alike.

Another area the Congressmen are looking for answers concerns facial recognition. Says the letter that was delivered to Google CEO Larry Page, “Is it true that this product would be able to use Facial Recognition Technology to unveil personal information about whomever and even some inanimate objects that the user is viewing?” It follows up with additional questions related to that, such as whether someone who doesn’t use the device would be able to “opt-out” of this feature, and if not, why that is the case.

The letter goes on to detail additional concerns, and sums it up with a request for Google to respond “no later than” June 14. This follows an expansion to the list of places that have banned Glass on May 8, when it was announced the device can’t be used in Caesers Palace in Las Vegas due to concerns about cheating.

SOURCE: House.gov

Tesla sells its popular electric vehicle via its own website, as well as its expanding series of retail stores. Such is the nature of Tesla Motors, and it is working well for them, doing all the work – right down to delivering the vehicle – on its own. Consumers don’t seem to mind. That hasn’t stopped North Carolina from going after the company – and others offering direct vehicle sales – via a legislative proposal.

Under the bill, which is being pushed heavily by the North Carolina Automobile Dealers Association, no car maker would be allowed to directly sell its own vehicles within the state, thus eschewing traditional conventions of dealerships. Late yesterday, the NC Senate’s Commerce Committee approved the proposal – unanimously – to block such actions. Despite its unanimous approval, the resulting bill will be reduced in some ways, such as removing wording that designates any service providing a computer that is used to order a Tesla Model S as a dealership.

Not surprisingly, Tesla Motors isn’t happy about the approved proposal, nor the thought of being forced to offer its vehicles through state dealerships. The direct sales method of offering the buying public its vehicles is part of Tesla’s image – it gives the vehicle purchase that little something extra, a feel of being super special or getting something that transcends the normal.

In fact, Tesla Motor’s VP of Corporate and Business Development Diarmuid O’Connell compared being forced to sell through dealerships as being like selling a fine wine in a mall’s food court. “They’re trying to insulate the dealer franchise model from any competition. It’s a protectionist move to lock down the market so we have to go through the middleman – the dealer – to sell our cars.”

SOURCE: News Observer

Last month, 20-year-old Jake Davis, 26-year-old Ryan Ackroyd, and 18-year-old Mustafa al-Bassam plead guilty to charges of cyberattacking the NHS, News International, and Sony. On top of those, Ackroyd in particular also plead guilty to plotting attacks on other websites in addition to a computer hacking charge. Al-Bassam and Davis, in addition to the aforementioned, plead guilty to conspiring to attack various law enforcement agencies in both the US and UK.

While those three plead guilty last month, 21-year-old Ryan Cleary, who was also sentenced today, had already plead guilty in his own legal spat, which consisted of six various related charges. The guilty pleas were entered about two years after the attacks for which they were sentenced took place. Out of the four, Ackroyd had been the only to initially maintain his innocence.

Now that the sentencing is complete, we see that Cleary was given a 32-month prison sentence, Ackroyd a 30-month sentence, and Davis a 24-month sentence. Al-Bassam was the only one to side-step a prison sentence, instead receiving a 20-month suspended sentence because – though now an adult – he was only 16-years-old when he committed the cyberattacks, making him a minor. Instead, he will perform 300 hours of community service.

Crown Prosecution Service lawyer Andrew Hadik said: “The harm they caused was foreseeable, extensive and intended. Indeed, they boasted of how clever they were with a complete disregard for the impact their actions had on real people’s lives. This case should serve as a warning to other cybercriminals that they are not invincible.”

SOURCE: BBC News

According to Heiner’s statements earlier this year, Google purposely passed down commands to YouTube to keep Windows Phone from having the same full-blown app iOS and Android users enjoy. “But just last month we [at Microsoft] learned from YouTube that senior executives at Google told them not to enable a first-class YouTube experience on Windows Phones.”

Fast-forward nearly six months, and Google has sent a cease-and-desist letter to Microsoft, demanding that the YouTube application be pulled and disabled on handsets by next Wednesday, May 22. This is due to two reasons: the lack of advertisements, and the ability to download videos that have been marked as unavailable for those accessing on smartphones and tablets. According to the letter, the lack of ads and download feature are harming the YouTube “content ecosystem” and decreasing ad revenue.

The claims aren’t bothering Microsoft, it would seem, with the Windows Phone YouTube app remaining available. Shortly after news of the cease-and-desist surfaced, Microsoft responded with a candid, if not somewhat biting, statement: “We’d be more than happy to include advertising but need Google to provide us access to the necessary APIs. In light of Larry Page’s comments today calling for more interoperability and less negativity, we look forward to solving this matter together for our mutual customers.”

In light of the accusations Heiner made earlier this year, such a response from Microsoft isn’t surprising. The question now is how Google will respond, which we’ll have to wait for until next week (assuming the app remains). Microsoft may elect to keep the app available and to allow it to remain functional on users’ devices, which is suggested by its response.

SOURCE: ars technica

Julian Knight is known as the Hoddle Street killer, having committed one of the worst massacres in Australia over a decade ago in 1987. Knight was convicted of killing seven people and injuring 19, but has confessed to 17 more murders, all things earning him the 7 consecutive life sentences he is serving in prison. The 44-year-old is apparently looking to make those life sentences a little less tedious, because now he’s asking for a PlayStation 3.

The issue started in 2006 when Knight requested to have a computer in his prison cell, claiming it would be used to perform research and to prepare materials to be used later on in a bid to get a release date from the courts. His request was denied. And then denied again. Such denials have continued for seven years now. Such denials have prompted legal action on his part, with the inmate serving a legal subpoena to the government for records of other inmates who have been granted computers.

Said Knight on the issue of the computer: “This cause of action has been going for seven years, this is now the eighth proceeding. I only have to walk around the prison and I can see with my own eyes who has a computer and who doesn’t. I’m the only prisoner who has made applications to have a computer who has had it denied and denied repeatedly.”

And so now, in addition to seeking the computer, he is also seeking to have a PlayStation 3 console in his prison cell. Because Knight is known as a vexatious litigant – someone who takes legal action for the purpose of being annoying, essentially – he is being forced to get permission before proceeding with his legal case, however. Attempts to get electronic devices in prison cells isn’t new, but has been steadily increasing as the world becomes a more digital place.

SOURCE: Herald Sun

During a closed-doors gun legislation meeting with 20 religious representatives from around the US, Vice President Biden said that “there’s no legal reason why” the government couldn’t tax media companies for making and distributing violent content, such as video games, movies, etc. It’s said that a majority of reps at the meeting agreed with Biden, and that the government should tax such media companies.

The vice president also said that there needs to be a comprehensive scientific study to research the impact that violent media have on kids. Of course, many studies have been done in the past that attempt to find a correlation between playing violent video games and acting violent in real life, some of which have said that there is no impact, and other studies claiming that there is, in fact, a correlation. We honestly may never come to an agreed upon solution in this case.

Biden wants the tax to go towards a fund that would help the victims of violent crimes, as well as their families. Whether a tax like this will eventually be make it’s way to being a law is still yet to be seen. There’s been a recent influx in the number of lawmakers urging to put an excise tax on violent media, but we’ve yet to hear how much progress these proposed bills have made.

Ever since the Sandy Hook school shooting, Vice President Biden has been focusing more and more on gun violence, and he even recently held a Google+ Hangout to answer questions and state his concerns on the state of gun control and gun violence in the US. However, former House speaker Nancy Pelosi is one of the few politicians that is defending violent video games, saying that the research just isn’t there yet to prove that such media cause violence. However, the fingers will undoubtedly still be pointed at violent video games for years to come, and whether or not steps will be taken to control violent video games is still in question.

VIA: Gamespot

SOURCE: Politico

IMAGE CREDIT: Marc Nozell

As a part of Apple’s statement recently filed with the US District Court in California, the company said that the Galaxy S 4 “is an infringing device and accordingly intends to move for leave to add the Galaxy S4 as an infringing product.” The Galaxy S 4 now joins a list of 22 Samsung products that Apple believes are infringing on their patents.

Both sides have over 20 products from each company that they claim infringe on each other’s patents. Samsung has included almost all of Apple’s iOS devices, while Apple has focused on Samsung’s Galaxy S lineup, as well as the Note series of phablet-style smartphones.

Judge Lucy Koh will oversee the upcoming patent trial, as she was the judge during the first patent trial that saw Apple win with a whopping $1.05 billion award. However, that was since cut down by $450 million. However, while it seemed Apple was fine with that for the most part, the company claimed the re-calculation is off by $85 million, and thus, another court case will begin in November to re-calculate the damages.

If you’re slightly confused by all that’s going on between the two companies, you’re most likely not alone. Apple and Samsung have been going at it for a couple years now, and both companies are starting to slowly end their partnerships in the industry. For instance, it’s been rumored for quite some time that Apple is completely dropping Samsung from its manufacturing partners, which would cut ties between the two companies. Of course, Apple wants to develop their own chips anyway, but the separation is probably for the best at this point.

VIA: Phone Arena

SOURCE: US District Court Filing

In the letter, Schneiderman criticized the companies for not doing their part in curbing mobile device theft. He wrote that the companies were too involved with the bottom line to take a step back and “create technology to render stolen devices inoperable and thereby eliminate the expanding black market on which they are sold.”

Schneiderman also brought up a huge accusation in the open letters, questioning whether or not mobile phone companies weren’t helping out with thefts since they benefit from selling replacement devices to users who had their initial device stolen.

Schneiderman is urging all four companies to talk to his office and brief him on their anti-theft efforts, if any. He also wants these companies to help New York and the rest of the country to figure out ways to cut down on device thefts — methods that police officers don’t have control over, such as implementing technology that shuts down a device when it’s detected as stolen and can locate the suspect.

Of course, Apple has a feature called Find My iPhone that allows users to do a number of things when their device gets stolen, and they even use the GPS to track the location of the stolen phone, as well as the suspect who stole it. Of course, it isn’t foolproof, and you can easily wipe the device clean to prevent it being tracked. It’s also a feature that isn’t on by default, which could be a reason that a lot of users don’t have the feature enabled.

In any case, we’re interested to see what Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Samsung have to say in response to Schneiderman’s open letter. As to whether these companies will jump in and do their part to prevent device theft is yet to be seen, but we wouldn’t be surprised if they nonchalantly said, “no thanks.”

VIA: Cult of Mac

SOURCE: New York Attorney General

While forensics teams are known for having the technology to hack into computers for vital information, it seems that the iPhone is one device that authorities are having trouble with, according to CNET. Specifically, an agent from the bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) said that we was added to a wait list by Apple in order to get an iPhone 4S decrypted, and it took approximately four months to finally get the device unlocked.

Apple’s iMessage service has been hailed as a “challenge” to break into, as all messages sent between iOS users are encrypted. Last month, the US Drug Enforcement Administration had trouble breaking into iMessage while trying to tap into suspects’ text messages, anad they most likely phoned Apple for help.

Of course, this is good news for anyone that’s paranoid about an outsider trying to hack into their iPhone’s deepest corners. Users can enable a password lock on their devices for added security, but we all know that doesn’t quite work all the time, as numerous loopholes have been found that give users access to devices even with a password lock enabled. While it’s highly unlikely that your phone will slip into the hands of someone who can quickly bypass a lock screen, it’s certainly something that doesn’t make us feel at ease.

Then again, iOS devices will be receiving the nod from the US Department of Defense as being secure enough to be used inside the Pentagon. As we all know, the Pentagon has some pretty confidential stuff that they deal with, so having secure devices is a must, and if forensics team can’t even break into an iPhone, that must say something about its security robustness.

SOURCE: CNET

“Samsung: it claims that its brand new Galaxy phone has an extra-large memory, but what did it forget to mention?” notoriously outspoken Watchdog host Anne Robinson teased at the end of the program on Wednesday this week, while graphics of the Samsung product page highlighting the storage variants were flashed on-screen. Watchdog, which hit UK television in 1980, has a track-record of investigative journalism, which has seen consumer rights complaints taken up and even laws enacted or modified as a result. As UK Mobile Review points out, the show also waded into the iPhone 4 “antennagate” saga back in 2010.

In the case of the Galaxy S 4, Samsung’s problem will likely center on how much available space a new owner has the right to reasonably expect, given the amount of memory listed on the box. All smartphones generally monopolize some of the internal capacity to add in preloaded apps and features, but the extent of the customizations and tweaks Samsung has made to the Galaxy S 4 has seemingly overstepped even those expectations.

Samsung’s argument is that users can opt to expand with a microSD card if they want more capacity, since unlike many other recent flagship devices there’s a memory card slot lurking under the Galaxy S 4′s removable back cover. Up to 64GB cards are supported at present.

Nonetheless, that does have limits of its own: apps can only be installed to the internal storage, not to a microSD card, for instance, which means that the latest generation of big game downloads could find themselves out of room. Samsung also offers 32GB and 64GB versions of the Galaxy S 4, though availability of those models has struggled, versus the more affordable 16GB entry-level handset.

The likely outcome of any investigation is better labeling, with clearer indications of exactly how much space is on offer printed on the box, rather than left as an unpleasant surprise once you turn the phone on and check the settings page. That’s not an issue that will solely affect Samsung, however, and the Galaxy S 4 may simply be the device that broke the camel’s back.

[via Clove]

The Liberator was created by 25-year-old law student Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed. The gun was designed in such a way that it can be easily recreated by others who have access to a 3D printer, making the firearm a weapon that can be theoretically mass produced on a very accessible consumer level. The gun, which resembles a toy with its square plastic body, is made from easily obtainable ABS plastic and has a total of 16 parts. Although it is hailed as the first fully-printed firearm, it does have a metal firing pin due to the inability of plastic to withstand the force. The weapon was designed to fire ordinary handgun rounds, of which various calibers can be used thanks to an interchangeable barrel.

The Liberator was test fired on Monday, May 6. Unfortunately, the testing phase didn’t fare as well as Wilson had hoped, with the first attempt resulting in a misfire and the second – which involved a 5.7 x 28 rifle cartridge – ending with the handgun being blow into shrapnel, perhaps making the Liberator the first 3D-printed explosive device, as well. Such a result didn’t slow them down too much, however.

As we noted earlier this month, Wilson planned to release his blueprints on the database website Defcad.org, where other CAD files for printable guns are available. He ultimately followed through with this plan, making the blueprints available for others to download today. In a short span of time, the file was saved over 100,000 times, a reality that has quickly been halted by the government.

As of now, the DefCad website displays a banner reading: “DEFCAD files are being removed from public access at the request of the US Department of Defense Trade Controls. Until further notice, the United States government claims control of the information.” This followed a letter sent by the State Department’s Office of Defense Trade Compliance demanding the blueprints be removed while a review was performed to see whether they count as class one munitions. It is possible Defense Distributed violated the Arms Export Control Act as a result of releasing information without authorization that is under control of the International Traffic in Arms Regulation.

On one side of the fence, many have expressed concerns about the ability for anyone to download blueprints for printing their own firearms, something that could result in obtaining weapons without a background check and facilitate access for felons and the mentally ill. In addition, 3D printed guns wouldn’t have serial numbers, an issue posing its own problems. On the other hand, however, are those who say access to such information is the right of a free people, and that blocking access to it is a restriction of one’s rights.

Wilson is in the latter camp, quoted as saying: “I immediately complied and I’ve taken down the files. But this is a much bigger deal than guns. It has implications for the freedom of the web.”

[via BetaBeat]

Colby filed the lawsuit under the DBA name Brick Tower Press, having purchased a variety of assets from multiple entities previously owned by another New York publisher – Byron Press – in both 2006 and 2007. The issue at play involves Byron Press’s use of the term “ibooks” to publish many paperback and hardback books, a process that began in late 1999, long before Apple began using the term for its digital books app.

According to the lawsuit, Apple’s shift to using the term for books-related purposes in 2010 following the launch of the iPad could spell the end for the publisher’s ibooks mark, making them effectively worthless. A quick look at the two logos used by the respective companies shows that – visually speaking – they are quite different, with Brick Tower Press’s displaying a picture of a lightbulb above the term and Apple using a distinctly iOS icon next to its own.

It is important to note that neither Byron Press, nor Brick Tower Press after purchasing the assets, registered the trademark, something both had ample time to do before Apple eventually registered it in 2010. Such would end up being one of the problems for the publisher, with U.S. District Judge Denise Cote stating that on its own the term “ibooks” was generic in nature, a descriptive term for digitally-sold books.

Because the term itself isn’t enough, the logo as a whole comes into play, with Cote saying that the publisher only retains any sort of meaning in the use of the word in conjunction with its lightbulb logo. As we mentioned, Brick Tower Press’s logo is quite different from the one used by Apple, and that ultimately lead to the ruling in the latter company’s favor. Said the court in its ruling, “[Brick Tower Press has] offered no evidence that consumers who use Apple’s iBooks software to download ebooks have come to believe that Apple has also entered the publishing business and is the publisher of all of the downloaded books, despite the fact that each book bears the imprint of its actual publisher.”

Because those buying books aren’t likely to mistake the publisher for Apple based on the differences in their logos, and because the term “ibooks” alone isn’t sufficient with the Press failing to register the trademark, the court has ruled in Apple’s favor.

[via Gigaom]

However, Name.com is also keen to point out that, even though the data has fallen into unauthorized hands, the most important parts are encrypted. Credit card details, stored at the site for easier domain registration renewals, had their private encryption keys “stored physically in a separate remote location that was not compromised,” Name.com insisted.

Meanwhile, the EPP codes needed for domain transfers are also safe, since they too are stored in a different location to the bulk the user registration data. “We have no evidence to suggest that your data has been used for fraudulent activities” Name.com concludes.

Nonetheless, all Name.com subscribers will have to change their password before they can log back into their account, even if their information wasn’t among that extracted. The company also suggests changing your login credentials if you use the same username and password combination with other sites and services.

Data hacks have become more commonplace in recent years, as databases of consumer information become increasingly tempting to spammers, those committing credit card fraud, and other criminals. Last month, Amazon-owned daily deals site LivingSocial admitted that its servers had been compromised, with data of 50m users extracted.

The matter at stake is whether the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are allowed to go through with a class-action lawsuit against Google, something that could result in billions of dollars in damages – over $3 billion, according to some estimates. As such, it isn’t surprising that Google appealed when one court ruled that a class-action lawsuit was permissible, and now the case has moved up to a higher court.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is now handling the issue, and seems to be leaning away from a class-action lawsuit, which would leave those who feel their copyrights have been infringed upon to sue Google on their own. This would result in substantially less damages being paid out, especially considering that many of those who would go after Google are small-time authors not in a position to initiate a lawsuit.

According to Reuters, one of the panel judges said the digitization efforts hold “enormous value for our culture.” Others have mentioned the notion of returning the case to the district court, having it give a ruling on Google’s claim of fair use. We’ll have to wait and see how it all plays out, but presently the plaintiffs are seeking $750 in damages per book Google copied.

[via Reuters]

The report comes from Bloomberg, which notes that Apple attorney Mark Lyons says that all of this basically deals with “transparency,” and he argues that Google is beating around the bush with delivering evidence that is requested by either Apple or the court. However, Google lawyers argue that the company was to be kept off of the case in the initial court filing, so they don’t have the same legal rights as Apple or Samsung in this case.

Google is concerned that if they eventually do hand over the source code documents, Apple may discover other information that Google believes Apple isn’t entitled to, which could give the Cupertino-based company further “ideas about how to proceed that they wouldn’t have had” in the first place.

This second patent lawsuit comes after Apple was awarded $1.05 billion payable by Samsung after the court ruled that the Korean company infringed on Apple’s patents. However, that award has since been lowered to $639.4 million, and a new trial is set for November to re-evaluate some of the products involved in the downgraded award.

[via Android Community]

The ongoing national debate over gun violence and gun control has made a lot of companies rethink the relationships they have with gun makers, including video game developers and publishers. Electronic Arts is one publisher who will be distancing themselves from relationships with gun makers, but will still continue to use real gun names in future games.

EA president of labels Frank Gibeau says that video game developers share the same rights of free speech as authors do, noting that novel writers don’t pay gun makers to use real gun names in their books. Video games are the same way, saying that Electronic Arts is “telling a story” through a point of view.

Video games have been at the forefront of the gun control debate for a while now, and it seems that video game publishers are finally buckling under the pressure and severing ties with gun manufacturers. However, none of that looks to change the ways that violent video games are made, and we’re guessing that war games like Call of Duty and Battlefield will continue on as normal.

[via Reuters]

In one case, in Houston, the US Attorney’s office apparently acquired “contents of stored communications” from an ISP, identity unspecified, without a warrant. The US Attorney’s office in Manhattan issued guidelines to staff that it could achieve the same results with a subpoena rather than a full warrant.

It’s not the first time this year that investigative methods followed by US governments have come in for criticism. Back in March, a California court criticized the FBI for violating First Amendment rights by using so-called “National Security Letters”; by citing national security considerations, the FBI could bypass getting warrants in the traditional manner, and the subject of investigations would not be informed that their data had been shared.

Here, it’s the Fourth Amendment which privacy advocates like the ACLU argue the DOJ and FBI are trampling over. Digital information held by cloud services like Gmail, Dropbox, Facebook, or Twitter should be just as protected as a hard-drive physically located in a suspect’s home, they claim.

One confusing factor is that in many cases email and non-email digital content is treated differently. A 2010 ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, US v. Warshak, left many of the big names in webmail – Gmail and Outlook among them – insisting full warrants for access to emails they store. However, while the Justice Department appears content to comply with that, it has proved less concerned with following full warrant procedures with files such as those stored in Dropbox or Google Drive, or direct messages and IM chat on Twitter and Facebook.

“We really can’t have this patchwork system anymore,” ACLU staff attorney Nathan Wessler concludes, “where agencies get to decide on an ad hoc basis how privacy-protective they’re going to be.” However, moves to pin down the exact legal expectations of the DoJ and FBI have met with opposition, and other proposals to heavily fine companies like Google who do not comply with wiretap orders are also underway.

Caesars Palace says that they won’t allow anyone gambling to use Google Glass, but it seems that casino officials will let you at least wear it when simply wondering around, as long as you’re not recording — casinos usually frown on taking pictures or video, even if you’re not gambling. Casinos see recording devices as a means to get an unfair advantage at the tables.

Recently, within the last few months, establishments have been popping up saying that they will not allow Google Glass inside their facilities, including a bar in Seattle, as well as movie theaters and other places where taking photos and recording videos is already prohibited. Lawmakers are even wanting to ban Google Glass while driving, saying that the spectacles can be a distraction while behind the wheel.

Of course, this isn’t surprising by any means. Many luddites believe that Google Glass is an invasion of privacy, allowing Glass users to secretly take photos and record video, but in a world where it’s increasingly more difficult to keep your privacy while out in public, is this really anything new? Does Google Glass offer anything that we haven’t already seen in surveillance equipment and such?

[via Computerworld]

Greenspan has long claimed that Zuckerberg stole many of his ideas during their days at Harvard, using them to create what is now Facebook. He later went after the Facebook trademark, eventually leading to a settlement of which its terms are not known. And this, not surprisingly, is just a small list of the man’s lawsuits, which have even included the state of California. Despite the years of badgering, Greenspan still isn’t finished, and has once again targeted the social network in addition to companies referred to as Money Services Businesses.

Among these other companies are Airbnb, Y Combinator, Dwolla, Square, Coinbase, Andreessen Horowitz, A-Grade, Sequoia Capital, DST Global, and more. In addition, several individuals were also named in the suit, including Reddit’s CEO Yishan Wong and PayPal’s Max Levchin. In essence, just about every company you can think of dealing in categories akin to digital payments located in Silicon Valley.

The lawsuit alleges that the aforementioned companies and individuals have violated California’s Bank Secrecy and Money Transmission acts, as well as “various other statutes.” It goes on to accuse in long verbose mode the companies of knowingly working under the radar instead of complying with the acts, and says that their investors are guilty by association. Greenspan declined commenting on the matter.

[via The Next Web]

Before Twitter, Wong served as the vice president and deputy general counsel at Google for eight years, in which she headed a team of lawyers that were responsible for reviewing various aspects of a new product from the company, including details like privacy, copyright, and removal requests.

Details on the new gig are scarce, but CNET reports that the new position will report to the chief technology officer as a senior advisor of sorts. The current chief technology officer of the White House is Todd Park, who was just hired on about two months ago. Wong’s job will focus on internet and privacy policy.

Before working at Google, Wong received her law degree from the University of California at Berkeley. Frankly, we’re not surprised that the White House hired Wong. She hasn’t been at Twitter for that long, but the social media service has received high marks for its privacy policies and its user data protection.

[via CNET]

The Internet sales tax bill was sponsored by Mike Enzi (R. Wyoming) and Richard J. Durbin (D. Illinois), but despite its bipartisan nature, the bill is expected to meet opposition as it moves to the House, where Republicans are less enthusiastic about the additional tax it imposes. Reports the Washington Times, 20 Republicans in the House are currently in favor of it.

Those in favor of the bill say that calling it an Internet tax is incorrect and misrepresents what is already law. When purchasing something online, it is already law that sales taxes must be paid by those making the purchase, something that is either ignored or unknown, resulting in – depending on which study you side with – over $20 billion in uncollected sales taxes.

This bill aims to solve that issue by having the retailer pulling the sales tax in the same way your local store does, with the company being responsible then for paying it to the state, something that will boost state revenue. Says one of the Republicans who support the bill, Lamar Alexander, “Some suggest this is a tax on the Internet. But every senator knows there’s a law against taxing the Internet. This is a tax that everybody owes that only some people pay.”

[via Washington Times]

This looted beast was spoken about by professionals and the scientific public alike, petitions having been signed and professors making the case for the impossibility of legality in the auction that was to take place in the Spring of 2012. Back then it was Dr Mark A Norell, Chairman and Curator, Division of Paleontology at the American Museum of National History who made one of several compelling cases for this construction of bones to have been looted illegally.

“In the current catalogue Lot 49317 (a skull of Saichania) and Lot 49315 (a mounted Tarbosaurus skeleton) clearly were excavated in Mongolia as this is the only locality in the world where these dinosaurs are known. The copy listed in the catalogue, while not mentioning Mongolia specifically (the locality is listed as Central Asia) repeatedly makes reference to the Gobi Desert and to the fact that other specimens of dinosaurs were collected in Mongolia.

As someone who is intimately familiar with these faunas, these specimens were undoubtedly looted from Mongolia. There is no legal mechanism (nor has there been for over 50 years) to remove vertebrate fossil material from Mongolia.” – Dr Mark A Norell for American Museum of National History

The “unusually complete” skeleton is set to be returned to Mongolian representatives today by Homeland Security officials in a ceremony near the United Nations. Prokopi meanwhile is currently free on bail and faces up to 17 years in prison. According to the NY Times, Prokopi agreed to a guilty plea with the court on December 27th of 2012 along with a forfeiture of several other skeletons that he’d apparently come into possession of illegally as well.

Prokopi surrendered the main Tyrannosaurus Bataar skeleton in question along with a second, slightly smaller Tyrannosaurus Bataar skeleton (surprise! he had two!), two Saurolophus skeletons, and two Oviraptor skeletons. His next court date will take place August 30th, 2013.

The so-called FRAND patents – patents which must be licensed under “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory” terms, as they are standard-essential – were intended to make a level playing field on which all mobile device manufacturers would begin. However, Motorola Mobility took a more aggressive stance, with reports that the company was demanding around 2.25-percent royalties, a figure Apple insisted was nowhere near fair.

The EC apparently feels the same way, at least according to these preliminary findings. The Commission will send a Statement of Objects to Motorola Mobility, laying out its concerns as well as highlighting the fact that it believes Motorola acted in a way that led to less consumer choice.

“The protection of intellectual property is a cornerstone of innovation and growth. But so is competition. I think that companies should spend their time innovating and competing on the merits of the products they offer – not misusing their intellectual property rights to hold up competitors to the detriment of innovation and consumer choice” Joaquín Almunia, Commission Vice President in charge of competition policy, EC

However, it’s not to say that the final outcome of the investigation will rule in the same way as the Statement does. Motorola – and new owners Google – will now have to demonstrate to the Commission that, by pushing ahead with a request for injunctions when Apple had already said it would license the patents and allow for a third-party to negotiate the terms, it did not commit antitrust-style behavior.

Even if the company’s lawyers can do that, there still remain other complaints leveled against Motorola. Microsoft also accused the company of antitrust, claiming that Motorola insisted on 1,125x the going rate in royalty payments, when it came to licensing video playback and wireless connectivity technology in PCs and Xbox consoles.

[via NYTimes]

While many of us immediately think of science fiction when it comes to robots with the ability to kill humans with no input from a human operator, we’re not talking about far-fetched Terminator style robots. What the UN is worried about are automomous robots such as aerial drones able to identify targets and launch missiles or drop bombs with no human interaction.

The UN is also concerned about weapons such as small mobile robots using tank-like treads that are equipped with guns and other weapons systems that can roll through an environment engaging targets on their own volition. It is worth noting that most of these weapon systems are available, but they are typically controlled by a human operator from afar.

The UN recently issued a 22 page report talking about lethal autonomous robotics or LARs weapon systems. The UN wants member states to work to articulate a policy for the international community that would ban robots and robotic systems from being able to take human life without human intervention. The human report says, “[LARs] deployment may be unacceptable because no adequate system of legal accountability can be devised, and because robots should not have the power of life and death over human beings.”

[via Inventorspot]

If you’ve never seen Nyan Cat, prepare to have the 3-minute video stuck in your head for the next ten or so hours. As the lawsuit specifies, the video features a cat-faced character with “a body resembling a horizontal breakfast bar with pink frosting sprinkled with light red dots” (aka, a cat stuck in a Poptart) soaring through the air beyond a tail of rainbows colors. Without further ado, check it out in the video below.

Keyboard Cat, meanwhile, is cute in direct proportion to Nyan Cat’s annoyance factor, featuring a cat wearing a tiny suit jacket in front of a keyboard, jamming away at the keys with a half-asleep look on his face that says, “Charlie Schmidt has made me do this a million times.” You can check it out in its full 55-seconds of 480p awesomeness in the video below.

If you liked those two videos, you’re not the only one – Warner Bros. published a a video game called Scribblenauts that features them, which was developed by 5th Cell. Perhaps unbeknownst to the developer, both videos have been trademarked by their respective video creators. Adding insult to injury, the two characters were used to market the game, a transgression for which Warner Bros. has not yet made a comment. The case is being handled in California.

[via ars technica]

The approval, however, didn’t stop livery cab drivers and others from continuing to go after the program, and today they saw at least a temporary victory, with Appellate Division Associate Justice Helen E. Freedman tossing out an emergency injunction against the e-hailing program and calling for a fast review by a panel of judges in appeals court.

The livery cab drivers’ attorney Randy Mastro said in an email to Bloomberg: “This faux ‘pilot program’ is so fundamentally flawed and illegal in so many respects that it had to be stopped. And now it once again has been.” Such a change comes at a bad time for the e-hailing service Hailo, which had temporarily been denounced for working outside of the rules of the program, but that just received its approval by the TLC today.

The current expectation is that the panel of judges will hear the case some time this month, although that hasn’t been officially confirmed. All of this follows the lift on the first ban that took place last week by NY Supreme Court Justice Carole Huff, who addressed and dismissed many of the claims against the program, including ones about facilitating discrimination and making things harder on the elderly.

[via Bloomberg]

When you watch a video game trailer and demonstrations, it is both reasonable and logical to expect that the video game will be akin to those demos. As with movies and their pre-release trailers, there might be some slight changes, but overall you expect to receive a product that is by and large what you were shown. This same idea applies to any product, whether it’s a used car or an app.

Such wasn’t the case with Aliens: Colonial Marines, according to gamers who joined forces to file a class action lawsuit against Sega and Gearbox. The difference between the product they received and the demonstrations they were shown were enough to constitute false advertisement, they said. Press embargos ensured that those who made the purchase before the game was released had no way of knowing the differences.

According to the lawsuit: “Each of the ‘actual gameplay’ demonstrations purported to show consumers exactly what they would be buying: a cutting edge video game with very specific features and qualities.” When questioned by gamers about the issue, Gearbox’s Randy Pitchford said that such a question is fair, and that they’re looking into it. The lawsuit is being handled by Edelson LLC.

[via Escapist Magazine]

Over 100 different variations of Facebook.com were registered, and each of them were hit with a lawsuit from the social network giant. Although it is common practice, domain squatting is in violation of 1999′s U.S. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which makes it illegal for someone to piggyback off a successful trademark, which domains like Dacebook.com were doing.

Facebook was awarded $3 million in damages by the District Court for Northern California, a figure that will probably never be paid and that the social network, in all likelihood, won’t go after. Nonetheless, it is a victory for Facebook, and a quick look shows that many of the domains have already either pulled their content or such completely down.

The folks over at TechCrunch got a statement from the social network’s Associate General Counsel Craig Clark: “We are pleased with the court’s recommendation. We will continue to use all the tools at our disposal to enforce against those who attempt to take advantage of the people who use our service.” Facebook is not the only big-name company that has gone after domain squatters, with Google having taken the legal hammer to its myriad of trademark leeches, as well.

[via Business Week]

Mozilla was alerted to Gamma’s illegal activities by a group known as the Citizen Lab. The group discovered that the spyware posing as Mozilla Firefox is called either FinSpy or FinFisher, and it was sold to various governments for usage in criminal investigations. FinSpy has command-and-control servers in 36 countries, including the United States, Canada, Japan, and the UK.

Gamma’s fake Firefox was used in a variety of harmful and deceitful ways. The Citizen Lab provided 3 examples of how it was used, including a spyware attack in Bahrain against pro-democracy activists, tricking the people of Malaysia by posing as a document that discusses Malaysia’s upcoming General Elections, and being demonstrated in promotional videos and brochures by Gamma itself.

Luckily for Firefox users, Mozilla assures everyone that the spyware does not infect the real Firefox. Unluckily for Mozilla, this isn’t the first time its product has been misued for the purpose of evil. Back in 2010, there were nearly 200 sites deceitfully using Mozilla’s brands for illegal activities, including distributing malware or requiring users to pay for the sites’ service. Mozilla developer Asa Dotzler’s statement back then still echoes on today, “If you’re being asked to pay for Firefox, it’s a scam.” Also, always make sure that you download Firefox straight from Mozilla, and not some sketchy site.

[via Mozilla]

The incongruities will see both Google and the company’s auditor, Ernst & Young, pulled back in front of the PAC to answer more questions, not least to explain whether they purposefully misled the committee at their last appearance in 2012. At the time, Google VP for Northern and Central Europe Matt Brittin insisted that “nobody is selling” from the London offices, and that it was at pains to “comply with all the tax rules in the UK.”

That certainty was apparently not shared by Google staff nor the company’s recruitment team, however. London-based positions cite roles that include “negotiating deals”, closing “strategic and revenue deals”, and achieving “quarterly sales quotas” it’s pointed out, while Reuters’ digging through LinkedIn profiles, among other things, suggests staff at Google London are claiming responsibility for the sort of UK sales tasks the company claims only take place in Ireland.

Brittin argues that’s poor phrasing on Google’s part, out of a hope “to attract people with those skills and that background”, and claims the company is rectifying what language it uses. Nonetheless, it’s enough to get Hodge suspicious.

“We will need to very quickly call back the Google executives to give them a chance to explain themselves and to ensure that actually what they told us first time around is not being economical with the truth” she told the news site about the second in-person phase of the investigation. Google’s tax records for 2005-2011 were already to be re-examined by the UK tax authority.

As for the auditors, having told the committee that its team had physically walked the Google London offices to check whether actual responsibilities matched those the company declared, Ernst & Young is also back under the spotlight. “The evidence they gave was clear and unambiguous” Hodge pointed out. “Ernst & Young have questions to answer about whether they were being wholly open with us as a committee.”

The ongoing allegations – that Google uses tax loopholes to shuffle income through its Irish subsidiary, thus minimizing its UK bill – have already prompted strong words from high-level execs at the search giant. Executive chairman Eric Schmidt denied wrongdoing recently, arguing that Google was in fact spurring on UK industry by empowering startups, among other things. The question of taxes in specific countries, Schmidt argued, was outdated, and who owed what, and where, should be looked at in a more global sense, given the spread of multinationals. When, exactly, the new hearing will take place is unclear.

There, Koh will preside over questions around the damages adjustments on those fourteen products, which she initially cut $450.5m from back in March, The Recorder reports. The hearing will, if Koh has her way, be the final step before Samsung can appeal the decision fully. “Once this is resolved,” she told the firms, “you can take all of it up to the Federal Circuit.”

In the period before then, Apple will have to submit a new expert report on damages – after having found a new damages expert – following which Samsung will have the opportunity to file a rebuttal expert report of its own. Expert discovery is expected to be completed by August 23, with a hearing and a pretrial conference scheduled for October.

“This is going to be Groundhog’s Day,” Judge Koh warned Apple and Samsung, suggesting that “you’re going to be reliving July of 2012.” The judge also refused to accept calls for a full retrial, insisting that the November case would be targeted specifically at damages based on the old information.

Although Samsung will be aiming to further trim its damages bill, it also faces the potential risk of an even higher cost. Just as the amount can be adjusted down, so could the jury decide to grant Apple even more than the $1.05bn originally imposed.

[via AppleInsider; via FOSSPatents]