Apple is at the center of a class action suit involving iPhones from five years ago, and both Apple and Samsung struggle to get a win against each other around the world. Also, suddenly invalid patents might make Apple's $1 billion win against Samsung just a little less sexy. Cue your favorite dramatic theme music and lets get to another week of Law & Apple.
Zach Ward and Thomas Buchar have decided they are fed up with the way Apple was doing business five years ago. According to Patently Apple, the duo filed a new Class Action suit against Apple last Friday with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. The suit claims that Apple is guilty of "conspiracy to monopolize the iPhone voice and data services aftermarket in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act."
The basis of the complaint is Apple's 5-year agreement with AT&T in 2007 that established the carrier as the exclusive provider of voice and data for the iPhone until 2012. To hold up their end of the agreement, Apple developed and installed software locks on each iPhone that kept the user from switching to another carrier.
The Plaintiffs are seeking three things, in addition to costs, from the lawsuit: a ruling that Apple cannot sell iPhones that prevent users from unlocking their SIM cards; a ruling that Apple must provide unlock codes to iPhone SIM cards to users immediately upon request; and a ruling that prevents Apple from selling iPhones without obtaining consumer consent to having the devices locked.
How were we supposed to know this was an AT&T phone?
In 2007, AT&T was the only carrier willing to support the iPhone, a new device which many in the industry thought destined to fail (seriously, click on that last article -- so funny to read now). Apple went all-in with Big Blue, under relatively lopsided terms, as Cupertino had little choice otherwise. That probably didn't exclude them from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which provided cell phone users the absolute right to modify their devices to use the any carrier they wanted. Apple started selling completely unlocked iPhones in 2011.
This is certainly not the first lawsuit dealing with the Apple deal with AT&T, and AT&T just reported that they are still killing it with iPhone sales even without such a deal in place. So, why sue Apple now? Well, CNET points out that last year the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that consumers no longer have the right to file class action lawsuits against wireless carriers, due to a clause in carrier contracts limiting consumers to arbitration only. This effectively takes AT&T off the hook for any significant claims, so lawsuit took aim at the device manufacturer, Apple, instead.
Apple and Samsung fought to a draw in Japan and the Netherlands, with neither company being able to convice the court the other one was cheating. Samsung, however, may have won some ground here in the U.S. in the ongoing patent war with Apple. It seems it will never end with these two.
Back in the summer, you may have heard about a little lawsuit that Apple won handily against Samsung, with a jury award to Cupertino of over $1 billion in damages. However, that ruling was based on a big bucket of patents Apple owned, and more than a few of them might just be invalid now.
FOSS Patents reports that the United States Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) has declared, in a non-final action, that all 20 of Apple's "bounce-back scroll" patents are invalid based on prior art. These were not the only patents considered in this case, but they do represent a significant chunk. Finding some of the patents invalid is not surprising, but might be extremely relevant to the size of that check Samsung needs to write.
If only we knew which patents were invalid before that case.
As Florian Mueller pointed out in his report, statistically speak, some of Apple's patents from this case were destined to be ruled invalid post-trial. On average, the USPTO has 2-3 working days to review each patent claim, and there is no belief in any circle that they get it right all of the time. Usually, it is only after a trial, when a company is faced with having to write a big check, that resources are spent to complete exhaustive prior art searches in an effort to invalidate as many patents from the case as possible.
Regardless, the patents were valid at the time of the case, and this ruling from the USPTO is non-binding. It will be up to Judge Koh, who has the right to overrule the jury in certain cases, to decide how important this action is to the case.
Does this new, old school lawsuit regarding the Apple - AT&T deal have any merit? Should Judge Koh take into account the USPTO action and lessen the amount Samsung is due to pay Apple? We'd love to hear your thoughts below.
Follow this article's author, Adrian Hoppel on App.net.
