Apple got some expectation of closure on a major issue in the ongoing patent war with Samsung, though it's probably not exactly what Apple wanted. Also, Apple fought the law in its home state of California, and won. But was it the privacy rights of the consumer that actually lost?
Apple has been trying to get an import ban on some Samsung products since, like, forever. Last fall, when a preliminary ruling found that Samsung had infringed on four Apple patents, it seemed Cupertino was going to get its way. The courts, however, have been reluctant to take the last plunge and order Samsung products off the shelves. The delay has left many wondering if it was even possible to get an injunction anymore.
The court was expected to issue a final determination regarding any violation on January 23, but instead kicked the decision down the calendar to a later day. Now, according to Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, a judge is expected to make an initial determination by April 1, and a final decision by August 1.
If we're not actually losing, we're winning!
Although surely Apple would have liked this decision wrapped up sooner rather than later, it's still not much of a victory for Samsung. As Mueller wrote, "On or before April 1, there will be good news for Apple or no news, but the remand doesn't have scope for good news for Samsung."
Cupertino waits, but Samsung senses the inevitable.
Reuters reports that Apple and a crew of other online retailers won a major decision in California this week, as the state Supreme Court ruled that the companies did not violate any privacy laws by demanding consumer information when accepting credit card payments online.
Apple was one of the listed defendants in this lawsuit, originated by an iTunes customer who felt Apple shouldn't require consumers to provide their address and phone number when accepting credit card payments. Some strange bedfellows came to the defense of Apple, with both Wal-Mart and eBay submitting briefs in support of Cupertino. With consumer lightning-rod friends like that, who needs enemies?
Uh, thanks. I think.
The court ruled, in a split decision, that Apple was not violating privacy laws with this policy. Writing for the majority, Justice Goodwin Liu wrote, "Unlike a brick-and-mortar retailer, an online retailer cannot visually inspect the credit card, the signature on the back of the card, or the customer's photo identification."
Not that anyone in a brick-and-mortar retail environment ever bothers to check those things, but no matter. If you want to shop online, with Apple or anyone else, be prepared to to meet a higher test, because the court determined that electronic retailers need more safeguards to prevent fraud.
Follow this writer, Adrian Hoppel, on Twitter.
