Jury selection is starting today for the patent trial between Apple and Samsung that has already resulted in the release of tons of early Apple iPhone and iPad prototypes designs. But one design holds particular interest: an iPhone concept called “Purple.” The phone isn’t actually purple (it’s white), but the big news is not the color – it’s the date of the creation. To counter Samsung’s charge that Apple copied Sony’s smartphone and Walkman designs when it created the iPhone, Apple filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California which shows the Purple concept was from 2005 – before Sony’s Nishibori Design, developed in March 2006.

Samsung had pulled Sony’s designs into the case, as an effort to discredit Apple and show that it copied designs from elsewhere in the creation of the iPhone.

News of the Purple concept was first reported by The Verge, which referred to documents from Apple which called the Sony-style touches “an ‘enjoyable’ side project,’” but one that was done on top of original concept designs. Apple then asked the court to exclude Samsung’s evidence, showing that Apple’s designs were Sony-inspired.

Apple requests that the Court enforce Judge Grewal’s Order by excluding evidence that Apple’s designs were derived from Sony’s design language, from Mr. Nishibori’s exercise in applying Sony-style design details to the iPhone, or from Sony handsets of the time. Because this evidence is not admissible to prove the invalidity of Apple’s patents, it should not come in for any purpose.”

Although Apple is not enjoying having to release so many of its prototype designs in such a public forum, revealing the “Purple” concept worked. According The Verge’s updated report, Judge Lucy Koh says now that Samsung will not be allowed to show evidence during the trial regarding the Sony-inspired designs for the iPhone.

Article courtesy of TechCrunch

The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) finally got its will today. According to a ruling by Britain’s High Court, UK Internet providers must now block access to Swedish file-sharing site The Pirate Bay. The BBC reports that the BPI had asked British ISPs to voluntarily block access to the site in November 2011. At that time, though, the ISPs said they wouldn’t do so unless ordered by a court. That court order has now arrived. Five UK ISPs (Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media) have already announced that they will comply with this order. BT asked the court for more time to consider its position.

According to the BPI’s chief executive Geoff Taylor, “the High Court has confirmed that The Pirate Bay infringes copyright on a massive scale. Its operators line their pockets by commercially exploiting music and other creative works without paying a penny to the people who created them.” A number of studies, though, have questioned this line of reasoning and instead found that sites like The Pirate Bay actually have a positive impact on overall music sales.

A spokesperson for Virgin Media told the BBC that it will comply with the ruling, but that the company also ” strongly believes that changing consumer behaviour to tackle copyright infringement also needs compelling legal alternatives, such as our agreement with Spotify, to give consumers access to great content at the right price.”

Todays ruling is not a first for Europe. Courts in the Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, Denmark and Italy already issued similar rulings over the last few years.

Article courtesy of TechCrunch

By now, we all know that the US Department of Justice filed an antitrust suit to block the AT&T/T-Mobile merger. Sprint and C Spire Wireless (formerly known as the Cellular South) have filed suits to that same effect, but AT&T has asked the court to reject those companies’ complaints.

The reason? AT&T believes that Sprint and C Spire are fighting for their own sakes, and not for the public’s best interests. Because Sprint is a major competitor and not a consumer, AT&T doesn’t believe Sprint has a legal leg to stand on.

Ouch. Sprint is preparing to respond to AT&T’s claim next week, but only after saying the argument had no merit. The folks in Overland Park have one thing to smile about though: 7 state Attorneys General have already come out against the merger, and they are now joined by the Attorney General of Puerto Rico.

Meanwhile, AT&T alleged that C Spire Wireless fears “competition, not lack of competition.” In their filing to have the C Spire suit dismissed, AT&T’s lawyers included a memo from C Spire CEO Hu Meena asking AT&T for a network sharing agreement in certain parts of the southeastern United States. C Spire claims that AT&T mischaracterized their proposal, and fired back by alleging that AT&T asked for then-Cellular South’s support for the deal when it was announced.

With billions of dollars on the line, the situation just seems to be getting dirtier and dirtier. U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle has scheduled the merger trial for February 12 of next year, but who knows what crazy developments may arise between now and then.

Article courtesy of TechCrunch