Diritto dei Prodotti Digitali | IT Law


COMUNICAZIONE DIGITALE | Università degli Studi di Milano

Materiale didattico e slide

Sono disponibili sulla pagina web del corso le slide presentate e discusse nel corso delle lezioni.

Apple deposita una domanda di brevetto per uno schermo a tecnologia ibrida

Another interesting patent application coming out of Apple yesterday. It’s one of a hybrid e-Paper/Video iOS display.

The patent application is related to a next generation iPhone that would effectively offer us a smart hybrid display that could switch between a standard LCD and an e-Paper display. In fact, it’s so smart that the display could actually subdivide itself into quadrants that could intelligently switch display types depending on the content that the user is running.

E-Ink displays have been popular on early eReaders such as the Amazon Kindle. E-Ink displays are unbacklit high resolution displays that offer superior readability in direct sunlight. Amazon even ran TV ads promoting this feature over Apple’s iPad. Fans of e-Ink also claim the displays are less fatiguing on the eyes over long periods of reading.

Apple’s new research into a hybrid e-Ink/Video display is reminiscent of technology from 3Qi who also offers a dual-mode LCD screen that offers both reflective e-ink as well as a the traditional emissive video mode.

Time Machine, Coverflow, Spotlight: brevetti software in giudizio per 625 milioni di dollari

US District Judge Leonard Davis threw out a US$625.5 million patent infringement verdict against Apple involving its Cover Flow, Time Machine and Spotlight technology for the Mac.

In 2008, Mirror Worlds filed a patent infringement lawsuit accusing Apple of infringing on four of the company’s patents for a “document stream operating system” and its associated information management system. The lawsuit cited Apple’s Cover Flow interface, its backup application Time Machine and its search application Spotlight. Mirror Worlds received its four patents before it disbanded in 2003.

In October 2010, a judge in East Texas Federal Court sided with Mirror Worlds and awarded the now defunct company $625.5 million in damages ($208.5 million per patent). Apple appealed this ruling and argued that Mirror Worlds’ patents were invalid because the company failed to cite prior art and filed the patents incorrectly.

The Texas judge disagreed with Apple’s patent claims and upheld Mirror Worlds’ patents as valid. In a decision favorable to Apple, however, he ruled that Apple was not liable for damages. Mirror Worlds apparently failed to prove Apple used the same underlying technology for its implementation of Cover Flow, Time Machine and Spotlight. Without this “requisite foundational support,” the original lawsuit award was rejected and Apple no longer has to pony up the cash.

Microsoft, Apple, EMC, Oracle e i brevetti Novell

Microsoft, Apple, EMC and Oracle are continuing to pursue a deal for Novell’s patents that will let the four companies split the patents four ways and immunize themselves from any potential lawsuits. The deal, which is pending review before U.S. and German authorities, has been changed slightly because of concerns raised by the nonprofit Open Source Initiative and other parties.

As Novell undergoes a $2.2 billion acquisition by Attachmate, 882 patents are in the process of being sold to a consortium called CPTN Holdings, consisting of Microsoft, Apple, EMC and Oracle.

The Open Source Initiative says it received notice from German competition authorities at the Federal Cartel Office that CPTN is asking permission to proceed with the patent portfolio acquisition but with new conditions.

“CPTN will now only exist for long enough to distribute the shares equally among the participants in the transaction (no more than three months), and thus will not form a new long-term patent troll itself,” Open Source Initiative President Michael Tiemann writes in a blog post. “All parties to the transaction will retain a license to the full Novell patent portfolio, thus immunizing themselves from patent actions with the shares they do not hold.”

Further, “Microsoft will sell its 25 percent share of the patents on to Attachmate and retain only a license to the portfolio,” and EMC’s share of the patents will not include any related to virtualization. That is likely because of EMC’s ownership of VMware.

“Notably, the terms of the transaction seem to have been significantly changed, apparently in response to concerns like the ones OSI expressed at the start of the year,” Tiemann writes. “OSI is very pleased that the FCO has been clear about the transaction with CPTN and congratulates them on continuing to consider the overall health of the evolving software market and not just the concerns of the existing dominant players.”

On another positive note, the Open Source Initiative said Microsoft’s reduced participation in the deal ensures that “Microsoft does not itself become a greater threat to the open source community than they already are.”

But the OSI still has concerns about the deal which it says could turn Novell’s patent portfolio “into a weapon against open source software.” The OSI sent German authorities a response which outlines its continuing concerns.

Despite the positive steps in the case of Microsoft, the OSI still faulted the deal for not requiring Microsoft to provide a patent license to the open source community before handing the patents back to Attachmate.

Oracle may use Novell patents to disrupt open source competitors in the markets for operating systems, middleware, virtualization and mobile applications and platforms, the OSI also said. Regarding Apple, the OSI raised concerns about Apple using patents to challenge Android.

“Both Apple and Oracle could address these concerns by stipulating fully-paid, world-wide, royalty free licenses to any software covered by an OSI-approved license,” the open source group said.

The patent deal is also being examined in the United States by the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. Last month, Novell said in a Security and Exchange Commission filing that antitrust authorities requested “additional time to review the patent sale,” which may not close until at least April 12.