Let’s go for another news tour by Law Suit involving the Apple?
Amnesty International
We started with an action that does not directly involve Apple, but it certainly interests her a lot: Amnesty International lost a lawsuit it was NSO Group, an Israeli company that makes spyware for iPhones – tools (supposedly) intended for governments and legal agencies to hack into Apple smartphones and obtain information for ongoing investigations.
Amnesty International filed a lawsuit against the NSO in an Israeli court, saying that the company’s actions threatened users’ privacy; according to the agency, the group’s tools were used by “notorious human rights abusers” to harass and spy on activists, journalists, politicians and employees of the institution itself.
Amnesty International asked the court to ban the NSO from selling its tools to companies outside the country; the jury, however, dismissed the action, stating that the agency did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the NSO tools were used for these purposes.
The institution protested the decision on Twitter:
NSO Group sells its spyware to human rights abusers around the world. A court ruling today allows this to continue. Here’s why we think the court is wrong. pic.twitter.com/nhPvd71bzr
– Amnesty International (@amnesty) July 13, 2020
The NSO Group sells its spyware to human rights abusers around the world. A court decision allows them to continue. Here are the reasons why we think the court is wrong.
We will continue to follow, therefore.
Uniloc
We have already talked here about the Uniloc lawsuit against Apple, and now the patent troll bumped into a decision by the Northern California District Court, where the case is running: the judge in charge denied the company’s request for some documents in the case to be protected in secret. The information is Bloomberg Law.
Uniloc asked to protect the documents alleging that their public exposure could bring “substantial risk of damage” to the company for allegedly containing sensitive information and corporate secrets. The court, however, denied the request for classifying it as “excessive” and “unjustified”.
FaceTime and iMessage
Meanwhile, Apple was the target of yet another class action – this time with the operator T-Mobile. Complaining consumers complain about a failure of FaceTime and iMessage, which links an account to a specific phone number and, as a result, exposes sensitive user data if that number is canceled and then reactivated by someone else.
The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District Court of New York, lists some users who were affected by the bug and had personal data exposed because of it. Apple is cited for “failing to fix problems”, while T-Mobile is in the action for “performing deceptive practices” with its sale of SIM cards.
The bug was resolved in 2018, with the implementation of two-factor authentication in iMessage, but apparently the headache remains in the legal department of Cupertino. The claimants claim damages and legal expenses.
LBS
While some actions appear, others take leave: it is the case of the process that the LBS Innovations was moving against Apple because of the alleged patent infringement in Maps.
According to AppleInsider, the two companies reached an agreement earlier this month; there is no information on the numbers involved in the discussion, but apparently Apple has agreed to pay to license some of the company’s inventions. The East Texas District Court thereby dissolved the case.
USR
Finally, news regarding the process brought by Universal Secure Registry (USR) against Apple and Visa: in the most recent development, Apple has argued that it does not infringe the company’s patents on Apple Pay.
The patents in question, involving virtual wallets and user authentication for digital payments, had their validity questioned by Apple, but the company was not successful in the strategy: the Federal Court of the State of Delaware stated that the patents were valid and the process would follow.
Apple has now sent a new document to the court, listing arguments to convince the jury that it does not infringe the patents in question. Among the company’s justifications, Apple cites that it does not retain user information – precisely one of the points of one of the patents involved in the case.
It remains to be seen, now, what the court will say in this regard.
via AppleInsider, VICE
