Sign in with Apple

Nobody cares about pixel count, says judge on iPhones notch lawsuit

You may remember last December, when a group of consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Apple on a Northern California District Court. The citizens’ complaint was simple: according to them, the Apple would be deceiving its customers with the disclosure of iPhones with OLED screens (at the time, only iPhones X, XS and XS Max); device panels would not, according to consumers, have the usable area and the number of pixels that would be expected due to the rounded edges and the notch (clipping).

Well, apparently the court didn’t buy much of the speech from consumers. According to the Law360, Judge Haywood Gilliam, responsible for the case, said that “there doesn’t seem to be anyone in the United States who is concerned about this”, referring to the pixels lost in the iPhones cutout and rounded edges.

The judge added that the complaints are unfounded, considering that Apple notes, on the box and in product disclosure, that the device’s inch count is based on the apparent diagonal of the panels, rather than the exact measurement of the screens. The lawyer representing Apple in the case, Tiffany Cheung (of Morrison & Foerster LLP), added that consumers of the lawsuit cannot claim that Apple “counts iPhones subpixels wrong”, as the company does not even count those subpixels in the device marketing.

Even so, the case is not yet closed: lawyers representing consumers said that Apple should include, in the disclosure of iPhones, that the pixel count does not represent “the actual pixels” of the devices. Judge Gilliam said he will take the argument into consideration, and more news about the imbroglio is expected to come soon.

Blix

While the pixel novel does not end, new lawsuits arrive at the Cupertino legal department. One comes from the developer Ben Volach, co-founder of the software company Blix; according to him, Apple stole an app feature BlueMail to build functionality “Log in with Apple” (“Sign in with Apple”).

The epicenter of the issue is in the resource “Share Email” of BlueMail. Protected by a patent, it allows users to share certain public contact addresses without revealing personal information, facilitating communication on social media platforms (such as Facebook or LinkedIn) without giving up their privacy.

Sign in with Apple

The “Log in with Apple” part of the same idea, allowing users to login to sites and services with their Apple accounts through a process in which it is clear, at all times, what personal information is being shared with that third party.

According to Volach, Apple’s feature uses the same technology as “Share Mail” – a technique that uses a “reverse list” that links a user to a public, random address, creating a kind of fence between their online actions and their personal information without preventing them from being contacted by third parties. THE “Sign in with Apple” has an option, in the same sense, that allows the user to hide his real email address, replacing it with a random one generated by the resource.

In action, moved on Delaware District Court, Volach also states that Apple “hid” BlueMail in App Store searches, citing the article from New York Times exposing the problem after the launch of the “Sign in with Apple”. The Cupertino giant also removed the BlueMail client from the Mac App Store on the grounds that the app duplicated the content or functionality of an existing one – an action that, according to Volach, also testifies to Apple’s guilt.

Apple, as usual, did not comment on the case.

Princeps

Apple does not live by suffering lawsuits, however: the Cupertino giant also attacks. Or strike back, as is the case here, in which Apple filed a lawsuit against the inventor Timothy Higginson and your company Princeps – months after Higginson himself sued the company for patent infringement involving a “universal keyboard”.

I explain: last June, the inventor sued Apple claiming that the company infringed one of its patents, which “solves technical problems involving small data entry devices” – or, in other words, adapts virtual keyboards for the one-handed use. IPhones, according to Higginson, would use their patent on their keyboards.

Now, Apple countered with another action, stating that the implementation of the technology in iPhones is different from that described in the patent, with the adoption of control keys different from those mentioned by Higginson. In addition, Apple notes that the inventor made changes to the registry after an initial refusal by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which would be key to the innocence of the Apple.

In the new lawsuit, filed in Northern California District Court, Apple asks for the legal costs of the lawsuit and a proactive statement that it is not violating the patent.

University of Wisconsin

Finally, a small victory for Apple involving the imbroglio with the University of Wisconsin – which, four years ago, sued the company accusing it of violating its patents in the manufacture of “A” series chips, iPhones and iPads.

Apple's Secure Enclave Chip Secure Enclave | Image: Apple

If you are following the case, the institution initially won the case, forcing Apple to pay $ 234 million the University. Subsequently, however, Apple appealed the decision, pointing out errors in the trial, and managed to overturn the previous determination in the Supreme Court, being free of payment.

In the recent news, brought by Reuters, the University tried to appeal the latest Supreme Court decision, but its request was overturned. With that, we arrived at the – probable – end of the story, without burden for the Apple side.

via AppleInsider: 1, 2; Apple World Today, MacRumors