You may remember last December when a group of consumers filed a class action against Apple in a Northern California District Court. The citizens' complaint was simple: according to them, Ma would be deceiving its clientele with the disclosure of OLED Display iPhones (at the time, only iPhones X, XS and XS Max); device panels would not, according to consumers, have the usable area and number of pixels that would be expected due to the rounded edges and notch (clipping).
Well, apparently the court didn't buy much from the consumers' speech. According to Law360Judge Haywood Gilliam, who is responsible for the case, said that "there seems to be no one in the United States who is worried about this," referring to the missing pixels in the cutout and rounded edges of iPhones.
The judge added that the complaints are unfounded, considering that Apple notes, in the box and product disclosure, that the inch count of the devices is based on the apparent diagonal of the panels, and not the exact measurement of the screens. The lawyer representing Ma in the case, Tiffany Cheung (Morrison & Foerster LLP), added that the consumers of the action cannot claim that Apple "counts the iPhone subpixels wrong", since the company does not even count those subpixels on the iPhone. appliance marketing.
Even so, the case is not over yet: lawyers representing consumers have said that Apple should include in the iPhones release that the pixel count does not represent “the real pixels” of the devices. Judge Gilliam has stated that taking the argument into consideration, and more news about the imbroglio should be coming soon.
Blix
While the novel of pixels does not end, new lawsuits reach Cupertino's legal department. One of them comes from the developer. Ben volach, co-founder of the software company Blix; he said Apple stole an app feature Bluemail to build functionality “Sign in with Apple” (“Sign in with Apple”).
The epicenter of the question lies in the appeal. Share Email from 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.
The "Login with Apple" It's part of the same idea, allowing users to log in to sites and services with their Ma accounts through a process that makes it 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 the Share Mail It's a technique that uses a “reverse list” that links a user to a random public address, creating a sort of fence between their online actions and their personal information without preventing them from being contacted by third parties. O “Sign in with Apple” It has an option, in the same sense, that allows the user to hide his real email address, replacing it with a random generated by the resource.
In action, moved in Delaware District Court, Volach further claims that Apple "hid" BlueMail in App Store searches, citing the article by New York Times exposing the problem after the release 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 to what, according to Volach, also testifies to Ma's fault.
Apple, as usual, did not comment on the case.
Princeps
Apple not only lives from prosecution, however: the Cupertino giant also attacks. Or counterattack, like the case here, in which Ma 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 for claiming that the company infringed one of its patents, which “solves small data entry devices” or, in other words, adapts virtual keyboards for use. with just one hand. IPhones, according to Higginson, would make use of their patent on their keyboards.
Now Apple has countered with another action, claiming that the technology execution on iPhones is different from that described in the patent, with the adoption of control keys different from those cited by Higginson. In addition, Ma notes that the inventor made changes to the registration after an initial refusal of the US Patent and Trademark Office, which would be key to Ma's innocence.
In the new action, moved in Northern California District CourtApple claims the legal costs of the lawsuit and a proactive statement that it is not infringing the patent.
University of Wisconsin
Finally, a small victory for Apple involving the imbroglio with the University of Wisconsin who, four years ago, sued the company accusing her of violating her patents in the manufacture of "A" series chips, iPhones and iPads.
Image: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/apple-iphone-privacy-security-park-interview-federighi-a8925291.html
"data-medium-file =" https://.uol/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/27-Secure-Enclave-600×388.jpg "data-large-file =" https: / /.uol.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/27-Secure-Enclave-1260×814.jpg "src =" https://.uol.br/wp-content/uploads/ 2019/05/27-Secure-Enclave-1260×814.jpg "alt =" Apple Secure Enclave Chip "class =" wp-image-666912 "srcset =" https://.uol.br/wp- content / uploads / 2019/05/27-Secure-Enclave-1260×814.jpg 1260w, https://.uol/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/27-Secure-Enclave-300×194.jpg 300w, https://.uol/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/27-Secure-Enclave-600×388.jpg 600w, https://.uol/wp-content /uploads/2019/05/27-Secure-Enclave.jpg 1368w "sizes =" (max-width: 1260px) 100vw, 1260px "/>Secure Enclave | Image: Apple
If you are following the case, the institution initially won the lawsuit, forcing Apple to pay $ 234 million University. Subsequently, however, Ma appealed the decision, pointing out errors in the judgment, and succeeded in overturning the previous ruling in the Supreme Court, free of payment.
In the recent news, brought by the Reuters, the University tried to appeal the last decision of the Supreme Court, but its claim was annulled. With that, we come to the probable end of the story, with no nudity for Apple.
via AppleInsider: 1, 2; Apple World Today, MacRumors
