 |
|

Legal news from Wednesday, January 2, 2013 |
 |
|


Federal judge rejects part of Apple's lawsuit against Amazon
Daniel Mullen on January 2, 2013 4:38 PM ET

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website] on Wednesday dismissed a false advertising claim by Apple against Amazon [corporate websites] over the use of the term "APP STORE" for the Android device software. While Apple claims that Amazon misused [Reuters report] the phrase to solicit developers, Amazon counters that the phrase has become commonplace and that its use is not false advertising. In granting Amazon's partial motion for summary judgment [Bloomberg report], Judge Phyllis Hamilton said that Apple had not shown that Amazon deliberately mislead consumers. Wednesday's ruling applies only to Apple's false advertising claim, and Apple's other claims, including trademark infringement, have not been dismissed. Trial for the remaining claims is scheduled for August.
Apple has also been engaged in litigation with Samsung [corporate website] in courts around the world. According to some commentators [JURIST op-ed], Apple's legal strategy has been an effort to influence the marketplace from the courtroom. Earlier this week a US judge denied [JURIST report] Samsung's request to keep sales data from some of its products sealed in its patent dispute with Apple. In October, a Dutch court ruled [JURIST report] that Samsung did not infringe on an Apple design patent. That same month, a UK court ruled [JURIST report] in favor of Samsung in a design infringement case, and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed an injunction [JURIST report] against Samsung that prevented it from selling its Galaxy Nexus product. In August of 2012, Apple won [JURIST report] a $ 1.05 billion judgment against Samsung for violating Apple's smartphone and tablet technology related patents.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

UN rights office: more than 60,000 killed in Syria conflict
Daniel Mullen on January 2, 2013 3:09 PM ET

[JURIST] A study [press release] carried out by the the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) [official website] has found that more than 60,000 people have been killed in the conflict in Syria since March 2011. According to the report, the average number of deaths per month has increased significantly since the summer of 2011, where the average was approximately 1,000 deaths per month, to an average of 5,000 deaths per month since July 2012. However, the study noted that 60,000 is likely an underestimate and that the actual death toll may be significantly higher. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] stated that "the number of casualties is higher than expected, and is truly shocking." While she cautioned that the figure is not "definitive," she said that the report is the "most detailed and wide-ranging to date." Pillay noted that both sides have committed crimes against humanity and that the sectarian nature of the conflict will make any resolution difficult to achieve. She also called upon the international community to prepare for the "inevitable instability" that will take place once the conflict ends.
The Syrian government has been engaged in a bloody conflict with numerous opposition groups [BBC backgrounder] since March 2011 when nationwide protests opposing the government of President Bashar Assad [JURIST news archive] began. US President Barack Obama [JURIST news archive] has formally recognized [NYT report] the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces as the country's legitimate representative. Last month the UN Commission of Inquiry (COI) [official website] released its latest periodic update [JURIST report] on the conflict, finding persistent violence and human rights abuses and that civilians have "borne the brunt" of the conflict. In October Pillay called on the international community to bring an end to the violence in Syria.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Philippines reproductive health law challenged in Supreme Court
Peter Snyder on January 2, 2013 10:24 AM ET

[JURIST] Opponents of the newly signed Reproductive Health legislation [HB 4244, PDF] petitioned the Supreme Court of the Philippines [official website] on Wednesday to stop implementation of the law, which is set to go into effect by mid-January. The petition for injunction was filed [Philippine Star report] by James Imbong, son of the legal counsel for the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) [official website], one of the groups opposing the new law. In his petition, Imbong claims that least 11 provisions of the legislation violate the Constitution, including Article II Section 12 [text] which maintains that, "the State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution."
The Catholic Church remains an influential institution in the Philippines where 80 percent of the population is Catholic. Last week the Church announced it would challenge the Reproductive Health law, arguing [JURIST report] that it undermines the value of marriage and increases promiscuity. The new law, which had been pending for 13 years, establishes mandatory sex education in schools and government funding for contraceptives and family planning services, and also guarantees all individuals the right to receive reproductive health care information. Philippine President Benigno Aquino [official profile] signed the bill into law on December 21 after both chambers of the parliament approved [JURIST report] it two days earlier.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|