litigation

Samsung sues Australian patent office to force judicial review of Apple patents

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/08/samsung-australian-judicial-review/

Image

Samsung has sued the Australian patent commissioner to seek judicial review of four patents granted to Apple in the country. It alleges that Cupertino’s innovations patents, the legal equivalent of calling shotgun on new tech, weren’t withdrawn by the commission when the full ones were awarded. If the Korean company is successful, the four patents will be declared invalid since they were improperly granted — keeping them out of the barrage of litigation that surrounds the Galaxy Tab 10.1. A directions hearing is scheduled for June 25th, where Judge Annabelle Bennett will decide if Apple will lose out due to the error.

[Thanks, James]

Samsung sues Australian patent office to force judicial review of Apple patents originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 08 Jun 2012 05:41:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink ZDNet  |  sourceITNews  | Email this | Comments

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, June 8th, 2012 news No Comments

Samsung sues Australian patent office to force judicial review of Apple patents

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/08/samsung-australian-judicial-review/

Image

Samsung has sued the Australian patent commissioner to seek judicial review of four patents granted to Apple in the country. It alleges that Cupertino’s innovations patents, the legal equivalent of calling shotgun on new tech, weren’t withdrawn by the commission when the full ones were awarded. If the Korean company is successful, the four patents will be declared invalid since they were improperly granted — keeping them out of the barrage of litigation that surrounds the Galaxy Tab 10.1. A directions hearing is scheduled for June 25th, where Judge Annabelle Bennett will decide if Apple will lose out due to the error.

[Thanks, James]

Samsung sues Australian patent office to force judicial review of Apple patents originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 08 Jun 2012 05:41:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink ZDNet  |  sourceITNews  | Email this | Comments

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, June 8th, 2012 news No Comments

A Truly Embarrassing Chart For Wall Street Stock Analysts

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/this-chart-shows-why-wall-street-stock-ratings-are-a-joke-2012-2


Only five percent of ratings on companies in the S&P 500 are sell ratings.

That’s right: 95 percent of ratings tell investors to hold or buy and only 5 percent say you should sell.

The following chart comes from FactSet via Cullen Roche:

chart

Henry Blodget recently offered a few reasons why you rarely see sell ratings:

  • Most stocks–especially growth stocks–generally trend up over the long haul, so saying SELL often means betting against the odds and/or making a short-term timing call.
  • Stocks with excellent fundamentals don’t often go down just because they’re “expensive”–instead, they just get more expensive. So saying “SELL” based solely on valuation often sets the analyst up to be wrong.
  • The lack of SELL ratings makes SELL ratings sound like a complete condemnation of the company, to the point where it seems the analyst has a vendetta against it. The more polite way to tell people to sell, most folks on Wall Street whisper, is to say “hold”–or just ignore the stock altogether.
  • The issuance of a SELL rating often drives a stock down, hurting investors who own it. These investors will not usually say “thank you.” Instead, they’ll want your head.
  • Most investors are long-only, meaning they can only buy stocks, not short them. Thus, “SELL” ratings are only useful to hedge funds and investors who already own stocks.
  • Most companies refuse to talk to analysts who hit them with SELL ratings, thus reducing the analyst’s ability to gather information about the company.

Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 news No Comments

Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/Jp9ZubAuXTE/dude-drops-his-kindle-2-convinces-amazon-to-replace-it-and-pay-him-200-for-his-troubles

Behold, the power of a scary-sounding letter from a lawyer! Paul dropped his Kindle 2 and it broke. Amazon wanted $200 to replace it. Instead, they replaced it and gave him an additional $200. Damn, son!

Seriously, how badass is this letter he sent to Amazon?

Paul Gowder
[Address omitted]

August 12, 2009

Amazon.com Inc.
Legal Department
1200 12th Avenue South
Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98144-2734

Dear Sir or Madam:

On June 21, 2009, I purchased an Kindle 2 e-book reader from the Amazon.com website. I purchased this device based, in substantial part, on the expectation that it would be reasonably durable. In particular, I expected that it would be approximately as durable as is ordinary in the consumer electronics market.

Amazon.com advertises the Kindle 2 on the basis of its durability. Notably, Amazon.com displays a “drop test” video on the web page for this product. That video displays the device being dropped twice from thirty inches onto what appears to be tile. That video displays a fall with sufficient force that the device visibly bounces, and deliberately creates the impression that the device will function after impacts similar to that sequence of drops.

Despite those representations, the Kindle 2 is far less durable. On July 26, 2009, I dropped a messenger bag containing the device onto the sidewalk, from approximately two feet above the ground. It was dropped only once, and the messenger bag absorbed enough of the shock that nothing else in the bag, including a Macbook laptop, suffered an! y damage whatsoever. (Unlike the drop displayed in Amazon.com’s video, for example, nothing actually bounced.) Moreover, there was no visible damage on the exterior of the Kindle 2. Nonetheless, the Kindle 2 became completely unusable, with over 50% of its screen no longer able to display any text.

I called Amazon.com support and was told that, because of the accidental drop, you would not be willing to supply a replacement device under warranty. You did, however, offer to sell a new device at a discount, for $200.00. I took advantage of that offer under protest, and explicitly reserved my rights to bring a claim against you based on the unreasonable fragility of the device and the misrepresentations in your advertising. It is that claim that forms the subject of this letter.

I am prepared to offer an immediate settlement of my claims against Amazon.com for a payment of $400.00. That sum represents the $200.00 replacement fee I paid plus $200.00 to compensate me for the diminution of utility and value of the device as well as of the e-books I have purchased for that device, in light of the fact that the replacement device, too, can be expected to be far more fragile than advertised and prone to destruction under the slightest stress. This offer expires thirty days from your receipt of this letter. If you do not accept this offer, I intend to bring suit either individually, or, if I decide it is warranted, as representative for a class of similarly situated plaintiffs. At that time, I will seek the amount noted above, plus punitive damages under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civil Code §1750 et. seq., costs, fees, and such other monetary damages as provided for by law, including without limitation Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et. seq., the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, and other relevant law.

Also, you have demanded the return of the broken device as a condition to the unreasonable discounted replacement offer which I accept! ed under protest. Your agent has informed me that you will charge my credit card for the full price if the broken device is not returned to you. I am considering seeking a protective order placing that device in the custody of the Court pending litigation. However, should I instead return the device, you are hereby notified that it is evidence in the anticipated litigation to which this letter refers. Should you modify, destroy, or resell the broken device, I will ask the Court to treat that as deliberate spoliation of evidence and make adverse inferences as appropriate.

Very truly yours,

Paul Gowder

And here’s Amazon’s response:
Pretty awesome. Just goes to show that if you put your somewhat-unreasonable request in an official-looking form and also threaten to sue, big companies will be happy to toss a token amount of money your way to make you go away. [Consumerist]


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, October 20th, 2009 digital No Comments

Dr. Augustine Fou is Digital Consigliere to marketing executives, advising them on digital strategy and Unified Marketing(tm). Dr Fou has over 17 years of in-the-trenches, hands-on experience, which enables him to provide objective, in-depth assessments of their current marketing programs and recommendations for improving business impact and ROI using digital insights.

Augustine Fou portrait
http://twitter.com/acfou
Send Tips: tips@go-digital.net
Digital Strategy Consulting
Dr. Augustine Fou LinkedIn Bio
Digital Marketing Slideshares
The Grand Unified Theory of Marketing