Apple announces Logic Pro X, available in App Store for $199

Sign up for the Ars Technica Dispatch, which delivers links to the most popular articles, journals, and multimedia features via e-mail to your inbox every week.

I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

View the original article here

Apple asks for stay on ITC ban on iPhone and iPad models pending appeal

Apple has asked the U.S. International Trade Commission to stay a ban on certain iPhone and iPad models pending an appeal.

The ban could come into effect on Aug. 5 after a 60-days review period during which U.S. President Barack Obama can veto the order.

If the orders go into effect, Apple will lose not only sales of its iPhone 4 and iPad 2 3G GSM products but also the opportunity to gain new smartphone and tablet customers who otherwise would have purchased the entry-level Apple devices, it said in a filing Monday to the ITC. The company has appealed the ITC order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Whereas other major handset and tablet manufacturers make and market a large number of new devices each year, Apple’s business model is to typically introduce only one new phone and one new tablet, and at most only a few new phones or tablets in any given year, it added.

The orders “will sweep away an entire segment of Apple’s product offerings,” Apple said. Carriers who use GSM are also likely to be affected in a competitive market, it added in the filing which which was redacted in some parts.

The ITC ruled on June 4 that Apple infringed a Samsung Electronics patent, and passed an “exclusionary order” that would ban the import of AT&T models of the iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 3, iPad 3G and iPad 2 3G.

The ITC found that Samsung did not prove that three other of its patents were violated by Apple. The violating patent covers apparatus and method for encoding and decoding of mobile communications.

As Samsung declared the patent to be standard-essential, it could not reasonably expect to exclude others “from practising its claimed invention,” Apple said in the filing. If the stay is granted and the Commission’s final determination is affirmed on appeal, Samsung can then seek FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) royalties through a patent infringement suit that it has already initiated in the District of Delaware, it added.

Apple noted in its filing that it is not aware of any investigation in which the Commission has stayed enforcement of an exclusion order. The order in the current case differs from those in other investigations because they arise from “a declared-essential patent that the patent owner has promised to license on FRAND terms,” it said.

John Ribeiro covers outsourcing and general technology breaking news from India for The IDG News Service.
More by John Ribeiro, IDG News Service

View the original article here

Apple ends litigation against Amazon.com over its use of 'Appstore'

A lawsuit filed by Apple over Amazon.com's use of the term "Appstore" has ended after Apple decided to withdraw the case.

Apple filed the suit in March 2011, objecting to Amazon's use of "Appstore" for its mobile software developer program and its plans to use the term for its online store of applications for devices using the Android mobile operating system. The Cupertino, California, company claimed among other things that it had common law trademark rights in the "App Store" mark under California law.

Apple issued to Amazon a covenant not to sue and wishes to have the complaint dismissed with prejudice, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said in her order Tuesday. Amazon.com's counterclaim for declaratory relief of non-infringement was also dismissed.

"We're gratified that the court has conclusively dismissed this case," Amazon spokeswoman Mary Osako said via email. "We look forward to continuing our focus on delivering the best possible appstore experience to customers and developers."

Apple could not be immediately reached for comment on its decision to end the case.

One of Apple's arguments in the lawsuit was that as both companies sell through the Internet, and Amazon also offers products from Apple, consumers may be confused when they find Amazon using Apple's mark for a mobile download service.

The term "App Store" figures in a list of service marks on Apple's website. Service marks are used for services, in the manner that trademarks are used for products.

Apple's bid to register the mark in 2008 with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was opposed by Microsoft which claimed that the mark could not be registered as it was generic, the Judge noted when she denied Apple's motion for a preliminary injunction on Amazon.com's use of the term "Appstore" in 2011.

Amazon asserted that the "App Store" mark was generic, and it did not use "Appstore" as a trademark, but simply to tell the customer that the service is an app store, and that it offers apps for Android.

Apple alleged causes of action for the lawsuit were: trademark infringement and dilution under the Lanham Act, common law trademark infringement, dilution under the California Business and Professions Code, unfair competition and false advertising.

John Ribeiro covers outsourcing and general technology breaking news from India for The IDG News Service.
More by John Ribeiro, IDG News Service

View the original article here

Apple ends litigation against Amazon.com over its use of 'Appstore'

A lawsuit filed by Apple over Amazon.com's use of the term "Appstore" has ended after Apple decided to withdraw the case.

Apple filed the suit in March 2011, objecting to Amazon's use of "Appstore" for its mobile software developer program and its plans to use the term for its online store of applications for devices using the Android mobile operating system. The Cupertino, California, company claimed among other things that it had common law trademark rights in the "App Store" mark under California law.

Apple issued to Amazon a covenant not to sue and wishes to have the complaint dismissed with prejudice, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said in her order Tuesday. Amazon.com's counterclaim for declaratory relief of non-infringement was also dismissed.

"We're gratified that the court has conclusively dismissed this case," Amazon spokeswoman Mary Osako said via email. "We look forward to continuing our focus on delivering the best possible appstore experience to customers and developers."

Apple could not be immediately reached for comment on its decision to end the case.

One of Apple's arguments in the lawsuit was that as both companies sell through the Internet, and Amazon also offers products from Apple, consumers may be confused when they find Amazon using Apple's mark for a mobile download service.

The term "App Store" figures in a list of service marks on Apple's website. Service marks are used for services, in the manner that trademarks are used for products.

Apple's bid to register the mark in 2008 with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was opposed by Microsoft which claimed that the mark could not be registered as it was generic, the Judge noted when she denied Apple's motion for a preliminary injunction on Amazon.com's use of the term "Appstore" in 2011.

Amazon asserted that the "App Store" mark was generic, and it did not use "Appstore" as a trademark, but simply to tell the customer that the service is an app store, and that it offers apps for Android.

Apple alleged causes of action for the lawsuit were: trademark infringement and dilution under the Lanham Act, common law trademark infringement, dilution under the California Business and Professions Code, unfair competition and false advertising.

John Ribeiro covers outsourcing and general technology breaking news from India for The IDG News Service. Follow John on Twitter at @Johnribeiro. John's e-mail address is john_ribeiro@idg.com

John Ribeiro covers outsourcing and general technology breaking news from India for The IDG News Service.
More by John Ribeiro, IDG News Service

View the original article here

Apple asks for stay on ITC ban on iPhone and iPad models pending appeal

Apple has asked the U.S. International Trade Commission to stay a ban on certain iPhone and iPad models pending an appeal.

The ban could come into effect on Aug. 5 after a 60-days review period during which U.S. President Barack Obama can veto the order.

If the orders go into effect, Apple will lose not only sales of its iPhone 4 and iPad 2 3G GSM products but also the opportunity to gain new smartphone and tablet customers who otherwise would have purchased the entry-level Apple devices, it said in a filing Monday to the ITC. The company has appealed the ITC order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Whereas other major handset and tablet manufacturers make and market a large number of new devices each year, Apple's business model is to typically introduce only one new phone and one new tablet, and at most only a few new phones or tablets in any given year, it added.

The orders "will sweep away an entire segment of Apple's product offerings," Apple said. Carriers who use GSM are also likely to be affected in a competitive market, it added in the filing which which was redacted in some parts.

The ITC ruled on June 4 that Apple infringed a Samsung Electronics patent, and passed an "exclusionary order" that would ban the import of AT&T models of the iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 3, iPad 3G and iPad 2 3G.

The ITC found that Samsung did not prove that three other of its patents were violated by Apple. The violating patent covers apparatus and method for encoding and decoding of mobile communications.

As Samsung declared the patent to be standard-essential, it could not reasonably expect to exclude others "from practising its claimed invention," Apple said in the filing. If the stay is granted and the Commission's final determination is affirmed on appeal, Samsung can then seek FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) royalties through a patent infringement suit that it has already initiated in the District of Delaware, it added.

Apple noted in its filing that it is not aware of any investigation in which the Commission has stayed enforcement of an exclusion order. The order in the current case differs from those in other investigations because they arise from "a declared-essential patent that the patent owner has promised to license on FRAND terms," it said.

John Ribeiro covers outsourcing and general technology breaking news from India for The IDG News Service. Follow John on Twitter at @Johnribeiro. John's e-mail address is john_ribeiro@idg.com

John Ribeiro covers outsourcing and general technology breaking news from India for The IDG News Service.
More by John Ribeiro, IDG News Service

View the original article here