‘case’ Tagged Posts

Russian court turns down appeal from Google in anti-monopoly case

Moscow (Reuters) - A Russian court yesterday rejected an appeal against Google in an anti-monopoly case preinstalled apps on mobile devices with th...

 

Russian court turns down appeal from Google in anti-monopoly case

Moscow (Reuters) – A Russian court yesterday rejected an appeal against Google in an anti-monopoly case preinstalled apps on mobile devices with the Android operating system, reported Interfax news agency

Earlier, Russia’s anti-monopoly watchdog FAS imposed 438000000 rubles ($ 6.83 million) fine on Google after ruling that the company has violated Russian anti-monopoly rules.

(Reporting by Alexander Wen, writing by Denis Pinchuk)

Cisco ordered to pay $70 million in civil fraud patent case

 

Cisco ordered to pay  million in civil fraud patent case

Cisco Systems, Inc. will provide $ 70 million in damages payable to the patentee licensor Xpert Universe Inc. for fraudulently obtaining the technology developed by the company in New York, a jury found Friday, according to court documents.

The jury also found that two patents Cisco Xpert Universe violated and awarded an additional $ 34,000 in damage to these claims.

Cisco, the world’s largest maker of networking equipment, said he would appeal if the court has no influence on the jury verdict.

“We are surprised and very disappointed with the verdict of the jury,” Cisco said in a statement emailed after the verdict was rendered by a federal court in Delaware.

Xpert Universe

according to the lawsuit San Jose, California, Cisco “Expert on Demand” software platform was developed based on a software Xpert Universe.

Xpert Universe

Cisco said violated an agreement not to disclose that he had signed and filed patents on the technology developed by Xpert Universe. He said that the companies have entered into a relationship in which Cisco distributes the technology was developed with experts Xpert Universe effectively responds to the call centers.

Xpert Universe

said that the companies have signed non-disclosure agreement before he showed Cisco “all aspects of intellectual property.”

Cisco Xpert Universe approached in 2004 and the companies worked together until 2007, when Cisco is the link Xpert Universe said in his trial.

The following year, Cisco announced that he “Expert on Demand” launching. Xpert Universe filed its complaint in 2009.

a court filing this week, Cisco, said U.S. District Judge Richard Andrews in Wilmington, that “there is no evidence from which the jury could find in favor of XU on his fraudulent concealment or patent applications.”

Xpert Universe Stroock & Stroock lawyer Charles Cantine & Lavan LLP of said the company was “very happy” with the ruling.

The Case of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware Xpert Universe Inc. vs. Cisco Systems Inc., 09-157.

Einhorn case against Apple rests on unusual legal tactic

 

Einhorn case against Apple rests on unusual legal tactic

Hedge Fund Star of David Einhorn would force Apple Inc. to be a part of their huge cash reserves with investors to share, but his trial was based on a U.S. securities rule that there is little jurisprudence.

Einhorn Greenlight Capital sued the manufacturer of the iPad and the iPhone in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan on Thursday to try to get Apple to prevent the elimination of preference shares in the charter. The suit is part of the offer Einhorn pressure on Apple to be a part of its $ 137 billion in cash to be used for perpetual preferred shares to the existing shareholders that dividends payable to spend.

The Crown argued

Apple violated the Securities and Exchange Commission rules that prohibit companies from “clustering” of unrelated subjects in a proposal for a shareholder vote.

setting that Apple has violated the rules can be tricky. Little or no case law exists on the issue and own SEC rule is relatively little general guidance, legal experts said.

Still, James Cox, a professor at Duke University School of Law, Einhorn thinks “is a hell of a good deal.”

“I think the Apple in sight,” he added, saying it “seems to be a case quite dramatic consolidation.”

The hedge fund manager for a ban on a vote of the shareholders on 27 February to block the proposal, saying Apple violated Article 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. arguments must be heard U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan on 22 February. Apple until February 15 to file a response with the court.

proxy proposal, Proposition No. 2 is intended to amend the articles of the three Apple ways: by providing a majority of the directors, establishing a nominal value of stock of Apple and the elimination of the possibility to issue preference shares <. / P> Einhorn is represented by the firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & lawyers Feld, Greenlight prolonged outside counsel. No lawyer Apple is not the role of the judge and a representative would not tell what to represent in the case of Apple.

On Friday, the California Public Employees Retirement System, the largest U.S. public pension fund and owns 2,700,000 shares of Apple, and the most influential proxy voting permanent ISS Proxy Advisory services repeatedly urged investors to vote in the benefit of the shareholder proposal in question.

“All shareholders should have the right to vote,” Anne Simpson, CalPERS Senior Portfolio Manager and Director of Corporate Governance said on CNBC. “We do not want the board to do a deal on the side with a hedge fund for fear of a lawsuit that the annual meeting will cancel.

” This is a major problem that must be carefully considered and We want the council to come to all shareholders and give them a chance to make their voices heard.

ISS, which makes recommendations on how shareholders should vote on the proposed proxy, usually believes the “clustering” of the proposals was not in the best interest of the shareholders, but supported the removal of the “blank check “preference shares because of their potential to be misused as a takeover defense.

“While many investors saw Apple cash as excessive and I wanted more of her return for shareholders to see, this view can not be universal: investors may prefer other money (or at least most of it) was used for investments and acquisitions, “said in a statement Friday.

APPLE HOW TO RESPOND?

It is not clear how Apple will respond to its official response to these lawsuits. On Thursday, Apple said Einhorn trial was incorrect and that the approval of Proposal No. 2 would not prevent the issuance of preference shares in the future.

“At this time, Apple statutes provide for the issuance of preferred shares” blank check “by the board of directors without shareholder approval,” said Apple. “If the proposal # 2 is adopted, our shareholders have the right to the issue of preference shares to approve.”

Einhorn, a famous short seller and the Apple gadget fan, said in an interview with CNBC now housed a “depression” mentality that led to the treasury cash and only invest in safer, lower interest rates.

Apple almost went bankrupt in the 1990s before Steve Jobs returned and created a sensational turnaround, with products like the iPhone and iPad has become a must for consumers around the world. Near-death experience, the company has led Apple to be particularly conservative with his money.

Greenlight

said in its complaint that two proposals support, but do not get rid of the preference shares. Judge Einhorn preference shares superior to dividends or share buybacks and a separate proposal for issuance of preference shares of Apple with a constant 4 percent dividend.

But Apple proxy proposal is structured, Greenlight said shareholders “no other choice than two votes in favor of an amendment that they oppose, or against an amendment they support.”

Few prosecutions

was never submitted proposals difficult in the rules, a situation that some legal experts normally attributed to the nature of passive shareholders.

“In most cases you will not have much to complain consolidation to get,” said Brian Slipakoff, special advisor to the firm Duane Morris in Philadelphia.

In a trial a few partners, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in 1999 approved an implicit claim of the shareholder litigation alleging violations of the anti-group.

This precedent would

Einhorn store in the legal status of the case to court. The decision of the Court of Appeal was quoted by Greenlight in court documents filed Thursday added.

Francis Vasquez, an attorney with the law firm White & Case is not involved in the case, said that Apple could argue that because shareholder proposals in the proposal are two changes to the charter, they are well connected.

The Californian company has five proposals for a vote which is not disputed by Einhorn and requires no modification of the Statutes of Apple. These measures focus on issues such as the election of directors and executive compensation.

“first argument Apple will probably be:” Look, these are all the amendments that we have in place, they do not have to deal with other things, “said Vasquez.

date anti-consolidation rules in 1992 . John Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School, said the idea was “to prevent corrupt directions shareholders with a sweetener to vote for a proposal they would otherwise reject. “

case Greenlight Capital LP, et al. V. Apple Inc, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 13-900.

Google wins landmark advertising case in Australia

 

Google wins landmark advertising case in Australia

Google Inc. won a landmark court case on Wednesday when the High Court of Australia held that there was no fraudulent intent with sponsored links and he was not responsible for the messages conveyed by the paid advertisers.

The decision allows Internet providers and search engines claim that they are not publishers, but simply information provided by third parties.

Although the ruling only applies in Australia, the decision will be closely monitored over the world and can be cited as a precedent in the case of similar cases occur in the rapidly developing area of ​​law.

“Others will definitely look into this decision. Google is a global company. This is something of a first, and it adds a bit of clarity for the industry,” the head of the Australian Association of the Internet industry, Peter Lee told Reuters.

The conclusion ends a six-year battle between Google and legal watchdog for consumers in Australia, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has accused Google of the exercise of misleading conduct on the paid listings.

ACCC bases his argument on the results of the survey in 2006 and 2007, where a search for Honda Australia show a paid advertisement for a competitor Honda Carsales. The ACCC said the ads were misleading because they suggested was due to Carsales Honda Motor Co. Ltd.

Google argued that it is not responsible for the advertising, that don “was the lead for the advertiser.

In a unanimous conclusion, five judges of the High Court of Australia ruled in favor of Google, reversing a decision of the Federal Court. The lower court had ordered Google to perform a compliance program to ensure that the paid listings on its search engine, not misleading.

five judges of the High Court declared that Google is not the PPC made and the company was not liable for messages in the links.

“User ordinary and reasonable search engine Google would have understood that the ideas conveyed by the sponsored links are those of advertisers, and would not have concluded that Google has adopted or endorsed performance,” said the court said.

Google released a short statement that he welcomed the decision, while the ACCC said it would reconsider the decision to see if it had wider ramifications for the rights of consumers Australia.

“The ACCC has adopted these procedures to the law on advertising practices in the Internet age to clarify,” ACCC chairman Rod Sims said in a statement.

legal victory comes after Google and language software maker Rosetta Stone Inc. last year settled a trademark infringement lawsuit in the United States on the advertising practices of Google.

Rosetta had suggested people looking for their products on Google focused on competitors and counterfeiters software.

Google has changed the way the sponsored links are displayed in Australia, now clearly labeled as advertising at the top of search results.

A Google search for Honda Australia posted on Wednesday, paid ads for Honda Australia website.