Maximum PC court RSS Feed

Movie Studios Sue an ISP and Seek to Disconnect Users Over BitTorrent Piracy

Justin Kerr — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:43:15 -0600

Seven of Hollywood’s most powerful studios which include Paramount, Sony, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal, Warner Bros and Disney are working together to sue an Australian ISP and set a very scary precedent. iiNet, Australia’s third largest internet service provider has been largely credited with rolling out true broadband speeds to residents. Current connection speeds range anywhere from 1.5 to a not so shabby 24 Mbit/s. With all this speed however comes abuse, and allegedly a handful of its users have turned to torrents to saturate these beefy connections with copyright protected video. According to the movie studios represented by AFACT (Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft) iiNet is “failing to take reasonable steps, including enforcing its own terms and conditions, to prevent known unauthorized use of copies of the companies films and TV programs”.

Adrianne Pecotic, Executive Director of AFACT claims that they were forced to take action against iiNet seeing as they weren’t pursuing the issue aggressively enough. The studios are demanding that iiNet disconnect known infringers, an action the ISP has so far refused to do. According to an iiNet spokesman, “Our view is pretty straightforward. We don’t condone or support piracy in any form, and people who choose to pirate content should face the force of the law. This is an industry issue, and we’ve been talking with the IIA, and we’ll work with them in terms of handling it.”

iiNet’s CEO Michael Malone strongly disputes AFACT’s claims saying they have merely refused to disconnect users on the basis of an outside allegation. “We can’t go and kick the customer off on the basis of an allegation from someone else’.” The lawsuit was filed in Australia’s Federal Court on November 20th with the first hearings to being within 30 days. A finding in favor of the AFACT will only further empower the studios and might spark future lawsuits abroad.

So has Hollywood crossed the line? Hit the jump and sound off.

Classmates.com Sued by Unpopular Man

Paul Lilly — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:19:07 -0600

Classmates.com user Anthony Michaels must have felt like he really left an impression on his former friends from school. After all, the social network service was emailing Michaels to let him know his past acquaintances were viewing his profile and trying to get in touch in with him, only he'd need to upgrade his membership to find out who and to be able to email these individuals. Fair enough, he thought, but after dropping $15 on a Gold Membership, Michaels claims the whole thing was a scam and in fact no one from his past was either viewing his profile or trying to contact him.

"Upon logging into his Gold Membership profile in order to view the classmate contacts … Plaintiff discovered that in fact, no former classmate of his had tried to contact him or view his profile," the complaint reads. "Of those www.classmates.com users who were characterized ... as members who viewed Plaintiff's profile, none were former classmates of Plaintiff or persons familiar with or known to Plaintiff for that matter."

Sad for Michaels? Yes. But did Classmates.com break any laws? Several, according to the San Diego resident's lawsuit, in which Classmates.com is being accused of intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, fraudulent concealment, and violation of California business and professions code. Not to mention being a meanie head.

The suit alleges that there are hundreds of thousands of users just like Michaels who have been tricked into purchasing a membership to Classmates.com. The lawsuit asks the court to both refund millions in subscription feesand fine the company for its alleged deceptive advertising.

Does this lawsuit have merit? Hit the jump and post your thoughts.

Male Enhancement Spam Ring Dysfunctional after FTC Bust

Paul Lilly — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:58:19 -0500

We're not so naive to think that male enhancement, weight-loss, and prescription medication solicitations will stop infiltrating our inbox and filling up our spam queue, but perhaps after the Federal Trade Commission's latest bust they'll be a little less frequent. The FTC said on Tuesday it had shut down one of the largest global spam networks allegedly responsible for sending billions of unsolicited emails.

The FTC received some 3 million complaints in connection with spam tied to the HerbalKing operation, which is said to have operated in the United States, China, New Zealand, and other nations. According to the FTC, HerbalKing received $400,000 in Visa credit car charges in a single month, leading a U.S. District Court to freeze the various defendants' assets.

As is typical of spam rings, HerbalKing utilized botnets to mass-mail recipients. Mega-D, believed to be the group's largest botnet, was responsible for 35,000 zombie PCs capable of sending out a whopping 10 billion email solicitations per day. But the list of infractions goes well beyond violating the Can-Spam Act of 2003. The FTC accuses HerbalKing of unlawful operation of a pharmacy, making false claims regarding the safety of herbal products containing potentially harmful ingredients, selling medication without proof of a prescription, and more.

Is Microsoft's New Windows Campaign Violating Trademarks?

Paul Lilly — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:45:36 -0500

Startup company G.ho.st is crying foul over Microsoft's new ad campaign, but not because the commercials suck. Instead, the company claims Microsoft's ads violate the startup's trademark, specifically the phrases "life without walls," "imagine without walls," and "imagine no walls." G.ho.st. CEO Zvi Schreiber has sent a letter to Steve Ballmer requesting that the phrases in question be removed from Microsoft's product lineup, website, marketing materials, and anywhere else the software giant might be using them.

Michael Marinello, a Microsoft spokesman, did acknowledge that Microsoft had received the letter, but said in an email "the allegation is without merit." Not so says Schreiber, who claims that G.ho.st has been using the phrase "no walls" in conjunction with its G.ho.st Virtual Computer software, which Schreiber describes as an alternative to Windows.

Going for the gusto, Schreiber not only wants Microsoft to stop using the above mentioned phrases, but wants Microsoft to amend existing ads clarifying that it has not licensed G.ho.st's technology or trademark, as well as mentioning that they do not use the same "features or benefits of the G.ho.st Virtual Computer." All this on top of wanting Steve Ballmer and Co. to negotiate a "good faith" license for past use.

Ready for the kicker? Not only does G.ho.st not yet officially own the allegedly trademarked phrases, but according to PC World, the company filed an application for the trademarks on the same day it sent Microsoft the ceast and desist letter.

Nvidia Settles Price Fixing Case for $1.7 Million

Paul Lilly — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:55:11 -0500

Less than two months ago, a class action lawsuit was filed in a Califorina court against AMD/ATI and Nvidia alleging that the two had "conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices of graphics processing chips and cards." Giving the allegation widespread media attention, news and review site TomsHardware managed to obtain a handful of legal documents for the filing, including a few interesting email exchanges among ATI's and Nvidia's top brass.

According to reports, Nvidia has now offered a settlement agreement to the tune of $1.7 million. As outlined, the agreement would have Nvidia and AMD/ATI splitting the total fund, with each company paying $850,000. Not yet a done deal, there aren't any reports of AMD/ATI confirming the settlement agreement, and as detailed in the 8-K form that was filed on September 24, the agreement would still be "subject to court approval."

If it does go through, the money will go to the certified class who brought about the suit, which can include anyone who purchased a graphics card direct from Nvidia or ATI in the U.S. between December 4, 2002 and November 7, 2007.

Do you find this resolution fair?

Oh Snap: Former Intel Employee Accused of Stealing Secrets to Sell to AMD

Paul Lilly — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:14:57 -0500

Forget about overpriced tickets to the big screen, you can get your fill of drama just by following the tech news. In what could pass as a Hollywood script, ex-Intel engineer Biswamohan Pani has been accused by the FBI of stealing trade secrets from Intel while working for AMD incognito.

According to an affidavit by FBI special agent Timothy Russell, the alleged storyline goes like this: Pani, playing the part of double-agent, informs Intel officials in May of his intention to resign so he can go work for a hedge fund and would utilize accrued vacation time until June 11, which would be his final official day. Here's where the plot twist comes in. There is no hedge fund, and Pani instead begins working for AMD on June 2. With time still left on the table at Intel, the suspected double-agent accesses and downloads 13 secret documents from an encrypted system.

Of course, movie scripts can never be so cut and dry, and so in this feature, Pani no longer works for AMD and denies any wrongdoing, even after a July 1 search of his home turns up eight Intel documents classified as confidential, secret, or the mother of them all, top secret.

Wondering how it ends? So are we. Stay tuned as this one plays out in real life.

Shareholders File Class-Action Lawsuit Against Nvidia

Paul Lilly — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:20:52 -0500

It looks as though 8M-series notebook owners aren't the only ones feeling slighted by Nvidia, who in the past several month has taken a PR hit due to an "abnormal failure rate" in what the company still claims is a limited batch of notebook GPUs. Media reports have questioned exactly how limited the problem remains, and there's even speculation that the faulty parts may apply to both the newer 9M-series of GPUs and desktop parts as well.

Now Nvidia must fight a new battle, this one in court. The graphics company has been hit with a securities fraud class action lawsuit, which covers all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Nvidia between November 8, 2007, and July 2, 2008.

The complaint alleges Nvidia violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, accusing the company of making a series of misrepresentations and omissions that actively concealed and failed to disclose the unusually high failure rates of its mobile GPUs, along with the impact the supposed defects would have on Nvidia's financial condition. Nvidia in July announced it would take a one-time hit of $150 to $200 million to cover warranty and repair costs associated with the failures, and the company's stock tumbled downwards in after-hours trading following the announcement.

Does the lawsuit have merit?

AMD & Nvidia Face Lawsuit For Price Fixing

Justin Kerr — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 21:42:13 -0500

It’s not unusual for tech companies to find themselves in legal hot water with governments, or their competitors. But this time AMD & Nvidia will face off in courts against we the consumers. AMD & Nvidia have been cited in a class action lawsuit filed in a California court alleging both companies of conspiring to commit price fixing. The plaintiffs identified as Jordan Walker and Michael Bensingor have named themselves, and anyone else who has ever been a customer of either company as the injured parties. According to the filing; "The Named Plaintiffs allege that, in violation of the federal antitrust laws, Nvidia and ATI conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices of graphics processing chips and cards. The Named Plaintiffs also contend that Defendants unlawfully colluded to coordinate new product introductions." Further developments have been uncovered by Tom’s Hardware which was able to obtain legal documents as well as detailed email exchanges between the two GPU giants. Careful review of the emails doesn’t show any silver bullet, at least not to a layman. But in what is arguable a duopoly enviornment, it doesn’t take much to prove anti competitive behavior to the courts. The lawsuit seeks triple damages, legal fees, and any other incurred costs.

AMD & Nvidia customers who don’t wish to be represented in the lawsuit can opt out. Hit the jump to find out how.