After being on the run for three weeks, John McAfee was arrested on Wednesday by Guatemalan police, who said they would seek to expel the antivirus founder to Belize. McAfee had been identified as "a person of interest" in the murder of Gregory Faull, an American expatriate who was shot to death in his home in San Pedro Town on the island of Ambergris Caye. The two men and former neighbors had a history of arguing over various issues, including the time Fauli filed a complaint against McAfee for firing off guns and exhibiting "roguish behavior." The last known dispute they had was over dogs.
Imagine if you woke up tomorrow and every online store and brick-and-mortar retail shop was barred from selling Samsung Galaxy S III and Apple iPhone 5 devices. Do you turn to the Galaxy Note as well? That's barred too. In fact, you can't even buy a Jelly Bean device in this made-up scenario, because it infringes on Apple's patents. None of this has happened, mind you, but it could in a worst case scenario now that everything mentioned has been added to an ongoing lawsuit between Apple and Samsung.
Unlike in the US, Apple was handed a resounding defeat during its legal truffle with Samsung in the UK. Unfortunately for Apple however, the judge did a bit more than throw the case out. Judge Robin Jacob ordered the company to publically apologize to Samsung on the front page of its website, and gave them a tight timeline to comply. How did Apple respond? First they posted a halfhearted apology, then when the judge ordered them to try again, they used a bit of web trickery to hide the proper apology, regardless of browser type or resolution. The judge as you could imagine, was not impressed.
A U.K. judge took a verbal bite out of Apple for a court-ordered statement that appeared on its overseas website. In a previous ruling in the U.K. -- one that was held up in appeal -- Apple was ordered to take out newspaper ads and post a month-long message on its website clarifying that Samsung didn't infringe on any of its patents. Apple made good on that promise in a short, two-sentence paragraph, but then added four additional paragraphs condemning Samsung, including a lengthy court quote that described Samsung devices being "not as cool" as Apple devices.
Kristy Ross, suspected ringleader of a "scareware" scam that tricked over a million consumers into buying software to remove malware detected by fake antivirus scans, has been ordered to pay more than $163 million in damages, the Federal Trade Commission announced. The court also permanently barred Ms. Ross from selling security software of any kind, as well as any software that might interfere with a consumer's computer use or engage in any from of deceptive marketing.
Just because Apple scored a sweeping victory against Samsung in its patent trial in the U.S., which led to the nine panel jury awarding the Cupertino company more than a billion dollars in damages, it doesn't mean the whole matter of Android versus iOS is settled. Far from it, in fact. Days before the verdict was reached, Google's recently acquired Motorola Mobility division filed a patent suit of its own against Apple, one in which it will try to ban Apple imports in the U.S. Interestingly, Apple appears willing to go to trial, especially with the Samsung case under its belt, but in Germany, the company caved and reached a licensing deal with Motorola.
The high profile trial between Apple and Samsung in the U.S. has yet to be decided, but in a South Korean court, a three-judge panel ruled that both firms are infringing on each other. Both were awarded damages, and hit with sales bans to infringing smartphones and tablets, although not any of the newer devices, including the iPhone 4S, iPad, or Samsung Galaxy S III.
U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh can hardly contain her frustration with Apple and Samsung over their court room shenanigans, first by snapping at the latter for leaking disallowed evidence to the public, and now to the former for submitting a long witness list. Koh suggested Apple's attorneys were "smoking crack" if they thought they could summon nearly two dozen rebuttal witnesses in the waning hours of litigation.
Privacy advocates aren't going to like this one, but a 2-1 ruling in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has given law enforcement officials the legal right to track suspects by cell phone in real-time without first obtaining a warrant. The ruling revolves around a case in which Melvin Skinner, a convicted drug trafficker, sought to have his charges dismissed on the basis that his arrest ran afoul of the Fourth Amendment.
It's another day, and the way things have been going lately, that usually means another development in the patent trial between Apple and Samsung. Today is no exception, though if the presiding judge gets her wish, all this nonsense will come to an end, and not by way of a jury verdict. Instead, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh urged both companies to get on the horn one more time to see if they can come up with a settlement agreement.