Logitech in hot water for stealing iPad Joystick design
Engadget is reporting that Logitech is going all-in on the iDevice accessories market. The latest release is an iPad joystick that looked…familiar.
Logitech is not only copying the exact design of Ten One Design’s Fling Joystick, in many cases, they’re copying the marketing images used to sell the product.
Which, of course, led me to wonder if maybe Logitech had simply purchased the rights to re-brand the Fling? Perhaps Logitech bought Ten One Design, outright?
Ten One Design’s Ashley Skinner responded to my questions and — apparently not:
Thanks for writing in. We are working with our legal team on an official response, but until that is prepared, we’re unable to comment.
I can’t see a scenario in which Logitech gets away with this, but it looks like, at least, they’re going to have to try.
Cell Phones and Cancer
CNN, reporting a finding by the World Health Organization:
Radiation from cell phones can possibly cause cancer, according to the World Health Organization. The agency now lists mobile phone use in the same “carcinogenic hazard” category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform.
Daring Fireball’s John Gruber:
I think it’s quite possible that this issue could be the single greatest long-term threat to Apple. I’d hate to see today’s handset makers turn into yesterday’s tobacco companies.
Gruber has since updated his post, but his initial thought seems to be along the lines of my initial thought: Here come the lawsuits.
With that said, there really aren’t very many similarities between the tobacco companies then and cell phone manufacturers now, from a legal perspective. I happen to know more about lawsuits against tobacco companies than most — but because I value my job, I won’t be going into any real detail. I think I can get this out without doing so:
The primary similarities are 1) cancer and 2) a period of time in which the scientific community seems to be divided on whether or not a causative factor can be attributed to a specific product. That’s pretty much it.
The primary differences:
- There’s no evidence that any cell phone manufacturer, let alone Apple, is outright ignoring the threat. Indeed, the CNN report I’ve linked specifically mentions that Apple recommends against holding an iPhone within 5/8 of an inch from your face while it’s in use. RIM’s user manual includes a similar warning. There goes the “failure to warn” claim.
There’s no real evidence of either a public or private coverup of the risks of using a cell phone. No one is on record denying or even downplaying the risks, as far as I’m aware. Is a private coverup possible? Sure. Given the lack of existing scientific knowledge, though, it can’t be a very compelling coverup.EDIT: There has been some effort from lobbying groups — including Apple, apparently — to avoid having to list absorption rates of radiation from cell phones. The argument seems to be that they already comply with FCC regulations and listing absorption rates would imply health risks that the FCC says do not exist. (These efforts will come up in future lawsuits.) The cell phone industry is also saying that there is no “conclusive evidence” that cell phones cause cancer and that remains true today. The WHO report doesn’t seem to say otherwise.- What aspect of cell phone use is analogous to nicotine in cigarettes? This is a big one. There’s no addiction component, let alone any way to claim that a cell phone manufacturer (Apple or otherwise) tampered with the product to make it next to impossible to give up, even when faced with a cancer risk. Does vendor lock-in count as an addiction? Nah. Bye bye, punitive damages.
- Apple provides a headphone/mic combo with every new iPhone, mitigating whatever actual risk there is — if there is any at all — assuming the mic is used.
- There’s no reason Apple or RIM or whoever couldn’t simply innovate the risk away, without harming their bottom line. Even if the risk was undeniable, holding a phone next to your brain certainly isn’t a vital component of a handset, assuming they couldn’t figure out a way to make it “safe” to do so.
And, of course, the update Gruber provides indicates that the scientific evidence still isn’t there to show that cell phone radiation can cause DNA mutation. In fact, there seems to be scientific evidence that it’s not even possible:
All cancers are caused by mutant strands of DNA. Electromagnetic radiation can’t create mutant strands of DNA unless the frequency is at or higher than the blue limit of the visible spectrum the near-ultraviolet. The frequency of cell phone radiation is about 1 million times too low.
That’s not the case with cigarette smoking and hasn’t been for a long time.
Ultimately, the only thing Apple and other cell phone manufacturers should probably do, at this point, is make mention of the WHO report within their safety manuals and perhaps recommend that those with concerns utilize a hands-free headset whenever possible. Addressing the issue rationally is the best bet to head off future litigation.
All of that aside, nothing I’ve said has anything to do with whether or not Plaintiff lawyers are seeing dollar signs. I suspect people with brain cancer and a history of cell phone use will probably be in high demand, very soon. Key piece of evidence? Today’s overly-sensational news headlines.
This report from WHO, though, shouldn’t be compared against the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report, because it’s not anywhere near as strong in its conclusions.
Was Michael Arrington really "smacked around" by a series of joojoo rulings?
John Gruber weighed in on a series of rulings concerning the ongoing TechCrunch v. Fusion Garage (joojoo/CrunchPad) lawsuit:
Mike Arrington gets smacked around in the first round of his lawsuit over the JooJoo/CrunchPad. In short: TechCrunch didn’t get much in writing regarding their “partnership” with Fusion Garage to develop the product, and, well, they should have. Curiously, I’ve seen no coverage of this decision on TechCrunch.
Regarding the last sentence: I find that, generally, the person most willing to write about unresolved litigation matters (or to speak to the press, etc.) is also the party least likely to have much of a case. There’s very, very little to be gained by doing so.
Arrington seems to be a pompous ass, so it’s a bit surprising to me that he’s not live-blogging the entire lawsuit, but the fact that he isn’t may be telling. Beyond that, TechCrunch probably isn’t covering their own lawsuit for the same reason Gizmodo won’t touch the iPhone investigation—their lawyers are likely telling them not to.
As to whether or not Arrington has been smacked around by the ruling:
TechCrunch’s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. Fusion Garage’s motion to strike “extrinsic speaking evidence” is denied. Fusion Garage’s motion to dismiss is denied as to the claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Fusion Garage’s motion to dismiss is granted, without leave to amend, as to the tort claim for misappropriation of business ideas, but without prejudice to any related claim sounding in contract that TechCrunch may be able to plead in good faith. The motion to dismiss is granted, with leave to amend, as to the claims for fraud, violations of the Lanham Act, and violations of California Business & Professions Code §§17200 and 17500. Any amended complaint shall be filed within 20 days of the date of this order.
- TechCrunch lost their motion for a preliminary injunction. (Fusion Garage isn’t selling any joojoos anyway, right? What good would an injunction do?)
- Fusion Garage lost a motion to strike certain evidence.
- Fusion Garage lost a motion to dismiss regarding a breach of fiduciary duty claim.
- Fusion Garage won, without prejudice, a motion to dismiss on a misappropriation of business ideas claim.*
- Fusion Garage won motions to dismiss on a fraud claim and two other charges.*
*Part of the ruling on #4 is that it is without prejudice: TechCrunch can still pursue the misappropriation of business ideas claim with respect to having been involved in an implied contract.
*Part of the ruling on #5 is that TechCrunch can file an amended complaint. This is because TechCrunch alleges that, through discovery, they’ve come into evidence which would prove the fraud claim but that they didn’t have it prior to filing the original motion. The Judge is allowing the motion to be refiled and reconsidered with the new evidence included, so long as it’s filed within 20 days. I suspect it’ll be filed within 2.
In other words, yes, it’s a bit of a mixed bag for TechCrunch but I think it’s more than a little hyperbolic to say that Arrington was smacked around. Both sides took some punches, and the big victories for Fusion Garage (the motions to dismiss) come with significant asterisks and are further tempered by having lost another of their motions to dismiss outright.
I’d rate these rulings: “To be continued…”
Given the dismal sales of the joojoo, though, my prediction is that much of this will turn out to have been posturing. I suspect we’ll eventually see this settled out of court—once Arrington feels his point has been made.
Lawsuit Advances Claiming AT&T iPhone Monopoly
That’s Wired’s headline, of course. What goes unmentioned is that Apple was granted summary judgement on the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth causes of action because, well, the Plaintiffs couldn’t provide evidence to support the claims. This means that Apple won on those claims. Summary judgement means what it sounds like: The judge went ahead and ruled that the Plaintiff’s claims were without merit or couldn’t be backed up by evidence or were refuted by evidence before wasting a jury’s time. Next.
Why is that ignored by Wired? (And Gizmodo and probably every other tech blog who picks up the story?) Because “class action status granted” sounds more ominous. It’s really not, though. It means that the court decided that the claims made by the plaintiffs covered enough people that it would be easiest (or, as the plaintiffs argued, feasible) to just try an entire class under one umbrella, rather than trying each case individually.
Who wins in this scenario? Perhaps Apple. There’s no telling whether this will even ever get to court. Or, it could go to court, and Apple could win outright. By and large, though, large class actions like this, if won by the Plaintiffs, line the pockets of plaintiff attorneys and don’t do much for members of the class. The sheer size of the covered class would definitely sting, if Apple were to lose, that’s certain. At this stage, though, it’s a procedural ruling that has very little to do with the merit of the claims.
There’s probably months of ongoing hearings and rulings and technical hurdles before you even get to the point of trying the case, and then there’s that sticky stuff called evidence, which will have to be weighed by a jury, who may just decide that this is all a bunch of fucking hooey, and wonder why they were asked to sit through weeks of evidence before providing a verdict.
Wake me up when this one gets to trial.
