By Ian Sherr and Spencer E. Ante

Proview Electronics Co. has taken its legal battles with Apple Inc. to a U.S. court, claiming the iPhone maker used deception in buying the iPad trademark and shouldn’t be allowed to keep it.

The lawsuit, which was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in Santa Clara County on Feb. 17 but previously unreported, claimed that Apple had committed fraud when it used a company set up by one of its law firms, called IP Application Development Ltd., to purchase the iPad trademark from Proview on Dec. 23, 2009 for 35,000 British pounds ($55,000).

Proview, which included U.S.-based Proview Technology Inc. as a plaintiff in the case, said in its filing that by acquiring the iPad trademark through IP Application Development, and not explaining its true purpose, Apple acted “with oppression, fraud and/or malice.”

An Apple spokeswoman reiterated the company’s claim that it had rightfully purchased the iPad name from Proview, adding “Proview refuses to honor their agreement with Apple in China, and a Hong Kong court has sided with Apple in this matter.” A Proview spokesperson declined to comment.

Part of the reason for the case, people familiar with the matter said, was that during negotiations between the two companies, Apple hadn’t shared enough information about how it planned to acquire the trademark and who approved the purchase.

In emails seen by The Wall Street Journal, a representative purportedly of IP Application Development told Proview that it wanted to acquire the iPad name because it was an abbreviation of its company’s title, and that its future products wouldn’t compete with Proview’s products.

(Originally published Feb 24, 2012, on the Wall Street Journal website.)

By Ian Sherr

What’s in a name like iPad?

Apple Inc. agreed to pay Proview International Holdings Ltd. £35,000 ($55,494 at current exchange rates) for the iPad trademark, according to a cache of documents that includes emails and a contract detailing an agreement between the two companies.

The newly unearthed documents come as Apple has been battling Proview over whether it purchased rights to the iPad name from Proview in 2009—a key issue in a dispute between the companies.

Proview defended its claims to the trademark in China, and suggested on Friday that the company could be due as much as $2 billion from Apple.

A Hong Kong court sided with Apple last year, saying the agreement between Proview and an Apple subsidiary was valid. But a court in mainland China threw out Apple’s case.

Proview, a computer display manufacturer that filed for bankruptcy, claims it has the exclusive rights to the iPad name in China and has sought injunctions against the import or export of Apple’s tablet device. A ban on the iPad’s export from China could have wide-ranging implications for Apple, which relies on manufacturers in the country to make many of the devices it sells around the globe.

Proview earlier this month attempted to bar the sale of iPads within China through a complaint filed with a Shanghai court, alleging that an earlier deal with Apple for the iPad trademark didn’t include the China market.

To read the rest of the story, either contact me directly or read more online at the WSJ: here. (subscription required)

(Originally published Feb 19, 2012, on the Wall Street Journal website.)

By Ian Sherr

SAN FRANCISCO—Apple Inc. has asked a telecommunications standards body to set basic principles governing how member companies license their patents, an increasingly contentious topic for rivals in the smartphone industry.

In a letter to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, Apple said the telecommunications industry lacks consistent licensing schemes for the many patents necessary to make mobile devices, and offered suggestions for setting appropriate royalty rates that all members would follow.

Many mobile technology companies, such as Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., hold patents that became part of industrywide standards. Standards bodies often require the patent holders to offer to license their patents to any company on a basis known as Frand, or fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory. Questions about such commitments have arisen amid a flurry of patent suits between rivals in the mobile-device market.

Apple said in its letter—which was dated Nov. 11 but not previously disclosed—that the lack of clarity on what is fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory has led many companies to ask unusually high rates and sue one another, claiming they infringed on one another’s patents.

“It is apparent that our industry suffers from a lack of consistent adherence to Frand principles in the cellular standards arena,” wrote Bruce Watrous, Apple’s intellectual property head.

Apple’s move to solidify how industry-essential patent holders should act comes at a tumultuous time. The Cupertino, Calif., company has been battling rivals such as Samsung, Motorola and HTC Corp. in patent suits spanning courtrooms across the globe.

To read the rest of the story, either contact me directly or read more online at the WSJ: here. (subscription required)

(Originally published Feb 7, 2012, on the Wall Street Journal website.)

By Ian Sherr

Apple Inc.’s claims that some smartphones running Google Inc.’s Android software copy its inventions are approaching their first big judgment day in the U.S.

The International Trade Commission in Washington on Wednesday is expected to rule on whether some phones made by HTC Corp. violate Apple’s patents. The ruling could lead to a ban on handsets sold by the Taiwanese company, which uses the Android operating system and had the second-largest share of smartphone subscribers in the U.S. market for the three months ended in October, according to research firm Nielsen.

HTC isn’t alone. Apple has been tangling in courts with other prominent Android device makers, including Samsung Electronics Co. and Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. The cases reflect the Cupertino, Calif., company’s belief that many competing smartphones violate features that Apple popularized with its iPhone and iPad tablet computer.

Apple isn’t the only one complaining. The smartphone market has experienced a surge in patent litigation over the past few years as large and small players seek to hobble competitors or take share of their success through damage awards or negotiated settlements.

It’s an attractive opportunity. More than 645 million smartphones are expected to be sold world-wide next year, according to research firm Gartner Inc., jumping nearly 40% from this year’s forecast. By comparison, sales of personal computers are expected to grow 4.5% to about 370 million units next year.

By Ian Sherr

One day five months ago, Karim Hijazi saw an unusual sight while reading his work email. A message that had been marked as “read” was suddenly marked “unread.”

What the founder of Unveillance, a computer-network security firm, soon learned was that hackers had broken into his account.

The hackers gained access to his email by stealing log-in information from an insecure website, which they then matched up with a password they found on the Internet. After downloading all of his emails, the hackers sent Mr. Hijazi a message demanding he share sensitive security information with them. When he refused, the hackers released his emails on the Web.

“It was like a baby with a gun,” he says.

Mr. Hijazi is one of the latest victims of computer hackers focused on getting into websites, corporate networks and email accounts by using legitimate passwords. Many break into poorly secured websites, steal databases filled with personal information and then comb through that data for log-in information for companies, government agencies and banks.

The growing frequency of these attacks has pushed companies to seek other forms of data protection than simple passwords.

Demand for additional barriers and detection programs is already large. Sales of these types of products topped $900 million world-wide last year, according to International Data Corp., and the Framingham, Mass.-based research firm expects the market to double by 2015.

To read the rest of the story, either contact me directly or read more online at the WSJ: here. (subscription required)

(Originally published Sept. 26, 2011 in the Wall Street Journal.)

By Ian Sherr and Nick Wingfield

On a Tuesday afternoon last month, engineers working for Sony Corp. were baffled when several servers running the company’s PlayStation Network suddenly turned themselves off and then back on.

At the time, the unexpected rebooting seemed like an odd malfunction. The next day, however, the engineers found the first evidence that an intruder had penetrated Sony’s systems, prompting the Japanese company to take what it calls “the almost unprecedented step” of shutting down the popular online gaming network.

Sony Chief Executive Howard Stringer issued a public apology this week for what the company later disclosed was a data breach that compromised more than 100 million user accounts on three public networks, and a delay in informing users of the theft. Sony says the loss included users’ names, birthdates and passwords. It also hasn’t ruled out the loss of credit card numbers associated with the Sony PlayStation network.

Some analysts believe the incident, which has drawn the attention of authorities around the world, will cost the company more than $1 billion for measures that include new security and a $1 million insurance policy for any victims of identity theft. The company hasn’t provided its own estimate of the cost. It also hasn’t resumed operating the network, but has said it is in final testing and is expected to do so within days.

“Taken as a whole, the number of customers affected, the PR impact and now the legislative inquiries,” this ranks “at the top” of data breaches to date, said Cynthia Larose, an attorney specializing in privacy matters with Mintz Levin in Boston.

PlayStation Network, which is accessed by owners of Sony game consoles, uses 130 server systems, 50 software programs and has 77 million user accounts, according to a letter that Kazuo Hirai, president and group chief executive of Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., sent Wednesday to a U.S. congressional committee. That letter, and a similar account included in a letter Friday to Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) provide the most detailed accounts of the incident.

To read the rest of the story, either contact me directly or read more online at the WSJ: here. (subscription required)

(Originally published May 7, 2011, in the Wall Street Journal.)

By Ian Sherr

New details emerged about Sony Corp.’s investigation into one of the biggest data breaches in history, as the company attempts to piece together who stole personal information from more than 100 million accounts on its online game networks.

At least some of the attacks came from a Malaysia-based server, a person familiar with the matter said, though it wasn’t clear if any of the hacking was actually done from there, or whether only the server there was used.

On Tuesday, a U.S. spokesman for Sony confirmed some of the companies helping to investigate the breach and secure its network against further intrusions. The security firms named are Protiviti Inc., Guidance Software Inc. and Data Forté Corp., which specialize variously in forensic computer investigations and security consulting.

The company has also retained the services of the law firm Baker & McKenzie in connection with the matter. Representatives of the law firm and two of the security firms didn’t respond to requests for comment. Guidance Software declined to comment.

Political pressure on Sony for a more complete accounting of its handling of the data breach has been increasing. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) on Tuesday sent a letter to Sony executives saying he is “deeply concerned about the egregious inadequacy of Sony’s efforts thus far to notify its customers of these breaches or to provide adequate protections for users whose personal and financial information may have been compromised.”

To read the rest of the story, either contact me directly or read more online at the WSJ: here. (subscription required)

(Originally published May 4, 2011, in the Wall Street Journal.)

By Ian Sherr

Plaintiffs lawyers are targeting Sony Corp. with class-action suits after a breach of the company’s online-game network compromised the personal information of millions of users.

In one lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court’s Northern District of California, videogame player Kristopher Johns said Sony’s security was negligently poor and the company failed to encrypt personal information.

The lawsuit, which was filed Wednesday against Sony’s U.S. entertainment unit and seeks class-action status, also alleges Sony failed to notify customers of the breach in a timely manner.

“This has caused, and continues to cause, millions of consumers fear, apprehension, and damage,” the filing said.

To read the rest of the story, either contact me directly or read more online at the WSJ: here. (subscription required)

(Originally published April 29, 2011, on the Wall Street Journal website.)

By Ian Sherr

Apple Inc. filed a lawsuit claiming Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. copied the look and feel of its popular iPhone smartphones and iPad tablet computers, the latest in a series of legal skirmishes that underscore the increasingly high stakes of the mobile computing market.

The lawsuit, filed on April 15, alleged that Samsung’s smartphones, including the “Galaxy S 4G,” “Epic 4G,” “Nexus S” and its “Galaxy Tab” touchscreen tablet, violate Apple’s intellectual property. The 38-page lawsuit was filed in the U.S. court’s northern California district.

“Rather than innovate and develop its own technology and a unique Samsung style for its smart phone products and computer tablets, Samsung chose to copy Apple’s technology, user interface and innovative style in these infringing products,” Apple said in the filing.

A Samsung representative said the company’s development of core technology and intellectual property were key to its continued success.

“Samsung will respond actively to this legal action taken against us through appropriate legal measures to protect our intellectual property,” said Kim Titus, a Richardson, Texas-based spokesman for the company’s telecommunications unit.

The lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal battles among technology giants following the rapid sales growth of smartphones and touchscreen tablet computers. Apple has become the object of many lawsuits from numerous companies, including Eastman Kodak Co. and Nokia Corp., that claim the consumer electronics giant violated their intellectual property in its hit products. The Cupertino, Calif.-based company has also filed lawsuits against competitors, such as Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. and Amazon.com Inc.

To read the rest of the story, either contact me directly or read more online at the WSJ: here. (subscription required)

(Originally published April 18, 2011, in the Wall Street Journal.)

By Ian Sherr

Microsoft Corp. and Apple Inc. have both hired linguists to serve as experts in the tech titan’s ongoing battle over whether or not the government can grant a trademark for the term “app store.”

Microsoft on Tuesday filed its latest argument with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which included the opinions of a linguistic expert who supported the software giant’s argument that the term “app store” was generic and shouldn’t be trademarked by Apple.

“The compound noun app store means simply ‘store at which apps are offered for sale,’ which is merely a definition of the thing itself—a generic characterization,” linguist Ronald Butters wrote.

An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment.

Microsoft hired Mr. Butters to counter Apple’s own linguistic expert, Robert Leonard, who asserted that the electronics giant’s “App Store” was a proper noun and deserved to be trademarked, even though the words are generic when separated.

The legal tussle has become a prime example of how litigious the technology industry has become following the rapid sales growth of smartphones and tablet computers. Nearly all mobile-device makers are actively suing or defending themselves in lawsuits against one another.

Apple, in particular, has been the target of lawsuits from a variety of companies spanning from device makers like Nokia Corp. and patent holders such as Eastman Kodak Co., all looking to either block the consumer electronics giant’s efforts or grab some share of its success.

To read the rest of the story, either contact me directly or read more online at the WSJ: here. (subscription required)

(Originally published March 30, in the Wall Street Journal.)