upheld – Latest Apple News

London court dismisses Apple appeal in 4G patent dispute with Optis

tigaman webdesign — Wed, 05 Jul 2023 11:45:22 +0000

Apple has been found guilty of infringing two telecommunications patents used in its iPhones and iPads by London’s Court of Appeal. The ruling is a major victory for Optis Cellular Technology LLC, a U.S. patent holder that sued Apple in 2019. Optis says the two patents are essential to certain technological standards, such as 4G.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Apple’s appeal of a lower court ruling that found the company had infringed the patents. Apple had argued that the patents were not essential to 4G and that it did not need to license them from Optis. However, the Court of Appeal found that the patents were essential and that Apple had infringed them by using the technology without a license.

The ruling could have significant implications for Apple. It could be forced to pay Optis damages, and it could, although unlikely, also be blocked from selling iPhones and iPads in the UK.

Reuters:

[Apple’s] challenge was rejected by the Court of Appeal, with Judge Colin Birss saying in a written ruling that the High Court was “right to reject (Apple’s) argument for non-infringement” and on the issue of the patents being essential.

The Court of Appeal last month upheld an appeal by Optis against an earlier decision to revoke two other 4G-related patents, following a ruling in October that Optis is entitled to an injunction to stop Apple infringing its patents before a court has ruled on the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms of use.

Apple was granted permission earlier this year to appeal against the October ruling.

MacDailyNews Take: Apple is likely to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Please help support MacDailyNews. Click or tap here to support our independent tech blog. Thank you!

Support MacDailyNews at no extra cost to you by using this link to shop at Amazon.

The post London court dismisses Apple appeal in 4G patent dispute with Optis appeared first on MacDailyNews.

Apple petitions Supreme Court to over-rule ‘Fortnite’ lawsuit

tigaman webdesign — Mon, 03 Jul 2023 19:19:40 +0000

Apple is taking its battle with Epic Games to the U.S. Supreme Court with the intention to reverse a ruling from the Court of Appeals that affects the App Store policies.

The long-running lawsuit between the Fortnite game maker and the App Store owner is close to reaching the highest court in the United States. In this case, it is because Apple wants to revisit an antitrust appeal that didn’t go entirely the company’s way.In a filing to the Supreme Court on Monday, Apple’s legal team motions for a reconsideration of an April ruling by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the matter. While in April the court upheld most of a previous decision in the case, it rejected attempts by Epic and Apple to revisit the decision on Friday.

Apple opposes UK bill that could mandate backdoor scanning in iMessage

tigaman webdesign — Tue, 27 Jun 2023 17:24:46 +0000

Apple is the Online Safety Bill as it could be used to force encrypted messaging tools like iMessage, WhatsApp, Signal and other to scan messages for, ostensibly, child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Apple’s opposition comes as 80 organizations and tech experts have written to UK Technology Minister Chloe Smith urging a rethink.

Chris Vallance for The Beeb:

Apple told the BBC the bill should be amended to protect encryption.

Police, the government and some high-profile child protection charities maintain the tech – used in apps such as WhatsApp and Apple’s iMessage – prevents law enforcement and the firms themselves from identifying the sharing of child sexual abuse material.

But in a statement Apple said: “End-to-end encryption is a critical capability that protects the privacy of journalists, human rights activists, and diplomats.
“It also helps everyday citizens defend themselves from surveillance, identity theft, fraud, and data breaches. The Online Safety Bill poses a serious threat to this protection, and could put UK citizens at greater risk.

“Apple urges the government to amend the bill to protect strong end-to-end encryption for the benefit of all.”

Several messaging platforms, including Signal and WhatsApp, have previously told the BBC they will refuse to weaken the privacy of their encrypted messaging systems if directed to do so.

Signal said in February that it would “walk” from the UK if forced to weaken the privacy of its encrypted messaging app.

Apple’s statement now means that some of the most widely used encrypted apps oppose this part of the bill.

In 2021 Apple announced plans to scan photographs on people’s iPhones for abusive content before they were uploaded to iCloud but these were abandoned after a backlash. It has now clearly signalled its opposition to any measure that weakens the privacy of end-to-end encryption.

MacDailyNews Take: As Apple should. (Here’s why.)

The open letter signed by over 80 civil society organizations calls on the UK government to protect digital security and private communications by removing provisions from the Online Safety Bill that would require communications service providers to add “backdoors” to encrypted messaging services, undermining safety for all. Here it is, verbatim:

To: Chloe Smith, Secretary of State,

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

cc: Tom Tugendhat, Minister of State for Security, Home Office Paul Scully, Minister for Tech and the Digital Economy Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay

Dear Ms Smith,

Online Safety Bill: Civil society organisations urge UK to protect global digital security and safeguard private communication.

We are over 80 national and international civil society organisations, academics and cyber- experts. We represent a wide range of perspectives including digital human rights and technology. We are writing to you to raise our concerns about the serious threat to the security of private and encrypted messaging posed by the UK’s proposed Online Safety Bill (OSB).

The Online Safety Bill is a deeply troubling legislative proposal. If passed in its present form, the UK could become the first liberal democracy to require the routine scanning of people’s private chat messages, including chats that are secured by end-to-end encryption. As over 40 million UK citizens and 2 billion people worldwide rely on these services, this poses a significant risk to the security of digital communication services not only in the UK, but also internationally.

End-to-end encryption ensures the security of communications for everyone on a network.

It is designed so that no-one, including the platform provider, can read or alter the messages. The confidentiality between sender and recipient is completely preserved. That’s why the United Nations, several human rights groups, and anti-human trafficking organisations alike have emphasised that encryption is a vital human rights tool. [i]

In order to comply with the Online Safety Bill, platform providers would have to break that protection either by removing it or by developing work-arounds. Any form of work-around risks compromising the security of the messaging platform, creating back-doors, and other dangerous ways and means for malicious actors and hostile states to corrupt the system. [ii] This would put all users in danger.

The UK government has indicated its intention for providers to use a technology that would scan chats on people’s phone and devices – known as client-side scanning. The UK government’s assertion that client-side scanning will not compromise the privacy of messages contradicts the significant evidence of cyber-security experts around the world. This software intercepts chat messages before they are encrypted, and as the user is uploading their images or text, and therefore confidentiality of messages cannot be guaranteed. It would most likely breach human rights law in the UK and internationally. [iii]

Serious concerns have also been raised about similar provisions in the EU’s proposed ‘Child Sexual Abuse Regulation’, which an independent expert study warns is in contradiction to human rights rules. [iv] French, Irish and Austrian parliamentarians have all also warned of severe threats to human rights and of undermining encryption. [v]

Moreover, the scanning software would have to be pre-installed on people’s phones, without their permission or full awareness of the severe privacy and security implications. The underlying databases can be corrupted by hostile actors, meaning that individual phones would become vulnerable to attack. The breadth of the measures proposed in the Online Safety Bill – which would infringe the rights to privacy to the same extent for the internet’s majority of legitimate law-abiding users as it would for potential criminals – means that the measures cannot be considered either necessary or proportionate. [vi]

The inconvenient truth is that it is not possible to scan messages for bad things without infringing on the privacy of lawful messages. It is not possible to create a backdoor that only works for “good people” and that cannot be exploited by “bad people”.

Privacy and free expression rights are vital for all citizens everywhere, in every country, to do their jobs, raise their voices, and hold power to account without arbitrary intrusion, persecution or repression. End-to-end encryption provides vital security that allows them to do that without arbitrary interference. People in conflict zones who rely on secure encrypted communications to be able to speak safely to friends and family as well as for national security. Journalists around the world who rely on the confidential channels of encrypted chat, can communicate to sources and upload their stories in safety.

Children, too, need these rights, as emphasised by UNICEF based on the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child.vii Child safety and privacy are not mutually exclusive; they are mutually reinforcing. Indeed, children are less safe without encrypted communications, as they equally rely on secure digital experiences free from their data being harvested or conversations intercepted. Online content scanning alone cannot hope to find out the serious cases of exploitation, which require a whole-of-society approach. The UK government must invest in education, judicial reform, social services, law enforcement and other critical resources to prevent abuse before it can reach the point of online dissemination, thereby prioritising harm prevention over retrospective scanning. [viii]

As an international community, we are deeply concerned that the UK will become the weak link in the global system. The security risk will not be confined within UK borders. It is difficult to envisage how such a destructive step for the security of billions of users could be justified. [ix]

The UK Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, has said that the UK will maintain freedom, peace and security around the world. With that in mind, we urge you to ensure that end-to-end encrypted services will be removed from the scope of the Bill and that the privacy of people’s confidential communications will be upheld.

Signatories

Access Now
ARTICLE 19: Global Campaign for Free Expression
Asociația pentru Tehnologie și Internet (ApTI)
Associação Portuguesa para
a Promoção da Segurança da Informação (AP2SI)
Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
Big Brother Watch
Centre for Democracy and Technology
Chaos Computer Club (CCC)
Citizen D / Državljan D
Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA)
Community NeHUBs Africa
cyberstorm.mu
Defend Digital Me
CASM at Demos
Digitalcourage
Digitale Gesellschaft
DNS Africa Media and Communications
Electronic Frontier Finland
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
Electronic Frontier Norway
Epicenter.works
European Center for Not-for-Profit Law
European Digital Rights (EDRi)
European Sex Workers Rights Association (ESWA)
Fair Vote
Fight for the Future
Foundation for Information Policy Research
Fundación Cibervoluntarios
Global Partners Digital
Granitt
Hermes Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights
Homo Digitalis
Ikigai Innovation Initiative
Internet Society
Interpeer gUG
ISOC Brazil – Brazilian Chapter of the Internet Society
ISOC Ghana
ISOC India Hyderabad Chapter
ISOC Venezuela
IT-Pol
JCA-Net (Japan)
Kijiji Yeetu
La Quadrature du Net
Liberty
McEvedys Solicitors and Attorneys Ltd
Open Rights Group
OpenMedia
OPTF
Privacy and Access Council of Canada
Privacy International
Ranking Digital Rights
Statewatch
SUPERRR Lab
Tech for Good Asia
UBUNTEAM
Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia UK
Professor Paul Bernal
Nicholas Bohm
Dr Duncan Campbell
Alan Cox
Ray Corrigan
Professor Angela Daly
Dr Erin Ferguson
Wendy M. Grossman
Dr Edina Harbinja
Dr Julian Huppert
Steve Karmeinsky
Dr Konstantinos Komaitis
Professor Douwe Korff
Petr Kučera
Mark A. Lane
Christian de Larrinaga
Mark Lizar
Dr Brenda McPhail
Alec Muffett
Riana Pferfferkorn
Simon Phipps
Dr Birgit Schippers
Peter Wells
Professor Alan Woodward

Notes

[i] Human rights, encryption and anonymity in a digital age: report of the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression: www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2015/06/human-rights-encryption-and-anonymity-digital-age
Encryption: a matter of human rights, Amnesty International: www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol40/3682/2016/en/ Quotes from Polaris anti-trafficking project in news article: www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/wickr-amazon-aws-child-messaging-app-sex-abuse-problem-rcna20674
[ii] Bugs in Our Pockets: The Risks of Client-Side Scanning: arxiv.org/abs/2110.07450
[iii] Internet Society, Client-side scanning: What it is and why it threatens trustworthy, private communication, May 2023, staging.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Client-side-Scanning-Fact-Sheet-EN.pdf
Open Letter from Public Interest Technologists in relation to the European Commission’s proposed Regulation on Child Sexual Abuse (CSA): www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/10/Experts-letter-encryption-CSA.pdf
Safety Tech Challenge Fund Evaluation Report, see comments on human rights compliance p2: bpb-eu-w2.wpmucdn.com/ blogs.bristol.ac.uk/dist/1/670/files/2023/02/Safety-Tech-Challenge-Fund-evaluation-framework-report.pdf
[iv] Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament and European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS), Complementary Impact Assessment to the proposed EU Regulation laying down rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse: www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2023/740248/EPRS_STU(2023)740248_EN.pdf
[v] Irish and French parliamentarians sound the alarm about EU’s CSA Regulation: edri.org/our-work/irish-and-french- parliamentarians-sound-the-alarm-about-eus-csa-regulation/
Binding Resolution of the Austrian Parliament against the Child Sexual Abuse Regulation: epicenter.works/document/4393 vi Index on Censorship, Opinion from Matthew Ryder KC. Surveilled and Exposed: How the Online Safety Bill Creates Insecurity:
www.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Surveilled-Exposed-Index-on-Censorship-report-Nov-2022.pdf
[vii] Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNICEF: www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/convention-text-childrens-version
[viii] CRIN: Privacy and Protection: A children’s rights approach to encryption: home.crin.org/readlistenwatch/stories/privacy-and-protection; and Ross Anderson: Chat Control of Child Protection: www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2022/10/13/chatcontrol-or-child-protection/
[ix] Rishi Sunak, Statement 14 March 2023: www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-statement-at-aukus-trilateral-press-conference

Please help support MacDailyNews. Click or tap here to support our independent tech blog. Thank you!

Support MacDailyNews at no extra cost to you by using this link to shop at Amazon.

The post Apple opposes UK bill that could mandate backdoor scanning in iMessage appeared first on MacDailyNews.

U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear Apple-Broadcom challenge to Caltech patents

tigaman webdesign — Mon, 26 Jun 2023 15:06:24 +0000

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a bid by Apple and Broadcom to revive their challenges to Caltech data-transmission patents. The companies had argued that they should have been allowed to raise the patent challenges during a trial in which they were found to have infringed Caltech’s patents.

U.S. Supreme Court

The Federal Circuit had ruled against Apple and Broadcom, saying that they had failed to raise the patent challenges during earlier proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The Supreme Court’s decision to not hear the case means that the Federal Circuit’s ruling will stand.

The case began in 2016, when Caltech sued Apple and Broadcom, alleging that their use of Broadcom Wi-Fi chips in iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches infringed Caltech’s patents. A jury found in favor of Caltech, awarding the university $837.8 million in damages against Apple and $270.2 million in damages against Broadcom.

However, the U.S. Federal Circuit overturned the jury verdict, finding that the damages award was excessive. The court also upheld the trial judge’s decision to block Apple and Broadcom from arguing that the patents were invalid because they could have made the arguments in their petitions for USPTO review of the patents.

Apple and Broadcom appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Federal Circuit had misread the law. They said that the law only blocks arguments that could have been raised during the review itself, not during earlier proceedings at the USPTO.

The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, meaning that the Federal Circuit’s ruling will stand. Apple and Broadcom will now have to face a new trial on damages, and they may also have to pay Caltech’s legal fees.

The case is a reminder of the importance of carefully considering patent challenges before going to trial. If Apple and Broadcom had raised their patent challenges earlier, they may have been able to avoid the jury verdict and the subsequent appeals.

The case is also a reminder of the Supreme Court’s reluctance to hear patent cases. The court has only heard a handful of patent cases in recent years, and it is likely to continue to be selective in the cases that it chooses to hear.

The case will now go back to the district court for a new trial on damages. Apple and Broadcom will have the opportunity to present new evidence and arguments, and Caltech will have the opportunity to respond. The jury will then decide how much money, if any, Apple and Broadcom owe Caltech.

MacDailyNews Note: The case is still pending, so it is not clear how much money, if any, Apple and Broadcom will ultimately have to pay Caltech.

Please help support MacDailyNews. Click or tap here to support our independent tech blog. Thank you!

Support MacDailyNews at no extra cost to you by using this link to shop at Amazon.

The post U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear Apple-Broadcom challenge to Caltech patents appeared first on MacDailyNews.

Apple Subreddit Goes Dark in Protest of Reddit’s API Pricing Changes

tigaman webdesign — Sun, 11 Jun 2023 21:54:24 +0000

Apple-related subreddit /r/apple has gone dark in protest of Reddit’s upcoming API pricing changes affecting third-party Reddit apps. The subreddit is now private, meaning that users can no longer view or submit posts, and the moderators behind the community said it will remain that way for the next 48 hours, or potentially longer if necessary.

/r/apple is one of many subreddits that will be going dark over the next few days, alongside /r/videos, /r/mildlyinteresting, /r/DIY, and others. The organized blackout comes after Reddit announced expensive API pricing changes that threaten to put some third-party Reddit apps out of business. Christian Selig, developer of popular Reddit app Apollo, said he would owe Reddit around $20 million per year under the new policy. As a result, Selig announced that Apollo will be shutting down at the end of the month.

Reddit’s API provides apps like Apollo with Reddit data like posts and comments, and it has been free to use until now. Selig said it is understandable for Reddit to begin charging for access to the API, but the pricing is prohibitively expensive. Selig also said Reddit provided him with minimal time to prepare for the changes.

Reddit CEO Steve Huffman addressed the topic in a Reddit post last week, but his comments were heavily criticized and received thousands of downvotes from Reddit users. Despite backlash from the community, Reddit has yet to reverse course on its plans so far, and the API changes are set to go into effect on July 1 if upheld.

Tags: Apollo, Reddit

This article, "Apple Subreddit Goes Dark in Protest of Reddit's API Pricing Changes" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Apple & Epic Games both appealing ‘Fortnite’ App Store antitrust ruling

tigaman webdesign — Thu, 08 Jun 2023 15:46:21 +0000

Apple and Epic Games have jointly requested an appeals court to review its decision that may compel Apple to alter its payment practices within the App Store, for entirely different reasons.