Mirror site to face French court

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
25 October 2011 Last updated at 14:03 GMT The Sunday Mirror published a story claiming Olivier Martinez had reunited with Kylie Minogue The UK's Sunday Mirror has lost its bid to stop Kylie Minogue's French ex-boyfriend Olivier Martinez suing it in France for alleged breach of privacy.

European judges ruled he could seek damages in any EU member where the online story was accessible.

Judges in France will also next month decide whether the News of the World breached the privacy of Max Mosley, filmed with prostitutes at a 2008 orgy.

Both rulings could have far-reaching implications for the British press.

In 2008 the Sunday Mirror website published a story that Olivier Martinez, an actor, had re-united with ex-girlfriend Kylie Minogue, a story he believed infringed his right to privacy.

Landmark ruling

Mr Martinez launched legal action against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) alleging interference with his private life and infringement of his right to his image.

MGN lawyers had argued the connection between the online publication of the information in the UK and the alleged damage in France was insufficiently close.

But on Tuesday, Judges at the European Court of Justice ruled that the placing of content on a website was different from "the regional distribution of printed matter" because the online material "can be consulted by an indefinite number of internet users worldwide".

The EU judges ruled that the court best placed to assess the potential impact on an individual's "personality rights" might be the court where the individual had his "centre of interests" or "habitual residence".

That court would have "jurisdiction in respect of all damage caused within the territory of the EU", they said.

However, if appellants chose to "bring an action before the courts of each member state in the territory of which the online content is or has been accessible" any compensation awarded by national courts could only relate to damage caused in their jurisdictions, they said.

The BBC's Paris correspondent, Christian Fraser, says in a sense their ruling is already about to be tested.

In November, former motorsport world governing body chief Max Mosley will discover whether he has won a battle against the News of the World in Paris over an article the now-closed newspaper published about his sexual practices in 2008.

He has already won a privacy battle against the News of the World in the British courts, but brought a separate action because copies of the newspaper and the video of him at a sadomasochistic orgy were circulated in France.

Technology

News

Read More

U.S. court revives human rights case versus Rio Tinto

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
By Jonathan Stempel

Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:48pm EDT

n">(Reuters) - A U.S. federal appeals court has revived a lawsuit seeking to hold Rio Tinto Plc responsible for human rights violations and thousands of deaths linked to a Papua New Guinea copper and gold mine it once ran.

A divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed a lower court's dismissal of claims against the mining giant for genocide and war crimes, while upholding the dismissal of claims for racial discrimination and crimes against humanity.

"The complaint alleges purposeful conduct undertaken by Rio Tinto with the intent to assist in the commission of violence, injury, and death, to the degree necessary to keep its mines open," Judge Mary Schroeder wrote.

Some dissenting judges protested against allowing a lawsuit to proceed in federal courts brought by non-U.S. residents against a non-U.S. companies such as Rio Tinto, which has corporate offices in London and in Melbourne, Australia.

The 6-5 decision on Tuesday revives an 11-year-old lawsuit on behalf of about 10,000 current and former residents of the South Pacific island Bougainville, where a late 1980s uprising led to the use of military force and many deaths.

Tony Shaffer, a Rio Tinto spokesman, said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against these improper claims."

Rio Tinto is one of the world's largest mining companies, with a market value exceeding US$100 billion, Reuters data show.

The case is one of several in which non-U.S. residents seek to hold companies responsible in U.S. courts for alleged human rights violations on foreign soil, under a 1789 U.S. law known as the Alien Tort Statute.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider in its current term the reach of that statute, in a lawsuit accusing Royal Dutch Shell Plc of helping Nigeria violently suppress protests in the 1990s.

A federal appeals court in New York had ruled that Shell was not liable under the statute. It is unclear how the pendency of that case will affect the Rio Tinto proceedings.

Steve Berman, a lawyer for the Rio Tinto plaintiffs, said: "My clients believe Rio has been covering up its complicity in war crimes and genocide. We're pleased to be able to return to the district court and begin proving our case."

"EXPENDABLE"

The Bougainville residents claimed that Rio Tinto's Panguna mine operations polluted the island and that the company forced native workers to live in "slave like" conditions.

They also contended that after workers began to sabotage the mine in 1988, Rio Tinto goaded the government into exacting retribution and conspired to impose a blockade that resulted in the deaths of some 10,000 civilians by 1997.

Rio Tinto shut the mine in 1989.

Writing for the 9th Circuit, Schroeder said the complaint's allegation that Rio Tinto's "worldwide modus operandi" was to treat indigenous non-Caucasians as "expendable" justified restoring the genocide claim to the case.

She also said the allegation that Rio Tinto acted for its own private ends in inducing Papua New Guinea's military to murder civilians justified restoring the war crimes claim.

The appeals court returned the case to U.S. District Judge Margaret Morrow in Los Angeles for further proceedings.

In a dissent, Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote that the Alien Tort Statute gave the court no authority to hear a case between the non-U.S. plaintiffs and Rio Tinto over non-U.S. activity.

"The majority sees fit to brush past these limitations and give itself unlimited authority to adjudicate suits between aliens for torts arising anywhere in the world," she wrote.

Another dissenting judge, Andrew Kleinfeld, wrote: "This case calls for judicial humility. Instead, we arrogate to ourselves imperial authority over the whole world."

Berman is a partner at Hagens Berman in Seattle. Rio Tinto's defense has been handled by O'Melveny & Myers and, until recently, been overseen by Sri Srinivasan, a partner who in August was appointed deputy U.S. solicitor general.

The case is Sarei et al v. Rio Tinto Plc et al, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 02-56256.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; additional reporting by Dan Levine in San Francisco; editing by Dave Zimmerman and Andre Grenon)

Career Advisor

News

Read More

Turkish court sentences general for insulting Erdogan

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

ISTANBUL | Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:17pm EDT

ISTANBUL (Reuters) - A retired general was given a suspended sentence of almost a year in jail on Tuesday for insulting Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, state run Anatolian news agency reported.

The case against General Saldiray Berk, who is also a suspect in an alleged coup plot, was filed by the prime minister.

Erdogan's lawyer petitioned the Ankara prosecutor's office last year, citing a speech Berk gave in 2008 during a visit to an village in eastern Turkey.

Berk was accused of asking his audience: "Do you know the prime minister has sold the country?"

Finding Berk guilty of the charge, the court, in the eastern province of Erzincan, suspended the 11 month and 20 day sentence for five years.

Berk, a former commander of the third army, was forced to retire in August due to the conspiracy case against him. He could be jailed for more than 12 years, if he is found guilty of being part of a plot to oust Erdogan from power.

The case against him formed part of an investigation into an alleged anti-government network called Ergenekon.

The military has traditionally regarded itself as the guardian of the secular state envisaged by the republic's revered founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

The country's generals have clashed several times with Erdogan since his religiously conservative AK Party first came to power in Muslim Turkey a decade ago.

But, by using legislation meant to make Turkey's democracy fit for membership of the European Union, Erdogan has succeeded in curbing the generals' power, lessening chances for a repeat of the coups that have punctuated the country's history since 1960.

Erdogan filed and won similar cases in the past, including one against a cartoonist who depicted him as a cat. The cartoonist was fined 5,000 lira ($2,793).

(Writing by Ece Toksabay; Editing by Simon Cameron-Moore)

Career Advisor

News

Read More

Federal Appeals Court Blocks Alabama Immigration Law

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

ATLANTA — A federal appeals court on Friday blocked a key part of Alabama's law that requires schools to check the immigration status of students, temporarily weakening what was considered the toughest immigration law in the nation.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also blocked a part of the law that allows authorities to charge immigrants who do not carry documents proving their legal status. The three-judge panel let stand a provision that allows police to detain immigrants that are suspected of being in the country illegally.

The ruling was only temporary. A final decision on the law won't likely be made for months.

[Read why Hispanics are key to a victory in the 2012 presidential race.]

Groups who challenged the law said they were hopeful the judges would eventually block the rest of it.

"I think that certainly it's a better situation today for the people of Alabama today than it was yesterday," said Omar Jadwat, an attorney for the ACLU, which challenged the law along with the Obama administration. "Obviously we remain concerned about the remainder of the provisions, and we remain confident that we will eventually get the whole scheme blocked."

Supporters of the law also claimed a partial victory.

Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard, who championed the law, said the "most effectual parts" of the law will remain in place.

"We've said from the beginning that Alabama will have a strict immigration law and we will enforce it. Alabama will not be a sanctuary state for illegal aliens, and this ruling reinforces that," he said.

The judges also let stand parts of the law that bar state courts from enforcing contracts involving illegal immigrants and make it a felony for an illegal immigrant to do business with the state for basic things like getting a driver's license.

Alabama Republicans have long sought to clamp down on illegal immigration and passed the law earlier this year after gaining control of the Legislature for the first time since Reconstruction. Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley signed the measure, saying it was crucial to protect the jobs of legal residents amid the tough economy and high unemployment.

The law has already had a deep impact in Alabama since a federal judge upheld much of it in late September. Many frightened Hispanics have been driven away from Alabama, fearing they could be arrested or targeted by police. Construction workers, landscapers and field hands have stopped showing up for work, and large numbers of Hispanic students have been absent from public schools.

To cope with the labor shortage, Alabama agriculture commissioner John McMillan at one point suggested farmers should consider hiring inmates in the state's work-release program.

It's not clear exactly how many Hispanics have fled the state. Earlier this week, many skipped work to protest the law, shuttering or scaling back operations at chicken plants, Mexican restaurants and other businesses.

Immigration has become a hot-button issue in Alabama over the past decade as the Hispanic population has grown by 145 percent to about 185,600 people, most of them of Mexican origin. The Hispanic population represents about 4 percent of the state's 4.7 million people, but some counties in north Alabama have large Spanish-speaking communities and schools where most of the students are Hispanic.

[Read about Obama's four ways forward on immigration.]

Requiring school officials to check the immigration status of students in public schools helped make the Alabama law stricter than similar measures enacted in Arizona, Utah, Indiana and Georgia. Federal judges in those states have blocked all or parts of those laws.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer earlier this year asked the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the legal fight over her state's tough immigration law.

The Justice Department called the Alabama law a "sweeping new state regime" in court filings last week and urged the appeals court to forbid states from creating a patchwork of immigration policies. The agency also said the law could strain diplomatic relations with Latin American countries, who have warned the law could impact millions of workers, tourists and students in the U.S.

Home, Architecture and Furniture

Traveling Info

Read More

Harrisburg vs Pennsylvania set for court on Monday

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
By Tom Hals

Fri Oct 14, 2011 6:08pm EDT

n">(Reuters) - Pennsylvania blasted Harrisburg's bankruptcy filing as "brazenly" disregarding state law and the mayor won a day in court Monday in her bid to throw out the City Council's decision to seek bankruptcy protection.

The Pennsylvania state capital's smoldering debt crisis spiraled into a battle for political control after Harrisburg filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy following a 4-3 vote by the City Council on Tuesday.

The state on Friday objected to the move in a court filing, joining the mayor, the county and bondholders in opposition. It called for a "quick end to this ill-advised and transparent gambit" designed to send a message to creditors.

The mayor also asserted the bankruptcy petition was invalid because the City Council did not follow proper procedure.

The bankruptcy court granted the mayor's request for an emergency conference at 9:30 a.m. EDT on Monday to address the legality of the filing.

Harrisburg's crisis has been a year in the making. The city of about 50,000 is hampered by $300 million in debt incurred from an expensive revamp of its incinerator and is struggling to fund key city services.

Pennsylvania's governor, Tom Corbett, has said the city would be better off if it agreed to a rescue plan under a state program for distressed cities, which has seen Philadelphia and other cities through crises.

Mark Schwartz, an attorney for the City Council told Reuters on Friday that Philadelphia and other struggling cities operate under state oversight. Yet next week the state senate is poised to vote on a bill that would take that further and see the state take over Harrisburg.

"It's all about control," said Schwartz. "That's in part why I filed so quickly."

Pennsylvania argued in court papers that the city was making a "frontal attack" on state law, which was amended this year to prevent the city from seeking bankruptcy protection until July 1, 2012. The governor's office did not immediately return a call for comment.

Schwartz said the amended statute "falls on its face," and even if it is upheld it only allows the state to cut off funding to the city.

Noting that the city is responsible for providing various services to state government buildings, Schwartz said "I hope the governor has taken classes in how to use a fire hose."

The bankruptcy court may determine it is not the best venue for the case if it turns on questions of state law, said one legal expert.

"I expect the bankruptcy court will decide it does not have jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania law and will proceed to dismiss the Chapter 9 filing," Slate Dabney, an attorney with King & Spalding LLP, who is not involved with the case.

(Reporting by Chip Barnett, David Gaffen and Edith Honan in New York, Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware, and Jessica Hall in Harrisburg; Editing by Edward Tobin, Leslie Adler, Jan Paschal and Diane Craft)

New Automobile

Education Information

Read More

Appeals court blocks parts of Alabama immigration law

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

A U.S. flag is seen in Normal, Illinois March 30, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Eric Thayer

By Verna Gates

BIRMINGHAM, Ala | Fri Oct 14, 2011 6:25pm EDT

BIRMINGHAM, Ala (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Friday temporarily blocked Alabama from enforcing part of its tough new immigration law but allowed some disputed portions to remain in effect.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, halted the controversial provision that permits Alabama to require public schools to determine the legal residency of children upon enrollment.

But the court ruled the state could continue to authorize police to detain people suspected of being in the country illegally if they cannot produce proper documentation when stopped for any reason.

The Obama administration and a coalition of civil rights groups had sought to stop the law while it was under court review, arguing it has led some illegal immigrants in Alabama to pull their children out of school and even flee the state.

The Justice Department also contends the measure, passed by large margins in both chambers of the Republican-led legislature earlier this year, interferes with the federal government's exclusive authority over immigration.

State lawmakers argue they were forced to act, saying the Obama administration had not done enough to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into the country.

There are an estimated 11.2 million illegal immigrants in the United States, including between 75,000 and 160,000 in Alabama, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

Under the ruling issued on Friday, Alabama can bar illegal immigrants from entering into commercial contracts with the state or local governments and applying for or renewing drivers' licenses, identification cards or license plates.

"Once again, we're pleased that the majority and most effectual parts of this law will remain in place," said Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard, a Republican.

"While the federal government sues to prolong and exacerbate the illegal immigration problem, Alabama is taking action to ensure the laws of our land are upheld."

The Justice Department said it looked forward to the appeals court giving further consideration to its arguments for blocking other key provisions of the law.

"We are pleased that the Eleventh Circuit has blocked Alabama's registration provisions which criminalized unlawful presence and chilled access to a public education," the department said in a statement.

(Additional reporting by Kelli Dugan in Mobile and James Vicini in Washington; Writing by Colleen Jenkins; Editing by Jerry Norton)

New Automobile

Education Information

Read More

White House Confident of Supreme Court Win on Healthcare

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

The Obama administration's quick appeal to the Supreme Court in defense of its signature healthcare law clearly displays White House confidence that it will ultimately prevail in the case, experts say. Whether that confidence is well-placed, though, remains a matter of opinion.

Yesterday, the Department of Justice and the White House announced that the government is asking the Supreme Court to take up the case from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in August that the Affordable Care Act's mandate requiring all Americans to buy insurance or face a fee is unconstitutional, though could be separated from the overall law. Earlier Wednesday, the government's adversaries in the case—a coalition of 26 states as well as the National Federation of Independent Business—also filed with the high court, asking for a complete invalidation of the law. But the administration is determined the law will survive. "We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional," White House senior adviser Stephanie Cutter blogged Wednesday. "We are confident the Supreme Court will agree."

[Check out a roundup of political cartoons on healthcare policy.]

The government could have dragged its feet in appealing to the Supreme Court—the final deadline to file was actually November, and it also could have asked for a full court review from the 11th Circuit since the case was decided by a three-judge panel (though the conservative court was unlikely to return a better verdict)—but experts say filing now displays the administration's assurance, and any delay tactics might have been exploited by Republicans as cowardly. "If you don't think you have a winning hand, then sometimes it makes sense to see if the landscape changes," says Ian Millhiser, a constitutional and judiciary analyst with the left-leaning Center for American Progress. "They clearly think, if they are going to pull the trigger now, that they stand to gain from pulling the trigger."

Tom Goldstein, the publisher of SCOTUSblog who has argued 22 cases before the Supreme Court, says filing now indicates the administration wants the case heard this term. "The technical deadline to file the petition was November, but the practical deadline if you want to get a case heard this term was much sooner," he says, adding that he believes the Supreme Court will announce sometime around Thanksgiving that it will hear the case. "The point wasn't that they had a deadline to ask the Supreme Court; they had a deadline to ask the Supreme Court if they were going to get a ruling."

[See a slide show of 10 ways the GOP can take down Obamacare.]

Goldstein adds that the main reason for pursuing quick action is most likely a common-sense one: The government needs an answer. "Delay was just going to make it too hard as a practical matter," he says. "They just need an answer so [the Department of Health and Human Services] in particular knows whether it should be issuing regulations, and whether people should be getting ready or not."

This development means, however, that a ruling would come amid presidential election fever, a gamble for the administration since the controversial law will be a key political issue with plenty of media coverage, either way the high court rules. If the law—considered Obama's landmark accomplishment by supporters—is struck down, Republicans would probably consider it a huge, motivating win, potentially demoralizing the president's base. However, Republicans could suffer politically from taking away popular provisions of the law, like free preventive care and allowing kids to stay on parents' insurance plans until age 26. If the law is upheld, Obama will probably look stronger, but vehement opponents of the law might see that ruling as a rallying cry to once again push for congressional repeal—and to get out the vote for repeal-friendly Republicans running for Senate.

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Read More

US court upholds Chevron oil fine

  Residents say pollution was widespread, while Chevron says money was spent on a clean-up A US court has overturned a block on Ecuadoreans collecting damages totalling $18.2bn (£11.5bn) from Chevron over Amazon oil pollution.
The order reversed a previous judge's ruling that froze enforcement of the fine outside Ecuador.
But it is not the end of the legal saga, which is also going through the courts in Ecuador.
Texaco, which merged with Chevron in 2001, was accused of dumping toxic materials in the Ecuadorean Amazon.
In February, an Ecuadorean court ruled that Chevron should pay to clean up pollution, awarding damages of more than $9bn as well as punitive damages of more than $8bn.
But Chevron, which argues that this judgement was fraudulent, successfully appealed to a New York judge to have collection of the fine blocked.
That decision was overturned on Monday, when the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York lifted the injunction.
'Toxic dumps'
"We can now at least dream there will be justice and compensation for the damage, the environmental crime, committed by Chevron in Ecuador," lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, Pablo Fajardo, told the Associated Press.
However, the plaintiffs have agreed not to attempt to collect the damages until the appeals process is completed in Ecuador.

Chevron has challenged the fine, arguing that lawyers and supporters of the indigenous groups who brought the case conspired to fabricate evidence.
"Chevron remains confident that once the full facts are examined, the fraudulent judgement will be found unenforceable and those who procured it will be required to answer for their misconduct," a company statement said.
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of 30,000 Ecuadoreans, in a case which has dragged on for years.
Ecuadorean indigenous groups said Texaco dumped more than 18bn gallons (68bn litres) of toxic materials into unlined pits and rivers between 1972 and 1992.
But Chevron says Texaco spent $40m cleaning up the area during the 1990s, and signed an agreement with Ecuador in 1998 absolving it of any further responsibility.
Last month, international arbitrators ordered the Ecuadorean government to pay $96m to Chevron because Ecuador's courts had violated international law as a result of delays in resolving commercial disputes involving Texaco.

Read More

Swiss court to retry Abacha son

  Sani Abacha may have stolen more than $2bn (£1.3bn) from Nigeria's coffers Switzerland's highest court has ordered the retrial of the son of former Nigerian military ruler Sani Abacha.
Abba Abacha was given a two-year suspended sentence in June 2010 for taking part in a criminal organisation, and his assets were confiscated.
The retrial was ordered because he had been unable to get a Swiss visa to attend the trial.
Nigerian state lawyers believe Sani Abacha, who ruled from 1993 to 1998, may have stolen $2.2bn (£1.3bn).
After his father's death in 1998, Abba Abacha and other members of the family controlled the funds.
Nigeria asked the Swiss government in 1999 to help it recover the money, much of which was thought to be hidden in Swiss banks.
Switzerland has so far handed back about $700m to Nigeria.
Abba Abacha was ordered to return $350m of illegally gained assets at his trial last year in the police court in Geneva.
But the Swiss Federal Tribunal annulled the sentence and ordered the retrial on the grounds that Mr Abacha's rights had been violated and because of procedural irregularities.

Read More

Mixed ruling in Yukos court case

  Yukos representatives filed the $98bn claim in 2004 - the largest in the ECHR's history The European Court of Human Rights has ruled in a case between the oil company Yukos and the Russian government - but not come down clearly on either side.
It dismissed claims that Russia had abused the law to destroy the firm, but found its legal rights were violated.
Yukos claimed it was illegally driven out of business by authorities who hounded it with years of tax fraud charges before its 2007 liquidation.
Former Yukos chiefs had asked for $98bn (£62bn) to compensate shareholders.
Representatives for what was once Russia's biggest oil company filed the claim in 2004 - the largest in the history of the Strasbourg-based court.
They claimed that the Russian government's actions were "unlawful, disproportionate, arbitrary and discriminatory, and amounted to disguised expropriation" of the company, which at the time pumped two million barrels of oil a day - more than Libya or Qatar.
Khodorkovsky versus the Kremlin
In Tuesday's ruling, seven ECHR judges said Russia had violated property laws and the right to a fair trial in its handling of the company.
But the court held "unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 18... concerning whether the Russian authorities had misused the legal proceedings to destroy Yukos and seize its assets".
The Strasbourg court said its ruling was not final and did not deal with the question of the award of damages and costs.
Yukos founder Mikhail Khodorkovsky was jailed in 2005 for tax evasion and other offences
Yukos's former chief financial officer, Bruce Misamore, said the court had vindicated the firm's position.
"The ECHR confirmed that the Russian tax proceedings were unfair finding that the limited period given to Yukos to have access to the case material was ridiculously short, however many lawyers Yukos might have been able to deploy," he said.
But a Russian justice ministry official said the ruling was a blow for the firm's former managers.
"I am convinced that our opponents did not expect this," the official, Andrei Fyodorov, was quoted as telling Reuters news agency.
"I am sure they expected a crushing decision that would grind Russia into dust and that they would be awarded $100bn and that they can run off to drink coffee... It is a very big blow for them."
Many observers believed Yukos was targeted because its founder, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, was seen as a political threat to then-President Vladimir Putin.
However, the court said the Russian authorities had carried out "legitimate actions... to counter the company's tax evasion".
The authorities had begun pursuing Yukos in 2002, accusing it of creating shell companies to hide revenue from the tax authorities.
Yukos struggled to survive after facing a series of tax demands totalling $27bn. It eventually had its assets frozen and was forced to sell its shares in other companies.
Mikhail Khodorkovsky was jailed for eight years in 2005 for tax evasion and other offences. His sentence was later extended and he is now not due for release until 2016. His supporters claim he was targeted because he had fallen foul of the Kremlin.
Yukos was declared insolvent in 2006 and was liquidated the following year, with most of its property being transferred to the state oil company, Rosneft.
Rulings of the ECHR - which agrees to hear about one in 20 applications that it receives - are binding on all 47 members of the Council of Europe, which includes Russia.
Past rulings have obliged governments to amend legislation and administrative practices.

Read More

German court decision on Samsung WINS Apple tablets

1 of 2. File photo of an Apple iPad (L) next to Tablet devices Samsung Galaxy Guide in consumer electronics of Internationale Funkausstellung (IFA) fair in ' Exhibition Centre ' Messe Berlin in Berlin, September 2, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Thomas Peter/FilesBy Nicola Leske

DÜSSELDORF, Germany | Fri 09/09/2011 11:29 EST

DÜSSELDORF, Germany (Reuters)-Apple Inc marked a symbolic victory in legal efforts to keep its leadership in the local market for computer Tablet PC when a German court upheld the ban blocking the local unit of Samsung sell their pills in the largest Galaxy 10.1 economy of Europe.

Samsung, which he said will appeal the decision, and Apple have been locked in a global battle of the smartphone and tablet patents since April.

Samsung Galaxy devices are seen as among the greatest challenging for Apple's portable products that have achieved great success.

Samsung said it was disappointed with the decision and that he believed the decision restricts design innovation and progress in the industry.

He said he would explore all legal options, including continuing to aggressively Apple so that Samsung said are a violation of their patents on wireless technology worldwide.

Craig Cartier, an analyst at consulting firm Frost & Sullivan, said that while Friday's decision would not affect greatly Samsung could set a precedent for other courts and have repercussions for patent battles around the world.

"There was an arms race in the world patent that led to a high value of patent portfolios, including the patent auction of Nortel's $ 4.5 billion," said Cartier.

"Companies can start questioning whether patent values are simply another bubble waiting to burst."

STILL FOR SALE

The injunction upheld by the Court on Friday bars Samsung Germany sell the tablet 10.1 Galaxy in Germany.

But retailers like consumer electronics chain Media Markt will still be able to sell existing stock device by selling or receiving new supplies of father of the South Korean Group Samsung international.

Media Markt said it was too early to say what the verdict would mean for your business.

Patent experts Florian Mueller said on his blog www.fosspatents.com that the prohibition of marketing in Europe for Germany Samsung has no practical consequences.

The German subsidiary is also prevented from selling the pills in Europe, excluding the Netherlands where Apple has requested a separate injunction.

Giving the ruling, judge Johanna Brueckner-Hofmann said in court in Duesseldorf that the overall impression of the tablet was very similar to Apple's iPad drawing.

Brueckner-Hofmann "(tablet) is distinguished by its simple, smooth areas," he said.

On the other hand, a Dutch Court ruled last month that not detected no violations of Samsung's pills.

Apple repeated his usual statement saying that: "this kind of blatant copy is wrong, and we must protect the intellectual property of Apple, when companies steal our ideas".

In a battle of global intellectual property, Apple claimed the Galaxy line of phones and tablets "faithfully" copied the iPhone and iPad and has sued the Korean company in the United States, Australia, Japan and Korea, as well as in Europe.

Samsung, whose tablets are based on Google's Android software, Inc-counter has sued Apple.

On Thursday, Apple also filed a lawsuit against Samsung in Japan, seeking a ban on sales of some of your gadgets there.

That same day, smartphone manufacturer HTC said it extended its lawsuit against Apple to include more patents the Taiwanese company Google acquired the legal battles have become increasingly common in the high tech industry.

(Additional reporting by Harro ten Wolde; Edited by David Holmes, David Cowell and David Hulmes)

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Read More