Google sued by BT over Android patent disputes

Lawsuits these days are becoming more and more uncommon. They can arise because of infringement of copyright or on patents, arguments in business practises or agreements, and so on and so forth. For instance, it was reported that Apple had just recently lost a lawsuit in China over the name of the iPad. As a result, their best-selling tablet might have to be marketed under a different product name in the country. Apple had also lost a lawsuit versus Motorola, where a judge ruled that Apple had been guilty of infringing upon Motorola’s patents for data packet transfer technology (GPRS). On a similar note, BT Broadband is suing Google over Android patents. The broadband giant is claiming billions in damages against Google, claiming that the Android mobile operating system infringes a number of BT’s key patents. The lawsuit was filed in Delaware in the United States. BT claims that Google Maps, Google Music, and other location-based apps for Android infringe upon their patents that were filed in the 1990s. A spokesperson for BT has said: “BT can confirm that it has commenced legal proceedings against Google by filing a claim with the US district court of Delaware for patent infringement. The patents in question relate to technologies that underpin location-based services, navigation and guidance information, and personalised access to services and content. BT’s constant investment in innovation has seen it develop a large portfolio of patents, which are valuable corporate assets.” Independent expert Florian Müller commented: “Android already had more than enough intellectual problems anyway. Now Google faces one more large organisation that believes its rights are infringed. BT probably wants to continue to be able to do business with all mobile device makers and therefore decided to sue Google itself.” In response, a Google spokesman has said: “We believe these claims are without merit, and we will defend vigorously against them.”

Twitter lawsuit threatened over alleged Hezbollah aid

Is Twitter aiding and abetting terrorism? The director of an Israeli legal outfit says yes, and is threatening to sue the micro-blogging site if it doesn't change its policies. Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, director of the Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center, sent a letter to Twitter on Thursday asserting that the company is violating U.S. law by allowing groups such as Hezbollah and al Qaeda affiliate al-Shabaab to use its popular online network. "It has come to our attention that Twitter Inc. provides social media and associated services to such foreign terrorist organizations," Darshan-Leitner wrote. "Please be advised that (doing so) is illegal and will expose Twitter Inc. and its officers to both criminal prosecution and civil liability to American citizens and others victimized" by Hezbollah, al-Shabaab and other foreign terrorist entities. Twitter declined to comment when contacted by CNN. In her letter, Darshan-Leitner noted that Hezbollah and al-Shabaab are officially designated as terrorist organizations under U.S. law. She also cited a 2010 Supreme Court case -- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project -- which upheld a key provision of the Patriot Act prohibiting material support to groups designated as terrorist outfits. "Your provision of social media and associated services to Hezbollah and other foreign terrorist organizations would constitute the type of seemingly innocuous material support that would render your company and you personally criminally and civilly liable," she told Twitter CEO Richard Costolo. Hezbollah-controlled al-Manar television currently maintains a Twitter account with roughly 7,500 followers. Other groups considered terrorist organizations by the United States also maintain accounts. Hamas, the Islamist group that rules the Gaza Strip, posts regularly on at least one government-controlled account. Darshan-Leitner says she realizes there will be stiff opposition to a potential lawsuit from free speech advocates, but told CNN she nevertheless hopes Twitter will change its policies. "Once you bring it to their attention, they cannot say that they don't know," she said. Aden Fine, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, told CNN that the Supreme Court "has not directly addressed the issue of whether any speech allegedly supportive of a designated terrorist organization is unlawful." But "the government can't force private companies to censor lawful speech just because the government doesn't like the speech or the people making the speech," he said. Fine noted that since the Internet depends on private companies such as Twitter to function, any clampdown or adverse ruling could be used to restrict everyone's online communications. Social networks Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have been lauded for the role they played in the Arab Spring, a series of anti-regime protests that erupted across the Middle East starting in late 2010. The online networks and instant messaging services were used extensively to spread the word about demonstrations, especially in the case of the Egyptian uprising that toppled longtime strongman President Hosni Mubarak. A number of governments, however, have started arguing for stricter controls. Authorities in the United Kingdom say rioters used social the networks to coordinate mass civil disobedience earlier this year in London. State prosecutors in Mexico have accused two people of terrorism and sabotage by claiming that their Twitter posts helped spread false rumors about a school attack, leading to real-life violence on the streets of Veracruz. The Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center describes itself as a civil rights organization dedicated to "combating the terrorist organizations and the regimes that support them through lawsuits litigated in courtrooms around the world." It supported a similar campaign earlier this year directed at social media giant Facebook. Among other things, the center succeeded in getting Facebook to pull down a page created by Palestinian activists calling for a "Third Intifada" against Israel.