Loadstar 131

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ Loadstar 131 / 131.d81 / t.lawsuits < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1995-01-01 | 12.0 KB | 422 lines

Apple & IBM Win Repetitive Injury Case 03/09/95 CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA, U.S.A., 1995 MAR 9 (NB) -- A Minnesota jury of eight voted unanimously in favor of IBM (NYSE:IBM) and Apple Computer (NASDAQ:AAPL), as they rendered a verdict in the repetitive stress injury (RSI) case of Nancy Urbanski, a Minnesota school teacher. She had filed suit against both companies jointly, claiming she had sustained repetitive stress injuries (RSI) from using keyboards sold by both companies. Just a week before the decision, Apple announced a settlement in the case due to what it said were procedural errors of the part of its outside counsel on the case. In spite of the settlement, the jury still considered Apple in the decision. The outside firm, Saperston & Day, agreed to pay the settlement. Speaking to Newsbytes, Betty Taylor, an Apple spokesperson, said, "We are really pleased with this decision." Referring to an earlier RSI case found in favor of Compaq, she said, "This is the second decision in this area and this really does reaffirm our position that there is no scientific evidence which connects repetitive stress injuries to keyboards." Responding to Apple's settlement of the case, she said, "We cannot go into the details of the procedural errors other than to say we had supplied our counsel with documents for the case which were not turned over to the plaintiff's attorneys. It is simply a matter of timing and not the content of the documents." The amount of the settlement remains undisclosed. The atmosphere at IBM was very upbeat, in view of the fact that it has been named in more than 300 pending RSI cases. In an interview with Newsbytes, Tom Beerman, corporate spokesperson for IBM, said, "We are very happy with the outcome of the trial. This supports our view that there is no scientific evidence that keyboards play a role in repetitive stress injuries. This case is an example of the number researchers and scientists who have studied this issue and found the same conclusion. We feel this sends a very strong signal to all concerned and shows science and justice are on our side." Apple says it does not reveal information about pending cases and could not comment on whether it was named in any of the 300 cases IBM referred to. IBM's Beerman, said, "There are dozens of similar RSI cases which have be dismissed or dropped for various reasons and we feel confident in defending our position in these cases." (Patrick McKenna/19950309/Press Contact: Chris McManus, Brodeur & partners, 914-697-9711) White House Sued Over Secret Info Highway Directive 03/09/95 WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A., 1995 MAR 9 (NB) -- The Electronic Privacy Information Center has sued the White House seeking documents related to a secret government group responsible for developing policies on information security. President Clinton last September established the Security Policy Board by a secret directive. According to David Sobel, EPIC counsel, very little information about the board's activities have been made public. Among the things the lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act seeks is the presidential directive itself, Sobel told Newsbytes. "Secrecy and classified directives take us the wrong direction on the information highway," says Sobel, citing the administration's controversial Clipper chip propose as an example of misguided security policy. "The Clipper fiasco makes clear that it is a mistake to let secret government agencies set standards for the nation's communications infrastructure," Sobel says. Clinton's Presidential Decision Directive 29, which established the board, is the latest in a line of White House actions on information security, going back to the Reagan administration. In 1984, President Reagan issued Decision Directive 145, giving the National Security Agency new powers to issue policies and develop standards for civilian agencies and the private sector. Civil libertarians and industry groups were outraged by the Reagan directive and Congress in 1987 enacted the Computer Security Act, restricting NSA's role to the protection of classified information systems. But in 1990, President Bush in National Security Directive 42 expanded to the role of the NSA and the White House National Security Council in establishing government- wide security policy. According to documents about the Security Policy Board that EPIC has obtained, the board will have responsibility for "both the classified and the sensitive but unclassified world." The document says that the "emerging reliance upon a common national information infrastructure makes it increasingly difficult to accept the logic of two separate but parallel structures for the formulation of information systems security policy and the development of supporting technology," which EPIC views ominously as a government Big Brother policy for the information superhighway. "The White House is trying to create a new order in US security policy," Sobel told Newsbytes. Sobel said EPIC decided to file suit to get the Clinton directive after District Court Judge Charles Ritchey ruled that the White House National Security Council is a federal agency under the law, opening up an institution that has so far operated largely in secret. He said it is likely the administration will appeal Ritchey's decision the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. EPIC sued the White House in the Bush administration to get access to the Directive 42 and was successful. (Kennedy Maize/19950309/Press Contact: David Sobel, 202-544-9240, Internet e-mail sobel@epic.org) Supreme Court Denies Apple Suit Against Microsoft 02/22/95 WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A., 1995 FEB 22 (NB) -- The US Supreme Court has denied Apple Computer Inc.'s (NASDAQ:AAPL) petition for a "writ of certiorari," finally putting to an end a seven-year copyright suit against Microsoft Corp. and Hewlett- Packard. The ruling comes just one month after Apple petitioned the high court to hear an appeal on the case. In March, 1988, Apple filed a $5.5 million lawsuit against the two companies alleging that Microsoft Windows version 2.03 and Hewlett- Packard's user interface New Wave infringed copyrights in seven Apple software programs. Apple added Microsoft Windows 3.0 to the case in 1991. The suit had the potential to set precedent for the "look and feel" of user interfaces, since Apple wanted to stop other companies from using pictures of items like trash cans and file folders to represent functions on a personal computer. The US District Court conducted an element-by-element review of the Microsoft and Apple products and in June, 1993, found there was no infringement. The District Court judge ruled that in order to win its case, Apple had to prove that the competitor's imitation of the overall appearance of the Mac screen was identical, not just substantially similar. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the trial court finding in September, 1994. The court also ruled that most of the screen display was covered by a 1985 licensing agreement between Apple and Microsoft, and further said that the symbols, or icons, used are not protected by copyright due to their "generic" nature. In its appeal to the Supreme Court Apple argued that there is substantial case law that says "substantially similar" to the original also constitutes infringement. Apple called the suit "the most significant copyright case of recent times (related to the software industry)" and warned that the lower-court rulings leave US companies vulnerable to widespread copying by foreign companies. Apple spokesperson Betty Taylor explained for Newsbytes that a "writ of certiorari" is the legal name for a request for the nation's highest court to review a case. Asked for Apple's reaction to the decision, Taylor said, "This is the final step in the appeals process. Apple is disappointed. We felt it was an appropriate case for the high court to review as it relates to future copyright law and the information industry." (Jim Mallory/19950222/Press contact: Alison O'Brien, Waggener Edstrom for Microsoft, 503-245-0905 or Betty Taylor, Apple Computer, 408- 996-1010) Federal Cryptographic Suit Filed 02/23/95 WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A., 1995 FEB 23 (NB) -- With a lawsuit in federal court in California, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has challenged the constitutionality of federal laws that restrict publication of cryptographic documents and software. EFF, a Washington-based group interested in "computer freedom," charges that federal export control laws, specifically the regulations known as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR, violate the Constitution. Under these rules, encryption software is treated the same as a military assault rifle. "In fact," Shari Steele, counsel at EFF, told Newsbytes, "encryption products and the AK-47 (Soviet- style assault rifle) appear on the same government list." In the case in California, EFF is representing Daniel Bernstein, a mathematics graduate student at the University of California at Berkeley. He developed an algorithm, wrote a paper titled "The Snuffle Encryption System," which explains the algorithm, and wrote a computer program called Snuffle 5.0 to implement the algorithm. Bernstein submitted a request to the US State Department that he be allowed to publish the paper and the source code. According to his complaint, the government told him he would need an export license in order to publish the material. He appealed that decision, and, according to the complaint, "as of the date of this complaint, over one year later, (the government agencies named in the suit) have failed to respond." According to EFF's Steele, the export license is an onerous burden. "Under the terms of the license, each recipient of the licensed software or information must be tracked and reported to the government. Penalties can be pretty stiff -- ten years in jail, a million dollar criminal fine, plus civil fines. This legal scheme effectively prevents individuals from engaging in otherwise legal communications about encryption." The lawsuit challenges the law and regulation as a violation of the free speech provisions of the first amendment to the Constitution. The case argues that software and documentation is not a manufactured good, but is published and protected just as a movie, book or telephone conversation. If the suit is successful, it will clear the way for cryptographic software to be treated like any other kind of software. "It will allow computer and network users, including those who use the Internet, much more freedom to build and exchange" encryption software, said the EFF in a written statement. "And it will enable the next generation of Internet protocols to come with built-in cryptographic security and privacy, replacing a sagging part of today's Internet infrastructure." "Without these current restrictions," says Steele, "what Kevin Mitnick did over Christmas when he raided the Internet would not have happened. Everyone would have implemented password protection with strong encryption, something we cannot do today." The case was filed in Federal District Court for the Northern District of California. EFF says it expects the case to take several years. "If the past is any guide, the government will use every trick and every procedural delaying tactic available to avoid having a court look at the real issues," says the organization. The full text of the lawsuit and other materials is available from EFF's online archives. The legal exhibits which contained cryptographic information are not available online, says EFF, because "making them publicly available on the Internet could be considered an illegal export until the law is struck down. The addresses are: http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Policy/Cry pto/ITAR export/Bernstein case/, ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Policy/Crypto/ITAR export/Bernstein case/, gopher.eff.org, 1/pub/EFF/Policy/Crypto/ITAR export/Bernstein case/. (Kennedy Maize/19950223/Press and Reader Contact: Shari Steele, 202- 861-7700 ext 6715, Internet e-mail ssteele@eff.org)