Loadstar 131/131.d81/t.lawsuits

Text File | 2022-08-26 | 12KB | 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 [e-mail])



    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, 5