Apple has had two suits filed against them in the past week:
The first involves the iPod Nano and a consumer's group in California:
As reported by MacMinute:
According to a report on Macworld UK's Web site, a consumer group has filed a lawsuit against Apple alleging faults with the digital music player's quality. "Apple Computer's iPod nano music player, marketed for its sleek beauty, cannot withstand normal use without becoming severely scratched, often to the point where its screen is unreadable," the complaint alleges. "Apple is refusing to give refunds to purchasers who bought the defective product, while forcing others to pay a $25 fee to get a replacement that is supposed to be 'free' under Apple's warranty," the complaint continues.
I'm not sure whether this is the first lawsuit coming to action that was filed a few weeks after the Nano came out, whether this is the second lawsuit that was filed in December, or whether this is an entirely new lawsuit.
See this previous FYT story:
The Great Winshield Scare Of '54 / The Great iPod Nano Scare of '05
Moving on, Apple also saw a potential threat from AT&T:
PC Magazine claims to have obtained a letter sent to national retailers that Apple and four other companies are infringing on AT&T's Mpeg 4 video compression patent
Back in October of 2005 MacMinute reported:
AT&T considering Mac OS X for internal use
AT&T is evaluating different operating systems, including Mac OS X and Linux, as alternatives to Microsoft Windows for internal use. "The company's chief information officer, Hossein Eslambolchi, has set up a team in AT&T's research labs to assess the appropriateness of desktop operating systems for the company," reports CNET News.com. "The company currently uses Windows on its desktop PCs, which number in the tens of thousands. The engineers are testing and measuring how Windows, Linux and Mac OS X stack up on security, reliability and total cost of ownership, Dickman said. AT&T expects to make a decision on the merits of the desktop operating systems by the end of next year or early 2006."
Were they really just evaluating Quicktime for patent infringement?
I'm not sure if AT&T couldn't be countersued for defamation ... I'm not sure if they have the right to warn retailers without a court hearing or judgement about patent infringements.