Apple and Ericsson call truce in years-long fight over cellular patents

Apple is ending another battle over wireless patents. The iPhone maker and Ericsson have struck a licensing deal that settles all the legal disputes between the two companies, including civil lawsuits and a US International Trade Commission complaint. While the exact terms remain under wraps, the multi-year pact includes cross-licensing for “standard-essential” cellular technology as well as other patent rights.

The tech giants have a long history of fighting over cell tech. Apple sued Ericsson in 2015 to get more favorable terms for LTE patents, but Ericsson responded with a lawsuit of its own claiming that the iPhone and iPad infringed on its patented ideas. The two achieved peace with a seven-year agreement. As that arrangement neared its renewal time, however, the animosity returned. Ericsson sued in October 2021 over Apple’s attempts to shrink royalty rates, while Apple countersued in December that year over allegations Ericsson was using unfair pressure tactics for the renewal. Ericsson filed another lawsuit this January over 5G licenses.

We’ve asked Apple for comment. In announcing the deal, Ericsson’s IP chief Christina Petersson said the ceasefire would let the two companies “focus on bringing the best technology” to the world. Ericsson is one of the world’s largest wireless patent holders, and said the Apple agreement would help boost its licensing revenue for the fourth quarter to the equivalent of $532 million or more.

The timing may be significant. Apple is reportedly developing 5G iPhone modems to replace Qualcomm’s chips, having bought most of Intel’s modem business and even launching not-so-subtle recruitment efforts in Qualcomm’s backyard. The Ericsson truce may help clear the path for those modems by reducing the chances of legal dust-ups over whatever Apple builds. And time might be in short supply — rumors have circulated that Apple could use its own components as soon as 2023.

Riot Games sues Chinese tech giant NetEase for allegedly copying ‘Valorant’

Riot Games has sued Chinese tech giant NetEase, calling its mobile game Hyper Front “a copy of substantial parts of Valorant,” Law360 has reported. On top of matching the format, NetEase also replicated parts of its character designs, game maps, weapon designs and more, Riot claims. It brought the case to the high court of England and Wales, but is also launching complaints in Germany, Brazil and Singapore, according to Polygon. 

Like Valorant, Hyper Front is a free-to-play first-person shooter that pits teams of five against each other in different modes. In its claim, Riot noted that Hyper Front began development shortly after it revealed an early of Valorant dubbed “Project A” in October of 2019. NetEase, meanwhile, showed off a beta version of Hyper Front under the code name “Project M.” 

The release of Hyper Front in Singapore and other countries prompted complaints from users that it was essentially a “copy” of Valorant. That led to NetEase making modifications to the games, but the level of infringement goes beyond that, Riot said. The modified version of Hyper Front is currently available on Android and iOS stores, boasting more than one million downloads and 48,000+ reviews on Google Play. 

NetEase is currently involved in a dispute with Korea’s PUBG corp. over two NetEase mobile games. Earlier this year, two California judges said NetEase faced an “uphill battle” in challenging a settlement agreement with PUBG. Meanwhile, Riot Games recently settled a class-action gender discrimination lawsuit for $100 million. 

Indiana sues TikTok over alleged security and child safety issues

TikTok is now facing its first state lawsuit over data security. Indiana’s Attorney General has sued TikTok for allegedly misleading users about China’s data access and violating child safety. The social media service supposedly broke state consumer la…

Amazon is being sued for allegedly ‘stealing’ driver tips in DC

Amazon is facing more legal trouble for allegedly robbing delivery drivers of their tips. The District of Columbia has sued Amazon over claims the company was “stealing” tips from Flex drivers. As the Federal Trade Commission argued last year, DC claims Amazon changed its policies in 2016 so that it would use large portions of drivers’ tips to cover base pay and operational costs. The company not only used “misleading” language in its response to worried couriers but falsely told customers that 100 percent of tips would go drivers, according to the District’s Office of the Attorney General.

DC acknowledged that Amazon had paid $61.7 million as part of a settlement with the FTC. However, it said the federal deal helped Amazon elude “appropriate accountability” that included punishment for the damage done to consumers. The Attorney General’s office is asking for civil penalties for every violation of the District’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act as well as a court order barring Amazon from implementing similar practices in the future.

In a statement to Engadget, Amazon maintained that the lawsuit is “without merit” and reflects policies changed in 2019. The tech giant already paid the tips to drivers as part of the FTC deal, according to a spokesperson.

Legal battles like this aren’t unique to Amazon. DoorDash faced a DC lawsuit in 2019 over comparable accusations. The food delivery service reportedly used tips under $10 to replace couriers’ guaranteed pay, but still implied that these were bonuses. DoorDash revised its rules earlier that year to address the complaints.

The timing of the lawsuit is less than ideal for Amazon, to put it mildly. The company just launched a “thank my driver” feature that lets Alexa users in the US share their appreciation for the courier who dropped off their latest package. While it’s supposed to motivate drivers, the gratitude will only be verbal in most cases — Amazon is only handing out $5 rewards to drivers for the first 1 million “thank yous.” As you might imagine, that might not go over well at a time when Amazon has been accused of shortchanging drivers and imposing difficult working conditions.

NLRB says Apple violated federal law with anti-union meetings in Atlanta

Apple’s attempts to quell employees’ unionization efforts violated federal law, according to the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB’s Atlanta regional director concluded that Apple held mandatory “captive audience” meetings and made coercive sta…