Litigation involving Apple Inc. (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Litigation involving Apple Inc." in English language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank English rank
1st place
1st place
272nd place
225th place
49th place
47th place
1,459th place
991st place
1,697th place
1,040th place
7th place
7th place
67th place
64th place
1,216th place
797th place
99th place
77th place
388th place
265th place
8th place
10th place
572nd place
436th place
12th place
11th place
3,285th place
2,156th place
34th place
27th place
696th place
428th place
14th place
14th place
low place
low place
109th place
87th place
2,275th place
1,288th place
187th place
146th place
466th place
349th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
79th place
65th place
786th place
558th place
92nd place
72nd place
low place
low place
137th place
101st place
701st place
439th place
703rd place
501st place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
412th place
266th place
193rd place
152nd place
6,282nd place
3,410th place
3,390th place
2,174th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
28th place
26th place
low place
low place
2,573rd place
1,594th place
114th place
90th place
132nd place
96th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
2,302nd place
1,389th place
low place
low place
66th place
350th place
68th place
117th place
220th place
155th place
36th place
33rd place
32nd place
21st place
704th place
507th place
918th place
556th place
268th place
215th place
low place
low place
1,029th place
657th place
20th place
30th place
low place
low place
3,174th place
2,751st place
19th place
18th place
241st place
193rd place
1,478th place
868th place
low place
low place
2,882nd place
2,105th place
22nd place
19th place
low place
low place
115th place
82nd place
293rd place
203rd place
1,162nd place
731st place
139th place
108th place
low place
low place
1,064th place
992nd place
low place
low place
70th place
63rd place
4,010th place
2,209th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
5,453rd place
3,033rd place
low place
low place
low place
low place
4,121st place
2,662nd place
4,522nd place
2,903rd place
low place
low place
4,147th place
2,625th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
5,344th place
3,420th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
1,182nd place
725th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
1,060th place
700th place
7,049th place
4,298th place
1,868th place
1,240th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
424th place
310th place
1,994th place
1,215th place

26.34

128.197.26.34

abc.net.au

aljazeera.com

apple.com

apple.com

info.apple.com

support.apple.com

itunes.apple.com

  • Woolworth's App in the Apple AppStore, itunes.apple.com. Accessed July 27, 2012.

appleinsider.com

archive.today

arstechnica.com

bankrupt.com

bbc.co.uk

news.bbc.co.uk

  • Complaint, U.S. v. Apple, Inc., Hachette Book Group, Inc., Harpercollins Publishers LLC, Verlagsgruppe Georg Von Holtzbrinck GMBH, Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC d/b/a Macmillan, The Penguin Group, a Division of Pearson PLC, Penguin Group (USA), Inc., and Simon & Schuster, Inc., case 1:12-cv-02826-UA and 11-md-02293, U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D.N.Y., filed April 11, 2012. Accessed 2012-4-12.
  • Apple giants do battle in court, BBC News, news.bbc.co.uk, March 29, 2006. Accessed 2012-1-28.
  • Nokia suing Apple over the iPhone, BBC News, news.bbc.co.uk, October 22, 2009; article now at Apple and Nokia's battle hots up, BBC News, news.bbc.co.uk, 2009-12-11. Accessed 2012-3-26.

bbc.co.uk

bbc.com

bgr.com

billboard.com

bloomberg.com

business-humanrights.org

  • "Lawsuit against Apple, Google, Tesla, and others (re child labour, DRC)". Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. Retrieved 2023-08-12.

canada.com

www2.canada.com

casetext.com

cbc.ca

cisco.com

newsroom.cisco.com

cnbc.com

cnet.com

news.cnet.com

cnet.com

cnn.com

columbialawreview.org

corporate-ir.net

media.corporate-ir.net

  • Apple Computer, Inc., Apple 10K, 2006, p. 41.

eff.org

engadget.com

europa.eu

filemaker.com

findarticles.com

findlaw.com

news.findlaw.com

forbrukerombudet.no

forbrukerportalen.no

fosspatents.com

gamasutra.com

gdcourts.gov.cn

generalpatent.com

ghostarchive.org

huffingtonpost.com

ijclp.net

  • Zingales, Nicolo, DRM Misuse: An Emerging Doctrine In Search For Principles Archived November 11, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, International Journal of Communications Law and Policy, 2011:14. Accessed July 23, 2012. See also Microsoft Corp. v. Rechanik, 249 F. App'x 476 (7th Cir. 2007). Accessed 2012-7-27. (Distributor of counterfeit software violated copyright laws.); and US v. Kononchuk, 485 F.3d 199 (3d Cir. 2007). Accessed 2012-7-27. (Software counterfeiters face criminal liability.)

inc.com

independent.co.uk

informationweek.com

infozine.com

ipaustralia.gov.au

pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au

ipocracy.org

ipodlawsuit.com

ipwatchdog.com

itb.ac.id

ipv6.ppk.itb.ac.id

itproportal.com

johnsonitunessettlement.com

  • Important Dates, Johnson iTunes Settlement. Accessed April 2, 2012.
  • Class Notice, Johnson v. Apple Inc. Class Action Settlement website, johnsonitunessettlement.com. Accessed April 2, 2012.

justia.com

docs.justia.com

justice.gov

latimes.com

articles.latimes.com

law360.com

lexum.org

scc.lexum.org

  • Apple Computer Inc. v Mackintosh Computers Ltd., 44 DLR (4th) 74 Federal Court of Appeal, 1987, Canada, (later affirmed, Supreme Court of Canada Archived June 9, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 209). Accessed July 22, 2012.

living-information.de

lmsd.org

loc.gov

macobserver.com

macrumors.com

macworld.com

mercurynews.com

moneyam.com

nbcnews.com

networkworld.com

nmmlaw.com

nominet.org.uk

northwestern.edu

scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu

npr.org

nytimes.com

nytimes.com

oft.gov.uk

patents.google.com

pcmag.com

qcollege.ca

quotemedia.com

app.quotemedia.com

reuters.com

sccaseinfo.org

  • Proview Electronics Co. Limited, et al. v. Apple, Inc., et al., case 1-12-CV-219219, Ca. Superior Ct. (Santa Clara Co.), filed February 17, 2012. Case Docket Archived April 26, 2012, at the Wayback Machine. Accessed 2012-4-19.

scholar.google.com

  • In re Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation, case C-05-00037-JW, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107127, N.D. Cal., December 22, 2008. Accessed 2012-7-26.
  • Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc., 110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 145, Cal. Ct. App., 6th App. Dist 2001. Accessed April 2, 2012.
  • In Re iPhone Application Litigation, case 10-CV-05878-LHK, U.S. Dist.Ct., N.D. Cal. 2011. Accessed January 28, 2012. Other consolidated actions related to the matter were identified by the court as: Chiu v. Apple, Inc., 11-cv-00407-LHK, filed 2011-1-27; Rodimer v. Apple, Inc., et al., 11-cv-00700-LHK, filed 2011-2-15; Gupta v. Apple, Inc., 11-cv-02110-LHK, filed 2011-4-28; Velez-Colon v. Apple, Inc., 11-cv-02270-LHK, filed May 9, 2011; Normand v. Apple, Inc., 11-cv-02317-LHK, filed 2011-5-10; and one case not yet consolidated, Jenkins v. Apple, Inc., 11-cv-01828-LHK, removed 2011-4-14. Other related actions with substantially similar allegations against Apple and other Defendants were filed in the District of Puerto Rico and the Northern District of Alabama.
  • Order Granting Defendants' Motions To Dismiss For Lack Of Article III Standing With Leave To Amend, In Re iPhone Application Litigation, case 11-MD-02250-LHK, September 20, 2011. The Consolidated Complaint contains eight claims: (1) Negligence against Apple only; (2) Violation of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"), 18 U.S.C. § 1030; (3) Computer Crime Law, Cal. Penal Code § 502; (4) Trespass on Chattel; (5) Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 against Apple only; (6) Unfair Competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; (7) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and (8) Unjust Enrichment.
  • A case illustrating the 'no damages' problem is the Ceridian case: the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a trial court decision that employees of Ceridian Corporation's customers did not have standing to sue Ceridian after the payroll processing firm suffered a data breach. See Reilly vs Ceridian, Ct.App. 3d Cir., No. 11-1738, 2011-12-12, (on appeal from case 2-10-cv-05142, U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. N.J. 2010). See also Cherny v. Emigrant Bank, 604 F.Supp. 2d 605, U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D.N.Y. 2009. Accessed April 17, 2012.
  • Owens v. Apple, Inc., 09-cv-0479-MJR, U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D.Ill., 2009.
  • In Re Macadam Computer, Inc., U.S. Dist.Ct., N.D. Cal. 2007. Accessed April 2, 2012.
  • Zingales, Nicolo, DRM Misuse: An Emerging Doctrine In Search For Principles Archived November 11, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, International Journal of Communications Law and Policy, 2011:14. Accessed July 23, 2012. See also Microsoft Corp. v. Rechanik, 249 F. App'x 476 (7th Cir. 2007). Accessed 2012-7-27. (Distributor of counterfeit software violated copyright laws.); and US v. Kononchuk, 485 F.3d 199 (3d Cir. 2007). Accessed 2012-7-27. (Software counterfeiters face criminal liability.)
  • Xerox Corp. v. Apple Computer, Inc., 734 F. Supp. 1542 (N.D. Cal. 1990). Accessed December 21, 2012.
  • Apple v. HTC, C.A. Nos. 10-166-GMS, 10-167-GMS, U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Del., January 14, 2011. Accessed 2012-7-27.
  • Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corporation, 673 F. Supp. 2d 943, U.S. Dist.Ct., N.D. Cal. 2009. Accessed July 27, 2012.
  • Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corporation, case 10-15113, U.S. Ct.App., 9th Cir. 2011. Accessed July 27, 2012.

sec.gov

secdatabase.com

edgar.secdatabase.com

securityfocus.com

seekingalpha.com

smh.com.au

spiegel.de

ssrn.com

  • Romanosky, Sasha, Hoffman, David, and Acquisti, Alessandro, Empirical Analysis of Data Breach Litigation, Heinz Col. of Pub. Pol. and Info. Systems, Carnegie Mellon Univ., Beasley School of Law, Temple Univ., February 19, 2012. Accessed 2012-7-23.
  • Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement at pp. 5–6, Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., case 6:07-cv-00546-LED, E.D.Tex., March 6, 2009. (Asserted, inter alia, that the iPhone infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 5,379,057 and 5,675,362.); and see Seaman, Christopher B., Reconsidering the Georgia-Pacific Standard for Reasonable Royalty Patent Damages, BYU Law Review, No. 5, p. 1661, 2010; Chicago-Kent Intellectual Property, Science & Technology Research Paper No. 10-030, 2011-2-1, via papers.ssrn.com. Accessed July 27, 2012.

techcrunch.com

tellonapple.org

  • "Complaints". Archived from the original on 2007-03-17. Retrieved 2016-09-05. in the reseller actions of 2003-2005. Accessed April 2, 2012.

theage.com.au

theglobeandmail.com

theguardian.com

theregister.co.uk

theverge.com

thinksecret.com

timesonline.co.uk

translate.google.com

uscourts.gov

cand.uscourts.gov

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov

usitc.gov

uspto.gov

ttabvue.uspto.gov

tsdr.uspto.gov

tdr.uspto.gov

tarr.uspto.gov

patft.uspto.gov

victoria.ac.nz

washingtonpost.com

washingtonpost.com

voices.washingtonpost.com

washingtontimes.com

web.archive.org

wired.com

wlf.org

woolworths.com.au

wsj.com

zdnet.com