
via Chrome Unboxed – The Latest Chrome OS News https://ift.tt/2DGcxXb


Note: MacRumors is an affiliate partner with some of these vendors. When you click a link and make a purchase, we may receive a small payment, which helps us keep the site running.
According to the terms of the Confidentiality Agreement, while the agreement was in force, Apple could not advise a Court of Koss' threats to file baseless infringement claims or ask a Court to declare Apple's rights and resolve the legal uncertainty it faced. The Confidentiality Agreement also restricted how Apple could disclose and use the existence and contents of the discussions. But the agreement also protected Apple—Koss was not permitted to later use the fact that Apple had agreed to a discussion with Koss, or the contents of the discussion, against Apple in litigation.Apple now says this is precisely what Koss has done in bringing the lawsuit, thereby rendering it invalid. In addition to the alleged breach of contract, Apple also submitted documentary evidence that it says proves that it hasn't violated any of the patents cited by Koss in its original litigation.
In other words, having enticed Apple to participate in discussions, reveal information, and forego some of its legal options, Koss could not use Apple's participation against it as a "gotcha" to bring claims in a later litigation.

NPR has learned that the lawsuit will argue that President Trump's far-reaching action is unconstitutional because it failed to give the company a chance to respond. It also alleges that the administration's national security justification for the order is baseless, according to the source.White House spokesman Judd Deere declined to comment on the potential lawsuit, and instead defended the executive order. "The Administration is committed to protecting the American people from all cyber related threats to critical infrastructure, public health and safety, and our economic and national security," he said.
"It's based on pure speculation and conjecture," the source said. "The order has no findings of fact, just reiterates rhetoric about China that has been kicking around."