Morgan Stanley recently surveyed 50 enterprise CIOs about current and future tablet deployments and came back with some pretty astonishing findings: 21 percent of them are already purchasing tablets for employees and 51 percent expect to begin doing so in the coming year. In total, 67 percent of the CIOs surveyed said they’re either planning to deploy tablets or provide support for employee-owned ones this year. Now the scope of these deployments remains to be seen, but the fact that so many are being budgeted suggests the tablet is gaining meaningful traction in enterprise.

And if you’re dubious of that claim, consider this: Pads accounted for 29 percent of new enterprise activations of Good Technology software in December 2010, up from 25 percent the month prior. Clearly, there’s growing corporate interest in the tablet, which means there are growing opportunities for companies that provide enterprise software solutions for it–mobile security vendors like Check Point, desktop virtualization companies like VMware and cloud-based applications outfits like Salesforce.com.

Allen sued Google, Apple, AOL, eBay, Facebook, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples and Yahoo in August, but the case was dismissed earlier this month, with Tuesday set as the deadline for Interval to file an amended complaint. As noted by open source industry blogger Florian Mueller, the new claims include allegations that Android infringes on Interval patents, adding to a growing list of legal claims being leveled in the mobile arena.

The lawsuit is bad timing for the small start-up, which was quickly gaining momentum. After its debut in November, it took just two weeks to generate two million downloads across BlackBerry, Android and iPhone. The free app allows users to send messages without paying text messaging fees and works across multiple platforms, unlike RIM’s own popular BlackBerry Messenger service, which is restricted to its own platform.

Worse yet, we heard Kik’s overnight success earlier this month drew the attention of several VCs, who were lining up with their checkbooks open and ready. It’s not clear if Kik was able to close that round before the lawsuit was filed on Tuesday in Canada’s Federal Court, but you can be sure that VCs will be über-vigorous in evaluating the company’s technology and any potential patents if a fight against RIM is in the works. To be sure, it will need the cash for legal fees alone.

The lawsuit was first spotted by David Lam, a lawyer in Ontario, Canada, who reported the electronic filing on his blog. Further details about RIM’s claims were unavailable, and we’ve reached out to both RIM and Kik for comment. UPDATE: In a blog post, Kik confirmed that it received the lawsuit yesterday. The company’s founder, Ted Livington, who worked at RIM as a student, writes: “I’m not afraid. I’m not surprised. But I am disappointed.”

He’s in Japan. Or at least he was a few days ago, when he gave an interview to Nikkei BP while in Tokyo. Of course that doesn’t mean he’s still there now–unless he’s shooting whisky ads on the side or has struck up an unlikely friendship with a neglected newlywed.

HP continues to refuse to divulge his location and, to be fair, that’s company policy and were you to put the same question to Oracle about one of its execs you’d likely get a similar answer. Said an HP spokesperson, “We don’t discuss the schedules or specific whereabouts of our executives.”

PREVIOUSLY:

• Ellison to Self: Damn, Damn. I Knew I Should Have Said $4.5 Billion
• SAP Attorney: Board Knew TomorrowNow Was Infringing at Time of Acquisition
• Oracle Co-President on SAP’s Damages Offer: “It’s Crazy”
• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

So when Oracle’s damage expert, Paul Meyer, offered his estimate of what SAP should pay Oracle it ended up being $1.66 billion, which is obviously a substantial sum, but less than the one Oracle has been seeking and significantly less than the $4 billion figure Oracle CEO Larry Ellison was tossing around on Monday.

Good news for SAP–particularly after yesterday–and one that the company hopes is the beginning of a trend. “The ruling of the Court has an immediate and demonstrable impact on Oracle’s damages presentation, reducing the total by $500 million, from $2.2 billion down to $1.6 billion,” an SAP spokesperson told me. “This is the second such reduction by the Court and we are confident that, when the jury hears our case presentation, the outcome of the case will reflect the actual damages the limited actions of TommorowNow had upon Oracle.”

Oracle declined to comment on the matter.

PREVIOUSLY:

• SAP Attorney: Board Knew TomorrowNow Was Infringing at Time of Acquisition
• Oracle Co-President on SAP’s Damages Offer: “It’s Crazy”
• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

While discussing instructions to be given to the jury before it begins deliberations, SAP attorney Greg Lanier remarked that “at time of acquisition, the board was aware of [infringing] software on TomorrowNow’s computers.”

The jury wasn’t present to hear Lanier’s admission, but still it seems a rather bold one to make in open court, considering SAPs’ stance up until today–even when it decided in October not to contest Oracle’s claim for contributory infringement–has been that its executives didn’t know its TomorrowNow unit was illegally pillaging Oracle’s IP.

SAP declined comment on Lanier’s remarks.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Oracle Co-President on SAP’s Damages Offer: “It’s Crazy”
• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

And SAP finds all the histrionics between the two companies a bit much. And as far as Oracle CEO Larry Ellison’s goading of former SAP CEO Léo Apotheker, well, SAP says Larry needs to get his facts straight.

This morning, the company took issue with Ellison’s claim that Apotheker “allowed the theft of Oracle property to continue for 8 months after he was made sole CEO of SAP.”

“This is more of the sideshow and clearly shows that Ellison’s true motivation is his personal vendetta against Apotheker and the HP board,” a spokesperson told me. “SAP remains focused on the core issues of the case–determining fair and accurate levels of compensation. These personal tirades are a distraction and, sadly, not even factually accurate.”

Which is true to a point, though I’d argue that Ellison’s tirades are more entertainment than distraction. Apotheker didn’t become SAP’s sole CEO until June of 2009–seven months after SAP shuttered the TomorrowNow division at the center of Oracle’s suit.

So SAP is right. Ellison’s rant isn’t quite factually accurate. That said, were one to swap in “co-CEO” for “sole CEO,” it would be.

So as a parry to Ellison’s broadside, this is pretty weak stuff. If it’s the best SAP’s got, it doesn’t stand a chance in this developing war of words.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

Google today responded to Oracle’s (ORCL) claims that its Android OS infringes copyrights and patents related to Java, which Oracle acquired as part of its purchase of Sun Microsystems earlier this year. This morning, the search sovereign filed an answer to Oracle’s suit, denying all seven of its patent-infringement charges, and asking that the company’s copyright-infringement claim be dismissed because Google (GOOG) feels it is “legally deficient.”

And, interestingly, the answer calls Oracle out as a hypocrite–a company that pushed for a fully open Java platform when the OS was owned by Sun, only to blatantly ignore the open source community’s requests to fully open source it after its acquisition of Sun closed.

“It’s disappointing that after years of supporting open source, Oracle turned around to attack not just Android, but the entire open source Java community with vague software patent claims,” the company said in a statement. “Open platforms like Android are essential to innovation, and we will continue to support the open source community to make the mobile experience better for consumers and developers alike.”

Google’s prayer for relief makes that disappointment quite clear. In it, the company asks not only for a judgment dismissing Oracle’s complaint against it with prejudice, but also for a judgment in favor of Google on all of its counterclaims; a declaration that Google has not infringed, contributed to the infringement of, or induced others to infringe, either directly or indirectly, any valid and enforceable claims of the Patents-in-Suit; a declaration that the Patents-in-Suit are invalid; a declaration that Oracle’s claims are barred by the doctrines of laches, equitable estoppel, and/or waiver; a declaration that the Oracle’s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands; a declaration that this case is exceptional and an award to Google of its reasonable costs and expenses of litigation, including attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees; and such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

Here are three of the more pointed graphs from the answer, followed by a copy of the document in its entirety.

7. Sun came under significant criticism from members of the open source community, including Oracle Corp., for its refusal to fully open source Java. For example, in August of 2006, the Apache Software Foundation (“ASF”), a not-for-profit corporation that provides organizational, legal, and financial support for open source software projects, attempted to obtain a TCK from Sun to verify Apache Harmony’s compatibility with Java. Although Sun eventually offered to open source the TCK for Java SE, Sun included field of use (“FOU”) restrictions that limited the circumstances under which Apache Harmony users could use the software that the ASF created, such as preventing the TCK from being executed on mobile devices. In April of 2007, the ASF wrote an open letter to Sun asking for either a TCK license without FOU restrictions, or an explanation as to why Sun was “protect[ing] portions of Sun’s commercial Java business at the expense of ASF’s open software” and violating “Sun’s public promise that any Sun-led specification [such as Java] would be fully implementable and distributable as open source/free software.” However, Sun continued to refuse the ASF’s requests.

8. Oracle Corp., as a member of the Executive Committee (“EC”) of the Java Community Process (“JCP”), the organization tasked with managing Java standards, voiced the same concerns regarding Sun’s refusal to fully open source the Java platform. Later that year, in December of 2007, during a JCP EC meeting, Oracle Corp. proposed that the JCP should provide “a new, simplified IPR [intellectual property rights] Policy that permits the broadest number of implementations.” At that same meeting, BEA Systems – which at the time was in negotiations that resulted in Oracle Corp. purchasing BEA – proposed a resolution that TCK licenses would be “offered without field of use restrictions . . . enabling the TCK to be used by organizations including Apache.” Oracle Corp. voted in favor of the resolution.

9. Just over a year later, in February of 2009, Oracle Corp. reiterated its position on the open-source community’s expectation of a fully open Java platform when it supported a motion that “TCK licenses must not be used to discriminate against or restrict compatible implementations of Java specifications by including field of use restrictions on the tested implementations or otherwise. Licenses containing such limitations do not meet the requirements of the JSPA, the agreement under which the JCP operates, and violate the expectations of the Java community that JCP specs can be openly implemented.”

UPDATE: Oracle has issued this statement on Google’s answer.

“In developing Android, Google chose to use Java code without obtaining a license. Additionally, it modified the technology so it is not compliant with Java’s central design principle to ‘write once and run anywhere.’ Google’s infringement and fragmentation of Java code not only damages Oracle, it clearly harms consumers, developers and device manufacturers.”

UPDATE: Engadget’s Nilay Patel has a good analysis of Google’s strategy, here — as well as some potential holes in it.

2010.10.04 – Google Answer and Counterclaims _filed_ –

On information and belief, PSYSTAR alleges that APPLE intentionally embeds code in the Mac OS that causes the Mac OS to malfunction on any computer hardware system that is not an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System. Upon recognizing that a computer hardware system is not an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System, the Mac OS will not operate properly, if at all, and will go into what is colloquially known as ‘kernel panic.’

PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that APPLE is engaged in anticompetitive conduct that prevents the proper operation of the Mac OS on any computer hardware system that is not an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System–a Mac OS Capable Computer Hardware System–thereby forcing customers of the Mac OS to purchase–and only purchase–an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System if they wish to have the Mac OS operate sans kernel panic or an infinite loop.”

That’s an intriguing allegation. Risky though, since it’s also an admission that Psystar has circumvented the technological copyright-protection measures built into OS X, just as Apple claims in its amended complaint against the company. Apple contends Psystar has done so illegally, in violation of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Psystar says that’s impossible because the kernel panic-forcing code at issue here isn’t a copyright-protection measure.

Who’s right? Who knows? But if it’s Apple, then Psystar presumably is guilty of circumventing Apple’s copyright protection systems under the DMCA. And that’s a felony, because Psystar profited from the circumvention.