The important takeaway, which I’d basically deduced on my own: He’s definitely not Ben Folds.

Merton declines to identify himself for Mashable’s Brenna Ehrlich. Though I gather that once his identity is unmasked, it won’t be anyone you’ve ever heard of anyway.

Ehrlich’s Skype chat with Merton runs 15 minutes, and if you’ve got time, I suggest watching the whole thing, because it’s both fascinating and charming. It also rubs off just a bit of charm from the phenomenon, though. Because the truth is always a bit less fun than the story you cook up in your head.

If you’re time-pressed, here are my notes:

• Merton plays piano all the time, though it’s not clear if he’s a professional. He’s not in a band. He primarily does improvisational stuff in the “brooding, introspective” vein of Keith Jarrett and Tori Amos.
• He filmed the Chatroulette videos over two nights, in three-hour sessions. He and his pals edited the footage to three five-minute clips.
• He put the clips up on YouTube as a lark and initially kept them private. Now they’re approaching five million views, but he says that wasn’t his intent. “i didn’t give it some huge web site like College Humor… i guess that’s why they call it viral.”
• He did a new session a few days ago, and not surprisingly “my experience was very different because everyone knew who I was…it’s more fun one way, and a little less fun another way.”
• What about all the naked dudes Chatroulette is famous for?  “I’m not deeply creeped out by those people.” But he understands why other people might be. “I don’t think there should be any children on Chatroullete ever, for so many different reasons.”
• He loves Ben Folds’s tribute, of course. He also understands why casual observers might think the two men were the same person. “We’re both white guys who play the piano.”
• Putting the stuff up anonymously “wasn’t really a strategy,” but it was “empowering.” Merton knows this can’t last forever. “Eventually, someone’s going to find me out, and that’s fine…I’m pretty sure that I would have the most fun if i went undetected for as long as possible.”

Not addressed in the interview: How is Merton going to cash in on this? And why did Google (GOOG) force him to take down his clip yesterday?

I think I can answer the latter question. It seems that some of the Chatrouletters in the clip made privacy claims, and you can figure out which ones when you watch the re-edited video.

Two days after winning a $105.75 million jury verdict against the software giant, VirnetX has filed a new complaint claiming Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 infringe those patents as well. Those products hadn’t yet been released when VirnetX first went after Microsoft, so the company is now circling back, hoping to collect damages for their alleged infringement.

“This is a tactical and procedural post-trial action to ensure and protect our property rights as we proceed to final resolution with Microsoft,” Kendall Larsen, VirnetX president and CEO, wrote in a March 18 statement.

Microsoft (MSFT) has vowed to appeal the first verdict, which it described as “legally and factually unsupported,” and took a similarly dim view of the latest VirnetX assault. “Microsoft respects intellectual property, and we believe our products do not infringe the patents involved,” Microsoft flack Kevin Kutz told the Seattle Post Intelligencer. “Moreover, we believe those patents are invalid. We will challenge VirnetX’s claims.”

To that end, the company has petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to re-examine the VirnetX patents, evidently with some success. In a preliminary review, the USPTO has found all but one of the VirnetX claims invalid. This doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll be rejected, but for Microsoft, it’s a step in the right direction.

“Through what charitably could be called an attempt at legal alchemy, Apple employs revisionist history, misleading characterizations, unsupported allegations and flawed and contradictory legal theories to turn these fruitless negotiations into a multi-count federal lawsuit,” Nokia (NOK) said in papers filed in federal court in Wilmington, Del. (full document embedded below).

“These non-patent counterclaims are designed to divert attention away from free-riding off of Nokia’s intellectual property, a practice Apple evidently believes should only be of paramount concern when it is the alleged victim,” the filing continued.

“Legal alchemy”? Where’s Nokia looking for legal inspiration, the Salem Witch trials?

Anyway, a blistering condemnation, but no more so than the one Apple (AAPL) let fly against Nokia in December, when it accused the company of copying the iPhone after finding itself caught flat-footed by the device’s success.

In 2007, Apple introduced the iPhone a ground-breaking device that allowed users access to the functionality of the already popular iPod on a revolutionary mobile phone and Internet device. The iPhone is a converged device that allows users to access and ever expanding set of software features to take and send pictures, play music, play games do research, serve as a GPS device and much more….The iPhone platform has caused a revolutionary change in the mobile phone category.

In contrast, Nokia made a different business decision and remained focused on traditional mobile wireless handsets with conventional user interfaces. As a result, Nokia has rapidly lost share in the market for high-end mobile phones. Nokia has admitted that, as a result of the iPhone launch, the market changed suddenly and [Nokia was] not fast enough changing with it.

In response, Nokia chose to copy the iPhone, especially its enormously popular and patented design and user interface….

As Anssi Vanjoki, Nokia’s executive Vice President and General Manager of Multimedia, stated at Nokia’s GoPlay event in 2007 when asked about the similarities of Nokia’s new offerings to the already released iPhone: “[i]f there is something good in the world, we copy with pride.” True to this quote, Nokia has demonstrated its willingness to copy Apple’s iPhone ideas as well as Apple’s basic computing technologies, all while demanding Apple pay for access to Nokia’s purported standards essential patent. Apple seeks redress for this behavior.

Seems to be quite a battle in the offing here. That said, we’re not likely to see a victor declared for another year or two. According to Nokia’s filing, the Delaware case probably won’t go to trial until spring of 2012. The International Trade Commission, however, is expected to issue its decision on the matter in June 2011.

031110 Nokia’s Opening Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss _D.I. 26_ –

“The Apple lawsuit is a part of the Company’s strategy for pursuing its patent infringement claims relating to its Predictive Snooping technology. Consequently, the outcome of the Apple case, and any subsequent appeal, will play a role in the Company’s strategy for pursuing its patent infringement claims and the Company’s ability to realize licensing revenue from its Predictive Snoop patents. There can be no assurance of the extent to which the outcome of these rulings will lead to positive results in the Apple case or the Company’s overall licensing strategy.”

– OPTi statement on Apple litigation, April 23, 2009

If OPTi’s intellectual property lawsuit against Apple is truly the foundation of the company’s licensing strategy, then OPTi best prepare for its strategy to be shaken. Apple is appealing a recent court decision that found it guilty of infringing OPTi’s patents, and the $21.7 million in damages and prejudgment interest that accompanied it.

Apple (AAPL) has argued throughout the case that the OPTi patent at issue–U.S. Patent 6,405,291, “Predictive snooping of cache memory for master-initiated accesses–should be declared invalid, if not because of prior art, then because it fails the obviousness test. Presumably, this is the tack Apple will take in the appeal as well, perhaps with greater success. If not, well, $21.7 million is a near-pittance for a company with some $30 billion in the bank.

Under the terms of the agreement, Psystar will pay Apple (AAPL) damages totaling $1,337,550 for all the copyright, DMCA, and breach of contract claims against it and another $1,337,500 in attorney fees and additional damages. In return, Apple will drop all its trademark, trade dress and unfair competition claims against Psystar. Cupertino has also agreed not to “seek to execute on the money judgments…until any and all appeals in this matter are concluded or the time for filing any such appeal has lapsed.”

Not that Apple is likely to collect that money, anyway. As I’ve noted here before, Psystar’s total assets, according to its bankruptcy filing, are no more than $50,000.

The agreement if full, below.

Apple Psystar Settlement Agreement

Further details are yet to come, but in a U.S. District Court filing Monday, Psytar said, “Psystar and Apple today entered into a partial settlement that is embodied in a stipulation that will be filed with the Court tomorrow. Psystar has agreed on certain amounts to be awarded as statutory damages on Apple’s copyright claims in exchange for Apple’s agreement not to execute on these awards until all appeals in this matter have been concluded. Moreover, Apple has agreed to voluntarily dismiss all its trademark, trade-dress, and state-law claims. This partial settlement eliminates the need for a trial and reduces the issues before this Court to the scope of any permanent injunction on Apple’s copyright claims.”

Odd that Apple (AAPL), which just days ago seemed intent on hanging Psystar’s lifeless body from the gates of 1 Infinite Loop, would agree to such a thing. Odder still, that it would do so when Psystar is petitioning to have its Rebel EFI utility–which enables Apple’s Snow Leopard OS to be installed on generic PCs–excluded from any injunction.

In any event, it’s good news for Psystar, which had previously been facing damages of at least $2.1 million and the shuttering of its business.

Amazon (AMZN) hasn’t yet commented on the settlement beyond the filing, which offers little more information than that it was “unanticipated” and will be charged to “other operating expense” in the second quarter.

In a hastily released statement, the IFPI downplayed the abrupt change of tack, claiming the amended charges will simplify its case. Said IFPI counsel Peter Danowsky, “It’s a largely technical issue that changes nothing in terms of our compensation claims and has no bearing whatsoever on the main case against The Pirate Bay. In fact it simplifies the prosecutor’s case by allowing him to focus on the main issue, which is the making available of copyrighted works.”

The Pirate Bay had a different take on the matter though. Said co-founder Peter Sunde in a Twitter message: EPIC WINNING LOL.

In a hastily released statement, the IFPI downplayed the abrupt change of tack, claiming the amended charges will simplify its case. Said IFPI counsel Peter Danowsky, “It’s a largely technical issue that changes nothing in terms of our compensation claims and has no bearing whatsoever on the main case against The Pirate Bay. In fact it simplifies the prosecutor’s case by allowing him to focus on the main issue, which is the making available of copyrighted works.”

The Pirate Bay had a different take on the matter though. Said co-founder Peter Sunde in a Twitter message: EPIC WINNING LOL.

Snyder, who ran publishing giant Simon & Schuster for a couple decades, had a an exciting and juicy story to tell: He basically claims that Bronfman hired him as consigliere as he figured out how to buy Warner Music (WMG) for $2.6 billion in 2003, but never paid him. The tale is nicely told in this Portfolio piece from 2007, which includes plenty of character assassination and mud-slinging, if you’re in to that sort of thing.

Today’s news is compelling only if you’re one of the two men involved in the case. But it does look good for Bronfman: In April, the New York State Supreme Court had ruled against Snyder on four of the six claims he filed in 2007; today, an appellate court shot down the final two.

Here’s the statement from Bronfman’s attorney, Orin Snyder; the court’s decision is embedded below (click on button on top right to enlarge):

This unanimous decision is a complete victory for Mr. Bronfman–so much so that the Court imposed court costs on Dick Snyder. We are gratified that the appellate court vindicated Mr. Bronfman and repudiated Dick Snyder’s bogus claims. Today’s decision confirmed what we have said all along–that Dick Snyder’s claims were nothing more than a work of fiction. This opportunistic lawsuit was a lame attempt to extract money from Mr. Bronfman, whose hard work, vision and creativity helped bring about the successful acquisition of Warner Music. From the outset, Mr. Bronfman refused to settle because he believed that, as a matter of principle, it was important to fight this frivolous lawsuit to the end.”

Bronfman v. Snyder