Something is definitely going on between Intel and Nvidia, and it’s possible that a settlement could be announced after the market closes today, sources said.

[UPDATE: Yes, they settled, in a new $1.5 billion licensing deal. Story to come.]

The two had been scheduled to go to trial in December in the Delaware Chancery Court, but the parties agreed to reschedule that.

Soon, word of settlement talks surfaced. Still, as recently as last week, a source familiar with the matter said a trial was on track for February. Now, other sources are saying that may not be the case, which would suggest a settlement is imminent.

Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang declined to discuss the Intel dispute in an interview with Mobilized’s Ina Fried at D@CES last week.

The fight between the two tech giants is over the terms of a 2004 agreement under which Intel granted Nvidia access to some of Intel’s technology for use in its chipsets, the chips that sit between the microprocessor and the graphics chip like connecting tissue. The cross-licensing agreement allowed Nvidia to make chipsets that were compatible with Intel microprocessors.

The official release below:

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REQUIRES SIX HIGH TECH COMPANIES TO STOP ENTERING INTO ANTICOMPETITIVE EMPLOYEE SOLICITATION AGREEMENTS

Settlement Preserves Competition for High Tech Employees

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice announced today that it has reached a settlement with six high technology companies–Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corp., Intuit Inc. and Pixar–that prevents them from entering into no solicitation agreements for employees. The department said that the agreements eliminated a significant form of competition to attract highly skilled employees, and overall diminished competition to the detriment of affected employees who were likely deprived of competitively important information and access to better job opportunities.

The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division filed a civil antitrust complaint today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, along with a proposed settlement that, if approved by the court, would resolve the lawsuit.

According to the complaint, the six companies entered into agreements that restrained competition between them for highly skilled employees. The agreements between Apple and Google, Apple and Adobe, Apple and Pixar and Google and Intel prevented the companies from directly soliciting each other’s employees. An agreement between Google and Intuit prevented Google from directly soliciting Intuit employees.

“The agreements challenged here restrained competition for affected employees without any procompetitive justification and distorted the competitive process,” said Molly S. Boast, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “The proposed settlement resolves the department’s antitrust concerns with regard to these no solicitation agreements.”

In the high technology sector, there is a strong demand for employees with advanced or specialized skills, the department said. One of the principal means by which high tech companies recruit these types of employees is to solicit them directly from other companies in a process referred to as, “cold calling.” This form of competition, when unrestrained, results in better career opportunities, the department said.

According to the complaint, the companies engaged in a practice of agreeing not to cold call any employee at the other company. The complaint indicates that the agreements were formed and actively managed by senior executives of these companies.

The complaint alleges that the companies’ actions reduced their ability to compete for high tech workers and interfered with the proper functioning of the price-setting mechanism that otherwise would have prevailed in competition for employees. None of the agreements was limited by geography, job function, product group or time period. Thus, they were broader than reasonably necessary for any collaboration between the companies, the department said.

The department said in its complaint:

Beginning no later than 2006, Apple and Google executives agreed not to cold call each other’s employees. Apple placed Google on its internal “Do Not Call List,” which instructed employees not to directly solicit employees from the listed companies. Similarly, Google listed Apple among the companies that had special agreements with Google and were part of the “Do Not Cold Call” list;

Beginning no later than May 2005, senior Apple and Adobe executives agreed not to cold call each other’s employees. Apple placed Adobe on its internal “Do Not Call List” and similarly, Adobe included Apple in its internal list of “Companies that are off limits”;

Beginning no later than April 2007, Apple and Pixar executives agreed not to cold call each other’s employees. Apple placed Pixar on its internal “Do Not Call List” and senior executives at Pixar instructed human resources personnel to adhere to the agreement and maintain a paper trail;

Beginning no later than September 2007, Google and Intel executives agreed not to cold call each other’s employees. In its hiring policies and protocol manual, Google listed Intel among the companies that have special agreements with Google and are part of the “Do Not Cold Call” list. Similarly, Intel instructed its human resources staff about the existence of the agreement; and

In June 2007, Google and Intuit executives agreed that Google would not cold call any Intuit employee. In its hiring policies and protocol manual, Google also listed Intuit among the companies that have special agreements with Google and are part of the “Do Not Cold Call” list.

The proposed settlement, which if accepted by the court will be in effect for five years, prohibits the companies from engaging in anticompetitive no solicitation agreements. Although the complaint alleges only that the companies agreed to ban cold calling, the proposed settlement more broadly prohibits the companies from entering, maintaining or enforcing any agreement that in any way prevents any person from soliciting, cold calling, recruiting, or otherwise competing for employees. The companies will also implement compliance measures tailored to these practices.

Today’s complaint arose out of a larger investigation by the Antitrust Division into employment practices by high tech firms. The division continues to investigate other similar no solicitation agreements.

Adobe Systems Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Jose, Calif., and 2009 revenues of nearly $3 billion. Apple Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Cupertino, Calif., and 2009 revenues of more than $42 billion. Google Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Mountain View, Calif., and 2009 revenues of more than $23 billion. Intel Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Santa Clara, Calif., and 2009 revenues of more than $35 billion. Intuit Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Mountain View, Calif., and 2009 revenues more than $3 billion. Pixar is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Emeryville, Calif.

The proposed settlement, along with the department’s competitive impact statement, will be published in The Federal Register, as required by the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act. Any person may submit written comments concerning the proposed settlement within 60 days of its publication to James J. Tierney, Chief, Networks & Technology Enforcement Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street N.W., Suite 7100, Washington D.C. 20530. At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the court may enter the final judgment upon a finding that it serves the public interest.

So says Web infrastructure giant Akamai (AKAM), via its just-released “State of the Internet” report:

And if speed’s your thing? Then just like last year, you’ll want to get yourself to Delaware, where people enjoy incorporating companies and plentiful broadband.

“I guess you know you’ve made it in software when Microsoft is protesting your event. Or maybe when they’ve sued you. This is the greatest thing that’s ever happened in my career.”

– Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff

Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff says Microsoft is a patent troll. Looks like it takes one to know one. On Thursday, the company answered Microsoft’s charges of patent infringement with patent-infringement charges of its own.

In a suit filed in U.S. District Court in Delaware, Salesforce accuses Microsoft of willfully violating five of its patents and using them in everything from Windows 7 to the Windows Live authentication system. And the company is really going for the neck here: Not only is it seeking triple monetary damages, it has hired David Boies, the former U.S. Justice Department attorney who successfully argued the agency’s antitrust case against Microsoft, to represent it.

But if Microsoft (MSFT) finds this disconcerting, the company isn’t letting on. Reached for comment, Horacio Gutierrez, vice president and deputy general counsel, said it’s still intent on taking Salesforce (CRM) to the mat over this. “We are reviewing Salesforce.com’s filing, which we have just received,” he said. “We remain confident about our position and will continue to press ahead with the complaint we initiated in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.”

In a complaint filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Apple (AAPL) accuses HTC of infringing two additional patents and reasserts its allegations of infringement of two others.

The two new patents:

• 6,282,646: “System for real-time adaptation to changes in display configuration”
• 7,380,116: “System for real-time adaptation to changes in display configuration”

And the patents included in the original suit:

• 7,657,849: “Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image”
• 7,383,453: “Conserving power by reducing voltage supplied to an instruction-processing portion of a processor”

So, two new patents added to the original list of 20. Not exactly the opening of a new front in this particular battle, though it’s certainly an expansion of it. Meanwhile, the U.S. International Trade Commission continues to investigate Apple’s infringement claims against HTC and vice-versa.

Filed in Federal District Court in the Western District of Wisconsin, the suit alleges that Apple’s (AAPL) iPhone and iPad 3G infringe on five Nokia (NOK) patents related to enhanced speech and data transmission, the use of positioning data in applications, and innovations in antenna configurations.

“Nokia has been the leading developer of many key technologies in mobile devices,” said Paul Melin, general manager, Patent Licensing at Nokia. “We have taken this step to protect the results of our pioneering development and to put an end to continued unlawful use of Nokia’s innovation.”

Nokia first sued Apple in October 2009, claiming the iPhone violated 10 of its patents covering various wireless data, speech coding, security and encryption technologies.

Then, in December, Nokia filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission alleging that Apple infringes its patents “in virtually all of its mobile phones, portable music players and computers.”

Shortly thereafter, the company sued Apple in U.S. District Court in Delaware, making similar allegations.

Apple declined comment, but counterclaims Apple filed against Nokia last December offer a bit of insight into what its thinking on the matter might be.

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.

Five dollars and a dusty old Nokia 1100 says this thing settles out of court.

“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_ –

Below, copies of the suit, which was filed with the office of the United States International Trade Commission and the U.S. District Court in Delaware. But first, a list of the patents at issue here:

• The ’331 Patent, entitled “Time-Based, Non-Constant Translation Of User Interface Objects Between States,” was duly and legally issued on April 22, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
• The ’949 Patent, entitled “Touch Screen Device, Method, And Graphical User Interface For Determining Commands By Applying Heuristics,” was duly and legally issued on January 20, 2009 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ’949 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
• The ’849 Patent, entitled “Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image,” was duly and legally issued on February 2, 2010 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ’849 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
• The ’381 Patent, entitled “List Scrolling And Document Translation, Scaling, And Rotation On A Touch-Screen Display,” was duly and legally issued on December 23, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ’381 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
• The ’726 Patent, entitled “System And Method For Managing Power Conditions Within A Digital Camera Device,” was duly and legally issued on July 6, 1999 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ’726 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
• The ’076 Patent, entitled “Automated Response To And Sensing Of User Activity In Portable Devices,” was duly and legally issued on December 15, 2009 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ’076 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
• The ’105 Patent, entitled “GMSK Signal Processors For Improved Communications Capacity And Quality,” was duly and legally issued on December 8, 1998 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ’105 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
• The ’453 Patent, entitled “Conserving Power By Reducing Voltage Supplied To An Instruction-Processing Portion Of A Processor,” was duly and legally issued on June 3, 2008 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ’453 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit H.
• The ’599 Patent, entitled “Object-Oriented Graphic System,” was duly and legally issued on October 3, 1995 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ’599 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit I.
• The ’354 Patent, entitled “Object-Oriented Event Notification System With Listener Registration Of Both Interests And Methods,” was duly and legally issued on July 23, 2002 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ’354 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit J.

Apple complaint – Delaware

Apple complaint – ITC

Further Reading:

• Apple Sues Nexus One Maker HTC Over iPhone Patents
• Why HTC, Apple? And Why Now?
• Apple vs. Google: Game On

“We’ve been pushing the state-of-the-art in every facet of design….We’ve been innovating like crazy for the last few years on this and we’ve filed for over 200 patents for all of the inventions in iPhone. And we intend to protect them.”

– Apple CEO Steve Jobs, Jan. 9, 2007

Asked for his thoughts on iPhone rivals during a January 2009 earnings call, Apple COO Tim Cook said the company would not stand for having its intellectual property ripped off.

“We are watching the landscape,” Cook said. “We like competition, as long as they don’t rip off our IP, and if they do, we’re going to go after anybody that does….We think competition is good; it makes it us all better. But we’re ready to suit up and go against anyone.”

Well, looks like Apple (AAPL) is suiting up, and against a big opponent. This morning, the iPhone maker filed suit against HTC, a Taiwanese handset manufacturer that makes a number of Android smartphones, including the operating system’s marquee device, Google’s Nexus One (Read the suits in their entirety here.)

In a lawsuit filed concurrently with the U.S. International Trade Commission and U.S. District Court in Delaware, Apple alleges that HTC infringed some 20 patents related to the iPhone’s graphical user interface, underlying architecture and hardware. The company is asking for a permanent injunction barring HTC from importing or selling infringing phones in the U.S., along with triple damages and maximum interest.

“We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it,” Apple CEO Steve Jobs said in a press release announcing the action. “We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.”

HTC appears to have been totally blindsided by the suit. As of this writing, it hasn’t even been served.

“We only learned of Apple’s actions based on Apple’s press release,” the company said in a statement. “We have not been served any papers yet so we are in no position to comment on the claims. We respect and value patent rights but we are committed to defending our own innovations. We have been innovating and patenting our own technology for 13 years.”

It’s not yet clear whether Google (GOOG) is implicated here. But it certainly seems possible. After all, HTC manufactures a number of Android devices, and while Google insisted at the Nexus One launch that it didn’t design the device, the search giant clearly played a role in its development.

Of course, it could be that Apple is suing HTC because it can’t, for some reason, sue Google. More details to follow once I’ve read through the suits.

Further Reading:

• Apple Sues HTC [Complete Court Filings]
• Why HTC, Apple? And Why Now?
• Apple vs. Google: Game On

Auction giant eBay is headed to court again Monday, and for once, it has nothing to do with the litigious Skype co-founders.

Instead, it’s a battle in Delaware with craigslist, the San Francisco online classified powerhouse that eBay holds a minority ownership position in.

That stake is actually precisely what’s at stake. Currently, the San Jose, Calif.-based eBay (EBAY) has a less than 25 percent one, although it had acquired about 28 percent in a deal in 2004.

The company waged a lawsuit last year against the privately held craigslist for diluting its ownership position by issuing more stock and thereby causing eBay to lose its board seat.

That happened, alleges eBay, through a “coercive plan” by craigslist founder Craig Newmark and CEO Jim Buckmaster.

“We have acted in good faith as a minority shareholder,” said eBay spokesman Alan Marks. “We are simply asking the court to restore our original interest in the company.”

I sent a late email to craiglist’s rep and will post the reply if I get one.

Whitman–who is running for the Republican nomination for California governor–takes the stand on opening day Monday to talk about the original deal with craiglist.

She will be followed by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar.

Of course, craiglist has its own suit in San Francisco, alleging that eBay stole confidential information to create a competing classified service called Kijiji–a dopey name that BoomTown hereby rules someone should be arrested for thinking up–and other misdeeds.

But, so as to be consistent in its awkward legal messes, there is a Skype link: Current Skype President Josh Silverman had been the craigslist board member for eBay and played a key role in developing Kijiji.

Under Whitman’s leadership, ebay also bought Skype, in 2005, and sold a big stake recently.

It was a very controversial sale, which in turn, led to a series of ugly lawsuits from the Skype co-founders, which were just settled last month.

It will be interesting to see what Whitman, who has recently declared that the disastrous Skype acquisition was a good one, says about the craigslist debacle.

Perhaps she’ll say that eBay should have limited its investing during her watch to antiques and other fine collectibles?

According to several sources close to the situation, barring any unforeseen delay, a deal to settle the Skype imbroglio is likely to be announced around the time the markets open tomorrow.

[UPDATE: The paperwork is taking longer than expected, so sit tight, said sources.]

While the massive agreement–which will settle three aggressive lawsuits lobbed by Skype co-founders Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis at a wide range of prominent Silicon Valley players–is not yet officially signed, sources said lawyers are apparently putting the finishing touches on the paperwork and have signature papers completed by both sides to be able to wrap it up quickly.

So, while nothing is ever over until it is over, it looks like it is over.

Sources also said that as part of the deal to end the legal madness, Zennström and Friis will get 10 percent of Skype back for rights to key software technology they control, an option to pay $83 million for another three percent of the Internet telephony service and two seats on the 23-member board.

Also, BoomTown has learned that a partridge in a pear tree will be thrown in to guarantee a lasting peace.

All kidding aside, the settlement is proof that squeaky wheels–especially if they hire the combative litigators of Skadden Arps–get the grease.

As has been previously reported, one of the investors in the consortium that won the bidding to buy 65 percent of Skype from eBay (EBAY)–which itself had bought it in 2005 from Zennström and Friis–has withdrawn its investment and involvement as part of the settlement.

That would be London-based Index Ventures, which was a smaller player in the group with–ironically–a three percent stake.

Nonetheless, Index had an outsized fight going on with Zennström and Friis.

That’s due to their ire, aimed at Index’s Mike Volpi, who was CEO of Joost, the failed online video site the pair founded.

After Zennström and Friis lost their own bid to buy back Skype, they quickly sued Index and Volpi via tech companies they control, Joltid and Joost, in Delaware.

The pair alleged that Volpi used confidential information gleaned from his time as Joost CEO to unfairly help the winning consortium acquire Skype.

The lawsuit was particularly vindictive, using embarrassing emails and making pointed accusations about Volpi plotting all kinds of nefarious schemes, like Lady Macbeth on steroids, on his way out of Joost.

I am not sure what law one can break for wanting to leave a job or how much damage one can do to an already failing business, but that did not stop Zennström and Friis from trying to pin some specious accusations on Volpi.

(I wouldn’t have been surprised if they had accused Volpi of being responsible for Balloon Boy.)

But such legal attacks obviously worked, making Index loath to stay in an economically less attractive deal with lessened influence over Skype.

And eBay and the other investors obviously wanted closure, so they could get on with the work of turbocharging Skype.

The fighting between Index and the Skype founders was just one part of the legal morass.

Zennström and Friis had already been in a battle over software licensing issues with eBay in London courts.

They also filed suit again in California against Skype and eBay for copyright violations.

For good measure, the pair added the winning buyout group, including Index, Silver Lake Partners, Andreessen Horowitz and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, in that lawsuit.

(In legalese–and in honor of the Yankees winning the World Series tonight–such massive lawsuit-making is called covering all your bases!)

Of course, Volpi and Index fired back in court filings and both sides armed themselves with powerful PR guns.

Presumably, those same mouthpieces–who have been slagging the other side for weeks–will now be at the ready with honeyed tales of reconciliation tomorrow.

Call me cynical, but we’ll see how long that lasts.

“[Zennström and Friis] got what they wanted by using Volpi as a pawn and the lawsuits as a club,” said one person close to the situation. “Everyone is moving on, but not everyone is going to forget what they did to get what they wanted.”

The legal high jinks in the contentious battle over the fate of Skype got worse this afternoon, as former Joost CEO Michelangelo Volpi and Index Ventures filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the founders of Skype–Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis, via Joost and Joltid–against them.

It’s yet another chess move among a group of well-known tech players, who used to work together closely and are now at odds.

In a filing in the U.S. District Court in Delaware, Volpi and the London-based Index–where Volpi now works–noted, referring to a bid Zennström and Friis made to regain control of Skype, which they sold to eBay (EBAY) years ago:

“Instead of accepting the fact that their bid failed in the marketplace, Friis and Zennström are now using inflammatory and highly-charged litigation–through companies that have no relationship to the Skype purchase–to try to achieve their personal business goals.”

A spokesman for Joost and Joltid did not agree with Volpi’s assessment:

“Mr. Volpi’s latest motion appears to have been prepared prior to Defendants receiving Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which is filled with evidence supporting Plaintiffs’ claims. In light of this strong showing of substantive evidence, much of it from Mr. Volpi’s own correspondence, there is no basis for Mr. Volpi’s assertion that Plaintiffs have somehow failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

Index was a small player within a group that won Skype, putting in $75 million, in a $2 billion deal that is set to close in the next few weeks.

The motion to dismiss the filing is not surprising given that Joost and Joltid filed a motion for preliminary injunction against Volpi and Index yesterday.

They are asking that he not use knowledge or confidential information he got at the video start-up in current dealings with Skype.

To complicate things further, the innovative and entrepreneurial pair also own a company called Joltid, which has licensed key technology for Skype to eBay.

Joltid and eBay have already been fighting in court over that agreement, bickering back and forth about whether eBay violated the terms of that deal or not.

Via Joltid, Zennström and Friis also filed suit again against Skype and its owner, eBay, for copyright violations in the U.S.

For good measure, they added the winning buyout group, including Index, Silver Lake Partners, Andreessen Horowitz and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

And both Joltid and Joost have also sued Volpi personally, as well as Index, making serious allegations about his behavior as Joost CEO.

Here are several key legal filings to peruse, for all you “Law & Order” types:

Motion to Dismiss _00302105_ –

Opposition to Motion For Expedition _00302104_ –

Volpi Opening Brief 10.15.09 _00302101_ –

In the ongoing fight between Redbox–which rents DVDs from kiosks for $1–and major Hollywood studios, 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment just filed a brief to dismiss Redbox’s lawsuit against it.

Said Fox in a statement:

“Redbox’s legal claims are fatally flawed. Fox’s filing today makes clear that, in the end, the case is all about Redbox’s refusal to make a business deal on general terms similar to those paid by others in this industry. Instead, Redbox has insisted that Fox sell DVDs to them through distributors, on the date they demand, at the price they want to pay. Unable to get the terms it wanted at the bargaining table, Redbox instead decided to file this meritless lawsuit.”

In a statement, Redbox president Mitch Lowe responded to the filing by stating that Fox was anti-consumer.

“Twentieth Century Fox continues its pursuit to prohibit consumer access to new release DVDs at affordable prices…Redbox remains steadfast in our commitment to protecting consumers’ rights and to providing our customers the DVDs they want, where they want and at the low price they want.”

In two briefs filed this afternoon, refuting Redbox’s allegations, Fox is asserting that it has not refused to provide DVDs to the outfit and has tried to negotiate a deal.

Under contention between the two are the price and terms of when DVDs of hit movies can be released to Redbox.

Redbox has asserted that Fox is violating antitrust laws and copyright misuse in not selling DVDs to the company.

Fox denied that claim in the brief, noting that Redbox simply did not want to pay up in order to get certain DVDs on the “street date,” as do other retailers.

Fox is one of three studios that have become embroiled in lawsuits with Redbox.

Located in Oakbrook Terrace, Ill., and is wholly owned by Bellevue, Wash.-based Coinstar (CSTR), Redbox is seeing strong rental growth due to its $1-a-night price for first-run movies, which the company distributes via its 15,000 freestanding machines in supermarkets and convenience stores, as well as in big chains like McDonald’s (MCD), Wal-Mart (WMT) and Walgreens (WAG).

Its fascinating legal battle with the studios centers around the issues of steep discounting, release windowing and the price for premium content.

Redbox recently sued Warner Home Video, owned by Time Warner (TWX), for denying it the opportunity to buy DVDs without being required to wait a month or more to rent them out.

It has previously gone after NBC Universal’s Universal Studios Home Entertainment, owned by GE (GE) and Fox, a unit of News Corp. (NWS), for similar release restrictions.

The trio’s movies make up 40 percent of the DVD rental market.

In its brief today, Fox noted that it was willing to sell to Redbox directly, rather than via wholesalers, but that talks collapsed over pricing issues.

And while some studios are holding fast to fighting price declines represented by consumer-friendly, idiot-proof tech solutions like Redbox, others are not.

Redbox has inked deals with Sony (SNE); Lions Gate (LGF); Paramount, a unit of Viacom (VIA); and also gets movies from Walt Disney (DIS).

Here are two briefs filed by Fox in U.S. District Court in Delaware, the first, a motion to dismiss the lawsuit by Redbox, and the second to transfer venue to California:

FINAL Opening Brief in Support of Fox’s Motion to Dismiss

Redacted Transfer Venue Brief

(Full disclosure: Fox is owned by News Corp., which also owns Dow Jones, owner of this site.)

I’ve never stepped foot in the state, though I have peered out at Wilmington from the window of an Amtrak car. But Akamai (AKAM) tells me I’ve get better odds of getting a high-speed connection there than anywhere else in the U.S.: 62 percent of the state’s Internet connections run at more than five megabits per second, and the state has the highest average speed in the country. The numbers come via the content delivery network’s quarterly “State of the Internet” report, out today.

According to Akamai, 5Mbps fits its definition of “high broadband,” and it’s the speed the company says you’ll need to have in order to watch a DVD-quality movie on your PC, though a mere 2Mbps will let you watch a TV show.

Of course, if you’re really want a good broadband connection, you’re better off living outside of the U.S. altogether. America ranks 18th in the world in average connection speed, and lags behind 11 other countries when it comes to “high broadband” connections. And if you’re reading this in Japan or South Korea, chances are this page got to your screen very, very quickly.

You can see the full report for yourself here. More interested in babies on rollerskates? OK. I can accommodate that need, too: