Yahoo is in the final stages of selling a large chunk of its stake in the Alibaba Group back to the company — in a complex deal that is set to include a multibillion-dollar share buyback to investors of the Silicon Valley Internet giant and an eventual IPO of the Chinese company — according to multiple sources close to the situation.

The deal has yet to be officially approved by the boards of both companies, but sources said it is likely to be, and could be announced as early as Monday.

This all could change, of course, since negotiations between Alibaba and Yahoo have taken place in a variety of ways in recent years, without success and with much acrimony. Talks over a tax-free deal — also involving Yahoo’s Japanese partner, SoftBank — collapsed in February, for example.

But the 324th time is apparently the charm — so here are the details of what looks to be a nearly complete agreement that I have ferreted out thus far from lots of relieved sources familiar with the situation:

Yahoo will sell half of its roughly 40 percent stake in Alibaba, in a taxable deal. The transaction is likely to value that portion of Yahoo’s holdings at about $7 billion — or 20 percent of Alibaba’s $35 billion enterprise valuation. Alibaba is in the midst of raising capital to fund the sale.

After taxes of upward of 35 percent are paid on the long-term gains — remember that Yahoo bought the now-lucrative Alibaba stake for a fraction of that, many years ago — the company will likely use the funds to buy back its own shares. That stock has been caught in the mid-teens doldrums for quite a while.

A shareholder dividend is also being considered. It’s not clear if some of the cash will be held back for acquisitions by Yahoo, sources added, but it is unlikely.

As part of the deal, sources said, incentives have been put in place for Alibaba to move forward with a public offering, which sources stressed is without the contractual obligation or a time frame. Alibaba execs have already been publicly indicating such a direction recently, but this will put them more firmly on that path.

In return, Yahoo has agreed to sell the remaining quarter of its current holdings when that IPO does occur. It would then have an only 10 percent stake of Alibaba, which it could sell at any time after the IPO.

If finally struck, the transaction will finally bring to an end one of the more protracted and disputed relationships in the Internet world.

Once close, the pair have been wrangling over the large Yahoo ownership, which Alibaba CEO Jack Ma has been trying to dislodge in a variety of nice and not-so-nice ways. It has resulted in a number of very public disagreements.

That included a nasty back-and-forth over its Alipay unit with now-fired CEO Carol Bartz, threats of takeover of Yahoo with private equity firms and, more recently, making friendly with its just-ousted CEO, Scott Thompson.

Those talks with him in recent weeks, which included a visit to China by Thompson, led to the new deal, which was negotiated primarily between Yahoo’s CFO Tim Morse and legal head Mike Callahan and Ma and Alibaba’s Joe Tsai.

The talks continued even as Thompson was suddenly engulfed in a controversy over a fake computer science degree on his resume that quickly led to his departure from Yahoo on Sunday.

Ironically, the error was first discovered by activist shareholder Daniel Loeb, who will now vote on the deal as a newly named director of Yahoo, after successfully helping to oust Thompson.

He owns almost 6 percent of Yahoo, and is expected to approve the transaction.

But the final decision to approve the deal will be in the hands of a very new board of Yahoo, which has been drastically reshaped in recent weeks. It is meeting tomorrow and perhaps over the weekend to vote on it.

While the deal with Alibaba looks to be nearing an end, Yahoo’s talks to sell its 33 percent stake in Yahoo Japan is not part of this agreement. That’s due to what Thompson had called a “valuation gap,” which sources said is still an outstanding issue.

New interim CEO Ross Levinsohn has not been involved in the Alibaba deal in any significant way. But he certainly will benefit from its halo effect, if approved, especially given that it will likely boost Yahoo shares.

Next up for Levinsohn, who has just rejiggered Yahoo management again, other sources said, is an effort to settle the patent-infringement lawsuit with Facebook, and also to renegotiate its search deal with Microsoft.

And, oh yes, fix Yahoo’s rocky core-advertising business, which is still in distress and needs a major overhaul to push it back to growth.

But that, as they say, is yet another episode of Yahoo’s ongoing reality show.

When last we tuned in to the ongoing drama that is the patent-infringement lawsuit that Yahoo aimed at Facebook, Yahoo had a CEO — Scott Thompson — who was full steam ahead in pressing the controversial legal action.

Now, multiple sources said, the Silicon Valley Internet giant has got a new one — interim CEO Ross Levinsohn — who is already reaching out to top execs at the social networking giant in hopes of finding a settlement.

Still, until peace reigns in the digital kingdom, the legal wrangling grinds on and, today, Facebook has answered Yahoo’s most recent claim of “inequitable conduct” because of false statement by moving to dismiss it.

Yahoo had called many of Facebook’s counterclaims — using some of its own newly obtained patents — “tainted,” and said Facebook’s actions were “retaliatory.”

Not so, answered Facebook lawyers today, claiming that Yahoo did not do its homework, and also that Yahoo had “no coherent theory or facts suggesting deceptive intent.”

Among other issues, Facebook alleges in the claim that Yahoo did not check if Facebook had filed an inventor affidavit with the Patent Office, related to two of the patents. Except, um, it did.

“Yahoo claims that two of the ten patents Facebook asserts are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. But all of these allegations are unsupportable and/or deficient,” said the Facebook filing, which is embedded below. “First, Yahoo claims these patents do not list Joseph Liauw as an inventor and that there is no sworn statement by Mr. Liauw in the Patent Office records explaining his omission. Yahoo’s claim is demonstrably false. Yahoo made this allegation without actually reviewing the publically available Patent Office records, because these records include the exact sworn statement from Mr. Liauw Yahoo claims is missing.”

What? Yahoo not good at checking? Hmm … that sounds familiar!

It’s interesting that Facebook struck on the eve of its IPO on Friday, perhaps making it clear to investors that it was not going to pay up big bucks to Yahoo in what it clearly considers a patent shakedown.

I have a call into Yahoo PR for a comment, but have not heard back as yet.

Here is the latest filing, which is getting more legally confusing by the millisecond (I am now totally glad I decided not to go to law school, so make it stop, Ross!):

FINAL

And here is more affidavit stuff:

FH-60104311

Earlier today, Yahoo’s persistent thorn, activist shareholder Dan Loeb of Third Point poison-penned another letter to the board of the Silicon Valley Internet company, demanding that Yahoo fire its new CEO Scott Thompson, as well as director Patti Hart, over bizarre inaccuracies related to their academic achievements.

“Permitting Mr. Thompson and Ms. Hart to stay with the Company after apparently violating the Code of Ethics sends a message to all Yahoo! employees that a different set of rules applies at the top,” Loeb wrote.”[Yahoo must] terminate Mr. Thompson for cause immediately given his demonstrable unsuitability to remain Chief Executive Officer and a director of Yahoo! and accept the resignation of Ms. Hart for similar reasons.”

And while many across the blogosphere — including some very clever tweets — called for his head tout de suite, that’s just not going to happen.

At least for now, at this early point in a controversy over Yahoo filing legal documents that misrepresented Thompson’s long-ago degree from Stonehill College.

In a nutshell: Thompson does not have a computer science degree, as he had maintained he did in public bios for almost a decade, a falsehood that mysteriously seeped into documents Yahoo filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

That’s bad news for Yahoo, for sure, on many levels, but moving against Thompson at this moment is not likely to be the answer — for the short term, at least.

That’s due to many reasons, that I like to think of it as three hopelessly complex puzzles that need solving pronto.

The What-Did-Yahoo-Know-and-When-Did-It-Know-It Question

There is no question the first thing Yahoo’s board needs to do is a thorough investigation to determine how a borked bio could proliferate so widely and for so long.

Most importantly, Yahoo will have to reveal if Thompson actually gave them this incorrect information, as he aggressively lobbied for the then-open CEO job.

As I had previously reported several times, Thompson cold-emailed a Yahoo director — Intuit CEO Brad Smith, as it turns out — despite not being on the list of potential candidates. Thompson was then shuttled over to Hart, who was running the vetting process with the help of headhunting firm Heidrick & Struggles, and hired within weeks.

Oddly, sources said Thompson never filled out the required informational papers for the job, nor did Heidrick conduct the normal background check on him. Instead, another forensic firm Yahoo hired did the work.

If it turns out Thompson gave any of them the bad bio info, it would be quick curtains for him.

But if Yahoo’s board members obtained his info on their own, the next key query would be how no one at Yahoo — especially its legal and compliance staffers, as well as outside help — managed to catch the problem during the vetting of Thompson.

Here are some good questions to start with:

Who put a faux computer science degree on Thompson’s bio in the first place, why and when did it happen?

Where did Yahoo get the inaccurate information?

Who was in charge of checking Thompson’s academic record for Yahoo?

And, who checked the work of the checkers?

The problem is made more complicated, because correct information was easily available in the SEC filings of eBay for years, since Thompson was head of its PayPal payments unit.

While the resume information was indeed wrong on eBay’s Web site and on numerous bios of Thompson for years, how did eBay legally get it right while Yahoo did not?

That calls into question the expertise of the company, its directors and those they hired to make sure execs were completely on the up and up, a task they clearly failed at.

If rank incompetence is the reason, which it looks like it might be, expect certain board members and other Yahoo staffers to go, along with anyone who helped in the Thompson vetting, or lack thereof.

Unless, of course, the gang-that-couldn’t-shoot-straight actually did shoot straight and some one at Yahoo found out about the educational discrepancy before the new CEO was announced, but declined to fix it.

While sinister, such a scenario is not entirely implausible, given how much pressure Yahoo was under at the time to hire a CEO quickly, due to Loeb and his looming proxy fight.

If any evidence were to surface that this was so, it is curtains all around, which would rain the kind of disaster down on Yahoo’s Sunnyvale HQ that would make Loeb’s attacks look like a Nerf battle. Instead, it would be “The Hunger Games” — except that no one survives.

The Chaos-in-Sunnyvale Conundrum

Which brings us to the profound implications of Yahoo jacking its second CEO within six months.

While it’s easy to yell “Fire the CEO” on a crowded Twitter, it’s simply not so easy in practice.

How long did it take Yahoo’s lugubrious board to figure out Carol Bartz needed to go? A … long … time. (And, she had a CS degree!)

More to the point, Thompson — and his not-so-merry band of consultants from Boston Consulting Group and, this week, McKinsey & Company — has only just completed a massive layoff of 2,000 employees and a jarring restructuring of management.

He’s also in the early stages of rolling out a new and decidedly still-squishy strategic plan to top execs (also just this week), along with working on some other key initiatives.

That includes renegotiating its search partnership with Microsoft; noodling around on a possible deal with Google; contemplating the sale of a variety of assets; and — oh, yes — trying to take on social networking Godzilla Facebook over patent infringement.

Busy much?

But, most importantly, Thompson is now the umpteenth Yahoo CEO to be working on the never-ending talks with its Asian partners over selling back a piece of the company’s lucrative stake to them.

While Yahoo CFO Tim Morse and head lawyer Mike Callahan are the point men on the deal, the lack of CEO would be an issue in the now-proceeding again talks.

This is a sale that must — and I underscore must — get done and soon, giving Yahoo much-needed breathing room and a whole lot of cash to fork over to increasingly disgruntled shareholders.

So, expect Yahoo to try to milk that deal for all it’s worth in the coming week, in order to give the appearance, at least, of positive forward momentum.

And, like it or not, Thompson has to play a key role in it getting done.

Thus, the likelihood of wait-and-see over point-and-shoot on Thompson is higher than you might think.

That’s especially true given four members of the board are leaving within six weeks and have either or are in the process of being replaced by new members.

Then, Thompson will be their problem to solve.

Again, no small thing, since the old crew — led by feckless Chairman Roy Bostock — is not likely to want to end its appalling tenure with yet another disaster.

Such a move would further tarnish the legacy of its outgoing directors, although I am not sure how it could be any more sullied, given their consistent record of one bad decision after the next.

What do I really think? I think this cursed board will maintain its 100 percent score of doing the wrong thing at the right time.

It could be a different case with the new directors, of course, who all seem pretty sharp and not as easily impressed by a record of failure.

They will surely be monitoring Thompson carefully, as will employees, who have taken to internal message boards with a rage not seen in a while over the resume debacle.

Their morale might be one uncertainty impacting Thompson’s fate. If a lot of key employees continue to bolt Yahoo or those remaining more loudly express their disdain for the bio antics, the new directors might listen.

The Whatever-Loeb-Says-We-Won’t-Do-Till-Later Head-Scratcher

Which brings us back to Loeb, whose noisy campaign to grab seats on the Yahoo board has certainly hit home this week.

And, though Yahoo likes to ding him a lot, since he started his campaign of terribly entertaining investor terror, a lot of what he’s been calling for has happened.

That includes a major flushing of the board — with five longtime members, including co-founder Jerry Yang, going, going and gone.

In addition, Loeb brought pressure to slow down some questionable deals, from Yahoo’s PIPE dream to a tax-free spinoff in Asia in a deal only an accountant could love.

He’s also — though they try to deny it — got the Yahoo directors in the dangerous habit of reacting to him, rather than playing their own game.

While the Yahoo board has resisted any deal with Loeb (pictured here), blaming him for rejecting their kind offers of settlement, it is he who is setting the tone more than Yahoo.

And that tone is of alarm and trouble and chaos at Yahoo.

That’s not going to work to convince other Yahoo investors to back his cause — in fact, Loeb has a decidedly uphill battle to win his proxy challenge — he has still scored a direct win with the bio relevations.

So far, though, Loeb has not sunk Yahoo’s battleship, so it is unlikely the board will acquiesce to his latest demand of Thompson being fired by noon on Monday.

Maybe it will eventually, or maybe it will just scold Thompson or maybe it will do nothing at all.

All that is an unknown — a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, with a lot of managerial incompetence thrown in. And that, most of all, is the sad definition of today’s Yahoo.

RELATED POSTS:

• Yahoo’s Parting With Thompson Will Be for “Cause” (a.k.a. CSLie)
• Ross Levinsohn’s Yahoo Plan: Back to the Future
• Here’s New Yahoo CEO’s First Note to Troops! (The Leaking-Internal-Memos-to-ATD Policy Remains in Effect As Usual)
• Yahoo Officially Confirms ATD Report on CEO Changes and Proxy Settlement
• Meet the Man I Call “The Hair”: The Video Stylings of Yahoo’s Newest CEO Ross Levinsohn
• Will Thompson’s Ouster Mean a Yahoo-Facebook Patent Settlement Too?
• Exclusive: Yahoo’s Thompson Out; Levinsohn In; Board Settlement With Loeb Nears Completion
• Heidrick & Struggles Slaps Back at Thompson’s Yahoo in Blame Game Over ResuMess
• Is He In or Is He Out? Crunchtime for Scott Thompson at Yahoo.
• Not So Scott Free? Yahoo’s Other Big Shareholder — Cap Re — Leaning Toward Supporting Loeb Over Thompson ResuMess.
• Tech Nation’s Gunn Says She and Yahoo CEO Discussed Their CS Degrees Before 2009 Show (Video and Audio)
• Loeb Calls Again for Thompson Firing From Yahoo, as Former eBay Boss Supports Him
• Place Your Bets: Will Loeb Drop Another Bomb on Yahoo at Vegas Confab Later Today?
• Exclusive: Yahoo Director in Charge of Botched CEO Vetting to Step Down From Board
• CEO Says Sorry to Yahoos for Borked Bio “Distraction” — But Will Mea Culpa Work Without an Apology for Error? (Memo)
• Buffett Comments on Trust Issue in Yahoo CEO BioGate: “You’ve Got a Problem”
• Loeb Lobs Lawsuit, as Expected, at Yahoo’s Borked Bio Mess
• As Yahoo CEO Reaches Out to Top Staff, Board Meets to Weigh “Options” (I.E., Deciding Who Gets to Take the Borked Bio Blame)
• Yahoo Should Expect Incoming Lawsuit Lobbed by Loeb Tomorrow on CEO Hiring
• They Shoot Yahoo CEOs, Don’t They? But Not Without a Really Smoking Gun and a Much Stronger Board.
• Yahoo’s Thompson Asks Employees to “Stay Focused” — Except Not on Him
• In 2009 Interview, Yahoo CEO Does Not Deny He Has a CS Degree, and Calls Himself an “Engineer” (Audio)
• Yahoo’s Board Will “Review” Resume Discrepancy of CEO
• How Did a Phantom CS Degree Get on CEO’s Bio in SEC Filings? Yahoo’s Not Saying.
• Yahoo’s Response on CEO’s Computer Science ResumeGate: “Inadvertent Error”
• Dan Loeb Alleges “Discrepancies” on Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson’s Resume Related to Computer Science Degree

In spite of intense criticism against its patent infringement lawsuit in March, Yahoo filed additional claims against Facebook today.

“Today Yahoo! filed additional claims against Facebook in U.S. District Court in San Jose related to two additional patents on which Facebook infringes. Today’s filing underscores the breadth of Facebook’s violation of Yahoo!’s intellectual property,” said a Yahoo spokesperson in a statement. “As we have stated previously, Yahoo!’s technologies are the foundation of our business that engages over 700 million monthly unique visitors and represent the spirit of innovation upon which Yahoo! is built. We intend to vigorously protect these technologies for our customers and shareholders.”

Facebook had filed its own counterclaims against the Internet portal over various social networking patents and also has recently spent hundreds of millions of dollars for patents and licenses from both IBM and Microsoft to bolster its portfolio.

In its filing, Yahoo’s legal aces got all hot and bothered that Facebook did this, especially the part about handing over piles of dough to others (and not Yahoo).

“However, on information and belief, Facebook lacks a good faith basis for most, if not all, of its counterclaims, particularly those patents that it purchased from others,” read the filing. “All eight of these patents were purchased by Facebook in the past five months, and several of these patents were purchased (independent of any separate technology acquisition or merger) after Yahoo! filed its complaint in this action. On information and belief, many, if not all, of these patents were acquired by Facebook for purposes of retaliation against Yahoo! in this case.”

Uh, duh! (Also, not to be picky, but Yahoo also bought a lot of the patents they are asserting way back when from its acquisition of Overture and did not invent all these innovations, either.)

I am awaiting a response from Facebook, which will probably be along the lines of: Byte me.

[UPDATE: I was right -- here's the comment:

"We remain puzzled by Yahoo's erratic actions. We disagree with these latest claims and we will continue to defend ourselves vigorously."

(Erratic, by the way, means desperate and pathetic in Facebook-speak.)]

Here is the latest filing:

Yahoo Reply to Counterclaims 4-27

In a ruling issued moments ago, ITC Judge Thomas Pender found that Apple infringed the first four claims of Motorola patent # 6,246,697 — “Method and system for generating a complex pseudonoise sequence for processing a code division multiple access signal.”

“We are pleased that the ALJ’s initial determination finds Apple to be in violation of Motorola Mobility’s intellectual property, and look forward to the full commission’s ruling in August,” Motorola said in a statement to AllThingsD. “Our commitment to innovation is a primary reason why we are an industry-leader in intellectual property, and our focus continues to be on building on this strong foundation to enhance the user experience.”

But Apple says this ruling isn’t much of a victory for Motorola. For one thing, the ITC ruled in its favor on only one out of four disputed patents. For another, the patent it did find Apple to have infringed is a standards-essential one that the iPhone maker alleges Motorola refuses to license under fair and reasonable terms. And Motorola’s standards-essential patent licensing policies are currently under investigation by the European Commission.

“We’re glad the court ruled in our favor on three of four patents patents being considered,” Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet told AllThingsD. “The fourth covers industry-standard technology which Motorola has refused to license to Apple on reasonable terms. A court in Germany has already ruled that Apple did not infringe on this patent, so we believe we will have a very strong case on appeal.”

Facebook filed an updated version of its S-1 public offering document today, which included somewhat disappointing first-quarter financials.

In the new filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, its fourth update for its upcoming public offering, the social networking giant’s revenue was $1.058 billion, up 46 percent for the year, but down six percent from the previous quarter.

In the first quarter of 2012, Facebook’s net income was $205 million, which was down from $233 million a year ago. The company attributed the decline to rising costs, including in marketing and in research.

Facebook also said its current share price was $30.89 each, which values the entire company at about $77 billion.

Some investors might worry about the latest results, which show a slowing in Facebook’s torrid growth. But Facebook said the quarterly decline was due to seasonality — it was flat in the same period a year ago.

As it noted in the document:

“We believe that our rates of user and revenue growth will decline over time. For example, our revenue grew 154% from 2009 to 2010, 88% from 2010 to 2011, and 45% from the first quarter of 2011 to the same period in 2012. Historically, our user growth has been a primary driver of growth in our revenue. We expect that our user growth and revenue growth rates will decline as the size of our active user base increases and as we achieve higher market penetration rates.”

Its audience, though, was still growing strongly: Facebook also said it had 532 million daily active users, up from 372 million a year ago and 483 million in December. Its monthly active users were up from 680 million last year to just over 900 million and up from 845 million from December.

Facebook also added an explicit figure for average revenue per user, which was $1.21, up six percent year over year. It also said the number of full-time employees grew 46 percent from last year to 3,539 at the end of March.

The last update to Facebook’s regulatory filing for its mid-May IPO was in late March. That one gave investors more information about a patent infringement lawsuit waged by Yahoo — Facebook noted its counter claim in the newest filing — and also its motion to dismiss Paul Ceglia’s legal attempt to garner half of the company. It then included more information about growing engagement by users of the social networking site.

Along with some other minor changes in the new document, Facebook noted, in news that was already known, that it would trade its stock on the Nasdaq market under the ticker symbol “FB.” It also said it had bought photo-sharing start-up Instagram, another piece of old news, and noted its just-struck patent deal with Microsoft.

One new detail about Instagram: Facebook forked over “approximately 23 million shares of our common stock and $300 million in cash” to buy it.

Also, said Facebook, in an interesting new section on its global business:

“In the first quarter of 2012, 50% of our revenue was generated by users in the United States and Canada, a decrease from 54% of our revenue for the first quarter of 2011, and in 2011, 52% of our revenue was generated by users in the United States and Canada, as compared to 58% in 2010, as we experienced more rapid revenue growth in markets such as Germany, Brazil, Australia, and India.”

Here is the whole updated file, if you want to peruse yourself:

4thfbs1update

Here are the actual 10 patents that Facebook is using in its just-filed counter-claim against Yahoo’s patent infringement lawsuit.

Several are held by Facebook CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, as well as other employees of the social networking giant, in areas such as personalized news feeds, tagging digital media and headline posting algorithms.

The patent ball, as irritating lawyers say, is in Yahoo’s court.

Enjoy:

Exhibit A – US7827208

Exhibit B – US7945653

Exhibit C – US6288717

Exhibit D – US6216133

Exhibit E – US6411949

Exhibit F – US6236978

Exhibit G – US7603331

Exhibit H – US8103611

Exhibit I – US8005896

Exhibit J- US8150913

Facebook has just taken strong aim back at Yahoo’s patent lawsuit with an answer and counter-claim filing of its own, alleging infringement over a number of issues.

“From the outset, we said we would defend ourselves vigorously against Yahoo’s lawsuit, and today we filed our answer as well as counter-claims against Yahoo for infringing ten of Facebook’s patents,” said Ted Ullyot, general counsel of Facebook. “While we are asserting patent claims of our own, we do so in response to Yahoo’s short-sighted decision to attack one of its partners and prioritize litigation over innovation.”

In its counter-claim filing involving 10 patents held by Facebook, the social networking giant said that Yahoo is infringing via a wide range of its offerings, including its homepage, content optimization, relevance engine, Flickr photo-sharing service and advertising throughout its huge site.

You know: The ads that make up most of Yahoo’s revenue.

In other words, Facebook CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg does not like being poked by new Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson, especially on the eve of a $100 billion IPO.

You might have heard that Facebook is going public and it’s a big deal around Silicon Valley, which is why no one much liked Yahoo’s skunk-at-a-garden-party legal move two weeks ago.

Yahoo fired back at Facebook’s firing back, in a statement:

“We have only just received Facebook’s answer and counterclaims, but on their face we believe they are without merit and nothing more than a cynical attempt to distract from the weakness of its defense. As we have made clear from the outset, the unauthorized use of our patented technology is unacceptable and must be resolved appropriately. Other leading companies license these technologies, and Facebook must do the same or change the way it operates. We have proposed that Facebook join us in discussions to resolve the matter, but our overtures have been rejected. As a result, we are prepared to continue to seek redress through the courts.”

The new filing could not come at a worse time for Yahoo, which will announce thousands of layoffs of employees tomorrow morning, in a wrenching restructuring to revive its lackluster business.

In its legal filing, Facebook also pushed back on assertions in Yahoo’s initial patent lawsuit, noting that it denies that “[w]ithout Yahoo!’s achievements, websites such as Facebook would not enjoy repeat visitors or substantial advertising revenue.”

I think Facebook — which is sure to try to drag this thing out for a long, long time — just called Yahoo a tech loser.

Here is the full document:

FB_ANSWER_AND_COUNTERCLAIMS

More to come, obvi.

Here I am talking about the whole enchilada on WSJ Live’s News Hub.

It began: “Yahoos: A lot has happened since I last talked to you.”

You can say that again!

Yesterday, Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson sent out an email to the troops in what appears to be an attempt to soothe the company, which has been under a lot of stress, including more high-level exec departures, board changes and more. More importantly, the Silicon Valley Internet giant is nervously waiting for a restructuring expected to hit within weeks, and also has been unnnerved by Thompson’s aggressive legal attack on one of its key partners, social networking site Facebook.

Unfortunately, the memo didn’t say much, except vaguely but definitively referencing that even more tumult was coming.

After noting that he had been making a “deep dive” into the company after getting there at the beginning of the year, Thompson said that he was focused on “what makes Yahoo special and what doesn’t work.”

The plan then? To get the company to be “aggressive and lean forward,” because “real change is coming.”

Rut-roh.

(In a related move, but not noted in the memo — which several sources said was linked to all the uncertainty around the expected restructuring and also high costs — Thompson also cancelled Yahoo’s annual global sales meeting, which was to be held for about 1,300 advertising staffers in Florida later in the month.)

“We are moving as fast with real urgency to move back to Yahoo playing offense once again,” said the Thompson memo, which was read to me by several sources, because of increased worries about the company once again hunting for leakers.

(Apparently, like his predecessor before him did unsuccessfully early in her tenure, Thompson is on a yet another pointless hunt for those who talk to outsiders. Memo to Scott: Yahoo is an online media company and not a pay-for-that-used-iPad-on-eBay outfit and the peeps there like to share.)

Back to the memo action. “Were are fundamentally rethinking every part of our business and looking at all options to put maximum effort where we can succeed,” wrote Thompson. “I’m putting tons of pressure on my leadership team … so we can move faster and more deliberately.”

He added — and the bolding is his — “the changes we make will not be incremental ones. We will make bold, fundamental changes to what we do and how we do it.”

After properly freaking the Yahoo staff out — with everyone trying to grok exactly what that meant in terms of their jobs — Thompson then went into three core things the company was going to focus on under his rule (more bolding!):

“1) Focusing intently on those parts of the business that have a competitive advantage.

2) Liberating all of us to work faster and make better decisions.

3) Thinking really creatively about how to build new businesses that leverage our trusted relationships with users.”

Those will be applied, wrote Thompson, to five key parts of Yahoo: Its core business (such as the homepage and news); platforms (such as its cloud services and Yahoo Publishing Platform); data (which Thompson said was the “single most underrated, underappreciated and underused asset, also calling it a “cornerstone for the next generation” of Yahoo); international; and an amorphous thing he called “our future.”

About that, Thompson said Yahoo would “go beyond simply protecting our core assets … we will more than just tweak what we have today … to innovate, acquire and disrupt outside our core.”

Then, without giving any specifics at all, he noted that it’s as “important to know what we’ll do as how,” before launching into three “core principles” for the company, which were all in bold caps (this dude loves punctuating, which I can appreciate!).

They are:

“LISTEN, UNDERSTAND AND PUT THE CUSTOMER FIRST.

GET STUFF DONE.”

(Thompson also underlined “listen,” as well as bolding it, in an orgy of key-shifting.)

“I learned early in my career that innovative concepts without execution are of no value,” he then said, in a classic business-bromide tone. “The Yahoo of the future has to be the organization that consistently surprises the world by how much we get done and deliver to our customers.”

The letter did reference the patent-infringement lawsuit with Facebook at the very end.

“I want to point out that this lawsuit has one simple purpose: Protecting valuable assets of the company and its shareholders,” Thompson wrote. “Others have respected and have licensed our valuable innovations and Facebook must too.”

Thompson ended by noting that “my door is open.” It will be interesting to see who has the guts to walk through it today.

Yahoo just got yet another poison-pen letter from activist investor Dan Loeb of Third Point, which says the company has been “dismissive” of his alternate slate of board members, including former NBC head Jeff Zucker.

It is another doozy, full of all kinds of interesting details and signals, which I will go into more detail about below, although the main message is: Perhaps it is actually time for a proxy fight.

Wrote Loeb to Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson: “The Board’s stonewalling, apparent insouciance and decision not to engage with us in a serious manner, has left us no choice but to directly approach our fellow owners with the Shareholder Slate. Accordingly, we hereby notify you that we intend to file our Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission within the week.”

Before the battle begins, let me just note: Who uses the great word “insouciance” anymore? Kudos, Dan! (It means indifference, Cliff Clavin.)

In an e-mailed statement, Yahoo said: “As previously stated, in order to achieve the best possible outcome for all Yahoo! shareholders, the Board’s nominating and corporate governance committee continues to review a wide range of highly qualified candidates. The committee has included Third Point’s candidates in its thorough review process and will make its recommendations to the full Board in due course.”

The Silicon Valley Internet giant also sent this turgid (look it up!) explanation of how proxy fights go down:

Yahoo! will be filing a proxy statement with the SEC in connection with the solicitation of proxies for its 2012 annual meeting of stockholders. Stockholders are strongly advised to read Yahoo!’s 2012 proxy statement (including any amendments or supplement thereto) when it becomes available because it will contain important information. Stockholders will be able to obtain copies of Yahoo!’s 2012 proxy statement, any amendments or supplements to the proxy statement, and other documents filed by Yahoo! with the SEC in connection with its 2012 annual meeting of stockholders for no charge at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

Yahoo!, its directors, executive officers and certain employees may be deemed participants in the solicitation of proxies from stockholders in connection with Yahoo!’s 2012 annual meeting of stockholders. Information concerning the ownership of Yahoo! securities by Yahoo!’s directors and executive officers is included in their SEC filings on Forms 3, 4 and 5, and additional information is also available in Yahoo!’s proxy statement for its 2011 annual meeting of stockholders filed with the SEC on April 29, 2011. Information regarding Yahoo!’s directors, executive officers and other persons who may, under rules of the SEC, be considered participants in the solicitation of proxies for the 2012 annual meeting of stockholders, including their respective interests by security holdings or otherwise, also will be set forth in the definitive proxy statement for Yahoo!’s 2012 annual meeting of stockholders when it is filed with the SEC.

Got that?

One interesting part of the Loeb’s much more sassy letter is a suggestion at the bottom about Yahoo’s lack of a chairman when current head Roy Bostock steps down later in the year. Loeb’s idea is to keep on Gary Wilson, former CFO of Disney and Marriott, who was also leaving, in that role for one year.

“We believe this role should be for one year only, with the explicit understanding that Mr. Wilson would recruit his replacement prior to the end of the term,” wrote Loeb, who appears to be sending a none-to-subtle smoke signal that this might have been discussed already. “We suggest this in the spirit of continuity and compromise, and believe it would be in the best interests of all shareholders. We encourage the Company and Mr. Wilson to strongly consider this idea.”

The letter is a bit of a olive branch, followed by a swift kick, presumably an attempt by Loeb to get Yahoo to start taking him more seriously.

“Scott, it is not too late for you to take decisive leadership action and avoid the costs and distraction of an expensive proxy contest fighting the Shareholder Slate (which, according to our research, will be well-received by shareholders),” Loeb noted archly, before referring to Yahoo’s current lawsuit against Facebook over patent infringement. “You appear to have enough battles to fight already.”

In other words, if you prefer the “Fatal Attraction” movie metaphor rather than from “Dirty Dancing,” Loeb is not going to be ignored!

Oh, read it all for yourself — here’s the full letter:

Third Point Letter 3.14.12

A hot Internet company poised for an even hotter IPO is attacked in court by a competitor whose lunch it has been eating.

Sound familiar? Actually, it’s just as much Google in 2004 as Facebook yesterday.

What the pair have in common is Yahoo, for whom this kind of patent infringement lawsuit is a whole lot of been there, done that.

In Google’s case, Yahoo was suing the then-smaller company over search patents from its Overture acquisition. The pair settled 10 days before the Google IPO, with Yahoo getting 2.7 million more shares of that stock, which it then sold off relatively quickly.

As part of the settlement from a lawsuit started in 2002, Google licensed U.S. Patent No. 6,269,361, entitled “System and method for influencing a position on a search result list generated by a computer network search engine,” which was owned by Yahoo Overture subsidiary.

In plain terms, the patent was over its key pay-for-performance service, which was at the heart of Google’s business of allowing bidding for search results placement related to relevant keywords.

In Facebook’s lawsuit, Yahoo is alleging intellectual property violations by the social networking giant, and is also taking credit for Facebook’s success.

The 19-page lawsuit over 10 patents — related to advertising, privacy, customization, messaging and social networking — comes as Yahoo is seeking to right itself under new CEO Scott Thompson.

“Facebook’s entire social network model, which allows users to create profiles for and connect with, among other things, persons and businesses, is based on Yahoo’s patented social networking technology,” Yahoo’s lawsuit reads, in part.

(Cue the movie script: If Yahoo had invented Facebook, it would have invented Facebook.)

That includes, Yahoo alleges, Facebook’s popular News Feed, advertising methods, privacy settings and more. The company adds that Facebook has been “free riding” on Yahoo’s intellectual property, and that royalty payments alone will not suffice.

What happens next today will be interesting — way back when, Google finally gave in in the delicate game of chicken with Yahoo, at the last minute.

But it’s not clear whether Facebook will flinch — or not.

Until we find out, here’s the press release from the 2004 settlement between Yahoo and Google to peruse:

Yahoo! and Google Resolve Disputes

SUNNYVALE, CA & MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA — August 9, 2004 – Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq: YHOO) and Google Inc. today announced that the companies have resolved two disputes that have been pending between the companies.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Google will take a license to U.S. Patent No. 6,269,361 and several related patents, held by Yahoo!’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Overture, and Yahoo! dismissed its patent lawsuit against Google. The two parties have also resolved a dispute regarding shares issuable to Yahoo! pursuant to a warrant to purchase Google shares in connection with a 2000 services agreement.

In connection with the settlement of the warrant dispute, the patent lawsuit, and in payment for the license, Google issued shares of its Class A common stock to Yahoo!.

In what is either the boldest gamble of its history or the most boneheaded, Yahoo has filed a massive patent infringement lawsuit against Facebook.

The attack by the Silicon Valley Internet icon against perhaps the most powerful consumer social networking site today — also based in tech’s heartland and also an important partner of Yahoo — is sure to be a controversial one, pitting Yahoo against a company that has surpassed it handily in recent years in regards to popularity among consumers.

“Facebook’s entire social network model, which allows users to create profiles for and connect with, among other things, persons and businesses, is based on Yahoo’s patented social networking technology,” Yahoo’s lawsuit reads, in part.

That includes, Yahoo alleges, Facebook’s popular News Feed, advertising methods, privacy settings and more. The company adds that Facebook has been “free riding” on Yahoo’s intellectual property and that royalty payments alone will not suffice.

So what does Yahoo want for this alleged free ride? Triple damages and to enjoin Facebook from operating by using said patents.

The 19-page lawsuit over 10 patents — related to advertising, privacy, customization, messaging and social networking — comes as Yahoo is seeking to right itself under new CEO Scott Thompson.

Multiple sources said he is primarily driving this new aggressiveness from Yahoo.

Since Yahoo told the New York Times that it was considering such a move last week, the issue has been widely debated within the company, with many top techies there opposed to it, due to the company’s longstanding ethos of using patents for defense rather than offense.

Thus, the decision to move was closely held, sources said, with only Thompson and legal chief Michael Callahan largely working on it.

Still, patent lawsuits have become ever more prevalent among tech companies, as they seek to battle for advantage in a rapidly changing competitive landscape. Apple, Google, Microsoft and others are involved in several legal actions, although they are largely related to mobile technology.

Yahoo’s lawsuit is the most prominent in the social networking arena, a sector that has seen a huge explosion of late. Its timing could not be worse for Facebook, since it is in a quiet period for its upcoming IPO, which is expected to value the company at close to $100 billion.

Yahoo has done this kind of thing before, of course, having wrangled with Google until right before it went public in 2004 over search patents from its Overture acquisition. The pair settled 10 days before the Google IPO, with Yahoo getting several million more shares of that stock.

Yahoo is shaking Facebook down for much more here and with much higher stakes for both companies. If successful, Yahoo could seriously damage Facebook’s initial public offering; if not, Yahoo will cement its growing reputation as a company with nothing to lose, whose value is built not on its current business, but on non-operating assets.

More importantly, at least initially, the move did nothing to boost Yahoo’s moribund shares — the stock was down about one percent to $14.49 in after-hours trading.

More to come, but here is the entire document below. The lawsuit has been filed in San Jose, Calif., federal court.

Lastly, the official PR back-and-forth:

Said Yahoo, in its statement:

“Yahoo! has invested substantial resources in research and development through the years, which has resulted in numerous patented inventions of technology that other companies have licensed. These technologies are the foundation of our business that engages over 700 million monthly unique visitors and represent the spirit of innovation upon which Yahoo! is built. Unfortunately, the matter with Facebook remains unresolved and we are compelled to seek redress in federal court. We are confident that we will prevail.”

Facebook, obviously, disagrees, and also threw in a jab about the lack of discussions over the issue between the pair:

“We’re disappointed that Yahoo, a longtime business partner of Facebook and a company that has substantially benefited from its association with Facebook, has decided to resort to litigation. Once again, we learned of Yahoo’s decision simultaneously with the media. We will defend ourselves vigorously against these puzzling actions.”

I’ll admit to also being puzzled about the strategery here, but I am sure there will be much more to come.

Until then, read on:

Complaint

And here is what I wrote last week on the subject:

Apparently, Yahoo’s new motto: If you can’t beat ‘em — and it can’t — sue ‘em.

That would be Yahoo — the perpetual 98-pound weakling of the Internet these days — threatening powerful Facebook, which had cleanly bested it by attracting hordes of users with a plethora of popular products and services.

Yahoo has already lost its audience to Facebook, which was most recently followed by its frittering away a commanding lead in display advertising, too.

That would also be the Yahoo whose most recent success in improving its increasingly tenuous connections with customers was, in fact, by deeply integrating Facebook’s social hooks into its Web properties.

That would be the Yahoo which has failed time and again to innovate its own offerings so drastically over the years that it has now apparently decided that its first and best strategic move under Thompson’s rule is a shakedown.

Such a cynical move on rights Yahoo has long held seems more a play for the cheap seats of Wall Street, given that the company needs to look like it is doing everything it can to turn things around right now as it faces a proxy challenge.

First, it ended difficult talks with its Asian partners, Alibaba Group and SoftBank, over selling back lucrative stakes there.

Now, according to sources, Yahoo’s Thompson has actually been trying to make very nice with activist shareholder Daniel Loeb of Third Point — on-the-down-low chitchats that might have played a part of this latest unusual move.

At least Kodak had a good excuse. The once iconic camera company had recently been trying to take advantage of its trove of patents as a way to stave off declaring bankruptcy.

That didn’t work for Kodak, and it will also not work for Yahoo, whose only real option is to try to innovate its way out of the mess it has landed itself in.

You know, with good ideas.

Instead, the company’s leadership has opted for a road that could rain down trouble and paint Yahoo as a company bereft of talent to win any other way.

And while a range of intellectual property lawsuits have broken out all over the digital sector, involving Apple, Microsoft, Google and many others, such a strategy for Yahoo could be dangerous if it fails in its legal effort to take advantage of its 1,000-plus patents, including those related to search and advertising.

Others — including such tech luminaries as LinkedIn’s Reid Hoffman, who co-owns the seminal Six Degrees patent for constructing a networking database and system — hold a number of critical social networking patents, too, so who knows where this thing will go.

Nonetheless, Yahoo has decided to emulate those companies with one of the few valuable assets it might have, waging its little war, right as Facebook is in the midst of its initial public offering period.

Yahoo has done this before, of course, having wrangled with Google until right before it went public in 2004 over search patents from its Overture acquisition. The pair settled 10 days before the Google IPO, with Yahoo getting several million more shares of that stock (which it then, of course, sold too soon).

That certainly could happen here, with Yahoo managing to grab a chunk of Facebook’s pre-IPO stock.
That would mean that Yahoo’s most valuable asset would be those shares, as well as its stake in Asian companies it bought a while back for a bargain and now makes up a bulk of the company’s valuation.

As to Yahoo’s core business — investors consider it almost entirely worthless.

And let’s not forget: Facebook could also sue right back, which it very well might do. Or, perhaps, cut off agreeable ties that have aided Yahoo in recent years.

In other words, in poking Facebook, Yahoo might now learn what it is really like to be de-friended.

Last year, the judge offered Oracle a choice: Accept a judgment of $272 million in damages, reduced from $1.3 billion awarded at trial, or seek a new trial. Oracle says in court filings that it wants a new trial.

The key passage of the two-page court filing reads as follows (the word “remittitur” refers to the judge’s previous order reducing the award):

Oracle has no choice but to elect a new trial, as accepting the remittitur would force Oracle to risk waiving its right to appeal the Court’s decision on the motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. Oracle’s objective is to obtain clarification of the law and, if it is right about what the law is and what the evidence supports in this case, to vindicate the verdict of the jury and Oracle’s intellectual property rights as a copyright owner. Accepting the remittitur would be contrary to this objective.

And that means that the whole thing starts over again.

Calling the $1.3 billion award “grossly excessive,” U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton in February granted an SAP request to throw out the award. Hamilton said that Oracle never proved that it lost enough business to justify so large a judgment.

Oracle had won the award in November, after accusing SAP’s now-shuttered TomorrowNow unit of copying its software without paying appropriate licensing fees. It had been the largest judgment ever in a copyright infringement case.

At trial, Oracle accused SAP’s now-shuttered TomorrowNow business unit of illegally downloading Oracle software and then making several thousand copies of it, in order to avoid paying the relevant license fees that are Oracle’s financial bread and butter. Oracle ultimately won the claim, but then the fight turned to damages.

Lawyers for Oracle had argued that the company’s damages should be tied to the value of a hypothetical license that TomorrowNow would have had to pay for the software, had it been properly licensed. For its part, SAP had argued that, as competitors, damages should have been calculated based on profits lost by Oracle and gained by SAP as a result of the infringement, and as such is in a much lower range than what Oracle argued for.

The case has caused a lot of personal enmity between Oracle and SAP, as well as with Hewlett-Packard, especially during the 11-month period when former SAP co-CEO Léo Apotheker was CEO of HP. Apotheker’s first days on the job at HP were marred by his apparent absence from HP headquarters, in what couldn’t help but look like an attempt to avoid being served with a subpoena. Maybe Oracle will try again.

First, a German court handed the South Korean company a setback, rejecting one of the seven patent infringement claims it had brought against Apple. In the court’s view, Samsung’s claim that Apple violates this particular patent, which relates to 3G/UMTS wireless standard, isn’t valid, though the presiding judge hasn’t yet explained why that’s the case.

Far more interesting is this second bit of news coming out of the German courts today. Evidently, Apple has decided to assert its slide-to-unlock patent against Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus. This is the first time Apple has fingered the Nexus as an infringing device, and its decision to do so appears to be a significant escalation of the company’s campaign against Android. Not only is the Galaxy Nexus one of Samsung’s hero smartphones, it’s also Google’s Android 4.0 reference device.

In fact, it’s the only smartphone shipping with Android 4.0 right now. In other words, it’s the latest “pure Google” phone. Which is noteworthy.

“Judging by the first three weeks of 2012, Apple’s intellectual property assertions against Android continue to escalate,” patent analyst Florian Mueller told AllThingsD. “Samsung appears to be no less determined to fight. Apple’s supplemental infringement contentions targeting the Android 4.0 lead device are an unequivocal signal to Google that Apple doesn’t shy away from a frontal assault.”

The ITC had been scheduled to issue its decision on the matter tomorrow, but on Monday said it would delay it until December 14. So it will be another nine days before we see a final verdict in the case.

If the ITC rules in Apple’s favor and determines that HTC’s Android smartphones violate the four patents at issue on the case, it could ban their importation. And that would be a nasty setback for HTC, which might then miss out on the lucrative holiday shopping season.

A victory for HTC, on the other hand, could set the stage for a settlement with Apple, which was recently vindicated in another ITC case in which it was accused of violating the patents of HTC’s S3 Graphics unit.

The Singapore-based media group, which publishes 18 newspapers here, seeks unspecified damages from Yahoo Southeast Asia Pte. Ltd. for the alleged copyright infringements, as well as a legal injunction to prevent further infringements, according to a writ filed last week to the city-state’s High Court.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The patent amassing firm, which was started by former Microsoft executive Nathan Myhrvold, said it has filed suit in Delaware federal court.

“Intellectual Ventures has successfully signed licensing agreements with many of the top handset manufacturers in the world, and has been in discussions with Motorola Mobility for some time,” Chief Litigation Counsel Melissa Finocchio said in a statement. “Unfortunately, we have been unable to reach agreement on a license.”

Finocchio said the company’s preference is to negotiate deals rather than head to court, but Thursday’s move shows its willingness to do the latter.

“We have a responsibility to our current customers and our investors to defend our intellectual property rights against companies such as Motorola Mobility who use them without a license,” Finocchio said. “Our goal continues to be to provide companies with access to our portfolio through licensing and sales, but we will not tolerate ongoing infringement of our patents to the detriment of our current customers and our business.”

Of course, Intellectual Ventures is far from alone in filing mobile patent lawsuits. Oracle is suing Google, Apple is suing HTC and Samsung (and vice versa), Microsoft is suing Motorola and Barnes & Noble, to name just a few of the court actions under way.

Unlike those businesses, though, Intellectual Ventures doesn’t make products of its own, making it tough to countersue them for patent infringement. For more on the company, check out our coverage from 2008, when Myhrvold appeared at D6.

IV vs. Motorola

Oracle, Microsoft and Apple have all sued over Android, albeit in different ways. Oracle has sued Google directly, while Microsoft and Apple have sued particular hardware makers.

Microsoft and Apple both declined to comment ahead of any product introduction by Amazon. However, Microsoft’s deal with Samsung — and its related comments — reiterate the company’s position that it believes it is owed royalty revenue on each Android device sold.

Also, Microsoft and Amazon do have a patent deal covering the existing Kindle line and Amazon’s Linux-based servers.

The devil, of course, is in the details of just how Amazon does and doesn’t use Android. And there is always the question of what deals might quietly be in place, and which relevant patents Amazon might hold that it can claim are being infringed by any potential litigant.

In one important case, the International Trade Commission on Monday has scheduled a hearing to review Microsoft Corp.’s patent-infringement charges against Motorola Inc., which target smartphones running Google’s Android operating system. Google last week agreed to pay $12.5 billion for the mobile-phone business now called Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc., largely to acquire patents that are seen as legal weapons against Microsoft, Apple Inc. and other Android rivals.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The New York company, which pays a network of scientists and technology experts to determine if a patented invention is truly novel, typically helps big companies after they are sued by patent holders. Now, it is launching a service that aims to invalidate “poor quality” patents before they are asserted in courts.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

After vowing to respond aggressively to Apple’s legal assault, Samsung reportedly shot back Thursday with multiple suits of its own, alleging the Cupertino, Calif.-based company infringes on Samsung technology.

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, Samsung has filed suits against Apple in Japan, Korea and Germany. The move follows a suit by Apple last week accusing that Samsung’s phones and tablets infringe on Apple patents and trademarks.

Representatives of Apple and Samsung were not immediately available for comment.

The battle between Samsung and Apple is the latest in a series of disputes dividing the cellphone industry. Apple is also engaged in lawsuits with Nokia and HTC, while Microsoft and Motorola have ongoing disputes, as do Google and Oracle, among others.

Last Friday, Apple sued Samsung in U.S. federal court, alleging trademark and patent infringement as well as other claims. In the suit, Apple is seeking an injunction against Samsung as well as unspecified monetary damages. Apple’s lawsuit alleges everything from Samsung’s hardware and packaging to the icons on its screens are a duplication of Apple’s technology.

“It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging,” an Apple representative told Mobilized on Monday. “This kind of blatant copying is wrong, and we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.”

Samsung, meanwhile, said earlier this week that it would react aggressively to Apple’s action.

“Samsung’s development of core technologies and strengthening our intellectual property portfolio are keys to our continued success,” the company said in a statement to Mobilized. “Samsung will respond actively to this legal action taken against us through appropriate legal measures to protect our intellectual property.

The issue is complicated by the fact that Samsung is not only a rival in the phone and tablet markets, but also a key supplier to Apple. According to The Wall Street Journal, Apple was Samsung’s second biggest customer last year, after Sony. And given Apple’s phenomenal growth of late, it’s reasonable to think Apple may have displaced Sony to become Samsung’s single biggest customer.

The suit, filed on Friday in U.S. District Court in Northern California, alleges patent and trademark infringement, as well as unfair competition. Apple is seeking injunctions, actual damages and punitive damages, as well as a finding that the alleged infringement was willful.

“It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging,” an Apple representative told Mobilized. “This kind of blatant copying is wrong, and we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.”

Samsung said it would fight Apple’s legal action in the courts.

“Samsung’s development of core technologies and strengthening our intellectual property portfolio are keys to our continued success,” the company said in a statement. “Samsung will respond actively to this legal action taken against us through appropriate legal measures to protect our intellectual property.”

The smartphone industry is filled with patent actions, including an ongoing battle between Apple and Nokia, suits between Microsoft and Motorola, as well as a suit by Oracle against Google, to name but a few. This one is particularly interesting because Samsung is a prominent supplier for a number of Apple products.

Apple’s lengthy court filing, seen by Mobilized, is filled with what Apple claims are examples of the copy-catting, ranging from core technology to screen icons to hardware shape. In particular, Apple cites patents issued in 2009 and 2010 that cover the physical design of the iPhone along with various trademarks for its app icons.

In addition to the patent and trademark claims, Apple also alleges infringement of the “trade dress” of the iPhone and iPad, a legal term meaning they sure look a whole lot alike. Apple charges that everything from the icons on the Galaxy screen to the way the phone is packaged infringe on Apple’s designs.

“Samsung’s Galaxy Tab computer tablet also slavishly copies a combination of several elements of the Apple Product Configuration Trade Dress,” Apple says in its suit, noting that Samsung’s tablet, like Apple’s, uses a similar rectangular design with rounded corners, similar black border and array of icons.

Even as Apple is filing its latest claims, the company suffered a setback in earlier cases it has pending against HTC and Nokia with the U.S. International Trade Commission. According to Bloomberg, ITC staff has recommended siding against Apple in those cases, which also involve phone patents.

Apple’s suit against Samsung not only contains lots of harsh words, but also has lots of pretty pictures, including some that show side-by-side shots of Samsung’s products stacked up against Apple’s patent diagrams and against Apple’s products themselves.

In one head-to-head comparison, Apple shows the iPhone 3GS next to the original Galaxy i9000 model sold in South Korea last year.

Updated 3:10 p.m. with Samsung comment.

Late last month, BoomTown posted about a huge venture funding effort by the high-profile and even more highly designed social media reading app for the Apple iPad, Flipboard.

Today, its co-founder and CEO Mike McCue confirmed the $50 million round at an eye-popping $200 million valuation, in a wide-ranging interview at the start-up’s Palo Alto, Calif., HQ.

“We’re obviously thrilled, because we think it confirms our focus that people want a beautifully designed way to interact with content and to share it,” he said. “And there is a lot more to come–on a scale of one to 10, we’re just at a two or three.”

The bulk of the new second round of funding–Flipboard had previously raised $10.5 million–came from New York-based Insight Venture Partners.

Insight’s Jerry Murdock said in an interview that he was excited about the idea of “social endorsement” that Flipboard was pioneering.

“We back great entrepreneurs and Flipboard is that and also in an obviously unique position to solve a problem of media consumption in the digital age,” he said. “The sky is the limit. Or more precisely it is the best environment to consume curated real-time content for Twitter and Facebook, because of the user experience and social endorsement integration with the content.”

Insight is also an investor in Twitter.

Also stepping up in the new Flipboard round is Comcast’s venture arm, as well as previous investors, including Kleiner Perkins, Index Ventures and a spate of well known angels, such as Twitter co-founder and product guru Jack Dorsey, Facebook co-founder and Asana dude Dustin Moskovitz, the ubiquitous Ron Conway, actor Ashton Kutcher and the investment company of former News Corp. exec Peter Chernin.

“From a Comcast perspective, we’re intrigued with Mike and what he’s doing with content aggregation,” said Amy Banse, Comcast Interactive Capital’s new head. “We think we can learn from him and he from us.”

Co-founded by longtime entrepreneur McCue (Netscape, Tellme) and former Apple iPhone engineer Evan Doll in January, Flipboard launched to much attention in July.

The elegant Flipboard–which McCue recently told me in an onstage interview at the South by Southwest conference in Austin had zero revenues thus far–has changed the game on the consumption of social media.

Its innovative social magazine concept is attempting to make the social networking universe more accessible, consumable and, perhaps most importantly, visually arresting via its rich app.

Essentially, Flipboard pulls information from media RSS feeds and sites such as Twitter and Facebook data streams and then reassembles it in an easy-to-navigate, personalized format in a mobile tablet touchscreen environment.

In its current offering, there are pull-quotes, photos, videos, status updates and even the first paragraphs of linked-out content. There is also the ability to comment and share, as if one were on a social networking or microblogging site.

McCue said the new giant pile of cash will be used to increase its 32-person staff to about 50, international expansion, small acquisitions and more product development on more platforms.

The next in the arena will be the iPhone version of Flipboard, said McCue, followed by one for the Google Android mobile operating system eventually.

Left unsaid, of course, was the need for funding to fight the likelihood of increased competition in the hot space for delivering both professional and social content to consumers on a wide range of devices.

Rivals are varied, such as Silicon Valley’s most adorable news reader start-up Pulse and also Zite, a news reader which was recently sued for copyright infringement by a group of major publishers.

There are bigger potential players, such as Google, which is trying to find various ways to move into the social space.

In fact, said several sources, Google and others have made acquisition approaches to Flipboard, which has instead opted for raising more funding and staying independent for now.

McCue declined to talk about that, but did note that he is not surprised by publisher interest, especially of the worried and wary kind, in the arena.

“Anyone not respectful of others’ content is going to get in that kind of trouble,” he said, noting Flipboard has struck deals with 17 big publishers so far, including this morning’s announcement about a partnership with Oprah Winfrey’s and Discovery’s OWN cable network. “There is not one half to this equation.”

Right now, the Flipboard app is free and the business plan is advertising and some possible subscription scenarios.

McCue said advertising will be the key to Flipboard’s business plan in the future, although it’s not clear if the company will ever sell advertising itself.

Rather, it will partner with publishers seeking better distribution in the explosive tablet and smartphone market, where Flipboard has been gaining traction quickly.

But until that is sorted out, there is now $50 million more in the Flipboard kitty to figure it all out.

“With this funding, we can grow at the right pace and have a lot of flexibility to get the product right,” said McCue. “And, that’s the most important thing.”

Aghast at the U.S. International Trade Commission’s ruling on its first complaint against Apple, Nokia has filed a second, accusing Apple of infringing its patents “in virtually all of its mobile phones, portable music players, tablets, and computers.”

At issue in the complaint are seven patents that Nokia argues “are now being used by Apple to create key features in its products in the areas of multi-tasking operating systems, data synchronization, positioning, call quality and the use of Bluetooth accessories.” Taken together with the IP cited in Nokia’s previous ITC complaint and related cases in the U.S., U.K., Germany and The Netherlands, the company has nearly four dozen patents in play in its suit against Apple.

“Our latest ITC filing means we now have 46 Nokia patents in suit against Apple, many filed more than 10 years before Apple made its first iPhone,” Paul Melin, Nokia’s VP of intellectual property said in a statement. “Nokia is a leading innovator in technologies needed to build great mobile products and Apple must stop building its products using Nokia’s proprietary innovation.”

Almost sounds like Nokia’s saying it invented the iPhone, doesn’t it? Which is ironic, considering the company is on the record professing its fondness for Apple’s handset.

Asked once about the striking similarities between a touchscreen device it was designing and the iPhone, Anssi Vanjoki, Nokia’s head of multimedia devices at the time, replied, “If there is something good in the world then we copy with pride.”

PREVIOUSLY:

• Nokia Sues Apple
• Did Nokia Sue Apple Before Apple Could Sue Nokia?
• Nokia’s New Focus Is Mobile Services? Sure It’s Not Lawsuits Against Apple?
• Apple Countersues Nokia for Copying iPhone (Plus Disputed Patents and Full Text of Counterclaim)
• ITC Investigating Nokia Over Apple Patent Complaints and Vice Versa
• Nokia Accuses Apple of “Legal Alchemy.” Stops Short of “Chymistry” and “Heresy.”
• Apple Vs. Nokia: The Battle of Britain
• Apple Vs. Nokia: The Battle of Britain II
• ITC: Apple Did Not Infringe Nokia Patents