Competition in an Instant
by Amit Singhal

Last week, “Googling something” took on a whole new meaning. Instead of typing your question into the search box and hitting Enter, our newest invention—Google Instant—shows constantly evolving results based on the individual letters you type.

Instant is just the latest in a long line of search improvements. Five years ago, search results were just “ten blue links”—simple web pages with some text. Today search engines provide answers in the form of images, books, news, music, maps and even “real time” results from sites such as Twitter.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

“Psystar has violated Apple’s exclusive reproduction right, distribution right, and right to create derivative works,” Alsup wrote in his ruling (see full text below). Not only did the company infringe on Apple’s (AAPL) copyrights by installing Mac OS X on its hackintoshes, he explained, it violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to do so.

An ugly defeat for Psystar, which just a few weeks ago asked a judge to bless its business and rule that it is legally allowed to sell machines with Apple’s Mac OS X pre-installed. Still, it doesn’t mean that the acrimonious legal battle between the two companies is finished. Psystar could appeal, though Alsup’s ruling would seem to leave the company pretty far up that certain creek it’s been traveling lately–without a paddle.

There remain a number of accusations to be decided at trial, among them, Apple’s claims of breach of contract, trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition. Beyond these, there are the damages that will almost certainly be brought against Psystar on the copyright issues in the case.

“The court asked for briefs on that subject,” Pamela Jones notes over at Groklaw. “In short, Psystar is toast. Psystar’s only hope now is Florida, and frankly I wouldn’t bet the house on that one. Judges notice if you were just found guilty of a similar cause of action in another state.”

Psystar –

Google abandoned [its deal with Yahoo] not because pressing ahead with it ‘risked’ a protracted legal battle, but because it guaranteed one.”

I wrote that on Nov. 6, following the official dissolution of Google’s (GOOG) proposed advertising partnership with Yahoo (YHOO). Turns out the guarantee to which I referred was an ironclad one. Sanford Litvack, the attorney who would have been lead counsel in the event of a government antitrust case against Google, tells American Lawyer Daily that the Department of Justice was literally hours away from suing the company when it bailed on the deal. “We were going to file the complaint at a certain time during the day,” he explains. “We told them we were going to file the complaint at that time of day. Three hours before, they told us they were abandoning the agreement.”

Had Google not turned tail, the DOJ would have charged it with violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Said Litvack, “It would have ended up also alleging that Google had a monopoly and that [the advertising pact] would have furthered their monopoly.”

As I wrote back in November, “Internet search advertising and Internet search syndication are natural monopoly businesses. And, according to the DOJ, Google is their presiding monopolist.” Truer words, eh?

Google abandoned [its deal with Yahoo] not because pressing ahead with it ‘risked’ a protracted legal battle, but because it guaranteed one.”

I wrote that on Nov. 6, following the official dissolution of Google’s (GOOG) proposed advertising partnership with Yahoo (YHOO). Turns out the guarantee to which I referred was an ironclad one. Sanford Litvack, the attorney who would have been lead counsel in the event of a government antitrust case against Google, tells American Lawyer Daily that the Department of Justice was literally hours away from suing the company when it bailed on the deal. “We were going to file the complaint at a certain time during the day,” he explains. “We told them we were going to file the complaint at that time of day. Three hours before, they told us they were abandoning the agreement.”

Had Google not turned tail, the DOJ would have charged it with violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Said Litvack, “It would have ended up also alleging that Google had a monopoly and that [the advertising pact] would have furthered their monopoly.”

As I wrote back in November, “Internet search advertising and Internet search syndication are natural monopoly businesses. And, according to the DOJ, Google is their presiding monopolist.” Truer words, eh?

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeks unspecified, triple damages and, more importantly, an order voiding Apple’s end-user license agreements (EULA). If successful, it will allow OS X to be installed on hardware it was never intended to run on, opening the door for the first legitimate Mac clones in more than a decade. Hard to see Apple (AAPL) allowing that to happen, though. My guess is the company would sooner kill retail sales of OS X and manage upgrades through iTunes, than allow it to be run on inferior machines over whose quality it has no control.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeks unspecified, triple damages and, more importantly, an order voiding Apple’s end-user license agreements (EULA). If successful, it will allow OS X to be installed on hardware it was never intended to run on, opening the door for the first legitimate Mac clones in more than a decade. Hard to see Apple (AAPL) allowing that to happen, though. My guess is the company would sooner kill retail sales of OS X and manage upgrades through iTunes, than allow it to be run on inferior machines over whose quality it has no control.