Well, he’s back. And he has emails.

Paul Ceglia, the plaintiff, filed an amended complaint Monday claiming rights to half of Mr. Zuckerberg’s equity in the company. For those of you keeping score at home, Mr. Zuckerberg’s net worth has been estimated at more than $13.5 billion.

Facebook is categorically denying the accusations, saying the emails are part of a fraud and casting doubt on Mr. Ceglia, who was accused by the New York attorney general in 2009 of defrauding customers of his wood-pellet fuel company.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

For a company with $45.8 billion in cash and securities in its coffers, a $625 million damage award is hardly large. That said, Apple isn’t going to pay it without a fight–particularly when there may be some prior art to be found in HyperCard. The company has filed an emergency motion to stay the ruling, claiming there problems with at least two of the patents at issue here, according to court filings.

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.

Since July, at least six suits have been filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against websites and companies that create advertising technology, accusing them of installing online-tracking tools that are so surreptitious that they essentially hack into users’ machines without their knowledge. All of the suits seek class-action status and accuse companies of violating the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and other laws against deceptive practices.

In 2001 and 2003, courts ruled that websites could place small text files called “cookies” on machines. Cookies allow sites to remember users, so they don’t have to log in user information on each visit. But they can also be used to track users across websites, compiling a profile of a user’s browsing interests.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

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.

“We continue to analyze the potential merits of their claims, the potential defenses to such claims and potential counter claims, and the possibility of a license agreement as an alternative to litigation,” the company said. “However, there can be no assurance that this claim will not lead to litigation in the future.”

Well, looks like the claim has indeed lead to litigation, and litigation from a formidable opponent, too: Microsoft (MSFT).

On Thursday, the software behemoth filed suit against Salesforce, accusing the company of infringing nine patents describing things like “Method and system for stacking toolbars in a computer display” and “System and method for controlling access to data entities in a computer network.”

The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, seeks an injunction against Salesforce and unspecified monetary damages.

“Microsoft has been a leader and innovator in the software industry for decades and continues to invest billions of dollars each year in bringing great software products and services to market,” Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft’s deputy general counsel of Intellectual Property and Licensing, said in a statement. “We have a responsibility to our customers, partners, and shareholders to safeguard that investment, and therefore cannot stand idly by when others infringe our IP rights.”

An interesting move for Microsoft, which doesn’t typically initiate patent litigation. Though it has been sued many times for patent infringement over the years, the company has only filed a handful of IP suits itself.

That said, Microsoft and Salesforce have been competing more aggressively in the cloud-based CRM space recently.

Salesforce.com declined comment on the suit.

You can read all of U.S. District Court Judge Kimba Wood’s ruling at the bottom of the post. But the short version is that Wood, using the Supreme Court’s Grokster decision as a guide, found that LimeWire is indeed guilty of copyright violations. In her words:

LimeWire… (1) is aware that LimeWire’s users commit a substantial amount of copyright infringement; (2) markets LimeWire to users predisposed to committing infringement; (3) ensures that LimeWire enables infringement and assists users committing infringement; (4) relies on the fact that LimeWire enables infringement for the success of its business; and (5) has not taken meaningful steps to mitigate infringement.

LimeWire is unusual among post-Napster, post-Grokster file-sharing operations in that it operates out in the open, in the U.S. The company, based in New York City and owned by investor Mark Gorton, actually sells a smattering of music itself with the blessing of some of the smaller music labels. But while the company has been engaged in a long back-and-forth with the big guys, it has never reached a settlement.

Meanwhile, almost all of the music available on the service (93 percent, according to a study used in the lawsuit) and even more of the stuff actually downloaded (98.8 percent, via the same study) is protected by copyright and should not have been there. Court documents state that LimeWire generated revenue of $20 million in 2006.

LimeWire does tell its users they shouldn’t steal music. This is the warning you get when you try to do so:

But that’s not enough, Wood ruled. And certainly not when the service was going out of its way to court users searching Google (GOOG) for free tunes. From her ruling:

LimeWire conducted a marketing campaign through Google AdWords, whereby Google users who entered certain search queries, such as “replacement napster,” “napster mp3,” “napster download,” “kazaa morpheus,” “mp3 free download,” and dozens of other phrases containing the words “napster,” “kazaa,” or “morpheus,” would see an advertisement leading them to the LimeWire website.

The next step in the case is a June 1 conference. Here’s LimeWire CEO George Searle’s statement, which doesn’t include a vow to appeal the ruling:

LimeWire strongly opposes the Court’s recent decision. LimeWire remains committed to developing innovative products and services for the end-user and to working with the entire music industry, including the major labels, to achieve this mission. We look forward to our June 1 meeting with Judge Wood.

And here’s the end-zone dance from Mitch Bainwol, CEO of the music industry’s lobbying group:

This definitive ruling is an extraordinary victory for the entire creative community. The court made clear that LimeWire was liable for inducing widespread copyright theft.

LimeWire is one of the largest remaining commercial peer-to-peer services. Unlike other P2P services that negotiated licenses, imposed filters or otherwise chose to discontinue their illegal conduct following the Supreme Court’s decision in the Grokster case, LimeWire instead thumbed its nose at the law and creators. The court’s decision is an important milestone in the creative community’s fight to reclaim the Internet as a platform for legitimate commerce. By finding LimeWire’s CEO personally liable, in addition to his company, the court has sent a clear signal to those who think they can devise and profit from a piracy scheme that will escape accountability.

We are gratified by the court’s careful and thorough analysis of the facts and applicable law.

Bigger question: What does this mean for the music industry? Assuming Wood’s ruling stands, this one will definitely feel good for the labels, and it would have been a very big deal had they lost. But it certainly won’t help them in fighting less formally organized P2P services or those set up outside the U.S.

Arista Records Summary Judgment Opinion

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

Both sides filed the requests, as has been expected for some time, at the end of last month and is a sign that years of laborious discovery and depositions have come to a close.

There’s not much to the filings themselves:

• Google’s (GOOG) document reiterates the company’s initial argument. The search giant says it doesn’t knowingly store or play copyrighted clips on the site, and if it does, it is protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Google also cites last fall’s ruling in the Veoh/Universal Music Group case, in which a court ruled in favor of the video-sharing site.
• Viacom’s (VIA) document reiterates its initial argument, which is that Google and YouTube knew what they were doing and profited from it, which means the DMCA does not protect them. And perhaps it says something more interesting. Hard to tell, since U.S. District Court judge Louis Stanton has redacted more than a page of the document, as you can see here:

Wonder what that says? Me too.

Viacom filing:
Via 1710
Google filing:
Goog1710

“Defendant must bring its conduct into compliance with the injunction by midnight on December 31, 2009, at the latest,” U.S. District Judge William Alsup wrote in his ruling. “Defendant must immediately begin this process, and take the quickest path to compliance; thus, if compliance can be achieved within one hour after this order is filed, defendant shall reasonably see it done.”

It would seem, then, to be over for Psystar, though we likely haven’t yet heard the last of it. Alsup’s injunction doesn’t include the company’s Rebel EFI software, which allows Mac OS X to be installed on PCs. So for now, the company can continue to sell it, though Alsup warns that to do so is a risky legal proposition at best.

“Rebel EFI will not be expressly excluded from the terms of the injunction,” Alsup wrote. “It should be clear, however, that this ruling is without prejudice to Psystar bringing a new motion before the undersigned that includes real details about Rebel EFI, and opening itself up to formal discovery thereon. This would serve the purpose–akin to a post-injunction motion vetting a ‘design-around’ in a patent action–of potentially vetting (or not vetting) a product like Rebel EFI under this order’s decree.”

The wiggle room allowed, however, is scant. “Moreover, Psystar may raise in such a motion any defenses it believes should apply to the factual circumstances of its new product, such as the 17 U.S.C. 117 defense raised in its opposition and at oral argument. Whether such a defense would be successful on the merits, or face preclusion or other hurdles, this order cannot predict. What is certain, however, is that until such a motion is brought, Psystar will be selling Rebel EFI at its peril, and risks finding itself held in contempt if its new venture falls within the scope of the injunction.”

Below, the injunction in full:

Case3-08-cv-03251-WHADocument242 –

“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 –

You see, DISH, though it had been barred from shipping DVRs with the patent-infringing functionality, continued to do so, justifying its behavior by claiming it had implemented a noninfringing workaround. But in June of this year, a court found that not to be the case. The court again reprimanded EchoStar (SATS) and ordered the company to pay TiVo (TIVO) $103 million in additional fines for the violations that occurred during the time in which the “workaround” was implemented. And now, it has added another $200 million to that.

TiVo, as one might imagine, was overjoyed by the ruling, which leaves open the possibility of further sanctions if EchoStar does not abide by the injunction.

“We are pleased by the Court’s ruling to impose contempt sanctions of approximately $200 million against EchoStar for its continued violation of a Court-ordered permanent injunction, and to award TiVo its attorney fees and costs incurred during the contempt proceedings,” the company said in a statement. “This brings total damages and sanctions in this case to approximately $400 million through July 1, 2009, plus attorney fees, and is exclusive of potential further damages and sanctions. Additionally, we are pleased that the Court ‘will seriously entertain the award of enhanced sanctions’ if ‘EchoStar is unsuccessful on appeal and nevertheless continues to disregard this Court’s orders.’”

Who knows, if DISH keeps it up, TiVo may get that $974.5 million yet.

You see, DISH, though it had been barred from shipping DVRs with the patent-infringing functionality, continued to do so, justifying its behavior by claiming it had implemented a noninfringing workaround. But in June of this year, a court found that not to be the case. The court again reprimanded EchoStar (SATS) and ordered the company to pay TiVo (TIVO) $103 million in additional fines for the violations that occurred during the time in which the “workaround” was implemented. And now, it has added another $200 million to that.

TiVo, as one might imagine, was overjoyed by the ruling, which leaves open the possibility of further sanctions if EchoStar does not abide by the injunction.

“We are pleased by the Court’s ruling to impose contempt sanctions of approximately $200 million against EchoStar for its continued violation of a Court-ordered permanent injunction, and to award TiVo its attorney fees and costs incurred during the contempt proceedings,” the company said in a statement. “This brings total damages and sanctions in this case to approximately $400 million through July 1, 2009, plus attorney fees, and is exclusive of potential further damages and sanctions. Additionally, we are pleased that the Court ‘will seriously entertain the award of enhanced sanctions’ if ‘EchoStar is unsuccessful on appeal and nevertheless continues to disregard this Court’s orders.’”

Who knows, if DISH keeps it up, TiVo may get that $974.5 million yet.

“For the last several months, we have consistently stated and maintained that our System V code is in Linux,” McBride explained. “The claims SCO has are both broad and deep. These claims touch not just IBM but other vendors as well. They also touch certain industry consortia and corporate Linux end users. Our claims aren’t trivial. The violations of our intellectual property are not easily repaired. It is our intention to vigorously protect and enforce SCO’s intellectual property, System V source code and our copyrights. We’re now fully prepared to do that.”

And they did. SCO subsequently filed suit against IBM (IBM), auto giant DaimlerChrysler and a coterie of other companies, each time sounding the same theme: Our copyrighted UNIX code was illegally cobbled into Linux. You’re using it without a license. Pay up.

But SCO never specified exactly the Linux code it believes infringes on its copyrights, even in the face of repeated calls to do so from its defendants and the open source community. Indeed, it could be said that the company’s legal campaign against Linux was defined by its utter failure to prove that the open-source operating system contains any of its intellectual property. Certainly, that was the opinion of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, which found that the copyright to UNIX and UnixWare was owned by Novell. That decision drove SCO into bankruptcy and ended its high-profile legal attack on Linux.

But only for a time. Because a federal appeals court on Monday ruled that SCO is entitled to a jury trial on its claims to Unix, a ruling that might lead to a renewal of the company’s campaign against Linux. “We take no position on which party ultimately owns the Unix copyrights or which copyrights were required for Santa Cruz to exercise its rights under the agreement,” the court wrote in its ruling. “Such matters are for the finder of fact on remand.”

And so, astonishingly, this six-year battle is headed back to court once again, a development Darl McBride was quick to spin as a vindication in one of his typically pontifical pronouncements. “Today is not the end of the war but it certainly is a key battle that we’ve won,” he said of the decision. “Now it’s time to move on to the next series of battles with our victory in hand.”

Of course, for events to play out that way, SCO must prove that Unix contains its intellectual property, something it has so far failed abysmally to do. Indeed, the judge presiding over the original case compared SCO’s claims to those of a store owner accusing someone of shoplifting but refusing to say what items had been stolen. As Linux creator Linus Torvalds once said, “There really is a reason why nobody believes a word SCO is saying, and it’s because SCO is lying.”

To recap: Real wants to sell a $30 piece of software called RealDVD that lets you rip and store DVDs on your computer. Real’s software adds its own set of locks to the ripped file to prevent DVD owners from passing along their files to someone else, but that isn’t nearly enough to placate Hollywood.

Real and the studios have been in court since last fall, when U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel issued a restraining order preventing Real from selling the software. Yesterday, Patel (whom you may recall from the old Napster days, when she essentially shut that service down) turned the restraining order into an injunction, along with a sharply worded ruling that basically described Real as a group of willfully obtuse doofuses.

Now Hollywood is dancing, and Real says it needs to “determine our course of action.” I have a suggestion for Real: Move on.

I know there’s a legitimate use for software that lets you rip DVDs you own–and more importantly, software that lets you circumvent the locks the studios put on their discs. But why not let the many other smaller companies fighting this fight, fight this fight?

Best-case scenario is that you end up with software that’s useful for a relatively small group of people: The ones who buy DVDs and want to watch them multiple times. Worst case is the one you have now: An expensive legal battle and the prospect of a product you’ll never be able to sell.

I’ve been puzzling about Real’s plan for this software from the get-go. Why release a product that is destined for a court battle?

A few people familiar with the company’s thinking have tried to explain that this fits into CEO Rob Glaser’s vision for Real’s future, which involves creating software that maintains a connected home entertainment hub. But that seems like a roundabout way to get there.

I have another theory: Glaser is a smart, pugnacious guy with a fondness for big public fights.

He spent some time in the earlier part of this decade jousting with Steve Jobs about Apple’s (AAPL) walled-garden approach to iTunes music, and lost that one. But he did get Microsoft (MSFT) to hand over $760 million to settle an antitrust case in 2005, and he still has a chunk of that cash in the bank.

Or maybe there’s an entirely different impulse behind RealDVD. But whatever it is, I’d love to hear it. Here’s a clip of Rob Glaser explaining the software’s features, but not the rationale behind it, to BoomTown’s Kara Swisher:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090812/realnetworks-still-barred-from-the-dvd-backup-business-why-does-realnetworks-want-to-be-in-the-dvd-backup-business/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090424/realnetworks-and-hollywood-spar-over-dvd-ripping/ http://allthingsd.com/20090424/realnetworks-and-hollywood-spar-over-dvd-ripping/#comments Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:02:41 +0000 Sarah McBride and Yukari Iwatani Kane http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=11210 Starting late last year, movie studios began peddling premium-priced DVDs that come with the right to download a digital copy of the movie onto a computer.

Now a federal judge will weigh in on whether the studios are the only ones who can legally make those copies, or if other companies can jump on the bandwagon.

Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of U.S. District Court in San Francisco on Friday will open a hearing to evaluate whether RealNetworks (RNWK) can sell a computer program called RealDVD that allows consumers to copy DVDs onto computers.

Last fall, the studios won a temporary ban on the sale of RealDVD. If Judge Patel rules the program can go back on the market, it could hamper Hollywood’s efforts to cash in on consumer demand for digital copies of the DVDs they buy.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090424/realnetworks-and-hollywood-spar-over-dvd-ripping/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090413/hp-sees-1-2-cent-hit-from-patent-spat-affirms-outlook/ http://allthingsd.com/20090413/hp-sees-1-2-cent-hit-from-patent-spat-affirms-outlook/#comments Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:32:47 +0000 Eric Savitz http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=10649 Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) on Friday announced that it will take a charge of 1-2 cents a share in its fiscal second quarter ending April related to a patent dispute with Cornell University and the Cornell Research Foundation. HP noted that on March 30 the U.S. District Court overseeing the case cut the amount of an early jury verdict in the case in favor of Cornell to $53 million from $184 million.

HP also said that “after a review of the preliminary financial results of the first two months this fiscal quarter,” its financial outlook–excluding the charge–remains unchanged.

Read the rest of this post

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090413/hp-sees-1-2-cent-hit-from-patent-spat-affirms-outlook/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20080829/speaking-of-destroying-competition-meet-our-legal-team-from-mortify-debase-and-demolish-llp/ http://allthingsd.com/20080829/speaking-of-destroying-competition-meet-our-legal-team-from-mortify-debase-and-demolish-llp/#comments Fri, 29 Aug 2008 19:09:27 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=4128 Apple legal has some interesting weekend reading ahead of it. Mac clone maker Psystar filed its 54-page countersuit against Apple late Thursday, and as expected, it accuses the company of restraint of trade, unfair competition, and other violations of antitrust law. “[Apple has] engaged in copyright misuse through the use of an illicit tying provision in its end-user license agreement for the Mac OS X with respect to only utilizing the Mac OS X software on Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems and as is further detailed in PSYSTAR’s counterclaims for violations of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and Cartwright Act, which are incorporated herein by reference,” the suit claims. “By attempting to enforce this illicit tying provision, [Apple] is attempting to obtain, maintain, and/or enjoy rights not granted by the Copyright Act including, but not limited to, destroying competition in the Mac OS Capable Computer Hardware Systems market, which is wholly unrelated to any valid copyright.”

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.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20080829/speaking-of-destroying-competition-meet-our-legal-team-from-mortify-debase-and-demolish-llp/feed/ 1 http://allthingsd.com/20080829/speaking-of-destroying-competition-meet-our-legal-team-from-mortify-debase-and-demolish-llp-2/ http://allthingsd.com/20080829/speaking-of-destroying-competition-meet-our-legal-team-from-mortify-debase-and-demolish-llp-2/#comments Fri, 29 Aug 2008 19:09:27 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=4128 Apple legal has some interesting weekend reading ahead of it. Mac clone maker Psystar filed its 54-page countersuit against Apple late Thursday, and as expected, it accuses the company of restraint of trade, unfair competition, and other violations of antitrust law. “[Apple has] engaged in copyright misuse through the use of an illicit tying provision in its end-user license agreement for the Mac OS X with respect to only utilizing the Mac OS X software on Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems and as is further detailed in PSYSTAR’s counterclaims for violations of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and Cartwright Act, which are incorporated herein by reference,” the suit claims. “By attempting to enforce this illicit tying provision, [Apple] is attempting to obtain, maintain, and/or enjoy rights not granted by the Copyright Act including, but not limited to, destroying competition in the Mac OS Capable Computer Hardware Systems market, which is wholly unrelated to any valid copyright.”

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.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20080829/speaking-of-destroying-competition-meet-our-legal-team-from-mortify-debase-and-demolish-llp-2/feed/ 0