TechLuver.com

Feb 05, `08 — Three global record companies, Universal Music Ltd, Sony BMG Music Entertainment (Hong Kong) Ltd and Warner Music Hong Kong Ltd, have launched legal proceedings against China’s top Internet search engine Baidu.com, accusing it of violating copyright by giving access to music files, International Federation of the Phonographic Industry said in a press release on Monday, Feb 04.

* New legal proceedings brought against Baidu
* Copyright infringement actions against Sohu and its associate company Sogou
* Yahoo China in breach of copyright violation judgment

After months of fruitless negotiations, legal proceedings have been filed on Feb 04, against the China’s biggest internet company, Baidu. Separate actions have also been brought against Sohu and its associate company Sogou. Meanwhile, Yahoo China faces fresh proceedings following its refusal to comply with a landmark ruling in December confirming it violated Chinese law by committing mass copyright infringement.

All of the Chinese companies involved operate similar services based on delivering music to their users via “deep links” to hundreds of thousands of infringing tracks on third party sites, with the aim of driving their own advertising revenue. Such services have been confirmed as in breach of copyright by the December judgment of the Beijing Higher People’s Court. Each of them is a driver of copyright abuse in China, where the huge potential for the online music sector is being stymied by copyright theft.

China has potentially the largest online music-buying public in the world with as many broadband connections as the United States. Currently, however, more than 99 per cent of all music files distributed in the country are pirate and China’s total legitimate music market, at US$76 million, accounts for less than one per cent of global recorded music sales.

Monday (Feb 04)’s actions follow in the wake of a decisive judgment against Yahoo China in December 2007 by the Beijing Higher People’s Court. The court’s finding that Yahoo China’s music delivery service is illegal under Chinese law sets a precedent for cases against similar operations in China.

Three record companies have now filed proceedings against Baidu. The new claims have been filed with the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court by Universal Music Ltd, Sony BMG Music Entertainment (Hong Kong) Ltd and Warner Music Hong Kong Ltd. The three companies are asking the court to order Baidu to remove all links on its music delivery service to copyright infringing tracks that they own the rights to.

Action is also being taken today against Sohu and its associate company Sogou, which operates a similar service. Sogou makes profits through advertising that appears on the service and through sponsorship. Sogou also actively induces and encourages copyright infringement by means of recommendations and charts, while Sohu provides deep linking services through its associate company.

Sohu is the official sponsor of internet content service (ICS) for the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

The legal action is being brought by four record companies: Universal Music Limited, Gold Label Entertainment Limited, Sony BMG Music Entertainment (Hong Kong) Limited and Warner Music Hong Kong Limited. The cases were also filed at the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court. They follow four prior notices that were sent to both companies from July 2007 onward.

The claims against Baidu, Sohu and Sogou will be served on the respective companies by the court after the Chinese New Year.

Meanwhile, Yahoo China has still not complied with the December ruling made against it by the Chinese appeal court. As a consequence, the plaintiffs in that case have now filed execution proceedings against Yahoo China, asking the court to force Yahoo China to comply with the earlier judgment.

More at International Federation of the Phonographic Industry.

Feb 03, `08 — As Swedish prosecutors fixed their sights last week on The Pirate Bay, an Internet file-sharing service that is a scourge of the movie and music industries, the operators of the site responded by hoisting a defiant, digital Jolly Roger, reports the IHT.

The Pirate Bay, on its blog, called for a celebration saying, “This week we’ve hit some magic numbers. We’re tracking over 1 million torrents. We have had over 10 million simultaneous peers on the trackers. We’re at 2.5 million registered users (and they are active as well).”

The 100th post on the Pirate Bay blog further adds, “In case we lose the pending trial (yeah right) there will still not be any changes to the site. The Pirate Bay will keep operating just as always. We’ve been here for years and we will be here many more.”

The Wires writes, “Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi, one of the four Swedes charged in Sweden on Thursday, said in a telephone interview that the site has set up a clandestine, double-blind operation with its servers spread throughout the world — and out of reach of the Swedish authorities.

“The Pirate Bay is not in Sweden,” the 29-year-old Kolmisoppi said. Where are the servers?

“It’s a distributed system. We don’t know where the servers are. We gave them to people we trust and they don’t know it’s The Pirate Bay,” Kolmisoppi said. “They then rent locations and space for them somewhere else. It could be three countries. It could be six countries. We don’t want to know because then you’ll have a problem shutting them down.” More at IHT, theWired.

Feb 01, `08 — Four men who run one of the most popular file-sharing sites in the world have been charged with conspiracy to break copyright law in Sweden, the BBC reported on Thursday.

Pirate Bay does not store music and video files on its own servers, but instead helps users share them on the internet. The website acts as a directory of the files used by the BitTorrent file-transfer protocol.

“It’s not merely a search engine. It’s an active part of an action that aims at, and also leads to, making copyright protected material available,” public prosecutor Hakan Roswall told Reuters. “It’s a classic example of accessory — to act as intermediary between people who commit crimes, whether it’s in the physical or the virtual world.”

Pirate Bay told the news agency that the people running the site cannot be held responsible for how its directory services are used. The website is said to have between 10 and 15 million users around the world and is supported by online advertising.

Police seized computers in May 2006, temporarily shutting down the website.

Prosecutor Hakan Roswall said the website was commercially exploiting copyright-protected work because it was financed through advertising revenues. According to the Pirate Bay website, its users are currently downloading close to a million files.

On the site, a statement says: “In case we lose the pending trial (yeah right) there will still not be any changes to the site.

“The Pirate Bay will keep operating just as always. We’ve been here for years and we will be here many more.”

In an interview with the BBC’s technology programme Click last year Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde said: “I think it’s okay to copy. They get their money from so many places that the sales is just one small part.”

The other three men facing charges are Carl Lundstrom, Frederik Neij and Gottfrid Svartholm Warg. If convicted, the four men could face a maximum of two years in prison.

The website had up until 2006 based its servers in Stockholm, but moved some to the Netherlands after a raid in May of that year by Swedish police, who seized equipment and held three people for questioning “on suspicion of breaking copyright law or abetting the breaking of copyright law,” authorities said. The site was taken down for a day, but was soon up and running again.

Moves against the site have been backed by entertainment industry groups, including the Motion Picture Association of America and the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. More at BBC News.

Irvine, Calif — Dec 31, `07 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ — Broadcom announced that a federal judge today issued an injunction against Qualcomm’s continued infringement of three Broadcom patents.

As ordered by US District Court Judge James V. Selna, the injunction prohibits Qualcomm from making, using and selling certain chipsets and software that infringe the three Broadcom patents. Qualcomm is also barred from engaging in a range of marketing and customer support activities related to its WCDMA (Wideband Code Division Multiple Access) and EV-DO (EVolution-Data Only) chips, which are used to process data on high-speed wireless networks.

A Qualcomm spokeswoman said the company was reviewing the ruling and declined further comment. Qualcomm, based in San Diego, is the world’s second-largest chip supplier for mobile phones after Texas Instruments Inc. It earns much of its money from licensing fees on its patented technology.

Broadcom, based in Irvine, California, is a newcomer to the cell phone business but gained ground in 2007 in a wide-ranging court battle with Qualcomm.

In May 2007, a jury awarded Broadcom $19.6 million in damages for the same chip patents. In November, Selna indicated he would up the award to $39.3 million, but reversed himself when a a federal appellate court raised the bar for proving willful patent infringement.

The judge then took up the question of whether future sales of the chips should be stopped, resulting in Monday’s order.

“The ITC order did not go nearly as far in prohibiting other activities from Qualcomm,” said David Rosmann, vice president of intellectual property litigation with Broadcom. “The U.S. District Court order has in some respects much broader remedies. So the activities that are going to be barred by this injunction go a long way to stopping Qualcomm’s continued operations in support of these infringing chips.”

Broadcom is also suing Qualcomm on other patent infringement and antitrust claims, Rosmann said. The antitrust case is expected to go to trial in 2009. More at Broadcom.

HOLMDEL, NJ — Dec 31, `07 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — Vonage and Nortel today announced that they have agreed in principle to end the litigation pending between them.

The contemplated settlement involves a limited cross license to three Nortel and three Vonage patents and will not call for any monetary payments by any party.

Claims relating to past damages and the remaining patents will be dismissed without prejudice. The settlement is subject to final documentation. More at Vonage.

Dec 30, `07 — This Slashdot article highlights the latest strategy of the RIAA to sue consumers who have ripped their legally purchased CDs on to a PC.

“With this past week’s announcement by Warner to release its entire catalog to Amazon in MP3 format with no Digital Rights Management, you would think that the organization that represents them, The RIAA, would begin changing its tune.

Instead, they are pressing on in their campaign against consumers by suing individuals who merely rip CDs they’ve purchased legally. ‘The industry’s lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are “unauthorized copies” of copyrighted recordings.”

The Washington Post article further writes, “”I couldn’t believe it when I read that,” says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. “The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation.”

The RIAA’s legal crusade against its customers is a classic example of an old media company clinging to a business model that has collapsed. Four years of a failed strategy has only “created a whole market of people who specifically look to buy independent goods so as not to deal with the big record companies,” Beckerman says. “Every problem they’re trying to solve is worse now than when they started.”" More at WashingtonPost.

A federal appeals court handed Google a setback in a patent fight on Wednesday, Dec 26, tossing out part of a summary judgment in Google’s favor in a lawsuit filed by Hyperphrase Technologies.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit revived part of HyperPhrase Technologies’ lawsuit, throwing out a lower court ruling that Google’s AutoLink feature didn’t infringe the company’s patents.

As part of the Google toolbar, AutoLink gives users more information than standard links. It recognizes data such as addresses and book titles, then provides links to online maps or books at Amazon.com.

The appeals court ruled that Google’s immensely profitable AdSense did not infringe on Hyperphrase’s patents. It handed down a split decision on AutoLink, agreeing that Google did not infringe, as claimed, on one of the Hyperphrase patents. But it vacated a summary judgment in Google’s favor on two others and sent it back to the Wisconsin district court.

HyperPhrase claimed in an April 2006 suit that Google used its inventions without permission. It sought cash compensation and an order blocking Mountain View, Calif.-based Google from using the technology.

More at the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling here (in pdf).

DENVER –BUSINESS WIRE– On Thursday, Dec 20, MPEG LA announced that it has commenced an action against Audiovox for breach of contractual obligations as a Licensee to MPEG LA’s MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio License and 1394 Patent Portfolio License.

According to the complaint filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Audiovox has breached its contractual obligations by failing to report fully its manufacture or sale of products such as DVD players and digital TVs that use the MPEG-2 digital video compression standard or employ the high-speed transfer digital interface provided for in the IEEE 1394 standard, failing to make full payments for its manufacture or sale of such products, and refusing to allow an audit as permitted by the MPEG-2 Contract and 1394 Contract.

MPEG LA seeks, among other things, monetary damages, an order requiring Audiovox to allow the contractually required audit, an accounting of all products manufactured or sold by Audiovox subject to the Contracts, as well as injunctive relief prohibiting Audiovox from the manufacture or sale of MPEG-2 and 1394 products. More at MPEG LA (in pdf).

Seoul, S Korea — Dec 21, `07 — South Korean prosecutors probing corruption accusations against the giant Samsung Group said on Friday they had narrowed their focus down to around 400 accounts that might be linked to an alleged slush fund, Reuters reported.

A former top legal executive with the country’s biggest conglomerate last month accused Samsung of running a 200 billion won ($212.7 million) fund to bribe public officials to avoid investigation into its operations.

“The list of accounts has become a lot shorter,” a prosecution official said by telephone. “It’s roughly about 300 or 400.” Media reports have said the number of accounts searched by prosecutors was well in excess of 1,000.

The former Samsung employee, Kim Yong-cheol, said the firm hid the illicit funds in scores of deposit accounts in the names of current and former executives.

The company, whose group sales are equivalent to about a sixth of the entire economic output of the world’s 13th largest economy, has denied any wrongdoing. More at Reuters.

Beijing, China — Dec 20, `07 –The international recording industry today hailed a landmark Beijing court ruling confirming that Yahoo China’s music delivery service violates Chinese law by facilitating mass copyright infringement.

Yahoo China, part-owned by one of the world’s biggest internet companies, Yahoo, runs an operation enabling users to search for, play and download pirate music without ever leaving its website. Yahoo China’s appeal against a guilty verdict in April was today dismissed by the Beijing Court.

The decision is made under new Chinese copyright laws which entered into force in 2006. The Court separately ruled on a similar case against internet company, Baidu which had been brought under the previous Chinese copyright laws. The ruling confirmed that Baidu participated with and assisted third party sites in transmitting infringing music, but under the old laws Baidu was not liable for copyright infringement.

Music search services such as Yahoo China’s and Baidu’s, which “deep link” users to hundreds of thousands of pirate tracks, are a huge drain on efforts to develop a legitimate music market in China. Despite enormous market potential, music sales in China totalled US$76 million in 2006, less than one per cent of the global recorded music market.

Over 99 per cent of all music downloading in China infringes copyright, and services such as Yahoo China and Baidu account for the bulk of the problem. More at IFPI.

San Jose, Calif — Dec 19, `07 - eBay today released the following statement regarding its District Court victory in the Netcraft vs eBay and PayPal patent infringement case.

On December 18, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin entered judgment, granting eBay’s and PayPal’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement on both of the patents that Netcraft asserted against eBay and PayPal.

“We are pleased by the Court’s well-reasoned ruling in this case. We will continue to protect the interests of our global community of users and the businesses who rely on eBay’s platforms to make a living.”

In May 2007, Netcraft brought suit against eBay and PayPal and contended that PayPal’s payment services infringe two of Netcraft’s patents titled “Internet Billing Method.” The Court ruled that all of the patents in question require “providing customers with internet access” and because eBay and PayPal do not provide customers with internet access, the two companies do not infringe Netcraft’s patents.

St. Louis, MO — Dec 19, `07 — Microsoft, Yahoo! and Google have entered into settlements with the US to resolve claims that they promoted illegal gambling, United States Attorney Catherine L. Hanaway announced today. The total amount of the three settlements is $31.5 million in value to the United States.

Three companies also agreed to stop accepting ads for sports wagering and other online gambling, US Attorney Catherine Hanaway said.

The investigation conducted by Hanaway’s office, along with the IRS and the FBI, dates to 2000, she said. Negotiations have been going on for 12 to 18 months, she added.

All three companies said they stopped taking the ads years ago.

As part of the settlement, the companies will pay cash to the US government and provide millions of dollars worth of public service advertisements informing young adults and teenagers that Internet gambling is illegal.

The US Attorney’s office in St. Louis, MO has led in the effort to halt illegal Web-based gambling, a roughly $6 billion a year industry in the US that violates the Federal Wire Wager Act among other federal laws.

Earlier this year, the London-based Internet gambling firm BetOnSports pleaded guilty in St. Louis to federal racketeering charges. Cases are still pending against company executives. Hanaway’s office also settled a civil case against BetOnSports in November 2006. That settlement prohibits the company from accepting any bets from gamblers in the U.S.

Microsoft will pay $4.5 million to the US government, $7.5 million to the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and provide $9 million worth of public service advertising.

Yahoo’s settlement of $7.5 million includes forfeiting $3 million to the US govt and providing $4.5 million worth of online ads for a public service advertising campaign. Google will pay $3 million, the department said.

Google will pay $3 million, the department said. More at US Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Missouri.

Los Angeles — Dec 19, `07 — In a significant victory for the major Hollywood studios, a federal judge in Los Angeles has terminated an ongoing lawsuit against the operators of TorrentSpy.com in favor of all six of the Motion Picture Association of America’s (MPAA) member companies.

The court imposed the harshest sanction against the TorrentSpy defendants because of their brazen, continuous, and systematic destruction of evidence and subversion of the judicial process. The ruling means that TorrentSpy operators are liable for copyright infringement.

The District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper of the Central District of California found that the defendants, Justin Bunnell, Forrest Parker and Wes Parker, had lied to the court and had systematically destroyed evidence. She also found that TorrentSpy is responsible for copyright infringements. A further court session next year will determine what penalties will be imposed - the extent of damages and any other sanctions, such as closure of the TorrentSpy website.

In its decision, the court ruled that “although termination of a case is a harsh sanction appropriate only in extraordinary circumstance, the circumstances of this case are sufficiently extraordinary to merit such a sanction.” The court found that the evidence was “not deleted or modified negligently, but intentionally in direct response to the institution of this lawsuit.” Observing that defendants “already had been subjected to lesser sanctions in this case”, including a fine for $30,000 for violation of a court order, the court concluded that the “harsh sanction” of terminating the defendants’ case was the only appropriate remedy.

The evidence defendants destroyed included forum postings with references to copyright infringement and other incriminating statements; site directories referencing copyrighted works and subcategories clearly referring to pirated content; and user IP addresses.

MPAA members filed lawsuits against various P2P sites including TorrentSpy, early last year, because such websites enable users to download complete films from the internet. TorrentSpy defended itself and brought a motion to dismiss the action, on the basis that it does not host copyrighted works itself. In June of this year, TorrentSpy was forced to log visitor details. In response, the torrent search engine blocked access for US internet users. More at MPAA (in pdf).

SAN JOSE, Calif — Dec 18, `07 — Pressured by a lawsuit, social networking giant Facebook will adopt new measures to prevent its 58 million members from sending text messages to recycled cell phone numbers, the AP reports.

The lawsuit filed by Lindsey Abrams of Patriot, Ind., said she received text messages with explicit comments and other upsetting content — and had to pay 10 cents each time. Facebook received a share of the fee, according to the complaint.

According to the complaint, which Abrams’s lawyers had hoped would be certified as a class action, Abrams started getting the unsolicited messages shortly after she got a new mobile number from Verizon in November 2006.

Her suit alleged thousands of other unauthorized text messages had been sent nationwide to other recycled phone numbers, including some used by young children.

Without admitting any wrongdoing, Facebook agreed to make it easier for recipients of text messages to block future messages originating from the social network, and also will work more closely with mobile phone carriers to monitor the lists of recycled numbers and reduce the frequency of unwanted text messages. More at AP.

BRUSSELS, Belgium — Dec 18, `07 — Software maker Platform Solutions has filed a complaint with the European Commission alleging that IBM abused its market dominance by refusing to share information related to its high- performance mainframe computers.

The complaint, filed on Oct 19, according to a European Commission spokesman Jonathan Todd, is the latest in an ongoing intellectual property dispute between privately held Platform Solutions and IBM Corp.

Platform Solutions alleges that IBM abused EU antitrust rules “by refusing to supply interface information relating to mainframe computers and refusing to license third parties,” Todd said.

IBM and Platform Solutions have sued each other in the US over related intellectual-property and antitrust issues. The EU filing follows a European court ruling in September upholding a decision against Microsoft that it abused its dominant position by failing to help competitors connect to the Windows operating system.

In December 2006, IBM sued Platform Solutions charging that the company, which manufactures software that can run on IBM’s high-end systems, violated patents IBM holds on some of its operating systems.

In January Platform Solutions filed its own US suit accusing IBM of refusing to supply its operating systems to customers who buy Platform Solutions’s IBM- compatible mainframe computer. Platform Solutions also accused IBM of “unreasonably discontinuing” its licensing of intellectual-property rights.

NEW YORK — Dec 17, `07  –BUSINESS WIRE– Philips Electronics today filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to stop Procter & Gamble and its Braun division from continuing its false and misleading advertising campaign promoting its “Pulsonic” line of electric shavers.

The lawsuit asks United States District Court Judge William H. Pauley to order Braun to halt its false advertisements and award damages to Philips. Among other false claims the lawsuit identifies, Philips’ Complaint focuses on Procter & Gamble’s contention that the Pulsonic uses sonic power to generate microvibrations to expose and shave more hair with every stroke. A Connecticut federal court rejected as scientifically baseless similar claims by The Gillette Company, now a division of Procter & Gamble.

The Complaint also attacks Braun’s claim that “9 out of 10” men voted Pulsonic the “best electric shaver they have ever tried” in a 2007 Men’s Health survey. The Complaint notes that the “survey,” in fact, was a scientifically uncontrolled sweepstakes in which Braun gave each participant a free Pulsonic, for which it usually charges the price of $250. BusinessWire.

New Agreement Settles Dispute and Covers All Receivers in the XM Product Line with Recording Functionality.

NEW YORK, Dec 17, `07 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — Universal Music Group (UMG) and XM Satellite Radio today announced that they have resolved the lawsuit brought by UMG against XM over its Pioneer Inno, a portable satellite receiver with advanced recording functionality. The companies did not disclose terms of the deal.

As part of the agreement, UMG becomes the first music company to reach a multi-year deal covering all XM radios with advanced recording functionality, including both those currently available as well as future product releases. In addition, UMG will withdraw as a party to the complaint filed by the major record companies against XM in May, 2006. More at XMRadio.

On Friday, Dec 14, Nortel Networks, the Canadian maker of telecom equipment, filed a lawsuit against Vonage - claiming that it violated nine patents related to Internet phone services and related features such as 911 and 411 calling and ‘Click to Call’.

Vonage was dragged into the legal battle after it acquired three patents from Digital Packet Licensing last year, according to Vonage spokesman Charles Sahner. DPL had filed a suit against Nortel in 2004 alleging violation of those three patents, so Vonage continued with the lawsuit.

“Litigation is ongoing, and both parties have filed - and will continue to file - papers supporting their case,” Sahner said. On the possibility of a settlement, he said: “We always prefer to settle disputes amicably whenever possible.”

In this particular case, Vonage is pursuing the legal action, rather than getting sued. Sahner said Nortel’s countersuit was a defensive move.

In October, Vonage settled the last of its lawsuits with the major U.S. telecom companies. Throughout the year, it had fended off legal actions by Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint Nextel.

On Wednesday, Dec 12, Sharp Corporation filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics in the Seoul Central District Court in South Korea.

The complaint alleges that (1) liquid crystal display (LCD) modules manufactured and/or sold by Samsung in South Korea and (2) LCD TVs manufactured and/or sold by Samsung in South Korea that incorporate these LCD modules infringe upon three LCD-related Korean patents that are owned by Sharp.

In the complaint, Sharp requests that the Court award it compensatory damages and prohibit the manufacturing and sale of the infringing products in South Korea.

The three patents named in the lawsuit are Korean Patent Numbers 371,939, 740,570 and 776,988. These patents relate to LCD technologies that achieve high brightness and high-speed response, as well as a wide viewing angle by regulating and stabilizing the alignment of the LCD molecules.

On August 6, 2007, Sharp filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung and its US subsidiaries Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA) and Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) in the US. That lawsuit is now pending. More at Sharp.

San Jose, Calif — Dec 12, ‘07 — eBay released the following statement in response to the December 11, 2007 District Court ruling in the MercExchange v. eBay case.

“We are disappointed with the court’s order and we plan to appeal it. In its ruling, the court concluded that it did not have the legal right to consider the merits of our arguments concerning the ‘265 patent, but rather was required to reject our motions based on the procedural posture of the case. We intend to appeal the Court’s ruling on the procedural issues and remain confident that after the appeal, the Court will consider our arguments on their merits.

“Additionally, our motion for summary judgment that our 2003 design-around was effective and there is no ongoing infringement of the ‘265 patent, and that no further damages are due, also remains pending before the court.

“We remain pleased with other developments in this ongoing case, including the decision by the United States Court of Appeals to invalidate another patent in this case; the May 2006 unanimous Supreme Court decision in eBay’s favor on MercExchange’s request for an injunction; and the District Court’s subsequent affirmation in September 2007 that no injunction is called for. We look forward to the opportunity to appeal yesterday’s District Court ruling.”

Tuesday’s ruling by Judge Jerome Friedman stems from a jury’s 2003 verdict finding eBay and eBay subsidiary Half.com liable for $35 million for intentionally infringing two MercExchange patents. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit later reduced the award to $25.5 million.

Friedman in July denied eBay’s request to stay proceedings on one of the patents, governing eBay’s so-called “Buy It Now” feature that allows users to buy an item outright at a given price without bidding for it.

Friedman said in July the US Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling sending the case back to the trial court for further action had no bearing on the jury’s 2003 verdict. More at eBay.

White Plains, NY — Dec 12, ‘07 — Nokia announced today that a United States International Trade Commission (ITC) judge issued an Initial Determination in favor of Nokia in the action brought by Qualcomm against Nokia alleging patent infringement.

The judge found no infringement or violation by Nokia of the three asserted Qualcomm patents. In addition, it was determined that patent ‘473 was found to be invalid.

Qualcomm filed its complaint on June 9, 2006 alleging infringement by Nokia of six Qualcomm patents. Prior to the hearing, which began on September 10, 2007, Qualcomm voluntarily withdrew three of the six patents from its complaint. The remaining three patents relate to an invention Qualcomm claims it made when developing CDMA technology. Qualcomm declared the three remaining patents as essential to the GSM standard and subsequently attempted to withdraw its declaration on one of those patents.

Similar patents, relating to CDMA inventions, are at issue in the European and China cases filed by Qualcomm against Nokia.

Qualcomm has yet to prevail in any patent litigation action against Nokia despite it having filed 11 lawsuits around the world over the past two years.

The judge’s Initial Determination will now be forwarded to the full Commission for review. The Commission is scheduled to make its Final Determination by April 14, 2008. More at Nokia, Qualcomm.

Related:

Qualcomm Wins Another Round in Patent Battles with Nokia

Another Round of Qualcomm vs Nokia Patent Battle Starts in Britain

Lawsuit Claims Verizon Illegally Distributes Open Source Software to FiOS Customers.

Dec 07, ‘07 –The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) today announced that it has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Verizon Communications, Inc. on behalf of its clients, two principal developers of BusyBox, alleging violation of the GNU General Public License (GPL). BusyBox is a lightweight set of standard Unix utilities commonly used in embedded systems and is open source software licensed under GPL version 2.

Verizon is the provider of a fiber-optic Internet and television service called FiOS. Verizon distributes Actiontec MI424WR wireless routers to FiOS customers. This router contains BusyBox, and under the terms of the GPL, Verizon is obligated to provide the source code of BusyBox to recipients of the device. According to the lawsuit, Verizon continues to distribute BusyBox illegally without source code, despite having been contacted by SFLC.

The complaint requests that an injunction be issued against Verizon and that damages and litigation costs be awarded to the plaintiffs. A copy of the complaint, as filed yesterday in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, is available at http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/dec/07/busybox/verizon.pdf

“Our clients licensed BusyBox under the GPL to ensure that all users of the program can access and modify its source code,” said Dan Ravicher, Legal Director of SFLC. “Because Verizon chose not to respond to our concerns, we had no choice but to file a lawsuit to ensure that they comply with the GPL.”

This is the fourth GPL enforcement lawsuit filed by SFLC on behalf of BusyBox developers Erik Andersen and Rob Landley. Defendants in previous cases have included Monsoon Multimedia, High Gain Antennas, and Xterasys Corporation. The case against Monsoon Multimedia was settled out of court in October, with Monsoon agreeing to remedy its prior violation, ensure future compliance, and financially compensate the plaintiffs. SFLC.

TOKYO, Japan — Dec 07, ‘07 — Japan-Today is reporting on Toshiba corp is being sued by a former employee  for about 260 million yen ($2.34 million) in remuneration for the profits the firm reaped from the basic technologies he invented for Japanese language word processing software.

Japan-Today further writes, “Shinya Amano, who is now a professor at the Shonan Institute of Technology, said in his written complaint that although the firm obtained patents for the technologies in conjunction with him and three others, and paid him tens of thousands yen annually in remuneration, he actually developed the technologies alone. He is claiming 10% of an estimated profit of 2.6 billion yen earned by the firm in 1996 and 1997, compared with the roughly 230,000 yen he actually received in the two years.” Japan-Today.

SEATTLE –BUSINESS WIRE– Dec 06, ‘07 — Typhoon Touch Technologies announced today that it has commenced an action against Dell and Motion Computing for patent infringement. The Complaint seeks damages and a permanent injunction enjoining Dell and Motion Computing from continued infringing activity.

The Complaint was filed on Wednesday in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, Case No. 6:07-cv-546. Typhoon commenced the action as co-plaintiff with its licensee, Nova Mobility Systems.

Typhoon’s complaint alleges that Motion Computing and Dell have infringed and continue to infringe its U.S. Patent No. 5,379,057 issued January 3, 1995 and entitled “Portable Computer with Touch Screen and Computer System Employing Same,” and U.S. Patent No. 5,675,362 issued October 7, 1997 and entitled “Portable Computer with Touch Screen and Computing System Employing Same,” through various actions including the manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing a variety of portable computer products, including but not limited to tablet PCs, slate PCs, handheld PCs, personal digital assistants (PDAs), ultra mobile PCs (UMPCs), smart phones, and/or other products covered by the patents-in-suit. More at BusinessWire.

ARMONK, NY — Dec 06 ‘07 — IBM today announced it has filed a complaint against ASUSTeK (based in Taiwan) and its North American subsidiary, ASUS Computer International, with the United States International Trade Commission. The complaint details the infringement of IBM patents by certain ASUSTeK computer products and components, and requests an exclusion order against the importation of infringing ASUSTeK computer products and components into the United States.

IBM has made repeated attempts to reach a licensing agreement between the companies. IBM’s position has been — and remains — that ASUSTeK either must license or stop using IBM’s patented technology.

IBM’s complaint identifies three patents that are infringed by ASUSTeK products imported into the U.S. These three patents cover important aspects of computer systems, including power supplies, computer cooling and computer clustering capabilities. The infringing ASUSTeK computer products include notebook computers, so-called barebones computer systems, servers, routers and various computer components.

The specific patents asserted in the IBM complaint are:

1. U.S. Patent No. 5,008,829: Personal computer power supply
2. U.S. Patent No. 5,249,741: Automatic fan speed control
3. U.S. Patent No. 5,371,852: Method and apparatus for making a cluster of computers appear as a single host on a network

The United States International Trade Commission is an independent federal agency with authority to bar the importation of products that infringe US patents. More at IBM.