"Ignoring fundamental principles of antitrust law, and the realities of the marketplace, Psystar contends that Apple has unlawfully monopolized an alleged market that consists of only one product, the Macintosh® computer."

It's doubtful that Psystar has the grounds to win or even the money to fight this case, but the stated principle here is kind of weird. The whole line of Macintosh computers is one product? Hardware that could run Mac OS comprises an "alleged market?" It's hard to quite make sense of what they mean other than "PLEASE DIE." We'll see what happens in court on November 3rd, when Apple passes that sentiment on to Psystar's face(s). [The Register, with full filing at ZDNet]

The stakes for RealNetworks aren't terribly high either, as sales of RealDVD might have been slow because of, oh, I don't know, the mountains of free software that does a better and more complete job. Within the day, Real filed a countersuit which could possibly set a new precedent for the interpretation of the Hollywood's DVD license. Even in a best-case scenario, the most legal headway that could probably be made would be to permit neutered software like RealDVD, which would still leave any useful method of DVD backup well outside of the law. [NYT]

The Redmond giant is able to get its lawsuit off the ground because of a recent law update called the Computer Spyware Act, which not only bans illegal spyware, but any other program that misleads people into believing that their computers need to be fixed. The fake error messages sent to Windows users, some of whom have received over 200 a day, fall under that category.

Microsoft's asking for a fine of up to $2,000 per incident, plus restitution and attorney's fees. Considering half of the customer support calls it receives are related to spyware crashes, that's a lot of money. But whether the suit will deter “scareware” purveyors is still up in the air. In 2006, Microsoft filed a similar case against the same people and won... to little effect it seems. [Dailytech]

Apple disclosed on the outside of the iPhone package that the "battery has limited recharge cycles and may eventually need to be replaced by Apple service provider." Under the circumstances, no reasonable jury could find that deception occurred.

However, AT&T is still a defendant in the case. Judge Kennelly denied the company's motion to compel arbitration, saying that at the time of purchase Trujillo didn't have access to the terms of service documentation. The next hearing will be on September 29. [Bloomberg]

This time it's Monster Mini Golf, an actual mom-and-pop operation that was started four years ago by a woman and her husband. The chain has been successful enough to spread to 22 locations. MSNBC says that the "owner" of Monster Cable, which is Noel Lee (their "Chief Monster") says the public will be confused by the similarity of the names. Last time we checked, the public wasn't quite as confused as the people at Monster Cable who decided to sue. [MSNBC]

Oh look, it's a list of things Monster Cable has yet to sue!

Apparently, Monster Cable's Noel Lee issued a response to some negative publicity they got back in April (around the time Monster issued Blue Jeans Cable with a C&D). Noel says they didn't actually sue ballparks or other random places because their names were too similar, they just file objections to trademarks with the USPTO. Noel blames federal trademark law saying that they're required to "police [their] marks or [they] will lose them," and that they "didn't make these rules." [Audioholics]

Rich, vivid color. No matter what you like to do on your computer—watch movies, edit photos, play games, even just view a screen saver—it's going to look stunning on an iMac. That's because iMac now features a glossy display with glass cover that makes graphics, photos, and videos come alive with richer colors and deeper blacks.

The lawyers pursuing the case claim that "Apple is deceiving consumers, duping its customers into thinking they're buying 'new and improved' when in fact they're getting stuck with 'new and inferior.' Beneath Apple's 'good guy' image is a corporation that takes advantage of its customers."

I don't believe for a second that Apple is a good guy. The fact, however, is that after seeing the iMac 20 and iMac 24 side by side, I can hardly notice the difference. Maybe I'm blind after working with Photoshop since the early '90s, but the photos, video and the whole interface look incredibly good on the 20-inch models. I can't find any claims by Apple that this is the same screen, nor I can see what's wrong or deceiving about Apple's promotional material.

Brian Kabateck, Managing Partner of Kabateck Brown Kellner also had this to say:

Our goal is to help those customers who were deceived and make sure Apple tells the truth in the future.

And what a noble purpose that is, in the immortal words of Triumph The Insult Dog, "for me to poop on." We can only hope that, if he wins, Brian Kabateck uses his cut of the money to raise awareness of these issues, help poor people and cure cancer.

Maybe it's time to start dismissing this kind of "Let's Get a Big Chunk of the Rich Corporation Shareholder's Money" just because we can. What do you think? Do you think the iMacs show such a difference? And even if there's one measurable one, does Apple text seem misleading to you?

Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP PRESS RELEASE

LOS ANGELES, March 31 /PRNewswire/ — Apple deceptively marketed its new 20-inch iMac in a way that grossly inflated the capabilities of its monitor, which is vastly inferior to the previous generation it replaced, according to a federal class action lawsuit filed today by Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP.

According to the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California in San Jose, Apple is deceiving consumers by concealing that the new 20-inch iMac monitors are inferior to the previous generation's and those of the new 24-inch iMac. In addition, the monitors are incapable of displaying "millions of colors," despite Apple's marketing claims.

Apple's newest iMac — an "all-in-one" desktop computer that combines the monitor into the same case as the CPU — was unveiled in August 2007.

"Apple is duping its customers into thinking they're buying 'new and improved' when in fact they're getting stuck with 'new and inferior,'" said Brian Kabateck, Managing Partner of Kabateck Brown Kellner. "Beneath Apple's 'good guy' image is a corporation that takes advantage of its customers. Our goal is to help those customers who were deceived and make sure Apple tells the truth in the future."

Apple told consumers that both the 20-inch and 24-inch iMacs displayed "millions of colors at all resolutions." Indeed, the new 24-inch iMacs display 16,777,216 colors on 8-bit, in-plane switching (IPS) screens, as did the previous generation of 20-inch iMacs. But the new 20-inch iMac monitors do not even come close, displaying 98% fewer colors (262,144).

While Apple describes the display of both the 24-inch and 20-inch iMacs as though they were interchangeable, the monitors in each are of radically different technology. The 20-inch iMacs feature 6-bit twisted nematic film (TN) LCD screens, the least expensive of its type.

The 20-inch iMac's TN screens have a narrower viewing angle, less color depth, less color accuracy and are more susceptible to washout across the screen.

Apple's Web site tells consumers that "No matter what you like to do on your computer — watch movies, edit photos, play games, even just view a screen saver — it's going to look stunning on an iMac."

In fact, the inferior technology of the 20-inch iMac is particularly ill-suited to editing photographs because of the display's limited color potential and the distorting effect of the color simulation processes.

"Apple is squeezing more profits for itself by using cheap screens and its customers are unwittingly paying the price," Kabateck said.

Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP is one of the nation's foremost consumer law firms. Its clients have won more than $750 million against Google, Farmer's Insurance, Eli Lilly and other major corporations. As a plaintiff's-only firm, Kabateck Brown Kellner is always on the consumers' side.

The lawsuit filed by a group of Hawaii residents is alleging that not enough safety checks have been made by CERN to prevent disaster when the LHC goes live in the coming weeks. It may "create unsafe conditions of physics" which may have disastrous effects. How? Well, you may imagine a micro black hole gobbling up everything unstoppably, while a strangelet (a hypothetical clump of particles including strange quarks) may run amok converting all nearby matter into strange matter, also wrecking the Earth.

James Gillies, a CERN spokesman, suggests this is rubbish in this response to the New Scientist: "The LHC will start up this year, and it will produce all sorts of exciting new physics and knowledge about the universe." It's no threat at all, he says: "A year from now, the world will still be here." The LHC is actually designed to probe the boundaries of physics, and while a 2003 safety study did conceed that micro black holes or magnetic monopoles may be formed, they would be short-lived and offer no threat.

CERN physicists will be talking about safety in an open house discussion on April 6. [New Scientist]

The US District Court Judge says the suit can "pursue a 'price inflation' line of reasoning," which means that buyers were duped into paying more for a computer that did have that sticker than one that did not, even though the difference between the two were negligible (and both weren't actually Vista-capable). We'll update you as the case develops. [Computerworld via MacWorld UK]

Best Buy claimed that the laptop would be up and running within 2 to 6 weeks. After about two months she received numerous calls from the repair center assuring her that the laptop would be out of the shop in no time. To make a long story short, the laptop was lost, numerous calls were placed, most of the Best Buy employees ignored her and acted like dicks, and when pressed further, they only offered her a $900 gift card in compensation. That offer was later upped to $1100 and a $500 gift card after the D.C., attorney general's office got on the case—but Campbell was now concerned that private information stored on the computer was at risk.

She is now suing the store for $54 million over lost property and the possibility that she has been opened up to identity theft. She realizes the sum is absurd, but she also wants to draw attention to what she feels is "atrocious customer service." Don't worry Raelyn, plenty of attention has been drawn to that issue over the years. [Daily Tech]

The plaintiffs also seek an order requiring T-Mobile to disclose the existence and effect of the software locks it places on the phones it sells, and to offer to unlock the handsets so consumers can switch to a different carrier without buying a new phone.

For those unaware, the man making these accusations is 30-year-old Jonathan Lee Riches, a prisoner in South Carolina. And while the accusations he's making obviously aren't real, the court filings are. This isn't the first time Riches has done this. His handwritten documents may look amateur, but they are written in fluent legalese and still have to be processed by the court.

Past efforts this summer included a $63,000,000,000 lawsuit against Michael Vick claiming he was an al Qaeda operative and a $42,000,000 lawsuit against Barry Bonds and Hank Aaron's bat with allegations of cracking the liberty bell and giving Sadaam Hussein mustard gas. If anything, Riches' knack for being timely might earn him a new comedic genre of his own....and the wrath of Real Steve Jobs. [Apple Insider]

Microsoft is arguing that Vista can run on slower machines, albeit with some of the eye candy turned off, and that this was explained in their campaign. In any case, we'll probably not get to see this play out, because it's likely that the matter will be settled out of court. [The Register]

Hop-on is now saying they are going to seek payment from all cellphone manufacturers that are within their patent's scope. Which to us, sounds like just about everybody. Plus, they're going to be suing the four major carriers—Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, T-Mobile—as well. Fantastic.

Best-case scenario? Their suits get thrown out with a minimum of fuss and won't affect development of new phones very much. Worst case, everyone needs to pony up and prices of MP3-playing phones go up. Sucks to be everyone but Hop-on. – Jason Chen

Hop-On Claims MP3 Phone Patent [Digital Trends]

Image courtesy Calahouston.org

"This is an area of law where there are a bunch of really clear precedents, so Amazon and eBay have both been found to qualify for the safe harbor and there are a whole bunch more. We will continue to innovate and continue to host material for people, without being distracted by this suit."

Crunchgear [via Reuters]

Way to go, guys. We have to hand it to you—every time we think you can't go any lower or give us fresh reasons to hate you, you go exceed all of our expectations. Who's next, an aborted fetus? Thanks for adding more fuel to the boycott fire each and every day, we appreciate it. Though you really could just stop, we'd appreciate that too. – Matt Buchanan

Warner Music sues paralyzed stroke victim [Boing Boing]
RIAA Boycott [Gizmodo]

The dustup is getting ugly, with Viacom spitting out invective left and right, whining that YouTube "built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google."

There they go again, the old guard clinging to antiquated business models. It'll work for a while. – Charlie White

Viacom sues Google, YouTube for $1 billion [MSNBC]

The panel said the site was not in "bad faith", designed to direct users to an advertising site, and denied the complaint entirely. It's likely Motorola will appeal, but in the meantime, score one for the little guy. – Jason Chen

motorazr.com vs. Motorola: the verdict is in! [Vincent Nguyen]

Image via Phoenix Wright Objectionator!

This player runs WinCE 6.0, includes a 3-megapixel camera, 3.3-inch VGA+ screen, GSM support, TV-out and more. I don't know whether to think this is fake, or a real knock-off. This isn't the first time Meizu has borrowed design elements from another company. –Travis Hudson

Meizu M8, the Chinese iPhone [dapreview]

These lawsuits raise the obvious question: Does Apple feed off other's ideas, or are other companies just out to hurt Apple where they prosper, the wallet? It isn't too hard to imagine either case. –Travis Hudson

Apple sued over Click Wheel touch sensor technology [iLounge]

...allowed individuals to record content off the radio for private use. From the looks of it, this one may get messy because the judge said that by allowing consumers to store music XM is acting as a broadcaster and distributor but only paying to be a broadcaster. The judge also thought it was silly to use a act meant for cassette tape recording in this, higher-tech circumstance. XM issued a statement saying they are ready to thunderdome it in a court. –Travis Hudson

Judge: Lawsuit Against XM May Proceed [Via Orbitcast]

Meanwhile, the site is still up and running, gleefully noting that iTunes revenues have decreased by 65% and wishing all a Happy New Year. Beatles songs, DRM-free, for $.17 each? Sounds like a good deal. – Charlie White

RIAA sues AllofMP3 for $1.65 trillion [Zero Paid]

We throw around the phrase "intellectual property" commonly, as we bitch about patents, lawsuits and other industry jargon (as we did earlier today in a post about the Wiimote). It's one of those concepts that's tough to grasp because the property itself so often digresses to an idea pissing match between monolithic corporations and lawyer speak. Then you hear about a story like this one. – Mark Wilson

Chicago Gunman Angry Over Patent [sfgate]

While this lawsuit may in fact be ludicrous, remember that Sony has paid big settlement bucks for their rumble technology–which is suspiciously absent in the light, roomy PS3 controller. All we know is that the patent sketch looks a lot like the Wiimote...right down to the B-button trigger. What do you think? Does Interlink have a case? Was Nintendo part of malicious techno theft? Or is this just a little company's cry for attention? – Mark Wilson

Interlink Sues Nintendo [arstechnica]

The RIAA's approach to PR is much like their approach to culture in general: read-only. The RIAA issues statements like the Pope emitting a bull, and we mortals may squabble over its meaning among ourselves, but they are not available to participate in any further discussion. This is reminiscent of the RIAA's approach to things like YouTube lipsynch videos: "our songs are released to be listened to and nothing more; should you dare to make them part of your life, we will use the copyright law we bought to break you."

RIAA's "abundance of sensitivity" ends harassment of grieving family [Boing Boing, via The Consumerist]

Not only is Nokia being ripped, Sony Ericsson, Motorola, and Samsung have all been subject to the sincerest form of flattery. At least Telsda labels their phones with their own brand, instead of passing it off as a "Morotola" or a "Stony Erecsson". – Jason Chen

Nokia takes action against Chinese Cloners [Mobile Gazette]

The two companies are Shenzhen Telsda Mobile Communication Industry Developing Co. Ltd. and Song Xun Da Zhong Ke Electronic (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., in case you've got some connection to either. We'll be interested in seeing how this one turns out. If Nokia wins, it may mean a lot less cheap knockoffs of non-Chinese products. – Jason Chen

Nokia says Chinese copied stylish phone [Businessweek via Textually]

Image courtesy iproceed

Sprint was challenging Cingular's "fewest dropped calls" claim, and Cingular filed a suit trying to make a judge declare that it actually did have the fewest dropped calls. And of course Sprint has said it would "defend itself vigorously". What happened to the days of playing nice? – Jason Chen

Cingular, Sprint Nextel tussle over ads about network quality [RCR News]

Nano Scratch Class Action Plaintiff Says He Had Nothing To Do With The Lawsuit [Techdirt]

It is unfortunate that this has to happen because the Inno is one of the first true portable satellite radio devices, because it has an antenna. XM plans on strongly defending this lawsuit, so the case is likely to be tied up in courts for quite a while. Just enough time for you to get an Inno ordered before it is gone forever.

Record labels sue XM over portable device [Yahoo! News]