I've been seeing "attwifi" access points at every Starbucks I've been to in NYC, and used the free Wi-Fi at two of them, so I figured the transition was complete at those stores, even though the T-Mobile network was still lingering in the background. Can any Starbucks employees lay out more info as to what's going down with the transition? [Reuters via GigaOM]

The suit, which targets AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, Alltel, U.S. Cellular, Cellular South and Virgin Mobile (T-Mobile was targeted in a similar suit last week), seeks "recovery for actual and compensatory damages sustained by plaintiffs and others similarly situated. At this time, plaintiffs are specifically seeking recovery against the defendants for unauthorized charges, wrongful collections and unjust enrichment." Its peg is based on charges that people receive from unsolicited texts even if they don't want to have a text message plan at all, but it could have ramifications that reach beyond that. Or not. Something tells me that the carriers won't be giving up their beloved ripoff text plans without a serious fight. [RCR Wireless News via Engadget]

RE: Your letter, received April Fools' Day Dear Monster Lawyers, Let me begin by stating, without equivocation, that I have no interest whatsoever in infringing upon any intellectual property belonging to Monster Cable. Indeed, the less my customers think my products resemble Monster's, in form or in function, the better.

I am evaluating your claim that the connectors on certain Tartan brand products infringe Monster's design patents and trademarks. However, the information supplied with your letter is plainly inadequate to support a claim of infringement and so I am writing to you to ask for further information and clarification regarding your claims.

I will begin by addressing your trademark/trade dress claim. You have referred to two trademark registrations, and have attached some printouts from the USPTO system but the depiction of the marks on the drawings provided is small and indistinct, making it difficult to determine exactly what the alleged resemblance is, and I need further information from you.

First, I need legible, scale drawings of the marks, preferably with dimensions shown on the drawing. To the extent that drawings are inadequate to show the nature of materials, finishes, print legends, colors and the like, I will also need examples of each of Monster Cable's actual uses of these marks in commerce; actual physical examples would be best, but photographic reproductions might do. As you will understand, these considerations are essential to any claim arising out of trade dress, as you are alleging in essence that there is a resemblance sufficient to cause confusion over the identity or origin of the goods, and no mere line-drawing can suffice.

Second, I will need copies of the trademark applications and any correspondence between the applicant and the USPTO in support of the applications.

Third, you have not identified the Monster Cable products in question, in actual use and distribution in commerce, whose trade dress you allege has been appropriated. I have reviewed Monster Cable's online materials and have examined connectors on various Monster Cable assemblies in local retail outlets and am unable to determine which, if any, of these are thought by Monster to represent use of these particular marks. I am also unable to determine from this review whether Monster Cable actually offers any product for sale to which the Tartan connectors are alleged to be particularly similar. My own sense of it, in looking at the connectors, has been that there is no similarity between the Tartan connectors and any of the many Monster Cable connectors beyond the general functional and conventional characteristics which all or nearly all solder-cup, mechanical-assembly, barrel-style RCA-type connectors share. It may be that there is some line of products to which you have intended to refer but which I have not found in Monster Cable's marketing materials or displays; but if so, you will need to show me specifically what product it is, and you will need to call to my attention the specific aspects of the connector design which you contend constitute unique Monster Cable trade dress, what the associated secondary meaning of those aspects of the trade dress is, and in what manner and by what characteristics you allege that this trade dress has been appropriated.

Fourth, if the dimensional characteristics of the connector as used in commerce vary from the dimensions of the scale drawing of your mark, I will need a proper scale drawing, with dimensions, of each version of the actual connector as used in commerce, as well as photographs of the connectors showing actual in-use finishes. If there is more than one such connector design in actual use by Monster Cable as to which appropriation of trade dress is alleged, of course, I will require this information for each and every such design.

On the basis of what I have seen, both in the USPTO documents you have sent and the actual appearance
of Monster Cable connectors which I have observed in use in commerce, it does not appear to me that Monster Cable is in a position to advance a nonfrivolous claim for infringement of these marks. There simply is not sufficient resemblance between the Tartan connectors and any mark or any example of the marks' actual use that I can find to support such a claim. But if you have further information for me on that point, you are welcome to submit it.

You have also supplied me with partial documentation on five design patents which you claim these connectors infringe. I will begin by observing, first, that the five design patents are so very much unlike one another that it is very hard to imagine that any product could actually infringe more than one of them at a time; anything close enough to one of them to be deemed an infringement would, by that fact alone, be too dissimilar from the other four. The dissimilarity of the Tartan connector from each of them is readily evident.

I should add that, for the purpose of this letter, I am assuming that these patents are valid. This is in no way a concession of the point. In fact, this is a very significant and likely inaccurate assumption, and you should expect the patentability of these designs to be under attack if you commence an action for infringement.

The fact that you have presented me with five completely distinct design patents, I have to say, gives me pause. I would go over them and detail the differences between the Tartan connectors and those shown in the patents, but if you are taking the position that it appears you are taking, there might be very little point in discussing it with you. Take, for example, the patent you mark as Exhibit B. The connector shown there is substantially different from the Tartan connectors in every respect, unless one ignores design specifics and focuses on the core attributes of the connector which are dictated by function. If your view of Exhibit B is that it is to be construed broadly enough as to encompass the Tartan connector, it is very hard to imagine that there is such a thing as a solder-assembly style RCA plug which is not similarly, in your view, encompassed by this patent. And, needless to say, it is very hard to imagine that any court would ever adopt such a view of the patent's scope; if you file on this sort of basis, you are in Rule 11 frivolous-claim territory.

I will point out, though you are no doubt already well aware, that the gross morphology of the RCA plug is pretty well dictated by function. RCA plugs intended for soldering and assembly have certain attributes in common; their diameter is constrained by the need for the shell to fit over an internal set of solder points and cable clamp, and their length by the need to provide some room for cable end prep and attachment; they are generally radially symmetrical along the anterior/posterior axis owing to the need to accommodate both a round-profile cable and the round-profile RCA socket; the connector end is constrained by the standard dimensions of the RCA socket, and by the need, as the socket provides for no bayonet or screw attachment, to provide sufficient tension on insertion to maintain good mechanical and electrical contact; the barrel, grasped by the user for the purpose of insertion and removal, requires traction which is typically provided by raised or recessed rings, plastic inserts, knurling, or the like; and transition between the connector and the cable to which it is attached requires, in one form or another, a reduction in barrel size at the connector rear. It is my assumption, since you cite design patents only and no utility patents, that Monster Cable makes no claim here for any functional aspect of any of these designs; if I am wrong, please let me know what utility patents Monster Cable does hold, and what claims, if any, Monster asserts on the basis of those utility patents.

Further, on that point: one of the design patents you attached is closely related to a utility patent applicable to the same design, and you failed to point that fact out. I need to be able to rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information you send to me and I find this sort of omission deeply disturbing because it is clear that the effect of this nondisclosure is to obscure the real significance of the patent features. Similarly, as I note further below, you omit reference to another patent Monster has held which appears, frankly, to be fatal to your position. If you expect to persuade me, you had better start making full, open and honest disclosures; I will find out the facts sooner or later in any event, but the impact upon your credibility will not be repaired. It looks like when you sent this letter, you were operating on the premise that I am not smart enough to see through your deceptions or sophisticated enough to intelligently evaluate your claims; shame on you. You are required, as a matter of legal ethics, to display good faith and professional candor in your dealings with adverse parties, and you have fallen miserably short of your ethical responsibilities.

My sense, in looking at these five patents, is that either you are attempting to present some argument that I simply do not understand or you are arguing for untenably broad coverage of these patents which would sweep every functional aspect of the typical solder-assembly RCA connector within the scope of a handful of mere design patents. You need to clarify this, and frankly, I think you need to indicate to me which, if any, of these patents you actually contend are relevant to the present discussion. It cannot possibly be that you believe that more than one of these patents is pertinent, and if you insist that they are, we cannot have an intelligent dialogue on this subject. Once you have identified the patent which you contend is relevant, I need to see the file history and the references to prior art; I need copies of the applicant's correspondence with the USPTO; and I need a clear and cogent explanation from you as to exactly what aspects of the Tartan connector design are alleged to constitute the infringement, and how.

Additionally, if you are able to identify any of these patents as applicable, please let me know whether Monster Cable presently sells, or has at any time sold, any products bearing connectors which are in conformity with the patent drawings or which are otherwise contended to be within the coverage of the patents, and identify those products for me. Please also provide photographs and/or physical examples of these connectors as manufactured and sold.

Also, please provide me all of the information referenced above as it relates to your expired patent D323643, a copy of which I am attaching. I will need to know what products Monster now offers or at any time has offered for sale which were believed to fall within the scope of D323643, and what claims, if any, of infringement of D323643 were made against others by Monster, whether those claims of infringement took the form of correspondence only, litigation, or otherwise. Please let me know which, if any, products Monster has ever sold or offered for sale which were marked with the patent number, or other reference, to D323643. Please also advise me whether, in your view, the Tartan connector does or does not fall within the scope of D323643, and if it is your view that it does not, please identify each and every difference between the Tartan connector and the connector represented by D323643 upon which your view is based. (On that note, let me point out to you that the "turbine cut" feature is irrelevant here as your client makes only functional, not design, claims for that feature in its marketing materials for the product.) I would assume that you would agree with me that if the Tartan connector is less dissimilar from the D323643 patent than from any of the five patents you cite in your letter, then the Tartan connector is within the coverage of the prior art and cannot, as a matter of law, infringe any of your client's current patents.

I must also point out that unless there is a good deal of background information you have not provided me which makes the case otherwise, Monster Cable cannot possibly square its patent infringement claim(s) with its own patent history. Two views of the matter might be taken; the first, which is my view, is that none of the design patents, including D323643, encompass the Tartan connector. If that is so, of course, the claim for infringement fails. But if one grants the sort of breadth to these patents that you appear to wish to do, a problem arises for Monster. D323643 is the least dissimilar to the Tartan connector of any of the patents, and stands as an obstacle to any claim of infringement of the others because it establishes prior art; if its scope, like the others, is granted the breadth you argue for, then the Tartan connector falls plainly under the prior art and cannot constitute an infringement of the later, and more dissimilar, patents. Read the patents narrowly, and Monster loses; read them broadly, and Monster loses. You are welcome to point out any error in my reasoning; but I have to say that I will be unreservedly surprised if you are successful in doing so.

Please also let me know whether Monster Cable or any related entity has brought actions to enforce any of the patents and trademarks referenced in your letter or above, and provide me with the jurisdiction, court and docket information pertaining thereto, along with copies of any decisions or judgments resulting therefrom. If any such litigation proceeded through discovery, I will need all discovery responses, including document production, issued by Monster, as well as copies of any and all depositions taken and the exhibits thereto.

Further, if any of these patents or trademarks has been licensed to any entity, please provide me with copies of the licensing agreements. I assume that Monster Cable International, Ltd., in Bermuda, listed on these patents, is an IP holding company and that Monster Cable's principal US entity pays licensing fees to the Bermuda corporation in order to shift income out of the United States and thereby avoid paying United States federal income tax on those portions of its income; my request for these licensing agreements is specifically intended to include any licensing agreements, including those with closely related or sham entities, within or without the Monster Cable "family," and without regard to whether those licensing agreements are sham transactions for tax shelter purposes only or whether they are bona fide arm's-length transactions.

Once I have received the above materials and explanations from you, I will undertake to analyze this information and let you know whether we are willing to accede to any of the demands made in your letter. If my analysis shows that there is any reasonable likelihood that we have infringed in any way any of Monster Cable's intellectual property rights, we will of course take any and all action necessary to resolve the situation. If I do not hear from you within the next fourteen days, or if I do hear from you but do not receive all of the information requested above, I will assume that you have abandoned these claims and closed your file.

As for your requests for information, or for action, directed to me: I would remind you that it is you, not I, who are making claims; and it is you, not I, who must substantiate those claims. You have not done so.
I have seen Monster Cable take untenable IP positions in various different scenarios in the past, and am generally familiar with what seems to be Monster Cable's modus operandi in these matters. I therefore think that it is important that, before closing, I make you aware of a few points.

After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1985, I spent nineteen years in litigation practice, with a focus upon federal litigation involving large damages and complex issues. My first seven years were spent primarily on the defense side, where I developed an intense frustration with insurance carriers who would settle meritless claims for nuisance value when the better long-term view would have been to fight against vexatious litigation as a matter of principle. In plaintiffs' practice, likewise, I was always a strong advocate of standing upon principle and taking cases all the way to judgment, even when substantial offers of settlement were on the table. I am "uncompromising" in the most literal sense of the word. If Monster Cable proceeds with litigation against me I will pursue the same merits-driven approach; I do not compromise with bullies and I would rather spend fifty thousand dollars on defense than give you a dollar of unmerited settlement funds. As for signing a licensing agreement for intellectual property which I have not infringed: that will not happen, under any circumstances, whether it makes economic sense or not.

I say this because my observation has been that Monster Cable typically operates in a hit-and-run fashion. Your client threatens litigation, expecting the victim to panic and plead for mercy; and what follows is a quickie negotiation session that ends with payment and a licensing agreement. Your client then uses this collection of licensing agreements to convince others under similar threat to accede to its demands. Let me be clear about this: there are only two ways for you to get anything out of me. You will either need to (1) convince me that I have infringed, or (2) obtain a final judgment to that effect from a court of competent jurisdiction. It may be that my inability to see the pragmatic value of settling frivolous claims is a deep character flaw, and I am sure a few of the insurance carriers for whom I have done work have seen it that way; but it is how I have done business for the last quarter-century and you are not going to change my mind. If you sue me, the case will go to judgment, and I will hold the court's attention upon the merits of your claims—or, to speak more precisely, the absence of merit from your claims—from start to finish. Not only am I unintimidated by litigation; I sometimes rather miss it.

I will also point out to you that if you do choose to undertake litigation, your "upside" is tremendously limited. If you somehow managed, despite the formidable obstacles in your way, to obtain a finding of infringement, and if you were successful at recovering a large licensing fee—say, ten cents per connector—as the measure of damages, your recovery to date would not reach four figures. On the downside, I will advance defenses which, if successful, will substantially undermine your future efforts to use these patents and marks to threaten others with these types of actions; as you are of course aware, it is easier today for your competitors to use collateral estoppel offensively than it ever has been before. Also, there is little doubt that making baseless claims of trade dress infringement and design patent infringement is an improper business tactic, which can give rise to unfair competition claims, and for a company of Monster's size, potential antitrust violations with treble damages and attorneys' fees.

I look forward to receiving the information requested and will review it promptly as soon as it is received.

Sincerely,
Kurt Denke

After battling through a gauntlet of appeals and patent re-certifications, earlier today, a US Appeals Court denied Echostar's appeal to overturn an earlier verdict that it infringed on Tivo's patent with its own DVR setup. The ruling gives Tivo ammo to go after pretty much everyone hawking their own DVR, so things could get kind of interesting, in a protracted legal slugfest kind of way. 'Course going around and suing and everyone would probably put a damper on their plans to expand by licensing (think Tivo on Comcast, but bigger). [Thomas Hawk via CNET]

Cases such as the Jammie Thomas case, which resulted in $222,000 worth of penalties, are based on files being made available in a shared folder in a P2P program such as the now-dead Kazaa. In that case, there was no evidence that any transfers ever took place.

However, while the judge stated that merely making files available is not enough as the basis of a lawsuit, he did say that an "offer to distribute" can be good enough. This probably means that the lawsuits will continue, just with adjusted language and arguments. Now we'll just need to wait and see whether or not the courts see keeping files in a shared directory as an "offer to distribute." And the soap opera continues. [CNET via Broadband Reports]

But, since you can use Starbucks Wi-Fi (soon to be better than before), the implicit argument is that you can actually redeem the card at the store without having to return home. If they manage to prevail against Apple and Starbucks, they'll be granted a permanent injunction against the cards unless the pair are willing to pay up. I'm not sure I'd miss the program though, since I've never used it, or even heard of anyone using it. [Apple Insider]

Correction Request: Microsoft Sued, Zune Owner Claims Ear Damage Microsoft Zune Injuries Mon, Feb 4, 2008 at 4:14 PM To: bennyg@gizmodo.com Hi Benny,

I read your article and notice that you didn't mention the blast of noise that happened the very same instant as the shock. The coupling of these two device malfunctions are a key part of the claim. Would you mind updating the post?

The actual claim can be found here: www.microsoftzuneinjuries.com

Regards,

Joel

Thanks for the update, but we're not sure what the domain name is getting at — as far as we know, this guy's lawsuit is based solely on the headphone injury, but perhaps it will one day expand to represent victims of any and all bodily harm encountered while trying to join the Social. Geddis' attorneys hope to make this a class-action case, but first they'll have to find more Zune owners who have experienced this problem. Finding a niche that narrow sounds like a tall order to us. [Zune Injuries via Gadget Lab]

One of the parties named (there were four, including OLPC) in the suit originally was Alteq, who has since been dropped. Alteq is Intel's Nigerian partner, and Intel, if you recall, is marketing the OLPC competitor, the Classmate. Here's what Groklaw says:

Not to be too cynical or anything, but if by any chance the roadblock of this case miraculously clears up in a few months, around the time the OLPC's with Intel chips are ready to roll into Nigeria, or some Nigerian ripoff of the OLPC is suddenly available for purchase, let's just say my FUD/bogo-litigation meter is going to start to ring off the hook.

Either way, this isn't good news for OLPC, since their lawyers now have quite the mess to slog through, though we expect they'll be responding soon, since all of this took place in court without them, making this looking even more on the level. [Groklaw via Slashdot]

The stupid-sounding tebibyte (and its little brother, the gibibyte) is the technical term for a TB counted in binary. So you might just see HDDs sold as both terabyte models and tebibyte models, with the tebibyte model having about 10% more storage on board. Or, more likely, the packaging will just get labels that have a confusing disclaimer about the binary method, people will get a $20 check from the class action lawsuit, and that'll be the end of it. Justice! [CNET via Gadget Labs]

As Ars points out, Microsoft's been pretty public and all apologetic about the rampant Red Ring plague, dumping a billion dollars into seriously (and appropriately) extended warranties for repairs multiple times, and beefing up hardware to take the heat. More importantly, the Xbox 360 was killed by Halo with the candlestick in the living room connection is a thread that hasn't exactly lit up the internet or the media, and they (we) love jumping on that kind of stuff.

Our verdict? Bogus and unnecessary. We sentence you to death by Needler. Before they put it on steroids. [Ars]

Yes, Lagos Analysis Corporation has "filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division holding at Ikoyi, Lagos, Nigeria against Nicholas Negroponte, One Laptop Per Child Association (OLPC) and its enablers in Nigeria." What'd Negroponte do? Well, according to LAC, he reverse engineered and stole their multilingual Shift2 keyboard tech, which features four (count 'em) shift keys to allow for more fancy character typin'. Specifically, we're talking about these KỌnyin keyboards that are available globally.

In fact, Solicitor Ade Adedeji says that "The willful infringement of our client's intellectual property is so blatant and self-evident in the OLPC's XO Laptops. We will have no problem establishing the facts of our client's case against OLPC in any court of law." Yikes, Negroponte. Yikes.

I don't understand the finer subtleties of Nigerian court codes, but one presumes this is more lousy news for the OLPC camp. We'll keep you updated as to the results of this, the trial of the century. [MarketWire]

With staff cuts already taking place to remain above board, this may be one cut too many for the firm to deal with. Having said that, as ever, anything could happen. We shall keep you posted on any developments. [Bloomberg via Gadgetell]

In other words, according to Digital Arts Services' complaint, it "indisputably meant that purchasers of advertising time were paying for FiOS subscribers who did not exist." Naturally, Verzion's calling BS, calling it "a garden-variety business dispute initiated by a customer who wants to be released from a contract they agreed to." Guess we'll let the courts decide. [Broadband Reports, Image via Flickr]

Really: Five of the eight patents at issue were part of NTP's suit against RIM. This pretty much illustrates the problem with patent trolls: Give them a bone, and they want the whole cow, your car, and the rights to the next 15 generations your family's daughters. No response yet from the Big Four. [Network World via Slashdot, Flickr]

But that's all boring and totally irrelevant to the clip's entertainment value. The above is a revised version of the pulled clip. Original quote in its entirety after the jump.

Ultimately it comes down to taste. It comes down to trying to expose yourself to the best things that humans have done and then try to bring those things in to what you're doing. I mean Picasso had a saying, he said good artists copy, great artists steal. And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas and I think part of what made the Macintosh great was that the people working on it were musicians and poets and artists and zoologists and historians who also happened to be the best computer scientists in the world.

Broadcast Denied [I, Cringely via Slashdot]

The RIAA filed a similar lawsuit against XM last year that is still pending. The NMPA represents musicians under Famous Music, Warner/Chappell, Sony/ATV, and EMI publishers. Gizmodo angry, Gizmodo smash! –Travis Hudson

NMPA files suit against XM Satellite Radio [Orbitcast]
Related: RIAA Boycott Coverage

Ars followed up to ask if they take the same active measures to identify copyright-molesting content that they're asking YouTube to follow, but naturally didn't get a response from either iFilm or Viacom. They also talked to a copyright attorney, who said that because Viacom's essentially asking for a "new interpretation of the DMCA" in its lawsuit (YouTube follows the current interpretation), and there's no precedent for a judge to follow, "Viacom's own conduct with iFilm will likely be a factor that the judge looks at."

What's that delicious taste I suddenly I have in my mouth? Oh wait, I think I know what it is—sweet, sweet irony. – Matt Buchanan

Infringing videos on iFilm could cause problems for Viacom [Ars Technica]
Image via Flickr

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 RIAA says it's part of 63 new suits laid down recently. No word on whether or not the other suits are focused in particular areas or if all of those people are alive, have computers, or know anything about p2p file sharing. –Adam Frucci

Sun Herald [via BroadbandReports]

"The theft of music remains unacceptably high and undermines the industry's ability to invest in new music," whined Mitch Bainwol, the chief bottle washer of the RIAA. Before taking downloaders to court and suing them for those six-figure amounts, the RIAA usually settles for around $5000. There was no word about the exact amount of the RIAA's special settlement sale that's going on now. Jump to the list of schools on the hit list.

Here are the schools listed by the RIAA in its special sale on settlements for "music thieves:"

Arizona State University, Marshall University, North Carolina State University, North Dakota State University, Northern Illinois University, Ohio University, Syracuse University, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, University of South Florida, University of Southern California, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and University of Texas, Austin. – Charlie White

Music labels offer deal in download case [Yahoo News]

Apple and Cisco have agreed to extend the time for Apple to respond to the lawsuit to allow for discussions between the companies with the aim of reaching agreement on trademark rights and interoperability.

Or, in English, Cisco and Apple realized that too much money is at stake over the name "iPhone" to sue and counter sue each other into oblivion. Cisco sued Apple approximately seven seconds after Jobs announced the iPhone at MacWorld last month, claiming that they held the trademark to the name "iPhone." – Nicholas Deleon

Everything may be all right between Cisco and Apple - after all [MYiPhone]

And the RIAA, stupid idiots, went ahead and sued her kid. Robert, like his mom, isn't taking no shit from no one. Robby demanded a jury trial and submitted a counterclaim, accusing the RIAA, amongst other things, of "engag[ing] in a wide-ranging conspiracy to defraud the courts of the United States." He went on to say that while the RIAA are "ostensibly competitors in the recording industry, are a cartel acting collusively in violation of the antitrust laws and public policy."

Keep on fighting the good fight, Robert. –Adam Frucci

NY Teen in Piracy Lawsuit Accuses Record Companies of Collusion [1010 WINS]

iPhone skins irk Apple [The Sydney Morning Herald]

Apple iPhone [Apple]

If you remember back in 2005, Luxpro introduced a DAP called the Super Shuffle that looked a hell of a lot like Apple's iPod Shuffle. They claimed it was a bit better because it included an FM transmitter, OLED display and more. Apple got all pissy and demanded that the Super Shuffle be taken off display at CEbit 2005. It seems the Apple pressure appeared to work after Luxpro renamed the device the Super Tangent. (By the way, the reviews said the Super Tangent sucked, majorly, but Apple was still pissed. So the patent-infringement lawsuit began, and here we are. It seems a little like David versus Goliath. David may have won once, but I don't think he wins twice in a row. – Travis Hudson

Luxpro wins case against Apple in Taiwan, seeking US$100 million in compensation [Via newlaunches]

"Our client owns the copyright in all the images used in its 'Silhouette' advertising campaign and actively polices its rights in order to protect itself and its consumers.... Certain images used on your website (www.ibuzz.co.uk) may have been copied or substantially copied from those in which our client own the copyright, without our client's consent... Your use of such images amounts to copyright infringement."

Oh, boo hoo, Apple.

The question now is, will Apple ask us to take down the image? Stay tuned! – Nicholas Deleon

Product Page [iBuzz via Tech Digest]

Furthermore, Sony have failed to disclose to the London High Court that not only the world wide gaming community in more than 100 countries relied on Lik-Sang for their gaming needs, but also Sony Europe's very own top directors repeatedly got their Sony PSP hard or software imports in nicely packed Lik-Sang parcels with free Lik-Sang Mugs or Lik-Sang Badge Holders, starting just two days after Japan's official release, as early as 14th of December 2004 (more than nine months earlier than the legal action). The list of PSP related Sony Europe orders reads like the who's who of the videogames industry, and includes Ray Maguire (Managing Director, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd), Alan Duncan (UK Marketing Director, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd), Chris Sorrell (Creative Director, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd), Rob Parkin (Development Director, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited), just to name a few.

Bad ass, Lik-Sang. You will be missed. Thanks again, Sony. We love ya! – Nicholas Deleon

Important Notice: Lik-Sang.com Out of Business due to Multiple Sony Lawsuits [Lik-Sang.com via The Register]

Apple & Creative Announce Broad Settlement [Apple]

Nine years later this keystroke technology is nearly obsolete thanks to the integrated mini-keyboards in a lot of devices, but Xerox still won the battle and Palm will have to pay $22.5 million to settle the patent dispute. Sucks to be Palm, but at least you still have the Treo. What does Xerox have? Copiers? Ha! – Travis Hudson

Palm and Xerox settle "Graffiti" dispute [Reuters]

As a result, Cablevision said yesterday that it was halting the introduction of its network DVR, which was supposed to launch in the near future. It seems that the increasingly irrelevant "fair use" clause that Cablevision tried to invoke didn't help them out at all. The mighty hammer of Hollywood has stuck yet again. Honestly, though, are you even surprised? – Nicholas Deleon

Cablevision to Halt Video Recorder Test [AP/New York Times]

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]