As part of her appeal, she filed to have the damages ruled unconstitutional in their heft, given that they cost labels about 70 cents a song. The Copyright Act allows for statutory damages up to $150,000 a song, which the RIAA argued (and the DoJ agrees) don't have to be anywhere near actual damages. If you want the legalese it goes like this:

Statutory damages compensate those wronged in areas in which actual damages are hard to quantify in addition to providing deterrence to those inclined to commit a public wrong.

[G]iven the findings of copyright infringement in this case, the damages awarded under the Copyright Act's statutory damages provision did not violate the Due Process Clause; they were not 'so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense or obviously unreasonable.

The damages—again, over $9000 a song—might be not "obviously unreasonable" but that doesn't mean they're not fucking unreasonable. [Ars, Image via Flickr]

According to the deal's terms, developers can pay a one-time fee of 10,000 euros ($14,300) to get ahold of Microsoft's server protocols. If they're used in a rival's product, Microsoft's entitled to 0.4 percent of sales—Microsoft wanted 5.95 percent, so they've taken quite a pay cut, indicating that Microsoft's hands were pretty tied up on the matter. After their success in browbeating Microsoft here, it's anyone's guess as to where the EU's antitrust police will point their legal guns next. What do you guys think of the ruling? Should Microsoft have to relinquish code to the competition? [NYT, Flickr]

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]