Earlier this year, Intel was forced to pay a $1.45 billion fine by the EU, and last month they had to pay AMD a $1.25 billion settlement for anti-competitive practices. This new suit is for basically the same things.

The E.U.'s charges included paying computer makers to use Intel chips instead of AMD ones, and even threatening some companies if they went ahead and used AMD CPUs. The FTC notes that the public has been denied access to "potentially superior" chips as a result of the same bad practices. And it highlights what seems to be a particularly nasty one: Intel apparently designed compiler code so that it "deliberately stunted" the performance of the code when run on non-Intel CPUs, and then told the public the code simply worked better on Intel-made chips.

Ugly stuff. The first hearing is scheduled for September 8, 2010, so this is going to be a long and drawn out process. [FTC via FastCompany]

Apparently Psystar has until the final second of this year, midnight on December 31, to cease all of these activities:

• Copying, selling, offering to sell, distributing or creating derivative works of Mac OS X without authorization from Apple.
• Intentionally inducing, aiding, assisting, abetting or encouraging any other person or entity to infringe Apple's copyrighted Mac OS X software.
• Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access Mac OS X, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers.
• Playing any part in a product intended to circumvent Apple's methods for controlling Mac OS X, such as the methods used to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers.
• Doing anything to circumvent the rights held by Apple under the Copyright Act with respect to Mac OS X.

It's noted that those rules laid down by judge William Alsup may not apply to "Psystar's Rebel EFI software, a $50 application that allows certain Intel-powered PCs to run Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard," so this may not be the last we hear of the company. For now though, we can enjoy a few moments of quiet after this legal knockout. [Apple Insider]

At first thought, Henrik Anderson seems crazy for doing something like this, but he's actually attempting to force clarification of the contradicting laws by bringing them in front of a court. He's doing this after his attempts to contact the Danish anti-piracy Antipiratgruppen, their lawyers, and the Association of Danish Video Distributors and discuss the issue were blown off, so he's definitely not just randomly deciding on an extreme approach.

So far no actual arrest has been made, so we'll have to wait to see how the whole thing plays out. Either way, Anderson's protesting an entirely paradoxical set of laws in a pretty ballsy way. [Torrent Freak via Boing Boing]

This is by no means the first time the MPAA has stepped on the little guy in their crusade to eradicate piracy, but it is a particularly egregious instance of it. The free Wi-Fi network in Coshocton, Ohio supported anywhere from "a dozen people a day to 100 during busy times," all of whom are left without Internet after the shut down. As nations like Finland move to make broadband access a legal right, it is unfortunately clear that some powerful people in our country still consider it a privilege and not a necessity.

Let this be a lesson to those who not only enjoy but depend on free Wi-Fi networks. Enjoy it while it lasts, because if Dennis the Menace down the block can't wait for Transformers 3 to come out on DVD, you might be out a connection. [Via BoingBoing]

According to the bartender who reported Klein, he discovered the child pornography when he "opened the phone looking for Klein's name or phone number." Lesson? Get back to the bar quicker to pay your tab before the bartender starts going through your filthy images. [WISN]

Photo by BluEyedA73

Exhibit A, Woolworths newly redesigned logo, is on the left. Apple's iconic apple logo is on the right. Not that similar at all, but the real issue, at least with Apple, is probably that Woolworths might expand its retail business into electronics and somehow threaten that lucrative iPod business.

"While we can't rule [computers, musical players, or other devices] out, we haven't got any plans at the moment," said a Woolworths spokesman in a statement to AppleInsider.

To Apple's credit, they've moved up from suing school systems to supermarket megachains. Bigger fish, and all that. [AppleInsider]

The best, and really, only source of information on the status of the legal conflict comes from the two companies themselves, who have each sent out deliberately opaque press releases on the matter. From Funai:

Funai today marked a major achievement in its quest to end patent infringement by VIZIO and other television manufacturers. Today was the last day of a 60-day period in which US President Barack Obama could overrule the US International Trade Commission's (ITC) determination that VIZIO and other companies infringe on Funai's digital television patent...As of tomorrow, the ITC's exclusion order is final and [Vizio is] barred from importing or selling infringing Digital television products in the U.S.

Hooray for Funai! Down with Vizio! Justice has been served! But wait, take a close look at the language:

[Vizio is] barred from importing or selling infringing Digital television products in the U.S.

So not all Vizio products have been banned, just infringing ones. It's obvious, necessary language, but also an important distinction. To Vizio:

The products involved with this particular claim are obsolete, and no longer in mass production. Therefore we believe this action will not impact our ability to conduct our business in normal fashion

So—and please, commenter-lawyers, correct me if I'm wrong—it sounds like an import and sales ban has been upheld for past Vizio products, not anything they plan to import from now on. Nonetheless, the company is appealing the ITC's decision again, whether it be to help clear present inventory or to avoid some kind of future fines or legal difficulties. In short, Vizio's cheap, OK TVs—the most popular in the country—will probably still be in Best Buy tomorrow. [HdGuru]

Psion PLC announces that Psion and Intel Corporation have settled the trade mark cancellation and infringement litigation brought in the Northern District of California relating to the ‘Netbook' trademark registration.

The litigation has been settled through an amicable agreement under which Psion will voluntarily withdraw all of its trademark registrations for ‘Netbook'. Neither party accepted any liability. In light of this amicable agreement, Psion has agreed to waive all its rights against third parties in respect of past, current or future use of the ‘Netbook' term.

They don't say exactly what caused this change of heart, probably because saying "Intel gave us a stack of cash and told us to piss off" doesn't sound very professional. [SlashGear via CrunchGear]

Under the plan, the music and movie industries would have been empowered to analyze the downloads of individual Internet users to root out instances of piracy, and to report violations to a newly created agency. The agency was to send warning letters to violators; after the third letter, the Internet service provider would have been required to sever service.

The voting down of the bill is seen as a big loss for President Sarkozy, who promises to have a revised version of the bill ready in the coming weeks. [NY Times]

Elan is a Taiwan-based touchpad manufacturer, best known for supplying the touchpads on several Eee PC models. And apparently they've got a well-leveraged patent position on multitouch tech: last year, Elan and touchpad giant Synaptics came to a cross-licensing agreement after an initial injunction in a similar lawsuit ruled in Elan's favor. The case was settled out of court.

As of now it's unclear what Elan is demanding, but it may be a last-ditch effort for a company struggling like so many other Chinese and Taiwanese OEM suppliers. But after their win over Synaptics, Elan is emboldened, thinking their legal position has some weight. Kind of like Afghanistan, maybe, in our little Cold War metaphor—the little fish that proves to be the graveyard of empires.

Whether Elan is being shadow controlled by Palm, or whether Palm execs are currently sending cases of thank-you champagne on the next container ship back to Taiwan, has yet to be verified. [NYTimes]

It's a sloppy gray area we've looked at before: When you buy digital content, do you really own it? With actual CDs or books, the first sale doctrine lets you hawk it later on eBay or gave it away if you want.

But was Obama in the clear to give away those showtunes, even if he bought them legally on iTunes? The EFF notes that in iTunes' 9,000-word terms of use, they coincidentally happen to sidestep the question. And if first sale applies, what about...? Oh forget it. The EFF ponders all the possibilities much better than I do. The point is simply that ownership, which used to be simple question, is now much more complicated than it needs to be, and ultimately, it sucks for regular people. [EFF via BoingBoing]

An excerpt from the letter says that "the term POD has also been adopted and used extensively in the marketplace by consumers as an abbreviation to refer to Apple's IPOD player. The IPOD and POD marks indicate to consumers that a broad range of products, including portable electronic devices, computer software, and related goods and services bearing those marks and marks similar thereto originate from or are sponsored or endorsed by Apple." Yeah, OK. It also states that the design of the stand infringes on Apple's trademark because it looks like the new iMac designs.

Pivotal, the makers of the stand, obviously aren't pleased with the letter. This seems like a Monster-Cable-style dick move from a big company to a small out (a small one that makes accessories for Apple's products, no less), so hopefully it won't go anywhere. [TUAW]

The two main arguments that the prosecution made were that the folks behind The Pirate Bay were responsible for allowing piracy to happen and that they're organized and rich.

As to the first point, prosecutor Hakan Roswall said that "a person who is holding someone's coat while they assault someone else is complicit in the crime."

And the prosecution repeatedly claimed that the people behind The Pirate Bay were pulling in $1 million per year via ads, a claim the defense has roundly denied. Peter Sunde says that the "prosecution claims 64 adspaces on TPB. But there's two to four. And they count the earned money on number of adspaces." More to the point, he says this of the prosecutor: "The old bastard's crazy." Glad they're keeping things civil!

Tomorrow, the defense makes its closing argument, and then this whole circus comes to a close. The prosecution is gunning for one year of jailtime, so we'll see what happens. [Ars Technica]

• To win the case, the prosecution has to provide proof that copyright infringement has happened, and so plaintiffs gave examples of piracy that they committed using The Pirate Bay.
• The prosecution couldn't get powerpoint started at one point.
• The Pirate Bay isn't technically being charged for infringing copyrights, since they don't host any files. Instead, they're being charged with, ""Assisting in and preparing to committing copyright infringement." They pleaded not guilty.
• The prosecution couldn't tell the difference between megabytes and megabits.
• It isn't believed that The Pirate Bay organizers will have severe penalties brought against them.
• That's the bus the defendants, "Pirate Bay founders Gottfrid Svartholm Warg (aka Anakata), Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi (aka Brokep) and Fredrik Neij (TiAMO)" drove up in.
• Seats in the court are being scalped!

I've got mixed feelings about this trial. [Wired and Torrentfreak]

To help guide us through, machete in hand, what is one of the more confusing jungles of U.S. law, we talked to R. Polk Wagner, a professor of patents law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. He specializes in patents and intellectual property as it relates to technology, and teaches hundreds of Penn Law students every year how to decipher the Enigma-level encrypted language of patent filings. We couldn't have done it without him.

As others have thoroughly and eloquently explained this week, it's impossible to identify a single patent that has a lock on the iPhone's multitouch magic as we know it. That patent probably does not exist. But here's the key—patent wars are intrinsically cold wars. They entail both sides jacking up their arsenals (reams of legalese replacing megaton warheads) with as many patents as possible, with hopes of scaring their adversaries out of even attempting to try something. These cold wars, thankfully, rarely turn hot, but under our legal system, lack of courtroom action means there's almost no way to determine whose armada of patents actually cover what.

The meat of every patent is a list of claims, and it is the claims and only the claims that spell out exactly what can get you sued and what can't. Unfortunately for us, but very fortunately for the thousands of patent lawyers hoping to feed their families, claims are written in a language not comprehensible to normal humans. The goal is to be both incredibly vague and legally specific at the same time

"Patent claims are an attempt to use words to describe things and ideas, an imperfect way of operating. In an ideal world we'd have patent claims that look like a title record you get for your house [your property starts exactly 200 feet from this road walking in exactly this direction, etc]. But it is incredibly difficult to predict exactly what a patent will or won't cover," Prof. Wagner says.

But the old patent-law adage Prof. Wagner likes to use in class is true—"the claims are the name of the game"—and it is their vagueness in this instance that would make it easy for Palm, if their lawyers and engineers know how to talk to each other, to design itself out of a hole and bring true multitouch to the Pre.

The patent we're referring to is #7,479,949, awarded on January 20 of this year. It has a list of 20 claims but as Prof. Wagner showed us, out of the 20, 17 are "dependent," which means they drill down more specifically into features of the invention/interface/device described in their parent claim. In our quick Patent Law 101 with Professor Wagner, we learned that to legally infringe upon a patent, you need to violate an entire independent claim, which means, if you rip off one of its dependents, you're OK, you just can't rip off all of them all together.

As Engadget's legal eagle, Nilay Patel, sagely identified in his piece, considerable chunks of this patent deal with not multitouch as a whole, but one very specific use case: the iPhone's ability to lock itself into a one-dimensional scroll (vertical or horizontal) on, say, a webpage. It's based upon the first movement of your finger: move it straight up and down, and you'll only be able to scroll vertically. But just as it's hard enough to divine exactly what's going on in patents to begin with, Professor Wagner—a man with considerably more experience than I do at doing doing exactly that—says it's tough to assume that an entire patent can be distilled down to a single behavior. Here's the legalese for the scrolling behavior in claim #1, which is an independent claim with 9 sub-claims:

...A vertical screen scrolling heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command rather than a two-dimensional screen translation command based on an angle of initial movement of a finger contact with respect to the touch screen display

But there's more to it. Claim # 1 is a pretty beefy paragraph, with three more important specific behaviors listed within, each of which must be ripped off to infringe on that claim. The first one sounds like the ability to know the difference between a one-dimensional scroll and a two-dimensional scroll, which unlocks both vertical and horizontal scrolling:

...A two-dimensional screen translation heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to the two-dimensional screen translation command rather than the one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command based on the angle of initial movement of the finger contact with respect to the touch screen display

And the third and most interesting one, which tacks on the seemingly unrelated behavior of side-scrolling through a list of things, like Cover Flow albums:

...And a next item heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a command to transition from displaying a respective item in a set of items to displaying a next item in the set of items.

What's interesting is that the only other phones on the market technically capable of multitouch—RIM's BlackBerry Storm and T-Mobile's Google Android G1—have web browsers that scroll in exactly the same manner described in the patent. But, if they don't also feature a Cover Flow-like interface for side scrolling (the G1's photo gallery uses next/prev buttons, for instance), they're legally safe from infringing on this particular claim. Even more interesting is that the Storm's photo gallery app does indeed use a Coverflow-like swipe to navigate through photos, so from where we're sitting, they could be in trouble. But as you can see, it gets that specific.

So, patent mumbo-jumbo aside, here are the keys:

1. What Apple can and most certainly is doing is patenting all of the special ways it makes multitouch magical—like the Cover Flow scrolling lists, or using two fingers to rotate an image by pivoting one around the other (which doesn't appear to be singled out in the patent in question here). Still, it's hard to assume that Apple has a patent lock on the concept of multitouch as a whole—multitouch has been around in theory for too long and it's probably too general of an idea for Apple to claim an absolute lock. Exhibit A here is Microsoft's Surface table, which is currently on sale and has plenty of iPhone-like multitouch zoom and scrolling features built right in. But Apple may just be steering clear of Microsoft, the one behemoth that can match Apple's legal might.

2. Regardless of legal defensibility, Apple's multitouch cold war is working against everyone but Microsoft. Google didn't even tempt the Cupertino warheads (I mean lawyers) with multitouch on Android, and HP gets visibly nervous even when we simply ask whether their TouchSmart PCs will support multitouch some day. Keep in mind, though, that unofficial multitouch applications exist for both Android and HP's TouchSmarts.

As Prof. Wagner points out, Apple is great at protecting their innovations. Look at the click wheel—it's without a doubt the most elegant way to navigate an MP3 player's interface, and no one has been able to mimic it exactly. Others have clickable buttons, and touch-sensitive controllers, some of which are shaped like wheels, but Apple has been able to protect the specifics of the clickwheel—all of these elements combined—that make it special.

3. Palm, however, could be the perfect North Korea in our little war metaphor—crazed enough by desperation to be the first to just go for it. Also, they've been making phone software far longer than Apple, and insinuate that they have some patent warheads of their own to train on Cupertino.

4. The truth of the matter remains, that Individual patents (and, even more so, individual claims inside of individual patents) are easy to design around if you're careful (and have good patent lawyers working with your engineers), since all it takes is one deviation from one of a patent's claims specifics to put you in the clear. But this recent filing, clearly, is not Apple's only multitouch-related patent. Many more exist, and many more are surely pending. That's where Palm's patent lawyers come in. As long as Palm (or anyone else) can walk the tightrope with Petit-worthy grace, implementing multitouch features without infringing on the exact specifics of any one Apple patent claim, they'll be OK.

But beyond that, Palm may actually use the chance to take multitouch to places we've never seen before. "Designing around patents requires innovation," said Prof. Wagner, "and a lot of times, the end result turns out better than the what was being imitated." All of this, of course, is completely up in the air for Palm. We were reminded many times that what we saw at CES was far from a production model, and a lot could change about the specifics of the Pre's multitouch when the finished product makes itself known.

From the looks of things, Apple is the Gipper, the Ronald Reagan of tech. When they don't fight, they often find a way to win (or look like they have won). And when they do fight, it takes an equally massive superpower to give them any competition.

We're rooting for Palm though, and Google and RIM too. More multitouch cellphones = more competition = happier consumers. Détente, people, détente!

The feed, provided by the Courtroom View Network, will cover every thrilling up and down of the case, which involves the RIAA suing BU student Joe Tenenbaum and others. The RIAA opposed the live broadcast, which the judge found pretty strange seeing that this entire campaign of lawsuits was designed to scare people away from downloading.

In any case, the hearing is set for 2pm on January 22nd, so mark your calendars for hot courtroom action, LIVE! [Threat Level]

Georgia is one of 15 states requiring sex offenders to give their email addresses, screen names and "other internet handles" to authorities, and now the second (after Utah) to force them to give up their passwords as well, giving authorities unlimited, unfettered access to monitor their email and other internet activities.

State Senator Cecil Staton told MSNBC, "We limit where they can live, we make their information available on the Internet. To some degree, we do invade their privacy...But the feeling is, they have forfeited, to some degree, some privacy rights."

Obviously, privacy groups, like the Southern Center for Human Rights are concerned by the law, though there haven't been any legal challenges to it yet. So, what do you guys think? One step too far, or totally legit? [MSNBC via Techdirt]

They neither publicly released the changes they'd made nor paid Artifex for the privilege to keep the changes to themselves, and in the hippie-dippie share everything world of Linux, that doesn't fly. Luckily our new President of the Universe Barack Obama won by a large enough margin that we can't question the results, but good god, it's beyond time to ditch this aggressively stupid company and get an electronic balloting system that, you know, works. [LinuxDevices]