C'mon now -- you saw this one coming down the road, didn't you? Apple has officially taken legal action against Mac clone-maker Psystar, according to court documents. On July 3rd, the Cupertino giant filed suit in the federal district court of northern California alleging violations against its shrink wrap license, trademarks, and copyright infringement. Clearly this doesn't look real promising for the Florida-based cloner, but we're confident they'll handle this situation with the tact and aplomb we've come to expect from them. Which is none.

Read - Confirmed: Apple files suit against Psystar
Read - Apple goes after clone maker Psystar

[Thanks, ginger.al]

Sometimes a picture really does say a thousand words. BlueBerry, the cease-and-desist is on the way!

In an unusual situation for a company so vocal about protecting intellectual property rights, Microsoft is being sued for allegedly distributing material copyrighted by a Philippine college -- despite the fact that the material in question seems to have only been given to fellow educational professionals. Southeastern College in Pasay City is suing Microsoft and Microsoft Philippines for 100 million Filipino pesos ($2.4 million) for handing out at least 700 CDs in 2005 and 2006 containing the 379-page "SEC Microsoft Office XP Manual," which had been copyrighted by SEC director Conrad Mañalac in 2005 (although work on it reportedly began in 1999). Apparently 10,000 copies of this same manual had previously been licensed from the school by the company in 2004, and retitled for use in a program to train high school teachers. For its part, Microsoft Philippines denies having "improperly distributed additional copies of the curriculum," although it's a little unclear what the company's actual position is, with the following statement -- emailed to the Inquirer.net -- seeming to indicate that the primary concern right now is protecting the mothership: "They brought this matter to our attention a year ago and we worked hard to resolve it, but without success. For all intents and purposes, this is a purely local matter which does not involve Microsoft Corporation." Um, okay, whatever you say. We'll be interested to see if / how Redmond responds to this one...

[Thanks, Mark]

Read - Microsoft sued
Read - Microsoft issues response

Of course, we all know that the knock-off producers in China never rest, but this new iPod nano clone you're looking at was definitely turned around in an impressively short period of time. Right now we have only this photo -- apparently taken at a Shenzhen factory for use in piquing importer's interest -- to go on, but it certainly isn't any kind of surprise that the copy-cats have already put the dirty deed in motion. Just remember guys, you're taking food off of Steve Jobs' table... which is made of diamond-studded platinum.

[Via GenerationMP3, thanks BrianB]

Just about the time that XM Radio was finally able to sit down and hammer out some figures for the upcoming merger, the poor satellite radio firm has hit yet another legal snag, and this time it's care of the NMPA. The National Music Publishers Association have officially filed suit against XM, claiming that the "XM + MP3" music service bypasses copyright laws by giving users the ability "to make permanent copies of on-air tracks" with units like the hotly-debated Inno. Quite similar to other gripes brought against the outfit in the past, this dispute claims that XM's service "constitutes pervasive and willful copyright infringement to the overwhelming detriment of copyright holders, legitimate online music services and, ultimately, consumers," but we're still scratching our heads on the "consumers" bit too. Nevertheless, the NMPA is requesting demanding a maximum of $150,000 in "damages" for each work purportedly infringed by XM, but the sat radio company seems to be brushing this one aside as it claims that "the lawsuit is without merit." These guys just can't do anything right, eh?

Australia's new copyright bill looks like it could soon be causing sleepless nights for anyone that owns an iPod or other digital audio player if its enacted in its current form, with strict limitations that could seemingly affect individuals whether they know they're infringing on copyright or not. Under the harshest penalty, The Sydney Morning Herald Reports, an individual can face up to five years in jail and a fine of AUD$65,000 if he/she possesses "a device, intending it to be used for making an infringing copy of a work or other subject-matter." What's more, under "strict liability provisions", you can be hit with a $6,600 fine or ticketed by police on the spot to the tune of $1320 simply for possessing infringing material, even if you didn't know you were violating copyright. While there were recently exceptions made to permit CD ripping, even those are apparently too limiting to be workable, according to Intellectual Property Research Institute associate director Kim Weatherall, permitting just one "main copy" of a CD -- meaning that you couldn't have a copy on both your iPod and computer. In related news, none other than Bill O'Reilly recently came out against the iPod, and he's got more problems with it than copyright infringement. On his radio show last week, O'Reilly said that he doesn't own an iPod and would never "wear" one, adding that (also referring to his earlier comments the PS3) "if this is your primary focus in life - the machines... it's going to have a staggeringly negative effect, all of this, for America." Some Americans, it would seem, disagree.

Read - The Sydney Morning Herald, "The $65,000 question: do you own an iPod?"
Read - Think Progress, "O'Reilly: iPods Are Endangering America"

[Via Digg]