Court -- Engadget

court posts

Sony and VIZIO ditch the courtroom, clear up licensing issues

by Darren Murph posted Oct 29th 2009 at 9:14AM

VIZIO sure ends up in a whole lot of legal battles, but one way or another, it always seems to find its way out in the long run. Such is the case once again today, as the current LCD TV king has apparently said all the right things to Sony. If you'll recall, Sony (along with a slew of others) filed suit against Vizio awhile back over patent licensing concerns, but now it seems the two have reached a mutual agreement to use each other's technologies without bickering over who owns what. The release on the matter states that Sony "has become a licensee under VIZIO's patent portfolio," and that "VIZIO now is a licensee under Sony's color television patent portfolio." Who knows how much under-the-table cash and shaky promises had to be passed along in order to make everyone happy, but hey, a problem solved is a problem solved.

[Image courtesy of TooMuchNick / WireImage]

Update: Sony's response to all of this is after the break, courtesy of a company spokesperson who pinged us directly.

Continue reading Sony and VIZIO ditch the courtroom, clear up licensing issues

Microsoft's $358 million damage award overturned, Alcatel-Lucent likely perturbed

by Darren Murph posted Sep 14th 2009 at 9:58AM

We won't go so far as to compare this to the epic multi-year Broadcom vs. Qualcomm saga, but this is certainly shaping up to be the case that never ends, part II. Microsoft and Alcatel-Lucent have been at each other's throats over various things since August of 2007, and while we've seen damages awarded and overturned a few times since, the latest ruling to be handed down by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has A-L waiting a wee bit longer to get its (maybe) due. This past Friday, the court decided that while a $358 million damages award against Microsoft for "violating patents relating to technology that allows users to enter dates into calendars in its Outlook e-mail program" was somewhat legitimate, the damages were "unjustified." The result? The whole thing has to be retried, giving the contracted law firms for both companies immense joy.

Kaleidescape gets in line behind RealDVD for rough treatment

by Steven Kim posted Aug 13th 2009 at 7:56PM

When it rains it pours -- right on the heels of the punishing blow dealt to RealDVD, the money-laden Kaleidescape crowd suffered its own setback at the hands of the law. You just know that the DVD CCA (Copy Control Association) appealed the 2007 ruling that allowed Kaleidescape owners to rip DVDs to their media servers, and yesterday a California Appeals Court overturned that ruling. Next stop -- the Santa Clara Superior Court, which could place an injunction on Kaleidescape if the appeal is upheld. It's not over yet, but we're prepping the soundboard with ominous music, boos and noisy hand-wringing. Whatever (and whenever) the outcome, we can only hope that Blu-ray's Managed Copy comes to the scene sooner rather than later and settles this issue for our beloved HD content

Court injunction puts sales of RealDVD on ice, hopes and dreams in purgatory

by Darren Murph posted Aug 12th 2009 at 2:02AM

Something tells us Kaleidescape has a man (or woman, to be fair) on the inside, else United States District Court Judge Marilyn Patel is just downright trifilin'. In every visible way, RealNetworks' proposed RealDVD player was exactly what Kaleidescape was, but for people with annual salaries far less than $9,854,392,220. Regardless of our opinion, a preliminary injunction has just been passed down from The Almighty in the robe, which blocks the sale of the RealDVD software here in the US. The six major movie studies filed the suit last September, alleging that it "illegally violated their right to restrict the use of their movies in digital form." Evidently those that matter agree. A RealNetworks spokesperson took the time to vent their feelings on the whole ordeal, and since we know you're curious, we've pasted it below for your convenience.

We are disappointed that a preliminary injunction has been placed on the sale of RealDVD. We have just received the Judge's detailed ruling and are reviewing it. After we have done so fully, we'll determine our course of action and will have more to say at that time.

[Via Electronista]

RealDVD ripping software heads to court, fair use advocates on pins and needles

by Darren Murph posted Apr 27th 2009 at 5:08AM

Let's face it -- quite a lot is resting on the outcome of this case. For months now, RealNetworks has been unable to legally sell its RealDVD movie ripping software after a court issued a temporary restraining order that remains valid until it's decided if the application violates the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). Now, the software is finally having its day in court, and the outcome could shape the future of the DVD player (for better or worse). You see, Real has already assembled a prototype Facet device that hums along on Linux; essentially, this DVD playing machine would sell for around $300 and could store up to 70 movies internally. On the surface, this sounds entirely like a poor man's Kaleidescape, but only time will tell if The Man agrees. Cross your fingers folks, we get the feeling fair use advocates are going to need the luck.

Broadcom and Qualcomm agree to stop suing one another, but not to stop hating

by Darren Murph posted Apr 26th 2009 at 10:59PM

Truthfully, we're having a hard time coming to grips with this. For as long as we wished that these two would stop bickering, it's actually tough to swallow the fact that we'll never again be able to write about "yet another lawsuit" between Qualcomm and Broadcom (in theory, anyway). After nearly three full years of fighting with pencils, papers and soulless words, the courtroom throwdowns are finally ceasing. In a shocking development, the two rivals have entered into a settlement and multi-year patent agreement that will "result in the dismissal with prejudice of all litigation between the companies, including all patent infringement claims in the International Trade Commission and US District Court in Santa Ana, as well as the withdrawal by Broadcom of its complaints to the European Commission and the Korea Fair Trade Commission." The exact terms of the deal are posted after the break, though you should know that Qualcomm will have to shell out $891 million in cash (ouch!) over the next four years. The lawyers may be out of work, but you can rest assured that there's no shortage of abhorrence between these frenemies.

Continue reading Broadcom and Qualcomm agree to stop suing one another, but not to stop hating

The Pirate Bay founders sentenced to prison, website soldiers on

by Darren Murph posted Apr 17th 2009 at 7:12AM

In what's being described as a landmark verdict, four men responsible for assisting throngs of dubious internet users to download all sorts of copyrighted material are being ushered off to prison cells for twelve whole months. The Stockholm district court in Sweden found the defendants guilty not of hosting materially illegally, but of "providing a website with sophisticated search functions, simple download and storage capabilities, and a tracker linked to the website [that helped users commit copyright violations]." As expected, the foursome seems unaffected by the ruling, with Peter Sunde (shown) tweeting that "it used to be only movies, now even verdicts are out before the official release." After jail, the crew will be forced by pay 30 million kronor ($3.56 million) to a number of entertainment companies, which is far less than those firms were hoping for. Curiously, we're told that the verdict didn't include an order to shut down The Pirate Bay website, and you can pretty much bank on an appeal being filed in record time.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

Samsung declares victory over Sharp in LCD patent dispute

by Darren Murph posted Mar 23rd 2009 at 10:20AM

Samsung and Sharp, like any good pair of competitors, have been slapping each other around for years now. Specifically, Sharp tagged Samsung with an LCD patent infringement lawsuit back in the latter half of 2007, and at long last the courts have made a decision. In short, Samsung wins. The Wall Street Journal has an exceptionally brief writeup noting that Sammy has declared victory in the case as a Tokyo court "upheld a Samsung Electronics' countersuit filed last June that claimed that Sharp LCD TV products infringed on Samsung's patents." There's no word on what affect this will have on either firm, but feel free to cheer / cry at the office today in order to truly show your fanboy colors at work.

VIZIO files antitrust and unfair competition lawsuit against Funai

by Darren Murph posted Feb 14th 2009 at 12:02PM

Aw, snap! Just months after Funai took the reins from Philips in North America, along comes a lawsuit for its lawyers to deal with. VIZIO, still feeling proud after its all-business Super Bowl ad, has thrown a potent antitrust and unfair competition lawsuit in Funai's direction. The outfit alleges that Funai, "acting alone and in concert with others, unlawfully restrained trade and monopolized the market for the licensing of technology used to interpret and retrieve information from a digital television broadcast signal, as well as the market for digital television sets and receivers." Specifically, VIZIO seems perturbed that Funai inappropriately acquired the rights to one single US patent, and ever since it has "unfairly discriminated against VIZIO in the licensing and enforcement" of said patent to the "detriment of trade and commerce." There's no mention of how many bills VIZIO thinks will fix the problem, but Funai better not try filling stacks of hundies with Washingtons in between.

[Image courtesy of TooMuchNick / WireImage]

Neonode AB, maker of the N2, files for bankruptcy

by Darren Murph posted Dec 10th 2008 at 8:57AM

Neonode AB, a wholly-owned subsidiary of US-based Neonode, Inc., has filed a petition for bankruptcy in Sweden. The company, which has focused almost all of its efforts on pushing the now aged Neonode N2 since 2004, finally caved after looking so vulnerable in late July. According to Per Bystedt, CEO and Chairman of Neonode: "For the past six months we have focused on turning the business around and solving the financial situation of Neonode AB; we continue to have great belief in our technology and believe we have a competitive product in the Neonode N2 but without sufficient funds we cannot continue operations." No word of a revamped OS. No word of hardware tweaks. Nothing that sounds to us like they really want to survive in today's high-stakes handset market. At any rate, the parent company is hoping to trudge on as a technology licensing company, with or without Mr. N2.

[Via GeekZone]

Lawsuit whirligig: Spansion and Kodak sue Samsung, LG sued only by Kodak

by Darren Murph posted Nov 17th 2008 at 11:50PM

Mark it down as a coincidence if you'd like, but a flurry of lawsuits revolving around the same companies just became public knowledge. For starters, Eastman Kodak has decided to sue Samsung and LG, alleging infringement of digital camera patents relating to image capture, compression and data storage; the suit is asking for "unspecified damages, and both cases seek injunctions prohibiting Samsung and LG from further imports and sales of the products." Just hours later, Samsung hit back with this response: "Samsung plans to respond actively to these litigations and will remain committed to serving our customers by ensuring that accurate and reliable delivery of our products is not compromised in any way." Got all that? Good. Moving on, we've also got chipmaker Spansion tossing a suit in Samsung's direction, which is asking for "billions" in damages for patent infringement presumably related to flash memory. Who says it's a slow period in the courtroom?

Read - Kodak sues Samsung / LG
Read - Samsung's reply to lawsuits
Read - Spansion sues Samsung

Sprint now facing $1.2 billion class-action suit over early termination fees

by Darren Murph posted Nov 6th 2008 at 10:10PM

We told you it wasn't over, and now, that once "manageable" $73 million payment could possibly balloon to upwards of $1.2 billion. As predicted, the prior suit -- which was held in a California state court -- has led to a far reaching class-action lawsuit that could "potentially cost the company as much as $1.2 billion." The suit alleges that the $150 to $200 fees violated the Federal Communications Act and laws in every state of the country, and when summed from 1999 to 2008, they total a magical $1.2 billion. Things aren't looking great for Sprint on this one either, as lawyer Scott Bursor is running the show. Who's he? Just a guy who was involved in getting Verizon to fork over $21 million for the same thing earlier this year.

[Via textually]

Pioneer wins plasma patent case over Samsung, awarded $59.3 million

by Darren Murph posted Nov 4th 2008 at 2:32AM

Pioneer may be licking its wounds, but at least there's one bright spot on an otherwise dark end-of-year. The US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Marshall (read: patent troll heaven) recently found that "Samsung willfully infringed two Pioneer patents covering plasma display technology," leading to a settlement which involves Samsung handing Pioneer a check for $59,351,480. Samsung has yet to comment on the ruling, but it's pretty easy to imagine what it's probably thinking, wouldn't you say?

[Via SmartHouse, thanks Anthony]

NVIDIA details settlement for price fixing fiasco

by Darren Murph posted Sep 28th 2008 at 9:36PM

Way back in December of 2006, NVIDIA and AMD were both pegged for potential price fixing, and nearly two years later it seems it'll finally be paying the piper. A settlement agreement is detailed in a recently filed 8-K form, which asserts that NVIDIA would pay $850,000 into a total fund of up to $1.7 million, with AMD / ATI probably left to make up the rest. Of note, the 8-K filing does mention that all of this is still "subject to court approval," but it's likely that the green light will eventually be given. Outside of that, we're also informed that NVIDIA will be handing over $112,500 to the individual plaintiffs who brought the case to court. Well, we're glad that's settled.

[Via CustomPC]

US Appeals court sez Qualcomm infringed on two Broadcom patents

by Darren Murph posted Sep 24th 2008 at 3:39PM

We could start off by telling you just how much this decision will hurt Qualcomm and just how celebratory the mood must be at Broadcom, but instead, we'll key you in on this quote: "The appeals court also rejected Qualcomm's request for a new trial." At long last, we may have actually heard the end of what has seemed like a never-ending battle between the aforementioned parties. Today, a US Appeals court upheld an earlier ruling that Qualcomm had indeed infringed upon two Broadcom patents while ruling that a third patent in question was invalid. The ruling is obviously a huge win for Broadcom, who will soon be bathing in Benjamins as Qualcomm is forced to pay mandatory royalties for the chips it sells during the "sunset period" ending January 31, 2009.

[Via Reuters]