No surprise here, but the kids from MIT were (presumably) right all along. The three students who were muffled just before presenting their case at Defcon have finally been freed; the now-revoked gag order had prevented them from exposing insecurities in the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority ticket system, but during the same court setting, the MBTA fessed up and admitted that its current system was indeed vulnerable. Of note, it only confessed that its CharlieTicket system was susceptible to fraud, while simply not acknowledging any flaws in the more popular CharlieCard option. Pish posh -- who here believes it doesn't have dutiful employees working up a fix as we speak?

We remember when there was actually a glimmer of hope that the quarreling between these two may end -- man, was that a long time ago. Anyways, the International Trade Commission has reportedly upheld a judge's ruling made back in December which affirmed that Nokia did not violate Qualcomm patents. As expected, the latter firm expressed its utmost disappointment in the decision, and is already considering yet another appeal process. Then again, we may actually be a little sad if it didn't.

[Via PhoneScoop]

While it'd be easy for Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly's deferment to be an end-all solution to the recent Google vs. Microsoft spat, we're inclined to believe that Google hasn't had its last word just yet. As it stands, the judge in charge has reportedly said that "she will likely defer to an agreement on desktop search forged between Microsoft and the plaintiffs in the US government's antitrust lawsuit against the software vendor instead of responding to a complaint from rival Google," and further explained that she didn't consider Google to "be a party in this case." Unfortunately, that's about all we've heard at the moment-- but stay tuned, this one's bound to go a few more rounds before the dust settles.

We all had high hopes that SED TVs wouldn't become another case of "what could have been," but unfortunately for everyone, things aren't looking too bright right about now. Last we heard, Canon was reportedly all set to buy out Toshiba's display stake, theoretically squashing Nano-Proprietary's claim that licensing agreements would be breached if Tosh remained in the mix, but it seems that things just can't be so easy. A federal judge has now ruled that Canon "violated its agreement with Texas-based Nano-Proprietary by forming a joint television venture with Toshiba," and while "damages still need to be determined," it's fairly clear who will come out the victor in this scenario. Still, this just appears to be yet another snag in the development of new nanotube sets, and while we should all just be used to it by now, that glimmer of hope that Canon and Nano-Proprietary "could now develop a new licensing agreement" is still (currently) alive.

Sure, we're all well aware that surveillance practices have been ratcheted up a notch or two since six or so years ago, but a judge in Manhattan has recently rebutted his own go-ahead from four years back to give the NYPD "greater authority to investigate political, social and religious groups." The most recent ruling states that by "videotaping people who were exercising their right to free speech and breaking no laws," the cops had ignored the milder limits he had imposed on it in 2003, seemingly squirming out from under his own misjudgments and placing the blame elsewhere. Nevertheless, he was clear that the voyeuristic limits only applied at events where people gather to exercise their rights under the First Amendment, while bridges, tunnels, airports, subways, and street traffic points could maintain their current level of surveillance -- and we thought this would mean those lamppost cameras couldn't pick us off whilst crossing the street with our iPod jamming.

[Via BoingBoing]

It's one thing to offload (illegally) a dozen or so GPS units from a storage facility and beg the police to nab you by leaving them turned on, but for the boys in blue to slide a tracking device into your ride to keep dibs on your doings, well that's another matter entirely. Earlier this month, the Seventh Circuit of the US Court of Appeals "ruled against a defendant who claimed that the surreptitious placement of a GPS tracking device amounted to an unconstitutional search," essentially giving the coppers the green light to add a GPS module to a suspicious ride sans a warrant. While we're sure the privacy advocates out there are screaming bloody murder, the district judge found that they had had a "reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity," and it seems that a well-placed hunch is all they need for lawful placement. Interestingly, the government argues that no warrant was needed since "there was no search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment," but did add that "wholesale surveillance of the entire population" was to be viewed differently. So while this may come as a shock to some folks out there, it's not like your vehicles have been entirely devoid of data capturing devices up until now anyway, so here's fair warning to be on your best behavior when rolling about.

Sure, the RIAA hasn't exactly been on the good side of the general public since, oh, this century began, but it sure isn't doing itself any favors with this latest hint of persuasion. While the agency has fought grandmothers, children, and cash-strapped citizens quite vigorously to "ensure artists are getting due payment," it has seemingly opened up a chink in its own armor by pleading with judges to "lower artist royalties." While we fully understand the need to keep pirates at bay, leading us on to believe that the RIAA was actually acting in the (gasp) artist's best interest was dodgy to say the least, as its currently petitioning the panel of federal government Copyright Royalty Judges to "lower the rates paid to publishers and songwriters for the use of lyrics and melodies in applications like cellphone ringtones and other digital recordings." The RIAA's executive VP and General Counsel Steven Marks even went so far as to proclaim his hopes that rates would be reevaluated so "record companies can continue to create the sound recordings that drive revenues for music publishers." We're surely not ones to judge a man's character (nor an album by its jacket), but it doesn't seem that the dear ole musicians are really the ones atop the RIAA's list of concerns, now does it?

[Thanks, Nimro]

Lawsuits in the technology biz certainly aren't uncommon, and it looks like we may have one more significant ruling about to hit just shortly after CSIRO won its own landmark case. The US Supreme Court justices seem to be viewing earlier, lower cases with a hint of skepticism in regard to decisions that have previously worked to safeguard patented products. While the trial at hand concerns two brake manufacturers -- KSR International and rival Teleflex -- the stipulations could be far reaching; the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit previously ruled that KSR failed to prove that Teleflex (the accuser) "did not encounter teaching, suggestion, or motivation in developing the product." The generally ambiguous test is a thorn in the side of major technology companies getting slapped around by frivolous lawsuits, and Microsoft, IBM, and Cisco Systems have all made time to "submit briefs supporting KSR's stand." Still, the final decision isn't expected for quite some time, so sue-happy firms still have time to submit their counter-briefs, but folks like Vonage and TomTom (just to name a couple) would obviously (ahem) love a victory here.

[Via Slashdot]