We just spent some time talking to Sharp's reps about that ITC ban on its LCD panels, and while they certainly didn't sound happy about the ruling, they made it clear that it shouldn't have too much of an effect on US consumers -- Aquos TVs and Sharp professional LCD displays currently on shelves are fine to be sold, and updated models have been hitting the channel as of last month. As you'd expect, the new displays have been re-engineered to workaround the Samsung patent in question, but here's where it gets confusing: the basic model numbers haven't changed. Instead, the new units have an "N" at the end, so a TV like the Aquos LC52-E77U will now be labeled LC52-E77UN. Sharp says the updated models have exactly the same specs as the outgoing ones, but we're waiting on a detailed list of spec changes -- or better, a side-by-side comparison -- so we can decide whether or not the HDTV equivalents of a pre-CBS Fender are floating around out there.

Update: Sharp hit us back with some revised information, so we've changed the post slightly.

Chalk up another huge win for Samsung in its long-running patent dispute with Sharp: the US International Trade Commission has just issued a ruling banning importation of Sharp LCD panels that infringe one of Samsung's viewing-angle patents. As you might imagine, the ban covers a wide swath of Sharp's consumer products, including the Aquos TV line, but it's not clear on how it'll affect other companies that use Sharp panels -- this ruling could potentially have a huge impact on the entire tech market. On the other hand, we'd bet that Sharp's lawyers are furiously putting together a request to have the ban delayed while an appeal is sorted out, so this is far from over -- in fact, we'd say the real fireworks are just beginning.

It's been a long, messy road, but now that TiVo's beaten a victory out of EchoStar in that seemingly-endless DVR patent lawsuit it sounds like the company is trying to exert some muscle -- it's already in talks to bring its service to Time Warner Cable, and sources have told Bloomberg the ultimate plan is to eventually collect royalties from every pay-TV provider in the US. That might sound bullying and even a little trollish, but keep in mind these patents have withstood pretty much every legal challenge EchoStar could throw at them, so TiVo's operating from a position of some certainty here -- especially since it's got license agreements with huge players like Comcast and DirecTV to use as leverage in negotiations as well. Of course, none of this solves any of TiVo's actual problems with its products, and the company's topsy-turvy balance sheet has some analysts thinking its ripe for a buyout by one of the bigs, so things could change dramatically at any minute, but for right now it sounds like your chances of getting the TiVo interface on your cable or satellite company DVR just went up, and that's almost certainly a good thing.

We're not exactly supportive of the Chinese government requiring new PCs to be imported with content-filtering software, but like we keep saying, karma's a bitch: CyberSitter developer Solid Oak says it's found stolen code inside the Green Dam Youth Escort filtering software mandated by Chinese authorities, and it's considering filing a lawsuit to halt shipments. In the meantime, the company has asked heavy hitters like Dell and HP to refrain from installing Green Dam; Dell says it's still reviewing the Chinese requirements and hasn't yet shipped any machines with the software, but some nine million copies of the software have already gone out. For its part, China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has "ordered the problem be fixed," but it's unclear when that'll happen -- and it still doesn't change the delicious multilayered irony of Chinese censorship efforts being thwarted by a copyright infringement action.

Update: Things were getting a little out of control down there, so we've disabled comments on this one.

Tesla's done a good job keeping itself out of the courtroom recently, but the good times don't last forever -- founder Martin Eberhard has just sued the company and CEO Elon Musk for libel, slander, and breach of contract. Eberhard claims that after he and Mark Tapenning founded Tesla, he was summarily pushed out of the company by Musk, wrongfully denied his severance package, and then disparaged both publicly and within the company -- and on top of it all, Musk sent the second Roadster produced out for "endurance testing" where it was wrecked instead being sold to Eberhard as promised. Ouch. Interestingly, the core of the lawsuit directly mirrors the suit filed former PR director David Vespremi over the same series of events, so it seems like there's a pattern here, but we'll see how much of this is true when Tesla and Eberhard face off in the courtroom -- our friends at Autoblog Green just received this statement from legendarily-prickly Tesla PR spokesperson Rachel Konrad:

This lawsuit is a fictionalized, inaccurate account of Tesla's early years -- it's twisted and wrong, and we welcome the opportunity to set the record straight. Incidentally, Tesla will also be filing counterclaims and in the process present an accurate account of the company's history.

Yeah, we'd say there are some fireworks brewing. Stay tuned.

Read - Autoblog Green
Read - Wired
Read - Eberhard's complaint [Warning: PDF]

So much for all those Rambus / NVIDIA fireworks we know you were hoping for -- the two companies just announced that the patent infringement proceedings begun last year have come to a close and the International Trade Commission has been asked to drop its investigation. According to the statement, "Rambus has conceded that NVIDIA products do not infringe on its four patents before the ITC." That's that -- guess we'll just have to get our kill-crazy destruction kicks elsewhere.

Update: Sigh -- Rambus has told MarketWatch it disagrees with NVIDIA's release, and that it's still litigating five more patents before the ITC. Round and round we go.

Sure, Sprint and Palm are hoping the Pre turns the page on their relatively dark recent past, but karma's a bitch sometimes -- the other Palm news this week is that Sprint and Palm have settled a class-action lawsuit alleging the two companies misled customers into thinking there'd be WiFi and Bluetooth accessories for the Treo 600. Remember how crushed we all were when nothing ever hit the market? The pain was almost immeasurable -- unless you're a class-action settlement attorney, in which case you instinctively know anyone who bought a Sprint Treo 600 before October 27, 2004 is owed either a $20 Sprint service credit or a $27.50 credit to be used in Palm's online store. So, anyone still have their Treo 600 receipts from 2004? Yeah, we didn't think so.

[Via TamsPalm]

It's the case that never ends -- the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued a temporary delay of of the injunction and fine handed down yesterday in the EchoStar / TiVo lawsuit while it considers an appeal, meaning that DISH owners with older DVRs won't have to worry about losing their pause-and-rewind functionality at least for now. That pretty much means we're back in stasis with this one, with even more delay to come if the appeal is granted. That's cool, we needed a nap anyway.

As the world's attention turns from netbooks to smartbooks, Psion and Intel have ceased battle over use of the former term. Remember, this ridiculous case escalated to the point of Psion claiming $1.2 billion (billion!) in damages suffered as a result of infringement on its netbook trademark for a product few have heard of outside of the highly specialized supply chain logistics area. The "amicable" agreement reached with Intel has Psion voluntarily withdrawing its trademark. What wasn't said in the press release is how much money was extorted from the industry or the net effect on Psion sales from all the free publicity. Regardless, we're sure it's been a profitable exercise for Psion Teklogix. Now, could the obscure owner of the "smartbook" trademark please step forward to collect your prize?

[Via Slashgear]

We all want the same thing right? The ability to watch any show we want, whenever we want, and wherever we want. Sounds easy, but even in this day and age to achieve this easily isn't possible. Currently there are a few ways this might happen down the road, and one that looks to be coming our way sooner rather than later is Cablevision's Network DVR. While a traditional DVR has a hard drive in it to store your shows, the Network DVR wouldn't. Instead it would stream the content from a centralized data store, like VOD. You'd still have to pre-schedule your recordings and presumably you'd still have a set limit, but ordering DVR service wouldn't require a new box and best of all, you should have access to all the same content in any room of the house. This has been in the making for a long time now -- three years actually -- but Hollywood has been tying it up in court. Luckily the courts have been on Cablevision's side, but it does appear that the consumer may still get the shaft. That's because it seems there's a chance that the Network DVR won't let you fast forward through commercials, which would obviously make it a show stopper for most.

We knew AMD would be celebrating its victory over Intel and its record $1.45 billion fine doled out by EU over violation of antitrust rules, but we figured that just meant a very fancy cake and maybe a trip to the local zoo. Nay, we were mistaken, as the chip maker has gone all out in creating an entire website dedicated to its victory. "AMD Break Free" is pretty amazing in its thoroughness, and you'll find all kinds of court documents, press releases, explanations of antitrust laws, and even a news feed to follow further developments. Of course, Intel's appeal is a sure sign this case will be drag on for a very long time, possibly even become overturned, and none of this apparent gloating is gonna help one bit in getting the company back into the top ten rankings for chip manufacturers.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

The verdict is in and it's huge. As expected, the EU is fining Intel a record €1.06 billion or $1.45 billion (Billion!) dollars due to violations of antitrust rules in Europe. The record fine surpasses that of the €497 million fine originally levied against Microsoft. The EU ruled that Intel illegally used hidden rebates to squeeze rivals out of the marketplace for CPUs. In a statement issued by European Union Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes, the EC said,

Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for computer chips for many years.

Intel was ordered to cease the illegal practices immediately and has three months from the notification of the decision to pay up. Of course, Intel will appeal and this will drag the litigation on for years as did Microsoft. Regardless, we'll bet that AMD, who raised the complaint against Intel back in 2000, will be celebrating come dawn in Sunnyvale.

Update: Intel has issued a formal response to the ruling saying that the commission "is wrong and ignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor marketplace," and that its practices have caused, "absolutely zero harm to consumers." Oh, and it will <gasp> appeal the decision. Hurrah for corporate lawyers!

[Via Canada.com]

There are many tried and true methods for beating your competition in the free-market. Product innovation seems to work as does a proprietary ecosystem of peripherals, media, and services that keep customers locked-in for life. Or you can take Intel's approach: pay computer makers and retailers "to postpone or cancel" products containing CPUs from AMD, Intel's chief rival. That's the allegation it faces in the EU which, according to Reuters, has completed its antitrust investigation and is preparing to announce its decision on Wednesday. According to Reuters' sources, the European Commission will fine Intel for the violations discovered over the last eight years and order changes to Intel's business practices. It remains to be seen if the related fine exceeds the $655 million levied against Microsoft in 2004. But given the EU's distaste for anti-competitive practices, we're not expecting Intel to get off easy -- self-proclaimed "rock star" status or not.

So the Copyright Office is currently in the middle reviewing proposed exceptions to the DMCA, and one of the proposals on the table would allow teachers and students to rip DVDs and edit them for use in the classroom. Open and shut, right? Not if you're the MPAA and gearing up to litigate the legality of ripping -- it's trying to convince the rulemaking committee that videotaping a flatscreen is an acceptable alternative. Seriously. It's hard to say if we've ever seen an organization make a more tone-deaf, flailing argument than this.

Take a good look, kids. This is what an industry looks like right before it dies. Video after the break.

[Via BoingBoing]

The relationship between Apple and Google has always been pretty cozy -- Mac OS X and the iPhone tie into a variety of Google services, Google's developed rule-breaking iPhone apps, we've heard endless whispers of Apple meddling in the development of the G1, and on and on. In fact, the relationship between the two companies is so tight they actually share board members: Google CEO Eric Schmidt and former Genentech CEO Arthur Levinson take meetings in both Cupertino and Mountain View. That's apparently raised some hackles at the Federal Trade Commission, which has reportedly informed both companies they're being investigated for violating a rarely-enforced section of the Clayton Antitrust Act prohibiting "interlocking directorates" when it reduces competition. That sounds like someone at the FTC just noticed that Apple makes the iPhone and Google's responsible for Android, but nothing's set in stone yet -- and we've got a feeling Android's open-source codebase could throw a monkey wrench into an already-complex legal analysis. We'll obviously be tracking this one closely, keep an eye out.