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

Allegations of LCD price-fixing have been swirling around for years now, and it looks like at least some of the companies involved have dirt on their hands -- LG, Sharp and Chunghwa Picture Tubes have all just pled guilty to price-fixing in a case filed by the US Department of Justice and will pay a combined $585m fine. LG's taking the biggest hit at $400m for conspiring to fix prices from September 2001 to June 2006, while Sharp's on the hook for $120m for jacking prices on panels sold to Dell, Motorola and Apple during the same time frame. Naughty, naughty. It also sounds like this plea agreement is more than just a sterile attempt to cut losses -- Sharp's exec staff is taking a 10 to 30 percent pay cut for three months as punishment to reassure its shareholders. Sounds like a plan -- how about refunding some of that cash to us chumps out here buying your overpriced products?

Apple's poaching of Mark Papermaster from IBM to run the iPod division is getting more dramatic by the day -- the court on Friday ordered him to stop working at Apple while it sorts IBM's lawsuit against his hiring. For his part, Papermaster (seriously, what a great name) says he left IBM with good intentions and that he kept his old company fully aware of what was going on before he was hired -- a statement supported by the fact that IBM let him keep working for two weeks after he accepted the Apple gig instead of escorting him out of the building. We'll see how this plays out -- although Steve personally handcrafts every iPod out of a kitten, he does lean on his exec staff to keep the Benz washed and waxed.

Read - Papermaster ordered to stop working
Read - Papermaster says leaving was legit

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 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]

As much as we were hoping to see Steve Jobs and... well, anyone from Psystar settle things in the squared circle, we suppose we'll have to live with a much more peaceful end to this madness. Rather than spending wads of cash on lawyers for no good reason, the two outfits have agreed to use alternative dispute resolution in order to wrap this scuffle up and move forward. As you may know, ADR is a private process where both parties meet outside of a trial in order to reach some sort of agreement, though we imagine the outcome will be pretty public depending on Psystar's ability / inability to continue fulfilling orders. We're told that the process will get going before February of 2009, and the full fling (PDF) with the US district court in the Northern District of California is linked below if you've suddenly found yourself with entirely too much free time.

[Via The Mac Observer]

Get ready for some legal mastication. According to DigiTimes' manufacturing sources, HP -- the world's leading supplier of PCs -- is said to be demanding that its manufacturing partners "refuse outsourcing orders from ASUStek." HP apparently "sent out a notice" to its partners threatening to reduce its own outsourcing volume for anyone who violates the demand. It's worth noting that DigiTimes offers no evidence of HP's demand and its sources can be hit or miss in the industry. Having said that, DigiTimes has a very good track record related to leaks in the netbook industry. The allegation becomes all the more interesting on the heels of yesterday's Gartner report that shows HP slipping into second place behind Acer in Europe due to Acer's strong continental netbook sales. While worldwide PC shipments rose 15 percent from last year thanks to a strong showing by both ASUS and Acer in the netbook segment, HP's share has remained stagnant at 18.4% of the total market. Perhaps it's time to reinstate that internal spying program to prepare for some anti-competitive practices litigation, eh HP?

Read -- HP threatening notebook OEMs
Read -- HP drops to 2nd in Europe

You know who Microsoft hates? No, not Apple. It really hates DHL. Apparently, the delivery service has hit the folks in Redmond where it hurts: in the Xbox. It seems that 21,600 consoles were totally messed over by "impact damage, wetting, pilfering and shortage" when one of the company's freight trains derailed en route to Long Beach, California. The big M claims that DHL refuses to compensate for the lost goods, and has filed a complaint at a US District Court in Seattle, calling for $2 million in damages and stating that the shipper "negligently breached its duties as a common carrier, handler, bailee, warehouseman, agent, or in other capabilities." Harsh words, but really, who's to blame for this mess? Next time we suggest going with G.O.D.

[Thanks, Andrew S.]

AMD's breakup into two separate companies is certain to have wide-ranging impact in the industry, and unsurprisingly, Intel's among the first to react -- it's warning that it has "serious questions about this transaction" as it relates to its patent cross-licensing agreement with AMD and that it'll "vigorously protect" its intellectual property rights. That's about as aggro a patent attorney can get without coming to your house and peeing on the lawn (or, uh, filing a lawsuit), so we'll see how this shakes out -- for its part, AMD says that it's taken the deal into account, and that it'll "continue respecting Intel's intellectual property rights, just as we expect them to respect ours." That's a respect throwdown, right there -- you gonna take that, Intel?

It look like Hollywood's won the first round in court against RealNetworks' RealDVD DVD-ripping software -- Judge Maralyn Hall Patel (of Napster fame, remember her?) ruled yesterday that a temporary restraining order blocking sales of the software will stay in place indefinitely until she decides whether it violates the DMCA. The central issue is whether or not making a bit-for-bit copy of a DVD constitutes circumventing copy protection: the studios claim the encryption keys must be read off the disk under the terms of the license agreement, and RealNetworks obviously disagrees. There's a lot at play here, including the studios' argument that fair use doesn't serve as a defense to backing up DVDs, so we'll be tracking this one closely -- it's sadly clear to us that Hollywood's fight here is against consumers having flexibility with their media, since it lost the battle against actual piracy ages ago.

We knew Hollywood wouldn't let RealNetworks sell its RealDVD DVD-ripping-and-archiving software without a fight, and right on schedule, six major studios have filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent it from being sold. Of course, RealNetworks has been planning on hiding behind that Kaleidescape ruling all along, but straight CSS circumvention isn't really what's at the heart of the suit: according to the studios' request for a restraining order, consumers won't be able to contain themselves in the face of RealDVD's voodoo magic and will start ripping rental DVDs en masse -- seriously, the suit calls the incentive to do so "all but overwhelming." Here's a hint, guys: if you believe the temptation to do something is that strong, it probably means you can get people to pay to do it -- and you should probably be working out a business model that embraces consumers instead of funding new BMWs for your lawyers while actual piracy tears down the fragile house of cards your entire industry is built on. Or you know, whatever.

Though one may assume Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger would have, um, more pressing matters on his hands these days, the man has somehow found time to address a complaint put forth by a-many travelin' Californians. Just this week Mr. Schwarzenegger signed into law a bill that was put forth earlier this year that will legalize windshield GPS mounting once more. Granted, stipulations are present, but at least you won't be forced to point your retinas down at the cup holders in order to see your navigation system after January 1, 2009. In the new year, drivers in the Golden State will be able to suction their GPS unit in the "lower 7-inch corner farthest away from the driver or in the lower 5-inch corner closest to the driver." If you go pressing your luck and throw it smack dab in the middle, be prepared for whatever fine you're due.

[Via Gadling, image courtesy of GPS Tracklog]

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]

We always thought that the RIAA's first-ever filesharing trial victory against Jammie Thomas was a little suspect since the labels weren't required to prove that Thomas even had Kazaa installed on her machine or was the person using the account in question, and it looks like the court agrees -- it's just declared a mistrial and set aside the $222,000 judgment on the grounds that simply making copyrighted works available for download does not constitute copyright infringement. That's a huge decision -- the "making available" theory is the basis for most of the RIAA's legal arguments -- and it means that the RIAA will now have to prove the unauthorized transfer of each song it wants to collect damages on at the new trial. We'll see what effect this has in the broader sense -- we've got a feeling we're in for a slew of appellate decisions on both sides of the "making available" debate -- but for now it looks like the good guys are finally starting to score some points.

[Via ZDNet, thanks JagsLive]

Read - Wired article
Read - Decision [PDF]

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]