China's, how to say this, unorthodox rehabilitation methods, which involve "beating and confinement" of internet addicts, have finally been fully outlawed. Following the death of one teenager due to the treatment he received at an addiction camp, the Chinese Health Ministry has come out with a statement to say corporal punishment and methods restricting personal freedom "are strictly forbidden." In the meantime, the UK and USA are playing catch-up by opening up their own computer addiction camps, which have been described as residential internet detox clinics. Their genius ploy to get you off the web juice has been to go cold turkey and teach people to do chores as a distraction (really, chores and boredom are the cure and not the disease?). The British version even has a 12-step program, but we advise doing what we all did -- if you find yourself spending most of your time on the internet, just become a full-time blogger.

Read - China bans tough treatment of young Web addicts
Read - Britain's first computer rehab clinic opens
Read - Clinic for internet addicts opens in US

There's been a whirlwind of chatter about Apple's multitouch patents since the Motorola DROID was released to reviewers sans any built-in support for Android 2.0's multitouch APIs -- there's no pinch-to-zoom in the browser or maps app, and the soft keyboard is decidedly a single-touch affair. What's even more curious is that the DROID clearly supports multitouch, as several new apps have demonstrated, and the overseas UMTS variant of the handset, the MILESTONE, has been shown on video with pinch-to-zoom in the browser several times now. That's led to a ton of speculation that Apple's somehow blocking Google from using pinch-to-zoom in the US, so we thought we'd step in with a little refresher on the state of Apple's multitouch patents and some thoughts how they might be affecting the DROID. Read on!

No matter how it tries, Intel just can't shake those pesky antitrust monkeys off its back: the attorney general of New York today filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against the chipmaker, saying it unfairly prevented AMD from competing under state and federal law. That's pretty much what the EU just fined Intel $1.45b for in May and exactly what AMD itself is suing Intel for in Delaware, so we're guessing things are a little busy for Chipzilla's lawyers right now -- and it's just going to get worse, as the smart money says this is all just a precursor to the Federal Trade Commission dropping the hammer sometime soon. Hey, maybe this would be a good time to for Intel to distract everyone with some USB 3.0 chipsets?

So we followed up with Spring Design to figure out what exactly its relationship with Barnes & Noble had been during the development of the Nook and why the company was suing, and, well, it's looking like B&N played some dirty pool here. You're looking at the actual NDA signed by Barnes & Noble and Spring Design, wherein each party agreed to keep their secrets... secret. After signing the agreement, Spring Design showed the Alex dual-screen ebook reader and associated marketing materials to B&N execs all the way up B&N CFO Kevin Frain and B&N.com president William Lynch, who said he was "looking forward" to a partnership. Soon after that, Spring implies that all contact stopped until Barnes & Noble announced the Nook. Lawsuit time!

Here's where it gets tricky, though -- the NDA contains pretty standard language specifically allowing both B&N and Spring Design to walk away from each other and develop competing products, so long as they don't use any of the confidential information they learned under NDA. Without knowing exactly what Spring Design showed to B&N and how much of that influenced or is included in the Nook (which Barnes & Noble currently won't let anyone touch), we can't say much about how this one's going to play out, but for right now we're looking at a huge corporation bringing out an Android-based ebook reader with dual electronic paper and touchscreen LCD displays just months after being shown the same concept by a three-year-old startup, and that's not exactly a warm and fuzzy bedtime story. We'll see what happens next -- Barnes & Noble, you have anything to say?

Whoa -- we just got word that AT&T is suing Verizon for false advertising over Big Red's "There's a map for that" ads. We're reading the complaint and motion to stop the ads right now, but here's what AT&T says is the big problem:

In essence, we believe the ads mislead consumers into believing that AT&T doesn't offer ANY wireless service in the vast majority of the country. In fact, AT&T's wireless network blankets the US, reaching approximately 296M people. Additionally, our 3G service is available in over 9,600 cities and towns. Verizon's misleading advertising tactics appear to be a response to AT&T's strong leadership in smartphones. We have twice the number of smartphone customers... and we've beaten them two quarters in a row on net post-paid subscribers. We also had lower churn -- a sign that customers are quite happy with the service they receive.

AT&T also says its network reaches about the same number of people as Verizon's, so we're thinking it's a little miffed that it's being portrayed as an also-ran here. We'll update as we learn more, keep it locked!

Update: So this seems like a very narrow lawsuit, actually. As we've been told, AT&T thinks Verizon is trying to fool viewers into thinking that they can't use any AT&T phone services outside of 3G coverage areas by showing two essentially different maps. Since Verizon's entire network is 3G, the gaps in the red map are actual service gaps -- but Verizon doesn't show that the gaps on the AT&T map might be covered by AT&T's huge 2G network. We can see how that could be misleading, but at some point you've got to compare apples to apples, and AT&T even says it has "no quarrel with Verizon advertising its larger 3G network" in its complaint, so we'll see how the court reacts.

Update 2: Interestingly, Verizon's already changed the ads once at AT&T's behest, editing them to remove the phrase "out of touch" and adding a "Voice and data services available outside of 3G areas" small print disclaimer at the end. Apparently that wasn't enough for AT&T, which says the ads still confuse non-technical viewers into thinking AT&T provides no service at all outside of its 3G coverage.

Update 3: Okay, we've read everything -- there's really not much more to this suit than the arguments over the maps. We're thinking Verizon could have easily dealt with this by just using dark blue and light blue on the AT&T map to differentiate between 3G and 2G coverage, but at this point we don't think Ma Bell is all that interested in anything except getting these ads off the air. All that said, it's hard to deny that Verizon's ads made a perfectly valid point: using an iPhone on AT&T's network in New York or San Francisco is an exercise in frustration, regardless of whether you have 2G or 3G, and we've had zero problems on Verizon. Let's just hope AT&T is working as hard to fight these ads with its actual service as it is with its lawyers.

We knew something was up with the Spring Design Alex dual-screen ebook reader the instant we saw its hastily-prepared web site published the night before Barnes & Noble's Nook launch, and it appears that our hunch was right: Spring Design just filed a trade secret lawsuit against B&N, alleging that their designers showed the Alex to the bookseller's execs before the Nook was developed. According to Spring Design, the two companies had been in contact with each other over ereader designs since the beginning of the year, with various executives exchanging calls, meetings and product details under NDA -- which would certainly explain why there are suddenly two Android-based ereaders on the market with dual electronic ink and capacitive LCD touchscreen displays. Definitely suspicious, but we'd also note that the Nook and Alex actually work quite differently: users browse the web on the Alex's touchscreen and then "print" the content they want to read to the electronic ink display, while the Nook doesn't have a browser and the touchscreen is only used for navigation, not content. We're digging for as much info as we can, and we'll hit you with more info as soon as we get it -- stay tuned.

Remember that legal dealio with Apple that erupted after the Norwegian Consumer Council, Forbrukerrådet, read the iTunes EULA? Right, that toothless complaint that waffled on for years until it was finally rendered moot by Apple going DRM-free -- long after Apple benefited from the iTunes-to-iPod lock-in. Well, it's brewing again only this time the council has focused its meticulously crafted aluminum spectacles, often highlighted with vibrant reds or blues, upon Amazon's practice of tying its content exclusively to the Kindle's new international reader. According to a critique published by the Council's boss, Hans Marius Graasvold, the fine print in the Kindle's terms of service, "violated several provisions of Norwegian consumer protection law." He takes exception with Amazon's ability terminate the terms of service entirely should customers violate said terms. In other words, Amazon could deny you access to all your purchased books if you make an illegal copy of just one -- unimaginable by brick-and-mortar standards where a Wal-mart could take your entire CD collection should you decide to rip a single disc. Graasvold's also miffed at Amazon's ability to change the agreement at any time without advanced notification. The Council does not currently have official support from the country's Consumer Ombudsman as it did when it went after Apple. For the moment, the council says that it's awaiting feedback from Amazon and Norwegian publishers before proceeding with what Graasvold calls, "an iTunes 2 case if we are not satisfied." Good luck with that.

There's just something about Apple that makes people go crazy whenever the company's lawyers do even the simplest things -- whether it's filing routine trademark oppositions, getting patents granted, or, uh, defending allegations that the company is in league with the Mafia, Steve and friends just seem to inspire some strong reactions whenever they end up in the courtroom. So of course things got a little wild last Thursday when Nokia announced it was suing Apple over ten patents related to GSM, UMTS (what you know as 3G) and WiFi -- the pundit class immediately set upon the idea that the lawsuit was some sort of reaction to Nokia's diminishing cellphone marketshare and the perceived dominance of the iPhone, perhaps best exemplified by John Gruber's flippant "If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em." Nokia can't compete against Apple, so obviously it's abusing the hopelessly-broken patent system get a little payback, Espoo-style -- right?

Well, wrong. As usual, the race to hype this dispute as a bitter standoff between two tech giants desperate to destroy one another has all but ignored the reality of how patents -- especially wireless patents -- are licensed, what Nokia's actually asking for, and how it might go about getting it. And as you know, we just don't do things that way, so we've asked our old friend Mathew Gavronski, a patent attorney in the Chicago office of Michael Best & Friedrich, to help us sort things out and figure out what's really going on here -- read on for more.

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.

Boom. Nokia's just hit Apple with a patent infringement lawsuit, claiming that "all iPhones models shipped" infringe on ten of Espoo's patents relating to GSM, UMTS, and WiFi. According to Nokia's press release, the patents in question have been licensed by some 40 other companies, "including virtually all the leading mobile device vendors," and Apple's refused to agree to "appropriate" license terms. That's pretty vague, actually -- it could either mean that Apple was willing to license the patents at a price less than what Nokia demanded, or it could mean that Apple refused to pay at all. We'll obviously be covering this one in great detail as it progresses -- stay tuned for a fun decade or so of litigation.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

So, picture this. You get the itch to start some chaos at around 3AM local time. You snatch up your stolen shotgun, load a few slugs in there and roll out with a mind to come home in a shiny new vehicle. As fate would have it, you choose to carjack a 2009 Chevy Tahoe, and while everything seems kosher at first (look, there's even a half-full bottle of Coke Zero over there!), the mighty V8 just seems to be struggling all of a sudden. As the horrifying reality sets in (you know, the one that involves the accelerator not functioning any longer), you're left with no choice but to curse OnStar's Stolen Vehicle Slowdown feature, which has just nabbed its first-ever criminal. As the Tahoe slowly grinds to a halt, you make a fruitless dash and topple into a swimming pool before being apprehended soaking wet, and even though OnStar took just 16 minutes to return the vehicle to its rightful owner, at least you'll go down in history as the first one to fall victim to the system. Here's to you, unfortunate carjacker -- next time, go for a lawnmower. Humiliating video is after the break.

Considering Sprint's financial position and the overall credit market, we're not exactly sure where the carrier managed to pick up $831 million, which it promptly used to acquire affiliate iPCS and take on $405 million of net debt. If you'll recall, the aforesaid youngin' was worrying papa way back in May of 2008, and it seems that Sprint has finally had enough of this whole "litigation" thing. The acquisition puts all of the court battling to rest (or at least it's expected to), enabling the operator to stop divesting its iDEN network in select iPCS markets. Money may not buy happiness, but it sure buys a good muzzle.

[Via Reuters]

Our usual rule is to ignore attention-seeking class-action lawsuits until they make it past the critical step of being certified by a judge, but we think it's pretty wild that the Sidekick debacle has already resulted in two separate suits in two different states. That's a turnaround time of just a few days, really -- and now that Microsoft is saying it can restore most of the lost data, it'll be interesting to see if these cases can push on past the early stages. Both the California and Washington state cases allege that T-Mobile misled customers into thinking their data was secure, but for some reason we're particularly amused at the California case filed by a mother whose aspiring model and singer-songwriter daughter lost "photos and song lyrics" she'd entrusted to her Sidekick -- honestly, what judge can't relate to her situation?

Just a hunch here, but we get the feeling that you've gone one step too far when you decide to install a red light camera detector in your vehicle that's larger than a) your GPS unit and b) the bag phone you used between the years 1991 and 1994. For those bold enough to disagree, there's the wild and wacky device pictured above, delivered to you by none other than Hammacher Schlemmer. Packing an internal database of 6,000 red light and speed cameras across the US and Canada, the GPS-enabled device also boasts a 1.6-inch OLED screen to show your position in relation to upcoming cameras, and of course it'll belt out all sorts of warnings to help you avoid the inevitable. Of course, you could just follow the rules of the road, but then you'd have no excuse to burn $199.95 up front and $19.95 annually on this heap. Tough call, no?

[Via NaviGadget]