A select bunch of Transmeta investors may not completely agree with how the outfit is being managed, but one thing's for sure: it's bringing in some serious coin on this deal. During a brief timeout from counting those stacks of Benjamins handed over by Intel, it decided to license its Long Run and LongRun 2 technologies (among "other intellectual property") to NVIDIA for a cool $25 million. Additionally, the agreement grants NVIDIA a "non-exclusive and fully paid-up license" to all of Transmeta's patents and patent applications. Unfortunately, it's still unclear how exactly this will end up affecting NVIDIA fanboys (and girls), but we'll go out on a limb and suggest that a mobile GTX 280 with a remarkably low power draw is just around the bend.

[Via SlashGear]

One of the longest-running -- and certainly most fascinating -- soap operas in the entire wireless world, the seemingly endless patent drama between Nokia and Qualcomm, has finally drawn to an amicable (dare we say anti-climactic) close. After just a single day of arbitration, the two firms have basically agreed to a patent swap, allowing Nokia to use all of Qualcomm's patents and vice versa. Furthermore, Nokia is just stone-cold handing over a bunch of patents it holds related to GSM, WCDMA, and OFDMA, which presumably means companies that are currently licensing those patents can get ready to start writing those checks to Qualcomm. What's more, Espoo's dropping its anti-competition claims against Qualcomm in Europe -- but beyond that, specific terms (read: cash money) weren't disclosed beyond the typical PR pleasantries that both sides are happy with the outcome. If this means we finally have to retire our Nokia-Qualcomm starburst graphic, we're going to pout like little children, so we can only hope these two lovebirds find something else to squabble over in the not-too-distant future.

In an extremely brief statement, Acer says to have "settled all ongoing patent litigation with HP." The confidential settlement wraps up months of legal wrangling that kicked off in March of 2007 when HP accused Acer of infringing upon 5 HP patents related to "DVD editing, processing ability, and power consumption and efficiency." Acer then countersued, and so on. While it's unclear if any fault was admitted, we're certain that a handful of patent lawyers from both sides are sipping at their 60-year old Macallan in a fit of haughty disdain for corporate executives at this very moment.

Owners of yesteryear Apple products (and consumer advocates) had a pretty solid week. Friday it came to light that more than two million 2001-era PowerBook owners could be eligible for refunds between $25 and $75 in a class-action settlement (which is set for final approval on September 8th) over faulty, sometimes even sparking power adapters. But that's not all: Apple is also offering up $45 credits to any Canadian iPod owner that bought before June 24th, 2004 as part of a class-action suit claiming Apple misrepresented the advertised battery life of the players.

Read - Power adapters
Read - Canadian iPods [sub req'd]

Couldn't fit those last two Oingo Boingo albums on your Zen when you thought you had enough space? Get ready for payback, because if you own a Creative Labs MP3 player made between May 5, 2001 and April 30, 2008, you could be entitled to a class-action settlement over this very issue. The proposed settlement -- not the first of its kind -- will force Creative to "make certain disclosures regarding the storage capacity of its hard disc drive MP3 players" and give a 50% discount on a new 1GB player or 20% off any item purchased at Creative's online store, if it's approved by the court. For its part, Creative denies any wrongdoing, but it looks like it's offering up the settlement to smooth thing over with consumers -- but you know it's going to fight the $900,000 requested by plaintiffs' attorneys in fees. Applications are due by August 7, 2008, so start digging up those serial numbers.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

Although the press release issued to announce the settlement between Vonage and AT&T earlier this month is still the shortest we've seen in all of 2007, we're pretty certain the one doled out to trumpet the truce between Vonage and Nortel is holding down the two-spot. In just five wee sentences, we learn that the two have agreed in principle to end the litigation pending between 'em, and though no cash will be changing hands, the agreement does involve a limited cross license to three patents per firm. Way to put the past behind before entering into the new year, we say.

In possibly the shortest press release of the year, Vonage announced that they've settled -- as expected -- with AT&T over their ongoing patent dispute. No details were given, but their dime stock lifted 12%, so maybe someone on Wall St. knows something we don't about whether it was AT&T or Vonage that got the raw deal.

While there was once talk of just selling Sprint the keys to the (crumbling) Vonage offices, it's pretty safe to say that those plans are no longer in the cards. Apparently, Vonage Holdings Corp. "was ordered in federal court to pay $69.5 million in damages for infringing on six telecommunications patents owned by competitor Sprint-Nextel," and if that wasn't punishment enough, "jurors ordered Vonage to pay a five-percent royalty on future revenues." If you'll recall, this isn't the first time Vonage has had to cough up major quantities of dough after being sued for patent infringement, and although a spokesman for the firm "declined comment," the company has already announced that it will "seek to overturn" the verdict.

Read - Vonage to pay Sprint $69.5 million
Read - Vonage to Appeal Court Decision in Sprint Patent Suit

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.

If you've been wondering how your Honda or Acura just seems to cover ground an awful lot quicker than your previous ride without even getting you a speeding ticket, listen up. Apparently, around six million Honda / Acura owners have been wheeling around in vehicles that are clicking off miles quite a bit faster than they're actually being driven. The Society of Automotive Engineers' voluntary standard for fluctuation in an odometer "is plus or minus 4-percent," and strangely enough, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration doesn't even regulate it. Honda claims that its units were "accurate to within 3.75-percent" on the high side, but a lawsuit against them claims that's just a bit too close for the average consumer's well-being. The automaker will be shelling out over $6 million in overcharges for leasers who were unfairly penalized for exceeding the agreed upon mileage, and will also extend the warranty mileage five-percent. Of course, Honda has since tightened up its standards (read: fixed the programming bug), purportedly "aiming for zero" in regard to future error, but if you happen to own a Honda / Acura purchased between April of 2002 and November of last year (or a select '07 Honda Fit), these benefits should be coming your way pending a district court judgment on the settlement.

And by "make nice" we mean they probably exchanged large amounts of money behind closed doors to keep this lawsuit from getting out of hand. RIM's lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for Central California in December, alleges that not only does Samsung's BlackJack phone cause consumer confusion, but the very fact that Samsung called the phone i600 in Europe proves that it was specifically targeting the US-centric BlackBerry types. RIM, in a statement Wednesday said that the settlement includes "immediate provisions for the protection of RIM's valuable trademarks," and that it "does include limitations on use of the Blackjack trademark, withdrawal of the trademark application for Blackjack, Cingular's retention of common law rights in the Blackjack trademark, and certain reasonable measures to avoid confusion in the marketplace." So it sounds like Samsung won't be getting much more mileage out of this naming convention, though the deliberate "Blackjack" misspelling by RIM -- with that lowercase "j" -- has to grate on Sammy just a little bit, unless of course that was part of the deal. So, can we all just get along now?

[Thanks, Marty H]

If you (or Samsung) thought this whole "DRAM price-fixing disaster" was finished, apparently that's just not the case anymore, as it looks like the semiconductor giant will be coughing up an additional $90 million "to settle litigation brought by 41 US states pertaining to Samsung's alleged participation in a global DRAM price-fixing conspiracy." Yes, the company has already been hit with a $300 million fine and watched a trio of its own execs hit the big house, but this $90 million is supposed to "benefit victims that paid artificially high prices for personal computers and other high-tech equipment that contained the chips." Additionally, it was stated that $10 million was reserved for the states and localities to "recover their losses," while the other chunk would be split amongst the throngs of "consumers and other victims." No other details about the payout were mentioned, and while it wasn't stated for certain, we can assume that this final penalty will indeed be the last, but all this grief that Samsung has received most likely has all those other potential price fixers squirming.

We were getting wind of Apple and Apple finally settling their differences similarities and possibly even making some snazzy sort of iTunes deal to show off their new found love for each other. No word yet on iTunes, but it does look like the pair have finally reached a naming agreement that has both sides pleased, ending years of legal sparring. "We love the Beatles, and it has been painful being at odds with them over these trademarks," said Steve Jobs. "It feels great to resolve this in a positive manner, and in a way that should remove the potential of further disagreements in the future." And just how was this resolved? Both companies are going to be paying their own legal costs, and Apple Inc is walking home with the entire brand, with an apparent agreement to license certain trademarks back to Apple Corps. No wonder Steve was pleased. We'll keep our fingers crossed for some sort of iTunes deal, but obviously that oft-rumored Super Bowl ad spot opportunity has come and gone. Luckily, the word from Apple Corps' Neil Aspinall hints at good things to come: "It is great to put this dispute behind us and move on. The years ahead are going to be very exciting times for us. We wish Apple Inc. every success and look forward to many years of peaceful co-operation with them."

[Thanks, Raghu]

Good news on the "let's sue Apple!" front. Apple and Cisco, in a "tersely" worded joint statement yesterday, announced that Cisco has agreed to delay its iPhone lawsuit, while the two companies start up talks again to see if they can't settle this naming dispute out of court. It's unclear if Apple suddenly decided the lawsuit wasn't so terribly "silly" and decided its best shot at a cheap solution was an out of court settlement, or if Cisco was afeared that its once firm grasp on the trademark was slipping, and decided to grab the money and run. Or maybe, just maybe, the two companies decided that with all the petty bickering in the world, couldn't they just get along? Oh man, sometimes we just crack ourselves up.

Pat Dori, a disgruntled Dell customer who found no resolution to the issue of a broken laptop after five long months and 19 wasted phone calls, decided to go legal and sue the company for failing to adequately address the problem. The method by which Mr. Dori initiated the claim is the juicy core of this story: instead of going through the normal process of sending the court papers to Dell's headquarters in Texas, Dori thought to have the papers delivered to a Dell shopping mall kiosk instead. Quite unsurprisingly, no-one from Dell turned up in court on the stipulated date, resulting in Dori winning a $3,000 default judgment and a ruling to allow bailiffs to close the kiosk and seize items if the judgment was not paid. Dell has now settled the case out of court for undisclosed terms, although the company would have appealed the decision -- had it actually turned up to court, that is. Mr. Dori, our latest hero for sticking it to the man in such a crafty manner, says that he thinks "any regular person can do this," as long as you "have the law on your side." Apparently the key is to "get their money" first, which will inevitably be followed by "[getting] their attention." It's gotta beat screaming down the phone, that's for sure.

[Thanks, Mike]