All
Sections are updated regularly - So check them all or you
may miss out on something important. |
| March 2010 | | Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa | | | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 9 | | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 10 | | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 11 | | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 12 | | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | | | | 13 |
|
|
Court decision protects bloggers
from libel lawsuits SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — In a case involving
a North Carolina man, a federal appeals court has extended
the First Amendment protections of do-it-yourself online
publishers.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, the nation's largest appeals court, said that
online publishers can post material generated by others
without liability for its content — unlike traditional
news media, which are held responsible for such information. |
|
Lawsuits
filed against or by Companies are not always Valid
but quite often reveal hidden truths. |
|
DOJ Deems Amended Google Book Search Deal Anticompetitive
|
By Clint Boulton 2010-02-05
The Department of Justice Feb. 4 urged a New York District Court not to bless Google's amended Google Book Search deal with authors and publishers, citing copyright and antitrust issues concerns that render the deal anticompetitive. The DOJ said the deal would let Google be the only competitor in the digital marketplace with the rights to distribute many works in multiple formats. The DOJ further agreed to work with Google, authors and publishers on a viable, fair solution. District Court Denny Chin, will hold a hearing on the amended settlement agreement Feb. 18. The Department of Justice said copyright and antitrust issues concerns continue to make Google's amended settlement agreement for its Google Book Search project anticompetitive, suggesting the court presiding over the case shouldn't bless the deal.
Read on --> Link  |
|
|
Intel faces new antitrust accusations as FTC files suit
|
By Jim Puzzanghera and Don Lee December 16, 2009
Reporting from Washington - The Federal Trade Commission today sued Intel Corp., accusing the computer-chip giant of abusing its market dominance for a decade to stifle competition and strengthen its monopoly. The FTC alleges that Intel has waged a systematic and illegal campaign to shut out rival makers of central-processing-unit chips, the main brains of a computer, by cutting off their access to the marketplace. In doing so, the agency contends, the world's largest chip maker has deprived consumers of choice by denying them access to potentially superior competing chips and lower prices. "Intel has engaged in a deliberate campaign to hamstring competitive threats to its monopoly," said Richard A. Feinstein, director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition. "It's been running roughshod over the principles of fair play and the laws protecting competition on the merits."
Read on --> Link  |
|
|
Sixth LCD Manufacturer To Plead Guilty In Price-Fixing Case
|
By Rick Whiting, Dec. 10, 2009
LCD manufacturer Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp. (CMO) of Taiwan has agreed to plead guilty to charges of price fixing and will pay $220 million in fines. The company is the sixth LCD maker to plead guilty in the case. CMO, in a brief statement released Thursday, said it reached the plea agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, which has been investigating allegations of anticompetitive pricing activities among many of the world's largest manufacturers of thin film transistor liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) panels. CMO said it would pay the $220 million fine in installments over five years and has agreed to cooperate with the Justice Department's ongoing antitrust investigation. The company said the price-fixing applied to TFT-LCD panels manufactured between September 2001 and December 2006. The Justice department has charged the LCD manufacturers with conspiring to charge pre-determined prices for the products. Other LCD manufacturers that have already pleaded guilty in the case include Epson Imaging Devices Corp. and Hitachi Displays, while Chungwa Picture Tubes Ltd., LG Display and Sharp Corp. have reached plea agreements with the Justice Department similar to the CMO deal.
Read on --> Link  |
|
|
FTC Probes Nvidia, Intel Licensing Dispute
|
By Antone Gonsalves December 7, 2009
The Federal Trade Commission is investigating a licensing dispute between Intel and Nvidia, a maker of graphics processors. This follows up on the FTC investigating Intel business practices recently found illegal by the European Union. For more than three years, the FTC has been investigating antitrust allegations against Intel that have centered mostly around the company's business practices in competing against Advanced Micro Devices. However, Nvidia on Friday confirmed media reports that it has spoken to the FTC about Intel. "I can't comment any further," Nvidia spokesman Hector Marinez told InformationWeek. "We're referring callers to the FTC." Nvidia is battling Intel in a Delaware court over whether Nvidia's current license covers the new communications technology used in Intel's latest processors based on the Nehalem microarchitecture. The technology, known by the acronym DMI, is implemented directly in the processor; Intel plans to use it in future chips. The dispute is important because Nvidia needs access to the technology to integrate its graphics processors with Intel CPUs. Nvidia in October suspended development of chipsets for Intel processors that use DMI until the dispute is settled in court.
Read on --> Link |
|
|
Nvidia wins round in patent dispute with Rambus
|
By David Lawsky Nov 24, 2009
Graphics chip maker Nvidia Corp (NVDA.O) said on Tuesday the U.S. Patent Office has found that 17 patent claims asserted by chip designer Rambus Inc (RMBS.O) are invalid, one step in a dispute over whether Nvidia infringed Rambus technology. Nvidia, which requested the review, will offer the findings to an International Trade Commission judge in Washington, D.C., which is weighing the validity of the Rambus claims against Nvidia. The ITC judge, who is not bound by the Patent Office finding, is expected to make a decision in January that will serve as a recommendation to the full ITC. The ITC could bar imports from Nvidia's overseas suppliers if it finds the imports to violate Rambus patents. "This continues our string of victories against Rambus patents" in the U.S. Patent Office, David Shannon, NVIDIA executive vice president and general counsel, said in a statement.
Read on --> Link |
|
|
IBM and Intel execs accused of insider trading
|
Arrested by the SEC
By Phil Muncaster, 19 October 2009
INTEL CAPITAL AND IBM executives are facing insider trading charges after allegedly providing information that reaped a massive $25 million in illicit gains, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said yesterday. The SEC revealed that Rajiv Goel, a managing director of Intel subsidiary, Intel Capital, and IBM senior vice president Robert Moffat are among six senior execs arrested in what it is calling a “massive insider trading scheme”. Goel is accused of having provided inside information about certain Intel quarterly earnings and a pending joint venture concerning Clearwire in which Intel had invested, netting him $250,000. Moffat, meanwhile, is said to have provided information about Sun Microsystems which he obtained when IBM was considering buying Sun. That information made around $1 million in profits, said the SEC. The case seems to revolve around Raj Rajaratnam, a portfolio manager with hedge fund Galleon Group. “What we have uncovered in the trading activities of Raj Rajaratnam is that the secret of his success is not genius trading strategies. He is not the astute study of company fundamentals or marketplace trends that he is widely thought to be,” said Robert Khuzami, director of the SEC’s enforcement division.
Read on -->Link  |
|
|
Patent holder that won against Microsoft now targets Apple
|
By Neil Hughes October 7, 2009
Apple and 22 other companies are the target of a new patent infringement suit over the use of browser-embedded interactive Web content. Previous patent suits on behalf of Eolas have gone favorably for the company. In 2004, it was granted $565 million in litigation against Microsoft over one of the patents. In addition, the validity of the patent in question was reaffirmed in three separate proceedings with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The latest suit alleges that Apple and other companies are in violation of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,838,906 and 7,599,985, which involve embedded Web applications. It was filed Wednesday in a U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas. The suit notes that Apple's official Web site includes interactive content, and that applications like QuickTime and Safari, for both Windows and Mac, enable the viewing of such content. It also alleges that Apple's hardware that runs the previously mentioned software is in violation of the patents. "Intellectual property is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy," said Dr. Michael D. Doyle, chairman of Eolas. "The primary reason for this has been the success of the U.S. patent system in allowing the innovative company in a field to develop and market its new inventions without having competitors unfairly profit from the innovator's hard work. We developed these technologies over 15 years ago and demonstrated them widely, years before the marketplace had heard of interactive applications embedded in Web pages tapping into powerful remote resources. Profiting from someone else's innovation without payment is fundamentally unfair. All we want is what's fair."
Read on -->Link |
|
|
Amazon.com to pay $150,000 to settle suit
|
By Matt Hamblen October 2, 2009
Amazon.com Inc. has agreed to pay $150,000 to settle a federal lawsuit brought by a Michigan high school student and an California academic whose electronic copies of George Orwell's novel, 1984 were deleted from their Kindle devices in mid-July. Michael Aschenbrener, the attorney for student Justin Gawronski, 17, and Tony Bruguier, said the two men are donating the settlement monies to charity. "Neither will receive a flat cent," he said today in a telephone interview. On July 16, Amazon had removed the novels 1984 and Animal Farm from its Kindle e-book store, as well as from users' digital lockers and Kindle e-book readers after learning that they had been placed in the store by a third party that didn't have the rights to the books. The Amazon move ignited a firestorm of debate about customer rights with electronic books. Less than a week after removing the books from users' Kindle devices, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos issued a strong public apology, calling the company's handling of illegally sold copies of the e-books "stupid [and] thoughtless."
Read on -->Link |
|
|
Apple, Microsoft sued over iPod, Zune controls
|
Texas touchpad trouble
By Rik Myslewski in San Francisco, 17th July 2009
Apple, LG, Microsoft, and 20 other companies are being sued for patent infringement by a Texas firm that claims to have invented the touchpad. Tsera LLC, a Texas business that's apparently named after a defunct Native American tribe, filed the suit on Wednesday in the US District Court, Eastern Texas Division. According to the complaint, Tsera claims to own "all right, title and interest in" a patent for "Methods and apparatus for controlling a portable electronic device using a touchpad," granted to one Chuang Li in 2003 after being filed in 1999. The complaint claims patent infringement due to the touchpad controls of Apple's iPod classic and nano, LG's Chocolate VX8500, Microsoft's Zune, and a host of other products ranging from TrekStore's i.Beat p!nk to a Jensen digital media player with the catchy name of SMPV-4GBTA. The patent's wording, however, seems to imply a somewhat weak case by Tsera, which has no web presence. It describes a touchpad that interprets commands made by detecting the patterns of strokes made by a user upon it, with each of several patterns corresponding to "a predefined function or command of the device." Moreover, it says "No immediate visual feedback is provided as a command pattern is traced, and the user does not need to view the device to enter commands."
Read on -->Link |
|
|
DRAM patent holder sues Big Blue
|
Mosaid gets mad over licensing stubbornness
By Chris Mellor, 20th July 2009
Canadian embedded DRAM patent-holder Mosaid is suing IBM for patent infringement. Mosaid, founded in 1975 and based in Ottawa, calls itself one of the world’s leading intellectual property companies, and licenses patented IP in the areas of semiconductors, wired and wireless communications systems. It counts many of the world's largest semiconductor companies among its customers. Apparently it has been trying to persuade IBM to license the IP it owns for DRAM embedded in IBM's microprocessors and ASICs for five years. Big Blue has refused. The patents at issue are US Patent Nos. 6,603,703; 6,580,654; 6,980,448; 7,038,937; 7,486,580 and 7,535,749. Mosaid's president and chief executive, John Lindgren, stated: "We believe that IBM requires a licence to our patents for its microprocessor and ASIC products that contain embedded DRAM. Mosaid has licensed virtually 100 per cent of the global commodity DRAM industry, including signing patent licence agreements covering embedded DRAM products."
Read on -->Link
|
|
<< Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next >> |
|
An
Open Letter from Hector Ruiz, AMD Chairman, President
and Chief Executive Officer |
|
The microprocessor is the
brain of every computer, a transformational technology
in today's world. And as in all markets, innovation in
the microprocessor sector depends on competition – the
ability of consumers and businesses worldwide to choose
solutions based on one microprocessor over another.
Our competitor has harmed and limited competition
in the microprocessor industry. On behalf of ourselves,
our customers and partners, and consumers worldwide, we
have been forced to take action.
We have filed a 48-page, detailed Complaint in
federal district court. Because, as our Complaint explains
exhaustively, Intel's actions include:
- Forcing major customers
to accept exclusive deals,
- Withholding rebates
and marketing subsidies as a means of
punishing customers who buy more than
prescribed quantities of processors from
AMD,
- Threatening retaliation
against customers doing business with
AMD,
- Establishing quotas
keeping retailers from selling the computers
they want, and
- Forcing PC makers to
boycott AMD product launches.
For most competitive situations,
this is just business. But from a monopolist,
this is illegal.
Read
on --> Link |
|
