True to its word, the US Supreme Court has started to hear arguments in one of those LG vs Quanta patent suits we've been following, with its eventual decision expected to have major effects on the rights of patent holders. Specifically, LG is arguing that since chipsets sold by Intel to Quanta use licensed manufacturing techniques and employ non-Intel components, Quanta also owes LG compensation as per its original agreement with Intel. Pretty confusing, we agree, but the Court's final decision -- expected in June -- promises to clear up once and for all what has admittedly become a legal gray area concerning so-called "exhausted" patents.

In an unusual situation for a company so vocal about protecting intellectual property rights, Microsoft is being sued for allegedly distributing material copyrighted by a Philippine college -- despite the fact that the material in question seems to have only been given to fellow educational professionals. Southeastern College in Pasay City is suing Microsoft and Microsoft Philippines for 100 million Filipino pesos ($2.4 million) for handing out at least 700 CDs in 2005 and 2006 containing the 379-page "SEC Microsoft Office XP Manual," which had been copyrighted by SEC director Conrad Mañalac in 2005 (although work on it reportedly began in 1999). Apparently 10,000 copies of this same manual had previously been licensed from the school by the company in 2004, and retitled for use in a program to train high school teachers. For its part, Microsoft Philippines denies having "improperly distributed additional copies of the curriculum," although it's a little unclear what the company's actual position is, with the following statement -- emailed to the Inquirer.net -- seeming to indicate that the primary concern right now is protecting the mothership: "They brought this matter to our attention a year ago and we worked hard to resolve it, but without success. For all intents and purposes, this is a purely local matter which does not involve Microsoft Corporation." Um, okay, whatever you say. We'll be interested to see if / how Redmond responds to this one...

[Thanks, Mark]

Read - Microsoft sued
Read - Microsoft issues response

At the same time that embattled VoIP provider Vonage attempts to reorganize and cut costs during the company's darkest hour, rumors are beginning to fly that an acquisition may be imminent, and at the top of the list of potential buyers is none other than Sprint-Nextel. You see, not only does Vonage need to litigate its way out of the Verizon mess, it's facing yet another potential setback in September (if it even lasts that long) when an infringement lawsuit brought by Sprint is scheduled to begin. So even if Vonage manages to to fight off the impending permanent injunction, Sprint is waiting in line to take a bite as well, and now Light Reading is reporting that company execs may decide that the best way to settle this dispute is to simply sell Sprint the keys to the office. Now it's pretty obvious why Vonage would want to cash out and dump its mess on another firm, but what does Sprint have to gain from such a deal? It's not clear why the wireless carrier would want to get into the internet telephony game at this point, and even if it did, the court may soon rule that in effect, Vonage doesn't even have anything worth selling -- except maybe its customer list. Obviously we'll be keeping our eye on this, because we have to admit, Vonage is a lot more fun to cover now than it used to be.

[Thanks, Travis]

In a series of events meant to stir things up at a company that many analysts have already written of as dead, Vonage CEO Michael Snyder has resigned on the same day that the pioneering VoIP provider announced a series of cost-cutting maneuvers, including operations consolidation, a reduction in marketing, and predictably, layoffs. Formerly president of ADT, Snyder led the company since February of last year, when he replaced founder and current Chairman of the Board Jeffrey Citron in that role -- the same man who will once again hold the CEO title while replacements are scouted. The shakeup seems to have buoyed investor confidence somewhat following the courtroom setbacks in that Verizon patent suit, with Vonage shares up as much as 13 cents in premarket trading; however, it's a rather hollow victory when you consider that the ~$3.00 stock went for as much as $17.88 this time last year. So while it's good to see Vonage making some proactive moves in the face of what can only be considered a deathwatch, there's only so much the company can do to affect its own fate, and at this point we could be just a ruling or two away from the end.

[Photo courtesy of CNET]

Oh no they didn't! By now you already know it's on, and the latest round in the iPhone v. iPhone dance-off comes from Apple spokesman Steve Dowling, who was quoted as saying the Cisco lawsuit is "silly" and that several companies are already using the term iPhone for VoIP products. He called Cisco's trademark "tenuous at best" and noted his company was the first to ever use the name for a cellphone. He goes on to boast that Cisco is gonna totally get served: "if Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we're very confident we'll prevail." Oh yeah -- Apple to Cisco: let's see you dance, sucka!

"Those who can, do; those who can't, sue." Although the original version of this phrase is (unfairly) used to describe teachers, we think that it does a nice job summing up the current state of the consumer electronics industry as well; it seems that nary a week goes by these days without some "intellectual property firm" crying patent infringement against a company that actually makes something, and this time around it's silicon powerhouse AMD being taken to the mat by lawsuit-happy Opti Inc. According to Reg Hardware, do-nothing Opti is suing AMD for violating three of its patents covering "Predictive Snooping of Cache Memory for Master-Initiated Accesses," and is hoping that a jury will decide to ban the sale of those chips which supposedly employ this arcane technology. As a bit of background, Opti started out as a chip developer itself before selling most of its assets to another company called Opti Technologies (no relation); after the sale, Opti Inc. was de-listed from NASDAQ due to a business plan that hinged on "pursuing license revenues from companies we believe are infringing Opti's patents." While it's tempting to dismiss this suit as yet another baseless gold-digging scheme, Opti -- like NTP -- does have a history of prying cash away from big ballers in the industry: in late 2004, the company accused NVIDIA of violating these same patents, and was able to wrest somewhere around $7 million from the graphics powerhouse. Sadly, with Transmeta suing Intel, SGI suing ATI, and now Opti targeting AMD, it looks like most of the PCs we buy next year will be labeled Via Inside.

Read- Opti vs. AMD
Read- Opti vs. NVIDIA

We'd like to take a moment to extend a hearty congratulations to consumer electronics stalwart Pioneer upon its very first entry into the ugly world of patent litigation. The Japanese manufacturer is suing Korea's Samsung Electronics and Samsung SDI -- no stranger to IP lawsuits, as it's also embroiled in disputes with Panasonic and Fujitsu -- for infringement of proprietary technology related to the production of plasma displays. Specifically, Pioneer claims that Samsung is violating patents pertaining to electrode configuration boosting display quality and a manufacturing step that increases display brightness -- pretty serious stuff, we know. For its part, Samsung says that it's planning to file a counter-suit, although this one may be just for posturing, as the company has apparently been in talks with Pioneer since April of last year concerning possible licensing agreements. Reuters points out that this move is the latest in a trend of aggressive intellectual property protection on the part of Japanese firms regarding potential infringement by their Asian rivals, with Panasonic and LG having recently settled a similar PDP-based brouhaha. We'll keep you posted on this one as it slowly winds its way through the courts, but at the very least it seems that investors aren't too concerned with Samsung's culpability here: Pioneer shares gained 0.72% on the news, while Samsung stock actually rose even more, by a total of 2.77%.

Just a few days back, Sansa-manufacturer SanDisk was shot down by Sisvel and forced to take down its displays at Berlin's IFA expo, but it seems that some fast-acting (and talking) lawyers have somehow reversed the decision just in time for SanDisk to show their products on the final day of the show. Tangled in lawsuits concerning MP3 patent violations, the company still insists its playback technology isn't infringing on any patents, but Sisvel maintains its insistence that SanDisk should be included in the nearly 600 companies that pay royalties to the licensing firm. Apparently SanDisk wasn't the only company forced to put its show on hiatus, as 19 other outfits had products unexpectedly seized for "similar violations." Sisvel isn't going down without a fight, however, as it has already filed an appeal to have the reversed order un-reversed -- while it may seem a bit redundant (to say the least), it's certainly not out of character for the sue-happy Sisvel, who proudly joins the growing list of "you've got to be kidding me" lawsuits.

Now we've never actually manufactured a product ourselves, but if we had, and we were showing off said product at a major European trade show, we'd be mighty embarrassed if a bunch of lawyer-types showed up at our expensive booth and told us to stash the goods out of public view. Well apparently that's exactly what happened to Sansa-manufacturer SanDisk over the weekend at Berlin's IFA exhibition, after an Italian patent management company called Sisvel convinced a German prosecutor to issue an injunction against the US's number two DAP seller. No surprises here, but the beef that Sisvel has with SanDisk centers around certain MPEG audio patents that many big-name companies -- including Apple, Archos, and Creative, to name just three of over 600 -- have taken seriously enough to license, with SanDisk being the one notable exception. SanDisk and Sisvel are already locked in heated legal battles in several large countries, and until the courts pick a winner or SanDisk decides to pay up, Sisvel wants to make sure that they can only show pictures of their products at events like IFA -- not exactly the best way to impress potential buyers. If we were SanDisk in this situation, we might take a page out of iPod Shuffle knockoff manufacturer Luxpro's book -- you know, the ripoff artists who got busted by Apple legal at CeBIT -- and comply just long enough for the hired guns to leave the building, followed by a mad dash to put the players back up on their displays and put our big fake sales grins back on our faces.

What a difference an "E" makes. Chinese owners of Dell's Inspiron 640m laptop are apparently furious over the fact that the company misleadingly equipped their new machines with Intel's Core Duo T2300E processor instead of the T2300 chip that had been advertised, and are lining up to sue over the alleged defrauding, according to news site China Daily. Since the only real difference between the T2300 and T2300E is the former's support for Intel's Virtualization Technology, the average consumer probably wouldn't even be affected by the cheaper processor, but customers are still understandably peeved that they're not getting all the functionality they paid for. The discrepancy was first discovered in early June by a single owner, who by way of an online bulletin board, learned that hundreds of other unhappy customers were afflicted with the same problem. The owner filed suit against Dell in late July after having apparently been rebuffed in an attempt to get the CPU swapped out (""I tried to negotiate with Dell and simply asked them to change the CPU, but they said there was no difference between the two and it was unnecessary to change," claims the owner); now 19 more customers have joined together for their own class-action suit, with many more waiting in the wings, according to lawyers handling the cases. For its part, Dell claims the mix-up stems from a failure to update its Chinese marketing materials, and has issued affected customers both an apology and an offer to refund the full price of returned machines -- but at this point, that doesn't seem to be enough for many of the folks involved. It's unfortunate that it took a big public stink for Dell to own up to its mistake and attempt a resolution, but as with the just-announced, historic battery recall, this incident proves just how powerful a determined group of individuals can be.

Read- Chinese lawsuits [Via Ars Technica]
Read- Dell's response

More legal woes for Sony: the computing and consumer electronics giant is being sued by Pennsylvania-based Agere Systems over a number of devices spanning several product categories that, you guessed it, may be infringing upon some eight different Agere patents. Specifically, Agere is claiming that the PSP, PlayStation 2, and PlayStation 3 -- along with several Vaio, Handycam, Walkman, and Location Free TV models -- are in violation of patents covering such varied technologies as a "wireless local area network apparatus" and "barrier layer treatments for tungsten plugs," whatever those are. Furthermore, the integrated circuit component manufacturer believes that Sony "willfully" violated the patents, and is thus seeking damages that could end up being three times what non-willful infringements would warrant. For its part, Sony is putting up a multi-pronged defense: its lawyers are first trying to get a judge to invalidate all of the patents and make the whole mess go away quickly; but if they do turn out to be valid, Sony is claiming that it's in the clear anyway due to cross-licensing deals dating back to 1989 with AT&T and Lucent Technologies (from whom Agere was spun off) that cover seven of the eight patents in question. Our uninformed legal opinion? Without knowing all of the specifics, it's difficult to ascertain who's got the stronger case here, but we can say that Sony's recent track record in fighting infringement accusations hasn't exactly been spotless, so as much as we'd love to cover yet another ugly, drawn-out court battle, maybe a quick settlement is the way to go with this one.

[Via PSP Fanboy]

It wouldn't be a full day here at Engadget without someone suing someone else for patent infringement, and thankfully Verizon has stepped up to the plate to provide our daily dose of entertaining legal shenanigans. The telecom giant has filed suit against VoIP provider Vonage in Richmond, Virginia's U.S. District Court, claiming that certain aspects of Vonage's Internet telephony business -- specifically its methods for interfacing between packet-switched and circuit-switched networks, billing customers, detecting fraud, and providing enhanced calling services -- violate at least seven of Verizon's closely-guarded patents. What really seems to be getting under Verizon's skin is the fact that Vonage has added 1.1 million new customers in the past 15 months -- many of whom are claimed to be "Verizon's former customers" -- by "aggressively marketing and advertising services made with Verizon's appropriated intellectual property." Vonage, of course, denies any wrongdoing, and claims in language we've heard so often before that it will "vigorously defend the lawsuit;" investors, however, don't seem to be quite as sure that Vonage is in the right here, as evidenced by the 12% tumble that the company's stock took today.

If nothing else, you've got to admire the tenacity of a Connecticut-based firm called USA Video Interactive, which just days after losing what seems to be a final appeal in its lawsuit against Movielink, decided to go after almost all of the country's major cable operators for supposedly infringing on the same patent. Comcast, Cox, Charter, and Time Warner (disclosure: Time Warner owns the company that owns the network that includes Engadget) are all named in a suit filed Tuesday in a U.S. District Court in Texas by USA Video (maybe Cablevision got spared because of all its other legal woes), which claims that like Movielink, the cable giants are violating its so-called Store-and-Forward Video-on-Demand patent (#5,130,792, filed in 1990) by using protected technology in their own VOD services. Besides making patents, the company also offers various products revolving around email, web tools, digital video watermarking, and content delivery infrastructure, so it's probably not appropriate to bunch it in with other lawsuit-happy -- but seemingly less legitimate -- claimants such as NTP and Visto.

[Via TechWeb and Digital Media Thoughts]

If we're to believe RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol's take on the current state of digital piracy, it would appear that enough consumers have been swayed by the music industry's carrot-and-stick approach of cheap songs and highly-publicized lawsuits that illegal downloading, although not eliminated, has finally been "contained." Even though physical album sales are still declining, Bainwol claims that the rapid growth of legal digital downloads -- up 77% in the past year -- balance out the loss, proving that iTunes, Napster, Rhapsody, and the like are offering compelling services that have encouraged folks to give up their lives of crime. Bainwol certainly paints a rosy picture here, and while we'd love to imagine that our fellow Netizens have suddenly and inexplicably developed a group conscience, what seems much more likely is that higher bandwidth and the advent of the torrent have simply turned former music pirates from the RIAA's nightmare into the MPAA's.

Under heavy pressure in the form of a lawsuit filed by nearly all of TV land's major content providers, industry giant Cablevision has announced that it will delay the rollout of its networked DVR offering until the service's legality is confirmed in court. The lawsuit, filed by the four key networks and their parent studios, claims that Cablevision's plan to store customers' recorded swag on their own servers as opposed to local set-top boxes constitutes a retransmission of copyrighted material, and therefore violates pre-existing agreements the company has with its providers. Cablevision, on the other hand, argues that networked DVR services are only facilitating "fair-use" of their broadcasts by consumers, who have already paid for any programs they intend to record. The outcome of this suit will be closely monitored by other players in the cable industry as well, because a victory for Cablevision would allow Cox, Comcast, et al. to begin offering their own remote storage -- good news for consumers, but perhaps bad news for our old friend TiVo.