FOSS Patents’ Florian Mueller is reporting on a breaking news item from Microsoft and Samsung. The two companies have just announced a patent license agreement, in which “Microsoft will receive royalties for Samsung’s mobile phones and tablets running Android.” This is effectively like Microsoft’s own licensing agreement with HTC, through which Redmond gets a few dollars off of each HTC Android phone sold. However, the agreement also entails that Samsung will be working closely with Microsoft in developing Windows Phone 7.

Now, granted, patent licensing deals happen all the time. But this particular licensing deal may have serious implications to the Android ecosystem. You can check out the source link for a more detailed explanation, but here’s what we understand of the matter, in summary:

• One of the reasons why Google acquired Motorola Mobility is supposedly to bolster its patent portfolio, in order to protect the Android platform and its manufacturers. By signing a patent licensing deal with Microsoft, Samsung recognizes that Android is not exactly in a strong position in terms of patents. As such, it did not wait for the Google-MMI acquisition to be concluded. Samsung wanted to resolve its Android-related intellectual property issues on its own.
• Samsung is the biggest Android OEM licensee, and Microsoft has already snagged licensing deals with quite a number of Android OEMs, such as HTC, General Dynamics, Itronix, Velocity Micro, Onkyo, Wistron, Acer and ViewSonic.
• “This leaves Motorola Mobility, with which Microsoft is currently in litigation, as the only major Android smartphone manufacturer in the U.S. without a license,” according to Microsoft.

Reading between the lines, what the Samsung-Microsoft deal means is basically that Samsung believes Android does infringe on certain technology patents owned by Microsoft, and that Android phone-makers will need to pay Microsoft for these. Reading further, this might also extend to Apple’s technology patent holdings, although Samsung isn’t getting there yet (recall that Apple’s disputes with Samsung is mostly for design patents).

Still, Samsung is actually a major patent holder, with 28,000 patents just in the U.S., and 100,000 worldwide — way bigger than Motorola Mobility. Thus, even while Samsung supported the Google-MMI acqusition, it probably knows it can better defend itself against Android-related litigation than Motorola. The company is also trying to hedge its mobile portfolio across different ecosystems: Android, Bada, Windows Phone and its newly-announced Tizen, in partnership with Intel. And working with Microsoft in developing Windows Phone 7 is probably a way of dampening the blow of Apple’s constant attacks on Samsung’s Android devices.

How will the rest of the Android ecosystem respond or react? We’ll keep you posted.

HP has been in a difficult position lately, bordering on being in limbo. When the company announced in August that it was spinning off its PC division and dropping webOS development, industry observers wondered why they were leaving their core competency (PCs) and an industry that was on the rise (mobile). The company doing a firesale of their TouchPad webOS tablet gave a bit of indication that maybe they could compete in this space, but at severely reduced prices.

HP’s surprise corporate move resulted in massive stock price drops amid uncertainty. Now that HP has announced the appointment of a new CEO and President in the person of former eBay chief exec Meg Whitman, HP’s stock price rose 7%, and this has even benefited Apotheker.

Apotheker, who has served as HP’s CEO shy of 11 months will be getting a total of about $25.4 million. This will be in $7.2 million cash and about $18.2 million in HP shares of stock.

Apotheker’s exit receipts are computed as follows. HP owes him twice his salary and twice his average performance bonus upon exit. But since his stint as CEO wasn’t long enough to merit a performance bonus, the company will stick with twice his annual salary as cash computation. Meanwhile, even with access to 800,000 shares of HP stock, this is granted in tranches over the course of two years. Only a 120,000 share grant will be considered and pro-rated, and at the most recent closing price of $22.80 is worth $18.2 million.

Of course, Leo Apotheker is not alone in receiving hefty separation pays after being ousted as a C-level executive. Previous HP CEOs received more than $83 million over the course of the decade. Carly Fiona got $42.5 million after getting the pink slip. CFO Cathie Lesjak got a $3.6 million bonus for filling in as interim CEO. Mark Hurd — who is likewise subject to controversy — was supposed to get $53.3 million, but settled for $12.2 million.

If Apotheker waits long enough before cashing in his shares, he might get even more, but that will depend on how the new CEO will lead the company, and on investor confidence in HP.

The Justice Department claims that AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile will result in a company too big for competition. After all, these two are #2 and #4 in the U.S. mobile telecoms market, and a merger will result in the combined network being #1 in terms of subscriber count — far larger than the current leading company Verizon Wireless.

But AT&T argues that a merger will actually be helpful, as it will improve mobile broadband capacity, thus bringing prices even lower. The company has also offered other concessions, such as job-generation. However, this has not stopped detractors from claiming that the costs would outweigh the benefits.

It had been hoped that AT&T, T-Mobile, the Justice Department and other stakeholders will be able to discuss a possible settlement during the scheduling hearing held earlier today. For instance, AT&T could have offered to sell some assets — such as subscribers or equipment — in order to reduce the resulting merged networks’ size. The 80-minute hearing had no indication of settlement, though, and either party will have to go forward with their claims come February 16, 2012. This is actually a few weeks later than AT&T’s requested January hearing date, and a few weeks earlier than the DoJ’s March request.

At this point, though, with a few months having to wait until any definitive news on whether AT&T and T-Mobile will merge, the markets will continue to be uncertain. AT&T’s lawyers are requesting for a quick resolution of the issue, as the company says it is “already months where [they] want to be.” Any delay will certainly be an issue to consumers, too, given potential purchase and subscription decisions. For now, T-Mobile subscribers are assured that they can keep their subscription rates even after the merger and even well beyond their contract expiry.

AT&T’s announced acquisition of T-Mobile from parent company Deutsche Telekom has met with opposition from the Justice Department, which filed an antitrust lawsuit. The government claims the deal will be severely anti-competitive and will result in higher prices. Recently, though, lawmakers have been asking the Justice Department to reconsider the matter, or at least shed some light on the case through a briefing. Representative Pete Olson and 99 other Republican Congressment signed a letter urging the Obama administration to resolve this lawsuit, and thereby allow the AT&T and T-Mobile deal to push through.

According to the lawmakers, the deal will actually be beneficial to the economy, and the lawsuit, in fact, “will thwart job creation and economic growth and undermine [Obama's] own efforts to achieve our shared goal [of economic recovery].” However, in reviewing public campaign finance records, advocacy group Public Knowledge has discovered that said lawmakers had been receiving contributions from AT&T and its employees in the amount of $963,275 since 2009 to date.

Additionally, AT&T lobbyists are said to be sponsoring a fundraising “Telecommunications Industry Lunch” on Thursday, in which funds will go to the Olson for Congress Committee. Olson has claimed, though, that the luncheon is not sponsored by AT&T.

Support for AT&T goes beyond party lines. Earlier this month, three Republican representatives wrote the DoJ and FCC asking for a briefing on the AT&T and T-Mobile matter. All have been recorded to have received contributions from AT&T employees through the years. Michigan’s Fred Upton has received $96,600 since 1989. Texas’ Joe Barton has received $97,559 from AT&T employees since 1989. Oregon’s Greg Walden received $56,000 since 1998.

Just last week, Democrats led by Representative Heath Shuler said the Justice Department should agree to a settlement that will ensure robust competition, while still preserving  the deal’s benefits. Shuler  has reportedly received campaign contributions to the tune of $24,000 since 2005.

The Justice Department has formally rejected the lawmakers’ request for briefing, though, saying that such “may jeopardize [the Department's] law enforcement efforts, as well as inescapably creating the risk that the public and the courts will perceive undue political and Congressional influence.”

With much at stake, it seems AT&T is pulling no punches in making sure their deal with T-Mobile will push through. And when it comes to big-name corporations, it will usually involve exerting influence, even in the highest political offices in the land. Will AT&T’s influence and lobbying be good enough to save the T-Mobile deal?

Apple made the call for iPad donations earlier this year, with their newly-launched return program, encouraging iPad users upgrading to the iPad 2 to donate their old tablets to charity. The refurbished iPads were then earmarked for the Teach for America program, in which recent graduates from the country’s top colleges and universities get to experience teaching first-hand in the country’s most-impoverished public schools.

It seems many people responded to the call right through the August 31 deadline, as Apple is reported to have supplied more than 9,000 Teach for America corps members in 38 states with a free iPad each just before the new school year started.

The email notice to each teacher says “What could an iPad do for your classroom and your students?” It seems the teaching corps will need to find creative ways to use their tablet computers in the classroom setting. Some are already sharing the use of the iPad with their students as a means to encourage them to finish their work. This is, of course, a bit limited compared to higher-income schools and institutions that can afford to supply each student a tablet computer as part of the study program. Still, this is a good start.

The educational program is probably proof that Apple and Steve Jobs are into philanthropic  activities, after all. While Steve is not directly involved, his wife, Laurene Powell, sits on the Teachers for America board of directors, and is likely to be the connection that made the Apple donation program possible.

It’s no secret that Apple and Samsung are in a love-hate relationship over their respective smartphones and tablet computers. It might soon turn out to be less complicated as Apple reduces orders from Samsung in its next iPhone iterations, though, particularly with the upcoming A6 processor. And while Apple has had legal successes in certain regions with the ban of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab, the Korean company is already planning its legal offensive in its home country once Apple attempts to sell the next-generation iPhone.

A senior Samsung executive says the company “plans to take Apple to court here for violation of Samsung’s wireless technology related patents.” It can be noted that Apple is suing Samsung on the grounds of being a copycat in design and packaging. Samsung, meanwhile, claims Apple is using Samsung-owned technologies in the iPhone.

For as long as Apple does not drop mobile telecommunications functions, it would be impossible for it to sell its i-branded products without using our patents. We will stick to a strong stance against Apple during the lingering legal fights.

The executive says Samsung is confident in its position, and is now changing its legal tactics. Previously, Samsung has chosen not to attack Apple head-on, but will only retaliate when Apple makes the first strike. Now, Samsung is willing to make the first offensive move, and will convince Korean authorities to ban the import and sale of the iPhone 5.  The company is banking on its appeal in German courts winning, which will give legal precedent to their claims against Apple.

Still, Samsung’s CEO is quite reluctant to make a big enemy of Apple, noting that the Cupertino, CA company is their biggest client to date. “From our perspective, we are not entirely happy [about the litigations],” says Choi Gee-Sung. Samsung seems to be treading on thin ice here. It certainly wants to defend its brand and technology ownership, although it won’t want to endanger its business relationships with Apple.

Patent reform is a big issue in the technology-related industries today, especially with the intricacies of intellectual property matters. While patents were originally intended to help inventors earn from their ideas, a lot of companies today are dealing with patents as arsenal for earning from settlements and litigation, which often lead to multi-million dollar disputes and trade blockages.

The new legislation is meant to beef up the US Patent and Trademark Office’s capacity, by providing better staffing, efficient operations and better funding. The new law also improves the review process for patents, which means patent officials can retroactively review patents up to eight years to determine validity.

However, the legislation also brings in a few issues. For one, the new law will implement the first-to-file rule, rather than first-to-use. This means that the USPTO will favor the company or inventor that files for a patent application first, in contrast with the previous rule that will grant the patent to whoever has actually used the technology first. It is argued that this will be a disadvantage to small inventors, but a big boon to big companies that can afford to keep on filing patent applications.

The new law also lets the USPTO set patent fees, which means the agency might now see patent filings as a lucrative business, which may be to the detriment of the small inventors. Still, ensuring that the patent office gets better capability at reviewing patents will help minimize disputes and ensure healthy competition among inventors.

Will the new bill have any significant bearing on the ongoing patent wars among mobile device makers like Apple and Samsung?

AT&T’s $39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile will result in the biggest mobile player in the U.S. However, AT&T says their primary motivation for acquiring T-Mobile from parent company Deutsche Telekom is to improve services and network coverage. They argue that instead of rolling out infrastructure anew for a high-speed 4G network, it makes more sense to acquire T-Mobile’s assets, which include subscribers, broadband spectrum licenses and infrastructure.

However, the Justice department thinks this will stifle competition, resulting in higher mobile service prices and a limited choice for consumers. Seven states seem to agree, with Attorneys General from California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington signing in support for the DoJ’s antitrust lawsuit. For example, NY’s Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman says consumers will lose out with decreased competition in wireless services.

This proposed merger would stifle competition in markets that are crucial to New York’s consumers and businesses, while reducing access to low-cost options and the newest broadband-based technologies.

AT&T is still banking on their claim that the merger will actually be beneficial to consumers, citing improved coverage, faster mobile broadband, as well as more local jobs. Furthermore, AT&T says 11 states support the acquisition deal. These include Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

AT&T and the concerned parties will sit together to discuss options, including possible settlement deals, come September 21. The debate seems to be dividing the country, though. Is this a civil war on the mobile front?

Sources close to Microsoft — particularly MSN — say that there are discussions within the company, and that people are interested in the possibility of Microsoft buying Yahoo! This comes in the wake of major portals and content companies experiencing major management changes. Yahoo! recently fired CEO Carol Bartz. AOL likewise had to let go of TechCrunch editor Mike Arrington for differences and potential conflicts of interest.

Both Yahoo! and AOL are major players in the portal business, and people at Microsoft say that their portal has grown to be an important aspect of their online business. In particular, while Microsoft had grown “cold to the prospects of the portal business, focusing most of its online efforts on Bing,” management has now realized that “MSN is a critical component of helping Bing win.”

Microsoft is aware that the content business is facing big challenges from the likes of Facebook, which get a lot of attention from the online audience, thereby crowding out portals like Yahoo! and MSN. This is further complicated by the increasing popularity of mobile access. Portals will need to compete for eyeballs and page views, and for Microsoft, Yahoo! is still a leading destination for users wanting to consume curated content.

The MSN source says that Microsoft considers Yahoo! to be a more attractive company than AOL — at least in terms of potential acquisition — but that “[i]t’s just so beaten down.” The source adds that Yahoo!’s U.S. media business is interesting, although the company’s Asian assets make things complicated.

Microsoft does not have an official stand on this matter, of course, although we’ve previously seen surprise major acquisitions by the company.

After the Yahoo! board gave Carol Bartz the pink slip, co-founder Jerry Yang assured employees that the company was intact and not for sale. Amid a management overhaul, however, several options had been floated as to how Yahoo! will find its direction anew. This includes Yang taking back majority control and even privatizing the company, as well as a potential merger with AOL (which Yahoo! later on denied).

But while Yahoo! is not officially for sale, investors have been talking privately to chairman Roy Bostock and fellow board member Jerry Yang for a possible deal. These parties include venture capitalist Marc Andreessen (of Netscape fame), who is reportedly working private equity firm Silver Lake, as well as DST Global, Masa Son, Providence Equity, and Alibaba, some of which are current Yahoo! partners. Even Microsoft, which made a $44.6 billion acquisition offer in 2008 that Yahoo! declined, is said to be part of the discussion.

VC firm Andreessen Horowitz has been known to turn ailing companies into profitable ventures, prior to selling these for a hefty return. Take for instance Skype, which the VC took over and then sold to Microsoft for $8.5 billion. According to sources, Marc Andreessen believes that Yahoo! still has strong branding and assets, although management difficulties have led to its difficult situation. With this, options include an outright takeover or acquisition of the company either as a whole, or some assets in part.

Whatever the result of Yahoo!’s private talks, analysts say it will be a complicated situation, given that a big amount of the company’s $18.5 billion valuation is entrenched in its Asian assets. Meanwhile, some major stakeholders are calling for the resignation of the current Yahoo! board, with some blaming the group for poor corporate governance.

Will an acquisition help save Yahoo! from its doldrums? Will Marc Andreessen help steer Yahoo! into the right direction?

It’s probably not helping that both Internet personalities involved had been embroiled in a very public word wars with their bosses. Carol Bartz called the Yahoo! corporate board members “doofuses” who “f–ed her off.” Meanwhile, Mike Arrington cried foul when AOL president Arianna Huffington let her go as editor of TechCrunch when he setup his own CrunchFund VC under AOL.

These kinds of management coups usually result in rumors that the companies involved are likely targets for takeovers or mergers. Yahoo! for one has been in a precarious position, losing its market for search to Google, and even outsourcing its search technology to Microsoft. The company had once bee approached by Microsoft for possible acquisition, which it promptly turned down.

Meanwhile, AOL’s CEO Tim Armstrong was reportedly in talks with Yahoo! corporate advisers, and was rumored to offer a merger, with Yahoo! acquiring the smaller AOL. A previous offer made last year would likewise include AOL’s CEO to be named as CEO of the combined company, which might be thought of as timely, given that Yahoo! is currently look for a new chief executive.

However, a source close to Yahoo! says the company is not interested in any deal with AOL. Industry analysts say that neither company is likely to see any synergy formed by a partnership. Both Yahoo! and AOL are on the decline, after seeing their core businesses fall amid other businesses gaining in popularity (social media, mobile, enterprise services). As such, Yahoo! might be in a better position to first find a good CEO to lead it out of its doldrums and finally find the direction it needs. It’s a big ship that needs steering, after all, and it needs leadership that will make sure the company doesn’t run aground.

Carol Bartz’ firing came about after almost three years of lackluster performance in Yahoo! This tough-talking CEO was brought in by Yahoo!’s board with specific instructions to improve the revenue margins and steer the company toward the right long-term direction. Bartz’ stint brought about mass layoffs in the company and termination of some of Yahoo!’s many web services. But while margins were improved by cutting costs, Bartz says she had too little time to effect any major strategy change.

This begs the question on what Yahoo! has in store in the long-term. While it has positioned itself as a content company, there is a need to differentiate itself from just about any other content company out there. One rumor is that co-founder Jerry Yang will make a bid to turn the company private in order to reform it. Yet another rumor that has recently surfaced is a possible AOL-Yahoo! merger.

Yahoo! & AOL to Merge?

AOL’s CEO Tim Armstrong is reportedly in talks with Yahoo!’s strategic advisers to determine if the company is interested in any partnership or deal with AOL. Sources say these include investment bankers and private equity firms with interest in Yahoo! AOL had actually expressed interest in merging with Yahoo! last year, with an offer for Yahoo! to acquire AOL. Bartz strongly opposed this offer, however (perhaps because Tim Armstrong is said to be appointed CEO of the combined company).

Official spokespersons for either company have declined to comment at this time. It can be noted that Yahoo! might want to first recuperate from its losses prior to seriously discussing major mergers and acquisitions. Once valued at $80 billion, Yahoo! dealt with a steady decline and currently has a market capitalization of about $18.2 billion. Meanwhile, AOL is currently valued at $1.6 billion

After being ousted from Yahoo!, Carol Bartz herself says she still has much regard for the Yahoo! brand (but apparently not the board of directors). The stock market itself responded positively to news of Bartz’ ouster and a change in management. Thus, even with a declining popularity, Yahoo! might still be able to reinvent itself. But will a merger with AOL be the solution?

Carol Bartz’ firing as Yahoo! CEO was made a very public affair by none other than Bartz herself. After chairman of the Yahoo! board Roy Bostock gave her a lawyer-prepared script firing her over the phone, she fired off an email to everyone on Yahoo!’s employ via her iPad. In her first-ever interview after being laid off as chief executive at Yahoo!, Bartz said she was actually given a choice either to resign or be fired.

Top execs usually get hefty severance packages when they are fired, particularly if without just cause. Bartz’ severance pay was reportedly in the amount of $10 million, which includes $3 million in cash, $1 to 2 million in bonuses, and about $5 million more in stocks (which we suppose will be valued more, as Yahoo! stock climbed the day Bartz was fired).

But will Carol Bartz eventually be laughing her way to the bank, as earlier reported? That would have to depend on whether Yahoo!’s board of directors will call a non-disparagement clause in her management contract. Sources close to Yahoo! say that Bartz’ contract prevented her from saying anything bad about her bosses. But Bartz publicly derided the Yahoo! board in an interview with Fortune, no less.

These people f–ed me over … The board was so spooked by being cast as the worst board in the country. Now they’re trying to show that they’re not the doofuses that they are.

Now Bartz is known to be a tough-talker, which is probably one reason why Yahoo! hired her in the first place, as they needed bold changes in the company. But telling Mike Arrington to “f–k off” and calling your bosses “doofuses” are altogether different things. If these statements are considered a violation of the non-disparagement clause in her contract, Carol Bartz may have just spoken the most expensive $10 million expletives ever.

This comes in the wake of Yahoo!’s former CEO Carol Bartz being let go by the corporate board this Tuesday, which earned some buzz due to the way Bartz was fired by Chairman Rob Bostock — over the phone. Industry observers say Yahoo! had been badly managed during Bartz’ 30-month stint as top executive, with the share price remaining stagnant during that run. The news of her firing brought about excitement from Wall Street, as Yahoo! share prices rose in the few trading hours after Bartz made an announcement.

With a hunt for a new CEO, Yahoo!’s board of directors was questioned on how it had gone from full support of its CEO to a sudden firing, and whether there was a succession plan at all. To employees, the move to let go of Bartz seemed so sudden, and employees have been worried about trust issues between management and the corporate board.

But to this, Yang said “trust us,” which is said to be a big favor that the Yahoo! founder is asking its employees.

Fears about major changes in Yahoo! have been brought about by precedents such as the company laying off hundreds of employees and selling off web applications and properties in late 2010. Yahoo! is no longer a leader in an industry it once dominated (search) and has even had to outsource services to Microsoft and Facebook. In recent news, Yahoo! is reportedly making a bid for video site Hulu, but Yang says the company can move forward with or without Hulu in the equation.

For now, Yahoo! will need to have a solid strategy in place, amid the technology landscape shifting towards mobile devices and services, which the likes of Google and Apple dominate. Yahoo! is still a big company. But at this juncture, being big might not necessarily be the only recipe for success, and so Yahoo! will need to find its bearing and steer what looks like a sinking ship toward the right direction.

Photo credit: Paul Sakuma/AP

AT&T has initially offered to acquire T-Mobile from parent company Desutsche Telekom in a cash/stock exchange worth $39 billion. While the boards of both companies have approved the acquisition deal, this was met with opposition from among other carriers and consumers. And then the Justice Department formally filed a complaint with a federal court, which seems to have surprised AT&T.

AT&T maintains that the T-Mobile acquisition deal will be beneficial to consumers, given wider network coverage, expanded services and reduced cost of operating the network. However, regulators say the resulting company is likely to be too big for competition, and would crowd out other competitors, given their market power.

As such, AT&T might be forced to withdraw from the deal if the DoJ’s lawsuit succeeds. However, it’s not that simple, since the company will have to pay Deutsche Telekom $3 billion in cash plus about $3 billion worth of concessions under a cancellation clause in their agreement. So whether or not AT&T pushes through with the acquisition, T-Mobile gets money (which might be why they’ve been silent all this time).

Still, there might be a silver lining to this dark cloud. Antitrust regulators can still allow AT&T to make the T-Mobile purchase if it will agree to sell off some assets (such as equipment, subscribers, spectrum) to other competitors. But this will severely devalue their acquisition deal. But if Deutsche Telekom were to be amicable to selling T-Mobile for less, then AT&T can still lower their offer from $39 billion, just to make sure the deal pushes through.

For now, the ball seems to be in AT&T’s court. They have yet to formally respond to the lawsuit. But for now, AT&T and T-Mobile will need to have a Plan B. Just what Plan B is, we have yet to find out as the companies involved will be discussing the matter — including a possible settlement — with the DoJ in a couple of weeks’ time.

Yahoo! had been rumored to be finding a replacement for its CEO June of this year, amid the company’s sliding position in the search business and social media. But while the company denied this rumor before, recent outbreaks online confirm that Carol Bartz — who replaced Jerry Yang as CEO in 2009 — had been given the pink slip. And this was done over the phone, no less.

Bartz then shot off an email to her staff and employees, explaining the situation.

To all,

I am very sad to tell you that I’ve just been fired over the phone by Yahoo’s Chairman of the Board. It has been my pleasure to work with all of you and I wish you only the best going forward.

Carol

Sent from my iPad

Formerly CEO of AutoDesk, Bartz took over the reins at Yahoo! during a difficult time. Long past its heyday, Yahoo! had all but given up on the search business and outsourced search to Microsoft’s Bing. The company tried to focus on social media, but likewise outsourced this to Facebook — a move likewise criticized by industry observers and users alike. Yahoo! had also been subject to mass layoffs, and a lot of its big projects, like Del.icio.us, had been scheduled for shutdown or sale. (Delicious has since been bought by YouTube founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen.)

Yahoo!’s board of directors has reportedly been wanting a change after 30 months under Bartz with no improvement in the company’s valuation. Yahoo! CFO Tim Morse will replace Bartz as interim CEO until the board finds a suitable replacement. Meanwhile, Bartz’ firing over the phone may not have been that bad, as she and board Chairman Roy Bostock were said to be in opposote sides of the country at that time, so a personal meeting was not viable. But taking that parting shot — using an iPad, no less — was said to be characteristic of this former Yahoo! CEO.

Microsoft is subject to a class-action lawsuit filed in a Seattle federal court last week. The issue is the Windows Phone 7 platform’s potential for infringing on user privacy. The lawsuit claims that the Windows Phone 7 camera software stores and sends location information back to Microsoft using the inference.location.live.net function, which supposedly lets users store location-based information in their photos. However, Microsoft is accused of enabling location-tracking even though a user answers “no” when prompted by the smartphone.

Security researcher Samy Kamkar has tested Windows Phone devices at the behest of the plaintiffs, and confirms that WP7 smartphones are sending back accurate location data to Microsoft even without the user’s knowledge.

The Windows Mobile operating system is clearly sending information that can lead to accurate location information of the mobile device regardless of whether the user allowed it.

Microsoft denies the accusation, and says the company is investigating the claims. A company spokesperson says the company does not store unique identifiers in its location-based service database. Therefore, any information retrieved from Windows Phone 7 devices cannot be linked back to a specific device or user.

The data captured and stored on our location database cannot be correlated to a specific device or user. Any transmission of location data by the Windows Phone camera would not enable Microsoft to identify an individual or ‘track’ his or her movements.

Microsoft’s statement might be read as implying that WP7 smartphones do, in fact, send back data to Microsoft’s servers, but that these are not identifiable to unique handsets. Microsoft earlier made some tweaks to location-based services in the hopes of allaying the fears of WP7 users and privacy advocates. In particular, their geographic positioning service now filters data so that the service no longer lets a device retrace its previous positions.

We have yet to see further developments on the case, but this could underscore the potential for smartphones to be used as tracking devices. And as major online service providers oppose legislation against tracking, does it mean ordinary users are not safe from prying eyes?

Dutch SSL certificate issuer DigiNotar has been put in the spotlight because of a breach that compromised the authority of the certificates it has issued. In particular, DigiNotar was found to have mistakenly issued SSL certificates for major companies, such as Google, Microsoft, UPS, Vodafone, and even security agencies like the CIA, MI6 and Mossad. Said certificates were issued to a third party not related to any of these agencies. Coupled with a DNS poisoning attack, the third party can then redirect web traffic to a server it owns by masquerading as the domain being accessed.

Security experts who have done an audit on the DigiNotar breach note several glaring irregularities in the way the company handled its systems, to wit:

• All of the certificate servers used in the breach used the same Windows domain, which means having access to one admin account gives the hacker access to every other server;
• The admin password used by DigiNotar was simple and easy to determine through brute-force attack;
• Anti-virus software could have detected the hacking tools used in the attack, but these were not present;
• Front-end software used by DigiNotar were outdated and not even patched;
• DigiNotar did not have secure and centralized logging systems;
• Critical components were not separate.

Security consultants Fox-IT are still underway with their security audit, although these initial findings show how troubling the situation is with at least one digital certificate issuer.

Anatomy of a Hack

According to Fox-IT’s findings, most of the SSL certificate acquisitions were done between July 10 to 20, 2011, the first being a certificate for *.google.com. The security analysts have found out that 99% of the queries done during the attack period were from Iran. While there is no other evidence or confirmation that these certificates were used by the Iranian government to spy on their citizens both locally and abroad, the evidence points toward this possibility.

In the case of DigiNotar, the breach had been going on for a month before having been discovered. After that, DigiNotar took another month before notifying the public of the potential threat. Statistics from Trend Micro indicate that a significant amount of SSL certificate verification was done from Iran in August, but altogether disappeared after the public disclosure about the breach. The security company even found out that anti-censorship software used by Iranian citizens residing in the U.S. had been validating against DigiNotar’s servers, meaning their communications were most likely to have been compromised.

Are We Truly Secure?

While some would argue that this is an isolated case that doesn’t merit too much attention, it does put to light the inadequacy of the system of using web security certificates at present. If a malicious hacker were able to compromise just a single SSL security issuer as well as DNS caches, then there is a huge potential for security breaches. Does this mean we shouldn’t be too trusting of secure HTTP and SSL certificates?

Image credit: psdGraphics

Veracruz-based school teacher Gilberto Martinez Vera and radio broadcaster Maria de Jesus Bravo Pagola are accused of spread the rumors of child kidnapping on social networking sites, causing unrest and panic in the city. One message goes to say “My sister-in-law just called me all upset, they just kidnapped five children from the school.”

Authorities say the Twitter exchanges — and the ensuing re-tweets or shares — resulted in 26 car accidents and people leaving their cars on the street in a rush to reach their children’s schools. The city’s telephone systems also failed due to congestion over parents calling emergency services and the schools.

The two accused deny the charges, with their lawyers claiming they only retweeted or forwarded the messages themselves, perhaps in an attempt to help spread what they thought is news. But Bravo Pagola’s self-styled “TwitTerrorist” description on her Facebook might not work toward her favor. Meanwhile, free speech advocates like Amnesty International are accusing the Mexican officials of violating freedom of expression, amid the country’s drug-related problems. Panic over the false kidnapping reports are said to have stemmed from fear over drug wars in the region.

Lawsuits and arrests over the use of social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook are not new. Law enforcers in the UK have made arrests during the recent London riots based on intelligence gathered from the social networks. The NYPD is also actively monitoring social media for potential threats. In other stricter territories, dissent via social networks is often meted with jail or prison terms. But with the Mexican incident, the question here is whether the original authors of the tweet intended to sow unrest and terror, in a social and political climate that’s vulnerable to terrorism, moreso the online kind of terrorism. Lesson for other social media users like us is to think before we Tweet.

The Dutch government has recently issued a warning against more attacks from the hackers responsible for the Google SSL breach. This involves SSL security issuer DigiNotar — based in the Netherlands — which hackers had compromised to issue an SSL certificate for “google.com.” It seems it’s not only Google that the hackers have successfully attacked, but other high-profile organizations, as well.

50 Affected Domains *

Mozilla engineer Gervase Markham recently released a partial list of affected domains, and the Dutch government responded by releasing a full list of over 50 domains that have fraudulent certificates issued. These include intelligence organizations like the CIA, MI6 and Israel’s Mossad. Likewise issued are certs for Microsoft, Skype, and WordPress. The hackers are said to have also attempted attacks at other certificate-issuers like Thawte and Verisign, but no exploits have been confirmed, aside from issuing a forged security certificate for verisign.com and thawte.com.

The security agencies involved say the impact of the breach is minimal. Even if the hackers are able to spoof SSL security for cia.gov, sis.gov.uk and mossad.gov.il, these agencies say their servers are secure, and unauthorized parties are unlikely to gain access to secure information. Still, the fact that hackers were able to obtain such certificates is embarrassing, though no fault of the intelligence agencies concerned.

Who Can We Trust?

For now, even the Dutch government says their own security certificates cannot be trusted, as agencies rely on DigiNotar as their primary issuer. “The user of government sites no longer has the guarantee … that he is on the site where he wanted to be,” says Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner. The Dutch say DigiNotar is cooperating with authorities on how to manage the breach, although it’s likely that the company will have trouble regaining the trust of users, browser makers and domain owners when it comes to SSL certificates.

To help prevent being spoofed, users are advised to upgrade browsers to the latest versions and to remove any DigiNotar certificates from their certificate cache (such as Apple Keychain).

* Update: DigiNotar certificates have later been found to have affected 530 domains in total.

When AT&T announced plans to acquire T-Mobile for $39 billion, the #2 cellular carrier in the U.S. put forward a few economic benefits, such as expanded network coverage and supposedly better service for customers. But all along, the DoJ was silently putting up a case against AT&T, particularly because it saw an AT&T-T-Mobile merger as resulting in a company too big for competition. Other mobile carriers seem to agree.

The Justice Department recently filed an antitrust complaint with a district court, in an attempt to block the acquisition. If the deal doesn’t push through, AT&T stands to lose up to $6 billion in cash and concessions to Deutsche Telekom, which owns T-Mobile, due to a cancellation clause in their contract.

Just recently, sources say AT&T is working on a plan that might make the deal more pleasant to regulators. While no details have been disclosed yet, this might include AT&T’s agreeing to a restriction to keep service rates to a low level. AT&T might also have to sell up to 25% of T-Mobile’s assets, including spectrum ownership and a certain portion of its subscribers to another mobile company.

However, even this move might result in scrutiny by antitrust officials. The only other company that might be interested in acquiring such assets would be Verizon and Sprint Nextel. Still, we might not have to wait long for a ruling. The antitrust case has been raffled off to U.S. district judge Ellen Segal Huevelle in Washington, DC, who has a reputation for resolving cases relatively quickly. This means AT&T just got its request for an expedited hearing.

Apple’s Mac OS X is often considered to be among the most secure computing platforms to date. However, certain differences in how the operating system handles security certificates has led to a vulnerability in its Safari browser that can be exploited by the Google.com SSL cert security loophole.

The certificate mix-up was discovered to have originated from Dutch company DigiNotar, from which fake “google.com” certificates were fraudulently acquired. With this fake SSL certificate and a poisoned DNS cache, a third party can pretend  to be Google and do all sorts of mischief like steal user accounts and passwords.

The issue with Safari is with how Mac OSX handles new certificate types called Extended Validation or EV certs. Apple handles EV certs differently than the usual SSL certificate. These supposedly override existing settings, and so any spoofed domain using the fraudulently-obtained certificate might get through.

While Chrome, Firefox and Internet Explorer have been patched to prevent spoofing using DigiNotar’s certificates, Apple has yet to push a patch for the DigiNotar certificate. For now, Apple has advised users to use Keychain to mark any DigiNotar-signed certificates as “never trust.” But some security experts believe the google.com domain can still be spoofed, because of Extended Validation. As such, the best way to handle the security breach for now is to delete any DigiNotar-issued certificates from one’s Keychain altogether.

This might affect access to legitimate sites using DigiNotar’s certificates, but this temporary safety measure will ensure users and systems are not fooled into giving out access details to hackers, which can include Safari and other OSX applications that access Google services.

U.S. District Court judge Phyllis Hamilton has granted SAP’s request to have the order reversed, saying the US$ 1.3 billion fine is “grossly excessive.” As such, she ruled for a lower fine of US$ 272 million, which is an estimate earlier made based on evidence during the trial. Oracle may reject this reduced amount, but the case will have to undergo a new trial if they decide not to accept.

Hamilton wrote that “[t]he verdict grossly exceeded the actual harm to Oracle,” and that the verdict “was contrary to the weight of the evidence, and was grossly excessive.” She further ruled that settlements from such copyright ifnringement lawsuits should be based on evidence, and not speculation. As Oracle was unable to prove “lost business” to justify the $1.3 billion fine, the original verdict is therefore ruled to have been over-estimated.

At trial, Oracle presented no evidence, and did not argue, that it was entitled to a hypothetical license fee because it lost an opportunity to license the works to third parties for the same use. … Thus, Oracle could not reasonably claim that SAP’s infringement diminished the licensing value of the infringed works.

The case dates back to 2007, which ultimately led to an 11-day trial that was concluded in November 2010. Oracle sued SAP’s TomorrowNow software unit for having made hundreds of thousands of illegal downloads of Oracle software, as well as producing several thousand copies. Oracle says SAP did this to avoid having to pay licensing fees.

Both companies produce and market enterprise software, including those relating to accounting, payroll, human resources and such tasks. SAP has not contested TomorrowNow’s culpability (the division has since been closed in 2008), but SAP says that the “hypothetical license” — or the amount that should have been paid to Oracle — was only in the amount of US$ 28 to 408.7 million. As such, SAP is grateful for the new court ruling.

Meanwhile, Oracle says the company believes the $1.3 billion claim originally ruled by the jury is correct, and will “pursue the full measure of damages that [they] believe are owed to Oracle.”

AT&T has been banking on the T-Mobile acquisition deal for its network expansion, particularly easing its way into the latter’s 4G network. But even as AT&T has put forward economic projections that claim the deal will be beneficial to consumers, the Department of Justice filed an antitrust complaint with the federal court system, saying the deal will be anti-competitive and anti-consumer.

AT&T top brass seems to have been surprised by this move. They were expecting the U.S. government to be neutral on the issue, particularly with their proposed economic gains (even offering jobs for Americans as what can be said is a deal sweetener). In a statement, the company’s general counsel Wayne Watts says they are “surprised and disappointed” by the U.S. government’s move against them, and will try to request the courts to expedite the legal proceedings so that it won’t become a protracted legal battle, which can become very costly and time-consuming, not to mention that it will result in considerable delays in AT&T’s plans.

We are surprised and disappointed by today’s action, particularly since we have met repeatedly with the Department of Justice and there was no indication from the DOJ that this action was being contemplated.

We plan to ask for an expedited hearing so the enormous benefits of this merger can be fully reviewed. The DOJ has the burden of proving alleged anti-competitive affects and we intend to vigorously contest this matter in court.

At the end of the day, we believe facts will guide any final decision and the facts are clear. This merger will:

• Help solve our nation’s spectrum exhaust situation and improve wireless service for millions.
• Allow AT&T to expand 4G mobile broadband to another 55 million Americans, or 97% of the population;
• Result in billions of additional investment and tens of thousands of jobs, at a time when our nation needs them most.

We remain confident that this merger is in the best interest of consumers and our country, and the facts will prevail in court.

AT&T has much to lose if the DoJ and its antitrust case will prevail. Recall that one of the provisions in the AT&T and T-Mobile acquisition deal was that AT&T would have to pay T-Mobile $3 billion in cash plus concessions if it were not to push through. Whatever the case, it’s AT&T that might end up on the losing end of this game.

Sprint, for one, seems to be pleased with the developments, saying the DoJ’s antitrust lawsuit will benefit consumers and competition.

Sprint applauds the DOJ for conducting a careful and thorough review and for reaching a just decision — one which will ensure that consumers continue to reap the benefits of a competitive U.S. wireless industry. Contrary to AT&T’s assertions, today’s action will preserve American jobs, strengthen the American economy, and encourage innovation.

The ball seems to be in AT&T’s court now, and the company would have to convince the courts either that the case has no merit, or that the U.S. governments’ worries for anti-competitive behavior are unfounded after all. That might not be such an easy thing, but we suppose top-notch lawyers’ fees are more affordable than $3 billion in cash.

In a statement, AT&T promised to establish 5,000 new wireless call-center jobs in the United States if the $39 billion merger with T-Mobile were to push through. The two companies currently employ a total of 25,000 contact center agents in offshore locations, but bringing back 5,000 of these “seats” to the mainland U.S. would ensure that no local call center workers will be laid off, and that new agents would be eligible for benefits under a unionized workforce.

Of course, as the turn of events would have it, the DoJ has filed an antitrust lawsuit with a federal court in Washington seeking to block the AT&T/T-Mobile deal. The DoJ says an AT&T and T-Mobile merger will “substantially lessen competition.” The FCC seems to agree with the DoJ’s findings in a statement likewise released today. With these, the proposed AT&T and T-Mobile merger is suddenly facing major hurdles. AT&T even stands to lose $3 billion in cash payments to T-Mobile if the deal is cancelled.

Did AT&T expect the 5,000 jobs offer to be a viable deal-sweetener for the U.S. government? Did AT&T expect the DoJ to file a lawsuit, and make an announcement the same day they announced the jobs-related offer?

AT&T faces major challenges ahead. It will take more than 5,000 new jobs to appease its critics and detractors from various stakeholder groups.

When AT&T and T-Mobile announced their planned acquisition deal, the move was much-criticized by several factions, including customers, lawmakers, and competitors alike. While already approved by both companies’ corporate boards, the actual due diligence process was expected to take about a year to complete. But with government blocking the deal, AT&T and T-Mobile will have bigger challenges ahead.

Anti-Competitive

The complaint, filed by the Department of Justice in a Washington federal court, claims that the $39 billion deal would be in violation of the U.S. anti-trust laws. As such, government has requested for a court order against the merger.

The Department of Justice today filed a civil antitrust lawsuit to block AT&T Inc.’s proposed acquisition of T-Mobile USA Inc. The department said that the proposed $39 billion transaction would substantially lessen competition for mobile wireless telecommunications services across the United States, resulting in higher prices, poorer quality services, fewer choices and fewer innovative products for the millions of American consumers who rely on mobile wireless services in their everyday lives.

Should the courts agree with the lawsuit, AT&T would be in big trouble. Their agreement with T-Mobile includes a rejection clause stipulating that AT&T will have to pay certain concessions to T-Mobile in case the deal does not push through. For one, AT&T will have to pay Deutsche Telekom (which owns T-Mobile) $3 billion in cash. The company would also have to provide T-Mobile with wireless spectrum in certain regions and reduced access rates to its facilities.

Will AT&T Fight Back?

With the hefty cancellation fee, AT&T will have a big incentive to fight back against the DoJ’s lawsuit. The company will have to stand by its economic and financial projections that a merger with T-Mobile should be in the best interests of customers, as it would improve network efficiency, reduce costs and increase the quality of service, as AT&T proposes.

AT&T shares have fallen as much as 5% since the news broke, and while neither AT&T, the DoJ nor T-Mobile has provided comments, the Federal Communications Commission has issued a statement.

By filing suit today, the Department of Justice has concluded that AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile would substantially lessen competition in violation of the antitrust laws. Competition is an essential component of the FCC’s statutory public interest analysis, and although our process is not complete, the record before this agency also raises serious concerns about the impact of the proposed transaction on competition. Vibrant competition in wireless services is vital to innovation, investment, economic growth and job creation, and to drive our global leadership in mobile. Competition fosters consumer benefits, including more choices, better service and lower prices.

We predict that this will be a hotly-debated topic in the next coming days, so we’ll keep you posted on updates, particularly AT&T’s official response to the lawsuit announcement.

The Wall Street Journal recently ran a report on how the former Libyan government has been gaining information by accessing conversations done via the Internet. In the wake of the civil war, journalists have been given access to facilities in which Libyan citizens have been monitored for so many years. To date, Narus — a Boeing subsidiary — and French company Amesys have been found to be providing surveillance equipment, training and documentation to the Libyan government.

The dealings with western security contractors were said to have started when trade restrictions were lifted in the late 20th century. With the growing popularity of the Internet in the rest of the world, Gaddafi’s government turned to online means of spying on potential detractors and political opponents, even with only a small percentage of Libyans getting online (less than 1%). With high-tech spying equipment, the Libyan government has been able to intercept communications done through Yahoo!, Gmail, MSN and other networks. Operatives are said to have access to powerful systems that they can simply type in keywords, email addresses, names or file names, and relevant matches will pop up in real time.

Meanwhile, mobile communications have not been spared from spying, as surveillance installations have been found with equipment from VASTech, which produces technology that can intercept phone conversations and messages.

Neither company involved has provided a statement explaining their involvement, citing confidentiality agreements and the private nature of business dealings. However, VASTech says they only deal with UN-sanctioned nations, and only for counterterrorism measures. Meanwhile, Narus says they have had no sales in Libya.

This begs the question — are we truly secure and safe in our online dealings? Even with supposedly secure and encrypted interfaces, will our email and IM exchanges with friends and colleagues truly private? Gaddafi’s spies reportedly had access to emails from UK-based activists, and so anyone can theoretically be a target. In the meantime, the former Libyan government’s surveillance efforts seem to be moot, with rebels succeeding in taking over in the Tripoli endgame. Maybe updating our browsers against SSL security breaches is just not enough.

DigiNotar, a Dutch company, issues SSL certificates that ensure authentication and encryption in SSL-protected websites. However, a recent breach in DigiNotar’s system has been discovered. The company was found to have issued a certificate for the “google.com” domain this July, even as Google has not acquired a certificate from the company. Coupled with a “poisoned” DNS cache, a third party could then pretend they were “google.com” and obtain user accounts and passwords that way.

DigiNotar has since revoked the certificate, and Google is disabling access to DigiNotar certificates in Chrome. However, unknowing web users might still fall victim to so-called man-in-the-middle attacks, in which a third party pretends to be a certified website by using the fraudulent SSL certificate. Google has since updated Chrome, which is actually able to detect the fake certificate in the first place. Mozilla and Microsoft have likewise updated their Firefox and Internet Explorer browsers, respectively.

But while many users might experience hacked Gmail and Google accounts, citizens from some parts of the world are facing much bigger problems. Google says the certificate breach targeted users in Iran, some of whom might be put in compromised positions for communications or content posted or sent through their Google accounts. Speculations are that Iranian authorities may have been responsible for the certificate acquisition, although these remain to be confirmed. Google has not disclosed the extent of the damage.

Users are warned against accessing sites that have invalid SSL certificates, and to heed browser warnings to this effect. Google automatically pushes updates for Chrome, and users who have automatic updates will get IE and Firefox likewise patched with latest fixes. To ensure security, users are advised to confirm having the latest versions and patches for these browsers, and to surf with vigilance.

Steve Jobs is known to value his privacy. But even so, a handful of unofficial biographies have been written, including The Second Coming of Steve Jobs and iCon: Steve Jobs, The Greatest Second Act in the History of Business. His first official biography, Steve Jobs: A Biography, is scheduled to come out in November this year. But Jobs’ recent resignation will have author Walter Isaacson scrambling to include new details about Jobs life and work, given his recent move to hand over Apple’s reins to Tim Cook.

Simon & Schuster, publisher of the highly-anticipated biography, has recently announced that the book will include details and insights about Steve Jobs’ resignation from his own point of view. The author is said to be in regular contact with Jobs, and is actually still working on the book’s final chapter. Meanwhile, news of Jobs’ resignation as Apple CEO has resulted in a spike in pre-orders.

The book comes out November 21, 2011, and the publishers promise it will ship on time. The biography will include interviews with former girlfriends, family members, colleagues and industry contemporaries (including rivals). Jobs has also given the author and publisher his go-signal to print the book even without first reviewing the material.

Rob Malda founded Slashdot about 14 years ago. Known by his online nickname CmdrTaco, he first launched the site as a soapbox where he shared tech-related news and voiced out opinions on the same. The site has since turned into an influential news aggregator and discussions site, often delivering that “Slashdot effect,” which resulted in traffic spikes — and sometimes server crashes — to sites that Slashdot links to. Slashdot has been every geek and techie’s reference for what’s hot and what’s new, even before the dawn (and eventual fall?) of Digg and Reddit as social news aggregators.

Slashdot has been read by kernel engineers and billionaires. By sys-admins and CEOs. By high school kids and government bureaucrats. But what brings so many of them together is that we are nerds. It never ceases to amaze me the similarities that I find between us all when I climb out of my dungeon and go meet readers. From the inside of some of the most wonderful places on earth, to conference halls with useless wireless connections, to cube farms, you guys always reminded me of why I started this thing in the first place. We share something important and unquantifiable.

Throughout its history, Slashdot has since changed ownership several times, with Malda still at the reins as editor-in-chief. Last year, co-founder Jeff Bates left the site and has since started to work for Google. CmdrTaco cites the vast changes in the tech scene and industry as part of his reason for leaving. While he has not stated any plans for the near future, we can only guess that CmdrTaco will be moving on to greater things, and will still continue helping change the world for the better as one of the top innovators in the tech/news industry.

And as with Tim Cook telling his Apple employees that things will be the same at Apple, the rest of the tech world will still remain the magical place that it is, which is a sign that even as we humans come and go, technology will still grow and innovate at its own pace, of course with the help of the few, rare, innovators such as Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and their kind.

Image credit: flickr/redjar

A Motorola investor has filed a complaint against Google and Motorola, citing that the $12.5 billion deal is not good enough for investors. In particular, John Keating says Motorola Mobility’s value is actually higher than the offered $40 per share.

The offered consideration does not compensate shareholders for the company’s intrinsic value and stand-alone alternatives going forward, nor does it compensate shareholders for the company’s value as a strategic asset for Google.

Keating, acting on behalf of Motorola Mobility shareholders at large, has cited Motorola Mobility CEO Sanjay Jha, nine of the company’s board members and even Google in his complaint. Keating is actually looking into a class-action lawsuit, and will have to convince a good number of his fellow shareholders that the 63% markup offered by Google on Motorola stocks is not generous enough.

Google has declined to comment on the matter. While the potential class-action lawsuit might be a hindrance to the Google-Motorola deal finally pushing through, it will still depend on how much support Keating gets from fellow shareholders and the legal system itself. Some even speculate that Google’s competitors might be behind the lawsuit.

Tech bloggers from the UK are reporting that the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 is still available from retailers in the country. This is because of some legal ambiguity shrouding the German court ruling. In particular, retailers reason that the ban is only for Samsung’s distribution of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 to retailers, and not for the sale of units that are already in the stores’ stocks.

This means that if you’re in the UK, you can still get your hands on a Galay Tab 10.1 until stores run out of stock. Some retailers are already listing the tablet as unavailable, though, such as Amazon UK. But Currys, Dixons and other retailers still list the product as available. Samsung has actually responded to the legal ruling, and is further quoted to say that “products already distributed prior to the injunction on 9 August may still be sold, we do not expect this to have an immediate impact on sales.”

Will this legal scenario have a big impact on the Apple and Samsung patent disputes?

It’s the classic case of “innovation by litigation” — or “competition by litigation” as the case may be. Apple and Samsung are locking horns against each other in patent disputes over Apple’s iPhone and iPad and Samsung’s own Galaxy and Galaxy Tab lines. Both companies have been filing lawsuits and requests for injunction in the US, Europe and even Asian countries, sometimes scoring points, and sometimes just causing annoyance to either party (and to consumers).

Apple has apparently been successful in convincing German courts to ban Samsung devices in Europe, particularly the Galaxy Tab 10.1. The court decision might even involve a $350,000 fine or jail/prison time for Samsung management. This came as a surprise to Samsung, though, as they don’t seem aware of any request for injunction being filed at all.

Samsung is disappointed with the court’s decision and we intend to act immediately to defend our intellectual property rights through the ongoing legal proceedings in Germany and will continue to actively defend these rights throughout the world.

The request for injunction was filed with no notice to Samsung, and the order was issued without any hearing or presentation of evidence from Samsung.

We will take all necessary measures to ensure Samsung’s innovative mobile communications devices are available to customers in Europe and around the world.

This decision by the court in Germany in no way influences other legal proceedings filed with the courts in Europe and elsewhere.

Samsung says it wasn’t given a chance to appeal or present its side. At this point, it might take up to four weeks for an appeal to be submitted and processed. What of Galaxy Tab sales, then?

Still, Samsung is not likely to take this without a fight. What next? Will some courts somewhere ban the sale of Apple products? Recall that Apple was found to be infringing on certain S3 patents that are now owned by HTC. If things continue to go this way, then consumers will start questioning whether patents are working to promote innovation as intended, or if they’re instead stifling innovation.

Google is known to be a relatively young technology company, and so it doesn’t have the sizable patent portfolio like Apple, Microsoft, or other contenders in the smartphone and tablet market. Their forte is search, after all, and it’s only now that Google is finding interest in a market that they probably didn’t think of entering back when they were building up their company assets.

But lawsuits are flying here and there, and whether Google is being directly attacked, or indirectly through Android handset makers, the company is bound to lose out, if their products are found to have incorrectly used technologies owned by other companies. This is why they made a bid — but failed — for the tech patent portfolio of Nortel Networks. This time around, they’re successful in acquiring about a thousand IBM patents — 1,029 to be exact.

The list of patents is quite broad in terms of subject and technology (see the source link for a list). These include technologies that relate to interface, as well as hardware. The patents also involve structured data, message processing systems, database management, hotlinking technologies, and the like. Now with a sizable chunk of technology patents, Google would have better defense against companies claiming their technologies are being used. Or at least these could be bargaining chips when negotiating settlements for claims of infringement (remember the Nokia-Apple ex-deal on patents?).

No price has been disclosed, although a sizable chunk of technology patents will probably be worth upwards of $1 billion (Google bid $3.14 billion for the Nortel patents, but the tech consortium made up of Microsoft, Apple, EMC, Sony Ericsson and RIM bid $4.5 billion). Will it be worth the price?

We earlier reported HTC’s announced plans to acquire the S3 brand from CPU maker VIA. While this meant digital convergence for some, for close industry observers, HTC’s main motivation seemed to be to acquire several patents and technologies owned by S3, particularly those relating to texture-compression technology in graphics processing. With recent news that the ITC has ruled in favor of S3 relating to a patent dispute with Apple, it looks like HTC has gained new ammunition for its legal team.

However, the benefit seems to have been diluted a bit by the fact that the ITC’s ruling relates to Mac OS X infringing on two of S3′s patents. iOS has been left out in this decision, which means Apple’s popular iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch products won’t be affected. Meanwhile, Apple is trying to block the shipments of HTC products in the US market, claiming that the taiwanese company has infringed on several of its own patents. The recent ruling on the S3 patents might still give HTC a leverage, and the two companies might opt to settle the matter out-of-court to speed up the process a bit.

The big issue here is whether Apple, HTC or any other company will be using any ITC ruling as a precedent to include the entire Android ecosystem itself. This tactic is said to have benefited Microsoft with hefty licensing fees from Android phone manufacturers. Will the patent wars ever end?

46-year old Barry Ardolf was meted with an 18-year sentence after repeatedly breaking into his neighbors’ WiFi routers. However, it’s not as simple as leeching off of your next-door neighbor’s open WiFi connection. The neighbors’ routers were actually secured, but Ardolf used WEP cracking tools like Aircrack-ng and BackTrack 3. Neighbors said the hacker tried to frame them for child pornography, sexual harassment and threatening emails. This was supposedly in retribution for new neighbors reporting him to the police for some misconduct.

There are several lessons to be learned here. First, if you run a home wireless network, use tougher security, like WPA2 encryption or even MAC filtering. Second, if you’re leeching off of your neighbor’s Wi-Fi connection, it might make sense to ask permission to “borrow” it first — especially if it’s just a one-off occurrence, and particularly if it’s secured. Third, be a good neighbor.

Microsoft’s legal dispute is with i4i, a small Canadian technology holdings firm that claims Microsoft infringed on its patents when it included certain XML-editing features in Microsoft Word 2007. i4i actually won its court case in Texas in August 2009, in which Microsoft was ordered to pay $290 million for patent infringement and to stop shipping the software containing the technology in question. Microsoft has appealed, though, challenging the basis of proof that the courts used when deciding on the patent’s validity.

Microsoft says i4i’s patent is not valid because Word has had the XML editing technology more than a year before the patent was applied for. Microsoft wanted the courts to use the “preponderance of evidence” argument rather than “clear and convincing evidence,” in proving that the patent does not hold validity.

Unfortunately for Microsoft, it lost its Court of Appeals appeal in December of 2009, and again its appeal with the Supreme Court just recently. The Supreme Court says it was not up to Microsoft to change the basis of proving the validity of patents, and that the company was trying to undermine the value of technology patents.

In any event, Microsoft’s latest versions of Word no longer contain the technology covered by i4i’s patent, but still the company alleges that the damage has been done and wants their $290 million share of MS Office revenues.

What’s interesting is how polarizing the lawsuit had been among technology companies, to the extent that some groups traditionally antagonistic to Microsoft — such as the EFF — have sided with them on the issue, citing that patent issues like this are more stifling — rather than conducive — to innovation. Furthermore, the ruling is thought to encourage abuse by patent owners who might not necessarily be after the interests of technology and innovation.

Do you agree with Microsoft, or with the patent holder? To what extent can a patent holder enforce its ownership of technologies? Is Microsoft correct in claiming they have the right to the XML editing technology in question being first-to-market? Are patents achieving their aim of helping innovate, or are they restricting innovation instead?

Mobile phones are ubiquitous, and everyone’s calling, texting or browsing. But before the cellphone became popular as it is today, critics have often claimed that the low-powered radio signals emitted by mobile phones are a potential cancer risk. The WHO has recently listed mobile phones in the same category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform as a “carcinogenic hazard.”

Seemingly equivocal, the WHO has given assurance that no adverse health effects had actually been established, although it has issued the warning all the same. Studies have shown evidence of an increase in brain cancer cells in people who use mobile phones, although has not established other conclusions. WHO says the radiation from mobile phones is akin to that of a low-powered microwave oven.

What microwave radiation does in most simplistic terms is similar to what happens to food in microwaves, essentially cooking the brain. So in addition to leading to a development of cancer and tumors, there could be a whole host of other effects like cognitive memory function, since the memory temporal lobes are where we hold our cell phones.

Of course, the cellphone industry has responded, saying the study does not necessarily mean causation. Cell phone use may be correlated with cancer, although no conclusive evidence has yet been found. Still, health agencies have started to push for further studies, particularly given the long-term implications of exposure to low-powered radiation.

So does this mean we’ll be reducing our mobile phone use from now on?

The bill, currently being processed by the US senate, will empower courts of law to order search engines, DNS servers and ISPs to essentially kill services that infringe on intellectual property or copyright by denying access to these websites. Dubbed the Protect IP Act, the aim of the proposed law is to give enforcement agencies better capabilities at actually targeting software, music and movie pirates, even ones that are physically located overseas. By denying DNS access, visibility in search listings, advertisements, and financial services, their entire business model is essentially killed off.

Some critics, such as Google’s Eric Schmidt, have said the bill was tantamount to a threat to the freedom of speech. He says Google will continue to fight against the Protect IP bill even if (or when) it has been enacted already. Of course, the bill also has opposition within the US Senate itself, although it seems to have a lot of supporters within the legislature.

State legislators in California are currently working on a “do not track” proposal that will help protect online privacy. However, Google, Facebook and Yahoo! seem to be against this measure, and claim their business will be badly affected if users were allowed to explicitly opt out of tracking. Said companies even go as far as saying profits will dip, and jobs will be cut if “do not track” legislation were to be enforced. As for consumers, the tech companies argue that opting out of location-tracking will result in a poor Internet experience, and that users will even be more vulnerable to security threats.

Iit seems that the focus here is on Internet-companies’ business models. Targeted and contextual advertising are Google and Facebook’s bread and butter, and users opting-out of tracking will adversely affect their income in a big way. Others also lose out, including Microsoft, Apple and just about any other company that relies on specific user information (like web history, geographic location, and the like) when displaying adverts.

How valid are their points, though? Will keeping a central database of “opt out” users be a security vulnerability (as demonstrated by the recent Sony Playstation Network data breach)? Will online advertising firms find innovative ways to deal with the lack of user information? Do you care at all whether websites and web companies can get some information about your online activities and whereabouts?