Posted 11/13/09 at 07:14:07 AM by Paul Lilly

There are a lot of winners in the $1.25 billion settlement between Intel and AMD. The most obvious one is AMD, who can use the money to pay off debt and put this longstanding legal dispute behind them. As part of the settlement, AMD also benefits from a new five-year cross licensing agreement.

In some respects, Intel can also be considered a winner, in that the chip maker could have ended up paying much more than $1.25 billion had this lawsuit gone the distance. And like AMD, Intel can put this episode behind them. And with both Intel and AMD no longer distracted by a costly court case, the two chip makers can put their full attention towards R&D.

"It's really good for the industry in general," said Roger Kay, an analyst with Endpoint Technologies Associates. "Both companies had devoted a lot of top management to the fight. It's pretty distracting. You really want top executives concentrating on the business at hand."

OEMs like HP and Dell also come out ahead by being able to choose whichever processors and platforms they want, rather than which ones they're being told to use. And that's good for consumers, too.

It's not often that a bitter legal dispute ends up having so many winners, but that's certainly the case here.

Read More

Posted 11/12/09 at 09:31:08 AM by Paul Lilly

Talk about vindication. AMD waited a long time for this day and took a lot of heat from the Intel faithful, but the chip maker finally got it was looking for: a huge settlement.

Finally putting to rest the longstanding antitrust dispute, Intel and AMD announced today a settlement agreement in which Intel will pay AMD $1.25 billion, as well as agree to "abide by a set of business practice provisions." In return, AMD will drop all pending litigation and withdraw all of its regulatory complaints worldwide.

"While the relationship between the two companies has been difficult in the past, this agreement ends the legal disputes and enables the companies to focus all of our efforts on product innovation and development," the chip makers said in a joint statement.

The dispute dates back to 2004 when AMD filed a case accusing Intel of unfair business practices that entailed snuffing the smaller chip maker out. Intel allegedly offered sizable rebates to key vendors in exchange for either dealing exclusively with Intel, or delaying the launch of AMD products.

While AMD has agreed to take its money and run, Intel might not be out of hot water completely. The settlement doesn't prevent governments from initiating antitrust cases against Intel.

Read More

Posted 09/28/09 at 09:28:36 AM by Paul Lilly

After more than four years of litigation, it looks like AMD and Intel are likely to reach a settlement before the civil case between the chip makers comes to court in 2010.

The original filing dates back to June 2005, during which time AMD sued Intel in a Delaware district court alleging all kinds of anti-competitive business practices and other tomfoolery. If found guilty, Intel could potentially be fined around $9 billion, TGDaily reports. To put that into perspective, building two fabs would only cost half as much.

Intel could also be fined much less, and the longer this drags on, the more resources both sides have to throw at lawyers rather than concentrating on building chips. For this reason, TGDaily reports sources close to both companies say the case will never make it to trial as the two sides are likely to settle. The amount and terms of the potential settlement aren't known, and probably never will be, but either way, you can score this as a win for AMD.

Read More

Posted 08/23/09 at 01:30:39 PM by Justin Kerr

Google is the company that is world famous for its motto “Do No Evil”, but in the world of online book scanning, the Open Book Alliance isn’t ready to take them at their word. The OBA, founded by the Internet Archive, has become a united voice for those who feel Google was handed a monopoly with its $125 million settlement with publishers. The primary argument is that competitors such as the Internet Archive, are forced to negotiate individual contracts with rights holders, while Google can simply scan now, and pay later when the author makes a claim.

“If this deal goes ahead, they’re making a real shot at being the library, and the only library” claims Internet Archives founder Brewster Kahle. Until recently the Open Book Alliance has been lacking any real corporate muscle, but with the recent inclusion of Microsoft, Yahoo, and Amazon into the alliance, they definitely will be taken much more seriously. With the outcome of the Department of Justice investigation into the matter still pending, Google is quickly finding itself in a very public battle over digital book rights, and they seem to be making many more enemies than friends these days.

According the OBA, anti-trust and anti-competitive concerns are an important focus, but they also worry about Google’s commitment to privacy. The American Libraries Association claims “When it comes to privacy, the agreement is silent on the issue with regards to what Google intends to do with the data it collects”.

Will the addition of Microsoft, Yahoo, and Amazon into the alliance help ensure equality in the book scanning industry?

Read More

Posted 07/05/09 at 12:45:35 PM by Justin Kerr

The U.S. Department of Justice officially confirmed on Thursday that it has launched a formal investigation into the settlement between Google Book Search and publishers over digital publishing rights. The primary focus of the case is antitrust concerns which allege that Google may have engaged in anticompetitive practices involving intellectual property rights and their distribution.

Google’s foray into the world of digital books has been a turbulent one, and though their troubles appeared to be coming to a close last November with a $125 million settlement, the DOJ appears to be less than satisfied. The concern is that following the settlement, Google was effectively given a monopoly over copyright on out of print works. Anyone outside of Google who wished to pursue publishing of these titles online would need to negotiate with the individual authors, many of whom are difficult, if not impossible to find.

Google’s counter argument has always been that the digital book market is still wide open. They claim that any potential competitor who wanted to enter the book scanning market could simply negotiate a deal with the Books Rights Registry. The Registry is a nonprofit organization that was established during the settlement to represent the interests of the authors. Critics argue that Google’s head start makes competing difficult, and many worry about having so much information in the hands of one company. Google continues to shrug off concerns, and likes to remind everyone that competition “is just a click away”.

Do you agree? Hit the jump to leave your thoughts, and to read the official letter from the DOJ.

Read More

Posted 04/05/09 at 02:06:02 PM by Justin Kerr

Last week Microsoft and TomTom finally reached a settlement in their ongoing patent dispute. As part of the deal, TomTom will pay Microsoft for patent protection that covers it’s mapping, and file management systems, which as it turns out, are part of the Linux kernel. According to a company spokesperson, TomTom will “remove from its products the functionality related to two file management systems patents over the next two years.” The specific financial terms were not disclosed, but a legal cease fire between the two companies has been agreed upon for a five year period.

"We are pleased TomTom has chosen to resolve the litigation amicably by entering into a patent agreement," Microsoft deputy general counsel Horacio Gutierrez said in a statement. Industry analysts have been following the case very closely, since the Linux Kernel is at the heart of the infringements. This settlement opens the door for Microsoft to go after other firms who use Linux commercially. Microsoft has agreements in place with Linux heavy users such as LG, Samsung, and Xerox, but this victory gives them further ammunition in negotiations that don’t lead to a deal. Though the settlement is a long way from killing Linux commercially, it certainly gives Microsoft a lot more creditability in its ongoing assertions that the Linux kernel violates their intellectual property.

Read More

Posted 02/12/09 at 05:04:43 PM by Andy Salisbury

Facebook Inc. came to the conclusion that they weren’t worth nearly the $15 billion that they implied in 2007 when Microsoft made a gigantic investment in them. In fact, it’s now become clear that Facebook is worth $3.7 billion – a far cry from the original number.

In 2007 lawyers argued that Facebook’s privately held stock was valued for $39.50 per share, allowing Microsoft to buy a 1.6 percent stake for $240 million. It has now become clear that Facebook’s stock is valued at only $8.88, giving Microsoft to be upset about.

It’s expected that Facebook will pony up for a settlement soon.

Read More

Posted 01/29/09 at 03:58:01 PM by Mark Edward Soper

The Inquirer reports that Apple has settled a class-action lawsuit over the uncoated (and scratch-prone) first-generation iPod Nanos, which were sold starting in September 2005.

Because Apple began putting a protective coating on iPod Nanos starting in December 2005, you must submit a claim form  specifying your Nano's serial number to determine if your unit is covered by the settlement. You  have until June 10th 2009 to postmark your claim, but earlier dates apply if you want to exclude yourself or file an objection.

If the settlement is approved, the owner of each eligible iPod Nano sold without a protective slipcase would receive $25. Owners of iPod Nanos sold with a protective slipcase would receive $15 per unit. Learn more at the settlement website's FAQ page.

Did you buy an early iPod Nano? Join us after the jump for your chance to tell us your scratch horror stories.

Read More