HP IN TALKS TO LICENSE WEBOS

During an interview with Bloomberg recently, HP’s CEO Leo Apokether said that his company is in talks to license its webOS software to other manufacturers. “We are talking to a number of companies,” he said.”I can share with you that a number of companies have expressed interest. We are continuing our conversations.” Apotheker said there’s no specific time frame for when another company may announce that it’s using webOS and noted that “there is no time pressure.”

However, Bloomberg said that Samsung has been named as one of the potential licensees, but that information is still being kept private. “Samsung will continue to strengthen its relationship with Google to provide ultimate values to customers,” Jason Kim, a Samsung spokesperson, said — hinting at the firm’s commitment to Android. HP’s first webOS tablet, the TouchPad, will make its debut later this week on July 1st for $499.99.

LODSYS STILL GOING AFTER DEVELOPERS AFTER APPLE DEFENSE

A firm called Lodsys has been targeting Apple and Android developers that it believes are using its in-app purchase technology illegally. Despite Apple’s efforts to argue that its developers are covered under the same license, Lodsys doesn’t appear to be letting up anytime soon — it’s giving developers 21 days to cough up licensing fees before it files lawsuits. In a few recent blog posts, Lodsys explained its position on the matter:

[Apple's] letter was very surprising as Apple and Lodsys were in confidential discussions and there was clearly disagreement on the interpretation of the license terms of Apple’s agreement. Before, during and after these interactions, Lodsys has carefully considered this issue and consulted several legal experts to consider Apple’s claims. We stand firm and restate our previous position that it is the 3rd party Developers that are responsible for the infringement of Lodsys’ patents and they are responsible for securing the rights for their applications. Developers relying on Apple’s letter do so to their own detriment and are strongly urged to review Apple’s own developer agreements to determine the true extent of Apple’s responsibilities to them.

Lodsys is so confident that it has the upper hand in this legal battle that it’s offering developers $1,000 if courts rule that Apple’s license does, in fact, cover them. According to MacRumors, the developers currently being targeted include Combay, Iconfactory, Illusion Labs, Machael G. Karr, Quickoffice, Richard Shinderman, and Wulven Games.

Google has yet to respond to Lodsys’ complaints against Android developers.

GOOGLE PULLS EMULATORS FROM ANDROID MARKET

If you're an Android gamer, chances are you've heard of Nesoid, Snesoid, Gensoid, N64oid, Ataroid, Gearoid and Gameboid: they're all video game console emulators developed by yongzh, and many ranked among the most popular paid apps on the Android Market. This week, they've got something else in common, too, they've all been abruptly removed.

Following a complaint from Sega, two emulators were nixed late last month, but we're hearing that Google has since revoked yongzh's developer privileges, just like PSX4Droid comrade-in-arms ZodTTD.

There is some speculation however that yongzh violated the GPL licenses of the open-source code he used as a base for his emulators violating copyright.

MICROSOFT SUES BARNES & NOBLE, FOXCONN AND INVENTEC FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Microsoft has announced it will file suit against Barnes & Noble, Foxconn, and Inventec for patent infringement. The three, seemingly unrelated companies collaborate to manufacture the Barns & Noble branded, Android-based eReader. “The Android platform infringes a number of Microsoft’s patents, and companies manufacturing and shipping Android devices must respect our intellectual property rights,” said Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft’s Deputy General Counsel.

Microsoft has setup a patent licensing program for Android vendors to mitigate instances of infringement upon the patents in question — Taiwanese company HTC subscribes to said program. “We have tried for over a year to reach licensing agreements with Barnes & Noble, Foxconn and Inventec” Gutierrez added. “Their refusals to take licenses leave us no choice but to bring legal action to defend our innovations.”

VLC PULLED FROM APPLE iOS APP STORE

VLC has been removed from the App Store—though not at Apple's request. Rémi Denis-Courmont, a lead contributor to the project, decided that the the DRM in the App Store violated the GNU public license, requesting that Apple remove it. We're not sure we buy this interpretation of the GPL, and it doesn't quite make sense that it takes what was a completely free and easily available app away from millions of users. Worse, it doesn't set the best precedent for other open source projects, especially with the Mac App Store having similar DRM features. [Gizmodo]

FIRST-SALE DOCTRINE THROWN OUT

In a stunning unanimous 3-0 ruling the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has thrown out the first-sale doctrine.  The first-sale doctrine stated that once you purchase an item, you have the right to resell that item.  Software manufacturers have stated the first-sale doctrine does not apply to them since users are not purchasing the software, but only licensing it.  They state the licensing agreement in legal terms in EULAs and shrink wrap agreements (this is an agreement that says as soon as you open the shrink wrap you have agreed to the agreement, which the terms are often found inside the packaging).

"The terms of the software license in the case are not very different from the terms of most software licensing. So I think it's safe to say that most people don't own their software," said Greg Beck, the defense attorney in the case who represented an eBay seller sued by Autodesk. "The other ramification, there is no reason a similar license could not be put into the cover of a book. It wouldn't be difficult for everybody to implement this."  Beck will ask the full 11 members of the Appeals Court to rehear the case.

The appeals court reversed a lower court judge that said the first-sale doctrine applied whenever the consumer is entitled to keep the copy of the work, entitling consumers to resell their purchased software at will.
The case concerns Autodesk's AutoCAD Release 14, which was for sale on eBay. Autodesk, invoking the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, demanded eBay remove the item from the site, and it promptly did in 2007.

Timothy Vernor, the seller, who purchased at least four copies of the software from a company that was required to dispose of the software under a licensing agreement, re-posted the sale and his eBay account was terminated after Autodesk complained. Litigation ensued.

Autodesk, of San Rafael, California, imposed a significant number of transfer restrictions: it stated that the software could not be transferred or leased without Autodesk's written consent, and the software could not be transferred outside the Western Hemisphere. [Gizmodo]