US SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN CALIFORNIA VIOLENT VIDEO GAME LAW

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court rejected a law that would make it illegal for video game stores and publishers to sell or rent violent video games to minors. The law, which was adopted in 2005 and rejected in a 7-2 vote, was deemed unconstitutional and against freedom of speech rights. According to Reuters, a number of big players in the gaming industry opposed the law, including the Entertainment Software Association, whose ranks include Sony, Microsoft, EA, and Disney. “Our cases hold that minors are entitled to a significant degree of First Amendment protection,” Justice Antonin Scalia said. “Government has no free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which they may be exposed.”

WINKLEVOSS TWINS GIVE UP APPEAL OF FACEBOOK RULING

Olympic rowing twins Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss have decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court a ruling upholding their $65 million settlement with Facebook Inc and its founder Mark Zuckerberg, signaling the possible end of the long-running dispute.

The 2008 accord was intended to resolve a feud over whether Zuckerberg stole the idea for what became the world's most popular social networking website from the Winklevosses, who like him had attended Harvard University. Their battle was dramatized in the 2010 film "The Social Network."

After agreeing to the cash-and-stock accord, the Winklevosses sought to undo it, saying it was fraudulent because Facebook hid information from them, and that they deserved more money.

The 6-foot 5-inch (1.96-meter) twins, who competed in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, had been planning to appeal an April 11 ruling by a federal appeals court in San Francisco upholding the settlement, which that court called "quite favorable."

But in a filing on Wednesday with that court, the Winklevosses said that after "careful consideration," they decided not to seek Supreme Court review. The filing did not give a reason for the decision.

MICROSOFT LOSES PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASE, MUST PAY $290 MILLION

We've diligently followed the Microsoft v. i4i Limited Partnership patent dispute as it wound its way through the courts, and now comes the day of reckoning: by a unanimous decision, the US Supreme Court has upheld the patent-infringement finding against Redmond. For those of you just catching up, MS had been taken to court by Toronto-based i4i over a portfolio of XML-related patents, patents it had already offered to license to the software behemoth.

In court, Microsoft claimed it had not infringed and that the patents were invalid; a 2009 Texas court disagreed and awarded $200 million in damages. A subsequent appeal failed. Oh, and the government sided with i4i. Today's Supreme Court verdict upholds the lower courts' decisions: Microsoft Word is an infringing product, and the company now owes $290 million. The finding likely won't affect consumers, as the offending versions of Word are now obsolete. Still, $290 million isn't chump change, even for the world's largest software company.

MICROSOFT, i4i SPAT HEADS TO US SUPREME COURT

A four-year old patent dispute is about to be put to rest. In a complaint originally filed in 2007, Toronto-based firm i4i alleged that Microsoft used proprietary code to display XML files in its Microsoft Word 2003 product. A Texas jury ruled in favor of i4i in August of 2009, and awarded the company a $290 million settlement — Microsoft was also barred from selling Word 2003 until i4i’s code was removed.

The U.S. software giant has excavated the bits in question, but Microsoft is looking to the country’s highest court for a more preferable decision. After several failed attempts to have i4i’s patents reviewed and invalidated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. Both Microsoft and i4i will be given 30 minutes to explain to the eight Justices — Chief Justice John Roberts has recused himself — why the patent is valid. But the case will take on a greater meaning, going well beyond this one piece of intellectual property. Microsoft will argue that patent law, as it currently stands, is stifling innovation, whilst i4i will argue the contrary.

The court began hearing arguments this Monday, and its decision is expected to have a significant, and potentially far reaching, impact on patent cases currently in waiting.