A Chinese court has ordered the software giant to stop producing and selling versions of its Windows OS that include Chinese fonts developed by a local software company. Microsoft’s (MSFT) use of two Chinese fonts developed by Zhongyi Electronic, a Beijing-based software company, was not covered by the licensing agreement between the two, the court found, and therefore infringed on Zhongyi’s rights. And so Microsoft must pull from the shelves Chinese language editions of Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows Server 2003.

“By winning this case against an internationally well-known company like Microsoft, it shows that China, although still a developing country, is taking positive steps to protect intellectual property rights,” an attorney for Zhongyi Electronic told Reuters.

Microsoft, for its part, insists its agreement with Zhongyi covered its use of the fonts at issue and plans to appeal the decision. “Microsoft respects intellectual property rights,” the company said in a statement. “We use third party IPs only when we have a legitimate right to do so.”

And if Microsoft should fail in its appeal? Well, piracy is so rampant in China, a court order preventing the company from selling certain versions of Windows isn’t exactly going to hamstring Microsoft’s business. “The majority of operating systems in the market today are illegal copies, and the ones that are Zhongyi-related have an even smaller share of the market,” Analysys International analyst Edward Yu explains. “So I don’t think it will have much impact on Microsoft’s business.”

So begins Verizon’s (VZ) response to AT&T’s (T) complaints about its new ad campaign, and as you can see below, it pulls no punches. For 53 pages–all of them very obviously drafted with publication in mind–the new filing mercilessly thrashes AT&T, proving over and over again that the carrier’s carping over Verizon’s ads has transformed a no-win situation into a horrific PR disaster that only highlights AT&T’s shortcomings.

“In the final analysis, AT&T seeks emergency relief because Verizon’s side-by-side, apples-to-apples comparison of its own 3G coverage with AT&T’s confirms what the marketplace has been saying for months: AT&T failed to invest adequately in the necessary infrastructure to expand its 3G coverage to support its growth in smartphone business and the usefulness of its service to smartphone users has suffered accordingly. AT&T may not like the message that the ads send, but this Court should reject its efforts to silence the messenger.”

Brutal.

As I said earlier this month, if AT&T’s lawsuit over Verizon’s allegedly misleading “there’s a map for that” wasn’t a public relations mistake to begin with, it will be by the time Verizon gets through. And, indeed, the lawsuit already is a mistake. Below, Verizon’s reply in full:

PREVIOUSLY:

• Frosty’s Winter Litigation Wonderland: AT&T Demands Verizon Pull Holiday iPhone Ads [With Full Complaint]
• Verizon Banishes iPhone to Island of Misfit Toys
• Verizon on AT&T Suit: There’s a Word for That. “Junk.”
• Verizon to iPhone Users: “Want Five Times More 3G Coverage? There’s a Map for That.”

verizonresponse –

Certainly, requiring Comcast (CMCSA) to disclose more information about its traffic management practices seems a mere slap on the wrist for a company that deliberately interfered with BitTorrent traffic in violation of Internet openness principles. But Comcast, which wants a court to reverse and vacate the FCC decision, feels even it was too much.

“The order is unlawful because it enforced mere policy–not any provision of federal law–against Comcast,” the company said in a brief filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals this week. “The commission’s action was procedurally improper and violated bedrock principles of fair notice…the FCC erred in enforcing mere policy…and this court can and should dispose of this case on that ground alone.”

In other words, since the FCC’s Network neutrality principles haven’t yet been codified, Comcast can’t be held accountable for violating them. The FCC, of course, disagrees. In a filing of its own, it wrote, “[FCC] determinations were lawful and reasonable….Congress created the FCC for cases such as this one.”

Indeed. And while it’s true that those Net neutrality principles Comcast ran afoul of aren’t yet official rules, they clearly will be soon.

The judge presiding over the case, who’d been urged by the U.S. Department of Justice to reject an earlier version of the settlement, set that date during a morning hearing so brief that when MediaMemo’s Peter Kafka asked Google CEO Eric Schmidt about it at a company roundtable this morning, Schmidt was unaware a date had been set. When Peter broke the news to him, Schmidt didn’t have much of a comment, but he did speak briefly about the settlement and Google’s view of it earlier in the morning.

From Peter’s paraphrased notes on the session:

With respect to book search, we were doing something that we thought was appropriate. We were sued, and after three years of discussion we’ve come to a settlement. This is perfectly normal. From our perspective, this is a settlement we like, it’s a settlement we think they’ll like, and we’ll hear what the court says, within minutes. Let me reframe your question: There’s nothing particularly exclusive about what we’re doing. The rights registry we’re doing is for the benefit of orphan works. “It’s not a particularly good business for us. We’re doing it because we think it’s the right thing to do.” We don’t think the settlement is perfect, but we think it’s good.

Though it’s not yet clear what form the revised settlement might take or what adjusted terms are being discussed, Google and the authors and publishers it has allied with it have quite a few critics to appease, including academics, librarians, privacy advocates, would-be rivals and the French and German governments.

“The settlement would alter the landscape of copyright law, for millions and millions of rights holders of out-of-print books,” Peters said. “It would flip copyright on its head by allowing Google to engage in extensive new uses without the consent of the copyright owner–in my view, making a mockery of Article One of the Constitution, that anticipates that authors shall be granted exclusive rights.”

The settlement, as Peters sees it, will allow Google (GOOG) to profit from the work of others without prior consent. “It could affect the exclusive rights of millions of copyright owners, in the United States and abroad, with respect to their abilities to control new products and new markets, for years and years to come,” she said. “In essence, the proposed settlement would give Google a license to infringe first and ask questions later, under the imprimatur of the court.”

One of the more blistering attacks on the deal to date, especially given its source: The nation’s top copyright official. But Google nevertheless dismissed it as unfounded: “We think the settlement is legal, and we think it is structured well within the guidelines of what you can do in a class action settlement,” David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, said during the hearing. “It certainly is not usurping Congress’s authority to do whatever it wants.”

A typically arrogant response from Google, though the company does appear to be conceding a bit of ground in the face of widening opposition to the deal. Responding to Peters’s criticism and claims that the deal will essentially grant Google a de facto monopoly over out-of-print books, Drummond said the company plans to make those works available to any book retailer.

“For the out-of-print books being made available through the Google Books settlement, we will let any book retailer sell access to those books,” Drummond told the committee. “Google will host the digital books online, and retailers such as Amazon, Barnes & Noble or your local bookstore will be able to sell access to users on any internet-connected device they choose.”

Sadly for Google, that conciliatory gesture did not go over well with critics of the deal. “The Internet has never been about intermediation,” Paul Misener, Amazon’s vice president of public policy, said of the company’s offer. “We are happy to work with rights holders without anyone else’s help.”

The Internet Archive’s Peter Brantley was even more disdainful. “I fail to see what’s really new here,” he told the Los Angeles Times. “It’s like Macy’s telling Sears, ‘You can sell Macy’s clothing.’ There’s no fundamental change of the conditions under which Macy’s acquires those clothes. Google remains in control.”

On what grounds? Intel (INTC) spokesperson Robert Manetta said simply that the EC’s “decision is wrong.” Said Manetta: “We believe the European Commission misinterpreted some evidence and ignored other pieces of evidence.”

Just how Intel intends to prove that isn’t yet clear. But we may find out in September when the court is likely to issue a summary of the company’s complaints.

The Justice Department probe of the Google Books settlement is heating up. On Thursday afternoon, the agency officially opened an investigation into the deal, which would allow the search sovereign to make millions of books available online.

“The United States has reviewed public comments expressing concern that aspects of the settlement agreement may violate the Sherman Act,” wrote William F. Cavanaugh, a deputy assistant attorney general. “At this preliminary stage, the United States has reached no conclusions as to the merit of those concerns or more broadly what impact this settlement may have on competition. However, we have determined that the issues raised by the proposed settlement warrant further inquiry.”

The move is the strongest sign yet that the DOJ may block the settlement, which critics claim would grant Google (GOOG) a monopoly on orphaned works–copyrighted texts without an identifiable copyright holder. The notification, included below, is the first time the DOJ has confirmed the investigation publicly and said that it is indeed looking at possible violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Odd that the letter was filed this week inasmuch as the “fairness hearing” that will determine whether final approval is given to the settlement is still months away. Clearly, Google’s recent public relations offensive claiming the company is just as vulnerable to competition as anyone else hasn’t had much effect.

Reached for comment, Google spokesperson Gabriel Stricker offered the following statement:

“The Department of Justice and several state attorneys general have contacted us to learn more about the impact of the settlement, and we are happy to answer their questions.

It’s important to note that this agreement is non-exclusive and if approved by the court, stands to expand access to millions of books in the U.S.”

2009.07.02 Order _ DOJ Letter –

The $200 million verdict is the second-largest patent jury award this year, the largest of all–coincidentally, I’m sure–being the $388 million verdict against Microsoft won by Singapore’s Uniloc in April over an infringement of its security technology. Then, as in the i4i case and most other patent rulings that haven’t gone its way, Redmond responded with incredulity, claiming it couldn’t have possibly infringed on the patent because the patent is invalid. “We believe the evidence clearly demonstrated that we do not infringe and that the i4i patent is invalid,” said David Bowermaster, a Microsoft spokesman, in the company’s now boilerplate statement on such matters. “We believe this award of damages is legally and factually unsupported, so we will ask the court to overturn the verdict.”

With potentially millions of dollars in compensatory damages at stake here, there’s no way Microsoft (MSFT) will allow the motion to go unchallenged.

The trial is currently set to begin April 13, unless the plaintiffs succeed in having it postponed.

Peter Fleischer, Google’s global privacy counsel; David Drummond, Google’s senior vice president and chief legal officer; George Reyes, the company’s former chief financial officer; and an unidentified exec from Google Video in London, are today in a Milan courtroom facing possible jail time for the incident, though they were not involved in it. Talk about blaming the tool for the way it is used….

Google (GOOG), for its part, insists the charges against the four executives are unwarranted. “As we have repeatedly made clear, our hearts go out to the victim and his family,” the company said in a statement. “We are pleased that as a result of our cooperation the bullies in the video have been identified and punished. We feel that bringing this case to court is totally wrong. It’s akin to prosecuting mail service employees for hate speech letters sent in the post. What’s more, seeking to hold neutral platforms liable for content posted on them is a direct attack on a free, open Internet. We will continue to vigorously defend our employees in this prosecution.”

Recorded with a cellphone camera, the three-minute video featured a group of teenagers harassing a boy with Down Syndrome. Google quickly removed it. But not quickly enough. The clip was viewed some 12,000 times before it was pulled. Enough times to inspire an investigation into the issue, and now apparently, charges of defamation and breach of privacy.

Google, for its part, claims there is no basis for legal action against the four officials because they weren’t involved in the incident itself and the company isn’t required to monitor third-party content on its sites. Said a Google spokesman, “We believe that this proceeding is not about Google Video and what happened, but about the internet as we know it–an open and free environment.”

U.S. House and Senate leaders agreed yesterday to extend the Bush administration’s controversial wiretap program through at least 2012 and grant immunity to the telcos that participated in its warrantless domestic surveillance operation. Great news for AT&T (T) and other companies facing some 40 lawsuits over civil liberties violations arising from the program. Lousy news for those who filed them. “The lawsuits will be dismissed, and we feel comfortable that the standard of evidence that the law requires will be easily met,” said House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., bluntly.

Comfortable that the standard of evidence the law requires will be met? How could you not be? The law allows the government to conduct “emergency wiretaps” without court orders on U.S. citizens for up to a week if the information is sensitive and the director of national intelligence fears it might be lost by seeking proper authorization.

Shades of J. Edgar Hoover, no? Said Rep. Barbara Lee (D., Calif.), co-chair of the House’s Progressive Caucus, “This bill scares me to death.“

The plaintiffs, who claim the severance plan makes any takeover of the company prohibitively expensive, had requested a trial before Yahoo’s annual shareholders meeting on Aug. 1. They argued that the plan, and Yahoo’s recently announced advertising deal with Google (GOOG), might unfairly bias Yahoo shareholders against efforts to replace the company’s board.

But the judge, who complained of the “media maelstrom” shareholders have created around the issue, didn’t buy it. And rather than expediting the case, he said he planned to set a “prompt” schedule for hearing Yahoo’s motion to dismiss it.

As I said, lucky break.

Photo of Judge Wapner from “The People’s Court.”

The judgment is believed to be the largest anti-spam award to date. Not that it really matters, because MySpace (NWS) is unlikely to collect it. Wallace–who was by some estimates responsible for 80% of the spam on the Net back in his heyday–has rarely paid the judgments against him. Moreover, he has a bad habit of disappearing at the first sign of legal trouble.

And that appears to be exactly what he’s done here. Because the $230 million award given MySpace in this case is a default judgment meted out after Wallace failed to appear in court. “It is … a defendant’s responsibility to respond to discovery, obey court orders and avoid dilatory tactics,” the court wrote in its order. “Taking all of the above factors into account, a default is appropriate. The court finds that Wallace’s noncompliance is due to willfulness, fault or bad faith. … Wallace has had every opportunity to avoid the sanction of default. (He) has never provided any explanation for his behavior to the court.”