Samsung has agreed not to sell or advertise the Galaxy Tab 10.1 before the court’s decision, which should come down following a hearing scheduled for Sept. 26 and 29. Initially, FOSS Patents reports, Samsung’s lawyers were actually opposed to the idea of another delay of the product launch, but the judge advised that launching despite the pending issue of the preliminary injunction wouldn’t be wise. After some internal discussion between Samsung execs and its legal team, the company agreed to hold off.

In an attempt to stave off a preliminary injunction in Australia, Samsung slightly altered the Galaxy Tab 10.1. Apple’s initial delay was so that it could receive and examine the new model to see if it still considered it in violation of its intellectual property. There’s no word on what specifically is changed about the Australian Tab, but Apple’s lawyers discussed its “reduced functionality,” though it still thinks the device is too close of a copycat.

After a limited Dutch injunction against Galaxy smartphones and a reaffirmed German injunction against the Tab both came down last week, it looks like Apple is gaining some momentum in its intellectual property fight with Samsung. The actual trials are where we’ll really start to see how things will ultimately shake out, but with a California court agreeing to expedite a trial in that district, we won’t have to wait too long before the action starts.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Infrastructure Q2: Big data and PaaS gain more momentum

The lawyer in question, Kim Hyung-suk, won the decision in South Korean court in May, and the funds were reportedly withdrawn from Apple Korea’s bank account by the court after the company refused to voluntarily comply. Kim now has 27,000 signatures on a web-based petition seeking co-complainants for a class-action suit in South Korea designed to “protect privacy” rights, according to the AP. Of that number, 26,691 are now listed as plaintiffs in the civil suit filed by Kim’s firm on Wednesday, and 921 are minors and are seeking parental consent before being added to the list.

The iPhone’s locally stored database of nearby cell towers, along with a bug that continued to gather location information even with location services turned off resulted in both Kim’s successful suit and a three-million-won fine ($2,808 U.S.) from the South Korean communications regulator earlier this month. Apple has since released a software update that resolves the issues cited by Kim and security researchers who discovered the problem.

Even with nearly 27,000 thousand plaintiffs, the total cost of a ruling against Apple would only amount to around $24.6 million, which is barely a dent in the company’s $75.9 billion in cash reserves. But Apple is already facing multiple lawsuits in the U.S., too, and it probably doesn’t want this sort of thing to catch on.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• U.S. Wireless Data Market: Q4 and Year-End 2008

According to German news agency dpa, the Regional Court of Dusseldorf’s preliminary injunction states that Samsung must halt all sales and promotion of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the EU, thanks to a stipulation that allows companies to apply for a pan-European injunction that covers all EU member states. Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents says the injunction should take immediate effect in Germany, but additional formalities may be required before it takes effect elsewhere. The new Galaxy Tab 10.1 went on sale in Britain only last week, but Samsung might have to put it back in the box, at least until the company appeals the judgement, which will take four weeks time at the soonest.

Samsung has already had to delay its launch of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia, following similar legal wrangling by Apple. If Apple can make this and other decisions stick, this is going to put a serious kink in Samsung’s mobile ambitions. Rodman and Renshaw analyst Ashok Kumar shared with us a research report that argues as much, saying Samsung won’t be able to successfully negotiate Apple’s IP blockade, and will have to go “back to the drawing board” to come up with its own IP. That was before this decision came down, so it actually looks even more plausible in light of the injunction.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The rise of tablets in the enterprise
• Mobile Q1: All Eyes on Tablets, T-Mobile and AT&T
• A Media Tablet Forecast, 2011 – 2015

As part of the deal, Samsung agreed to stop advertising for the release of the Android-based Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia and not to sell the device until the lawsuit is resolved or until it is granted approval by the court to do so. Apple appears to have won Samsung’s cooperation by promising to pay unspecified Samsung damages, should Apple lose the larger patent-infringement suit.

Apple sought an injunction in the Australian court because it claims the Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringes 10 Apple patents, according to Apple lawyer Steven Burley’s statements to the court. The judge in the case set a hearing for Aug. 29 to determine a trial date, if one is deemed necessary. The Australian legal action brings the total number of Apple/Samsung ligation instances to 11 courts, in nine countries on four continents.

Patent blogger Florian Mueller told me in an email that he thinks the message should now be clear:

All observers of Apple’s disputes with Android device makers must increasingly realize that Apple’s strategy is clearly that of a company optimizing for product differentiation, not licensing revenues. Apple’s objective is to stop iPhone and iPad lookalikes altogether, and companies like HTC will be required to degrade the user experience of their differences in order to ensure the iOS user experience stays unique.

In other words, we aren’t likely to see the end of this kind of action anytime soon, especially now that the growth of smartphone hardware makers like Samsung and HTC threatens to bump Apple from its lofty new perch as the No. 1 global smartphone maker.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A Media Tablet Forecast, 2011 – 2015
• The rise of tablets in the enterprise

The ITC is a government regulatory body, which acts independently of the courts. Apple seems to be gearing up for a preliminary injunction request in its legal case against Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, but it hasn’t sought any action from the ITC, unlike in previous cases against competing smartphone manufacturers such as HTC. Samsung’s move is a clever way to beat Apple to a potentially hobbling import ban, since the ITC’s decision is independent of the ongoing court case, and a final decision is reached within a fairly set time frame of 16 to 18 months, once the ITC agrees to investigate.

Apple is likely to respond with a complaint of its own, according to FOSS Patents’ Florian Mueller. Mueller says that Apple has to do so, “because otherwise Samsung might obtain an import ban against Apple long before Apple wins an injunction against Samsung.” The only reason that Apple hasn’t filed with the ITC already, Mueller says, is because doing so in its initial complaint with the U.S. courts “raises legal issues that go beyond the scope of an ITC investigation.”

Even though this action appears to raise the stakes in the ongoing patent dispute between the two companies, Mueller says it shouldn’t affect the likelihood of a settlement being reached by the two companies. It’s a common step in this kind of confrontation, and one which Apple is probably prepared for. Still, even though it isn’t very likely, there’s a small chance we could be living in a world where both Apple and Samsung smartphones aren’t available in the U.S. in a year or two. It’ll be like 2006 all over again.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• A Media Tablet Forecast, 2011 – 2015
• Report: A Mobile Video Market Overview
• In Q3, the Tablet and 4G Were the Big Stories

Mueller believes that even though Lodsys may oppose Apple’s motion to intervene, the Mac maker is likely to be admitted as a defendant, in which case it has already submitted its answer to Lodsys’ complaint of infringement, and its counterclaim. Apple also cites a number of other precedent-setting similar cases where tech companies were allowed to intervene in patent disputes, which back up and strengthen its motion. If Apple joins as a defendant, Mueller thinks it’s very likely it will take on any legal costs incurred by its developer partners.

Apple’s answer to the Lodsys complaint basically echoes what Apple General Counsel Bruce Sewell said in a public letter from the company to Lodsys, claiming Apple is licensed to use the patents, and that the license “expressly permits Apple to offer and otherwise make available to its Developers products and services that embody the inventions contained in the patents in suit.” Apple’s argument rents on the doctrines of patent exhaustion and first sale, which would allow the products and services provided by Apple to developers to be used free of any patent infringement claims. As Mueller has noted before, it isn’t necessarily an airtight defense against the claims made by Lodsys, but Apple appears to be sticking with it, rather than trying to invalidate the four patents held by Lodsys, as analysts firm ForeSee Results Inc. is attempting.

I talked to Mueller about why Apple is sticking so closely to this defense. He said, “Apple does a lot of inbound patent licensing,” and the Lodsys patents are actually part of a batch of “30,000 other patents from Intellectual Ventures” that it also licensed, and Apple also “regularly does license deals with many others.” It’s key that Apple win on these grounds, then, to avoid being made to pay twice for patents already licensed in other cases, too. In fact, as mocoNews points out, Apple states upfront that this case could have tremendous impact on its fortunes, when it says in its filing that “Apple’s interest is direct, very real, and of extraordinary importance to the continued success of Apple’s business.”

When asked how far he thinks this might escalate, Mueller said that while “usually the most probably outcome would be a settlement,” in this case it’s “possible that Apple makes this a matter of principle, with a view to many other cases in which patents that Apple has licensed might be asserted against iOS developers.” Apple would then want to score a precedent-setting win against Lodsys, rather than just agree to pay a settlement to make it quietly go away, in which case others could come calling looking for double-dip license payouts.

Since Lodsys clearly seems to have targeted small developers first in a district court that appears to decide quickly and historically favor patent holders with the aim of overwhelming the developers, it’s great to see Apple support those developers in a way that also offsets their financial burden. Mueller points out that one Android app is included in the current lawsuit, and Google has yet to act. “It’s important that Google make this a matter of principle and defend, alongside Apple, [...] and clarify what it will do if other Android app developers also get sued,” Mueller says.

Any company that depends on the support of third-party developers and makes use of software development toolkits will want to watch this case closely, because the outcome could have a significant impact on development as a whole.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Q1: All Eyes on Tablets, T-Mobile and AT&T
• A Media Tablet Forecast, 2011 – 2015
• A Global Mobile Handset Platform Forecast, 2011 – 2015

But ForeSee’s clients aren’t small app developers with limited means to defend against patent infringement claims and little choice but to agree to demands for licensing fees; they’re major companies with lots of capital and legal expertise at their disposal, including Adidas, Best Buy and WE Energies, and with this declaratory judgment filing, ForeSee has gone on the offensive against Lodsys on their behalf.

FOSSpatents’ Florian Mueller explains that a declaratory judgment, which doesn’t incur any penalties but is crucial to setting precedent, is a smart way to begin the process of potentially invalidating all of Lodsys’ patents. ForeSee filed suit in Illinois before Lodsys actually filed against any of its clients, too, which means that Lodsys doesn’t get to set the stage in the Eastern District of Texas, where the company has filed against iOS developers, and where the law favors the patent holder. Mueller also notes that McDermott Will & Emery, a “top-notch law firm that does a lot of work for major technologies” will be representing ForeSee. The law firm previously engineered a successful patent settlement for its client Creative Technology against Apple, in fact, resulting in a $100 million payday for Creative.

I asked Chicago tech and intellectual property attorney Evan Brown of Internet Cases what he thought about his filing, and he suggested that it could be a litmus test to see just how far Lodsys is willing to take this thing:

A declaratory judgment action like this gives Lodsys the chance to test its own resolve, whether it wanted to or not. We have to think that it considered the possibility of a declaratory judgment action (any reasonable party that sends a threatening letter should be ready for that risk). But given that Lodsys was generally targeting the smaller fish rather than Apple itself, one is left to think it may not have thought it through as much as it should have. Needless to say, Lodsys probably wishes things were going more smoothly for it, what with Apple’s swift and firm letter talking about patent exhaustion, and now this lawsuit. Maybe Lodsys might realize it’s better to actually use a technology rather than just sue others over it.

Apple’s response to Lodsys’ initial threats only prompted Lodsys to step up its timeframe and sue seven independent app developers ahead of schedule, and we’ve heard nothing from Cupertino on the subject since. But Craig Hockenberry, one of the developers behind Twitterific, tweeted just prior to WWDC that affected devs can’t talk about what’s going on, so presumably Apple is acting behind the scenes.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Q1: All Eyes on Tablets, T-Mobile and AT&T
• How to Ride the Freemium App Wave to Success
• How to Market Your iPhone App: A Developer’s Guide

James Thomson of TLA Systems was the first to discuss the threat early Friday morning, as reported by Cult of Mac. Thomson was targeted by the patent holder because of in-app purchases available to users of pCalc, an iOS scientific calculator app. Thomson reports that though he hasn’t been sued yet, the patent holder wants him to license their tech, and gave him 21 days to comply.

Thomson isn’t alone, either. Patrick McCarron, who creates apps for MobileAge, also confirmed receiving the same notice via FedEx early Friday. McCarron’s offending app was a game, so it seems like the company behind this is casting a wide net. Neither Thomson nor McCarron has yet to reveal the name of the company targeting them, though McCarron did assert that it’s not MacroSolve, a company that has been very active recently in enforcing its mobile technology patents.

Apple has been contacted by both devs, and will likely move quickly to respond to these threats in order to prevent widespread concern among the developer community. As of yet, Apple has yet to comment officially on this development. We reached out for comment, but have yet to hear back.

This kind of suit could provide a dangerous precedent, if not quickly quashed. Google and RIM recently introduced in-app purchasing, and presumably those systems would also be in violation of these patents. We’re working on discovering the source of the threats, and will update when more information becomes available.

UPDATE: The company behind the patent suit threats is apparently Lodsys, a patent holding firm which has held patent no. 7222078 (the one which is claimed to have been violated) since 2004. Lodsys cited the same patent, along with several others, when it filed suit against a number of major printer companies in early 2011, according to MacRumors.

Lodsys’ entire business consists of licensing the patents it holds, which is completely in keeping with the licensing demands developers have so far been receiving. If you feel like making your feelings about this latest round of threats known to Lodsys, you can contact the company directly via its official website.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected Consumer Q1: The Over-the-Top vs. Pay TV Battle Heats Up
• Smart Grid Apps: Six Trends That Will Shape Grid Evolution
• Infrastructure Q1: IaaS Comes Down to Earth; Big Data Takes Flight

TheAppleBlog reported in October that Apple was the target of a Motorola lawsuit for infringement on 18 patents, including various smartphone issues, including antenna design. Holding to the idea that “the best defense is a good offense,” Apple not only isn’t taking that filing lightly, but is fighting back with a lawsuit of its own.

In a nine-page filing with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on Friday, Apple asked for action in response to the violation of various patents surrounding the iPhone’s touch screen and user interface. Apple identified, among others, the Droid, Cliq, and Backflip handsets as culprits in the infringement. It states in the filed documents, “Motorola’s actions have caused and will continue to cause irreparable harm, for which it has no adequate remedy at law, unless their infringing activities are enjoined.”

To consumers, given the great number of lawsuits thrown around between technology companies of this size, the recent filings may not seem significant.  Usually, court rulings simply ask the defendant to pay a certain sum to the plaintiff, and the amount is generally quite small when measured against the profit margins of these companies.

As phones grow increasingly similar in design and user interface, and the tech related to them grows more refined, you have to wonder if the legal system will continue to allow companies to use such closely related designs for small penalties, or will instead more strongly defend the rights of patent holders.

With Apple’s recent move to number four on the global mobile-phone manufacturer list, and Motorola’s fall to number seven, it’s apparent both have great deal at stake in the market. Accordingly, the legal battles between the two (and among others) will likely continue to heat up as companies fight to secure IP that could give them the upper hand.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

• Who Owns Android’s Future? Google — Or Apple?
• Why Closed Platforms Might Not Be So Bad
• Rogue Devices: The Consumer Influence on Enterprise Mobility, Part 1

But that’s hardly the end of Apple’s legal problems. The company was slapped with $625 million in legal penalties this week for infringing on three patents, at a rate of $208 million per infraction. Obviously, Apple’s already challenged the verdict, as would any corporation, but the ruling is blood in the water for Cupertino’s foes.

The case was brought by Mirror Worlds, and presents a legitimate case, not just the usual patent trolling fare. Mirror Worlds, a company founded by Yale computer science professor David Gelernter, claimed it held patents infringed upon by Apple through its Time Machine and Cover Flow features, among others. Mirror Worlds held patents regarding automated backups and flipping through digital album covers that are remarkably similar to the tech used in today’s Macs and iOS devices.

The verdict was rendered by jury in a Texas district court, and would represent one of the largest ever awards in patent suit history in the U.S., if upheld. Even a $625 million pay out won’t really dent Apple’s $40 billion on hand, but that’s not where the real hurt lies.

Apple is currently embroiled in a large number of legal disputes over patents. Here’s a list of some of the more high-profile cases:

• Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen’s company Interval Licensing filed suit against Apple, along with Google, Facebook, Yahoo and others in August for infringing on a number of patents relating to fundamental web technology developed in the early 90s.
• Kodak accused Apple in January of this year of using on of its digital imaging patents regarding previews in the iPhone, along with smartphone rival RIM. Apple is also singled out for two more infringement suits from the camera pioneer, including one regarding the ability to process images of differing resolutions.
• Apple, along with Google and others, is named in a suit brought by NTP, a patent holding firm, in June 2010. The suit concerns patents held by NTP about wireless email delivery, and an earlier suit against RIM resulted in a $612 million settlement.
• Perhaps the most highly publicized, Nokia is suing Apple over 10 patents it owns regarding wireless handset technology. The suit came after negotiations regarding licensing fees with Apple broke down. Apple is countersuing over 13 of its own patents.
• Tune Hunter named Apple along with a whole slew of others in its 2009 suit regarding music recognition tech. Tune Hunter holds a patent for a music identification and purchasing system that is says resembles far too closely the tech in use by Shazam.

This isn’t an exhaustive list, but it’s representative of the kind of heat Apple’s been facing since becoming a top dog in the tech realm. Now that one of these efforts has hit paydirt, it’s unlikely the tide will be stemmed anytime soon. The smell of money is a heady intoxicant.

As unseemly as it might be, Apple has the right idea with its countersuit of Nokia. The only way to deal with this kind of issue is to defend your patents vigorously, or face losing the farm. While things definitely won’t get better in the near future for Apple as its star continues to rise, whether or not this latest verdict is upheld will determine if things get much worse, and possibly begin to have an impact on the company’s ability to do business.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub req’d):

• Why Texas is the Smart Meter Market to Watch
• Upset About Your Cloud Contract? Tough Luck.
• Google Fighting on Two Fronts: China and Privacy

Via Apple 2.0, Oppenheimer analyst Yair Reiner asserts in a research note that Apple’s lawsuit with HTC over the iPhone interface was the culmination of “blunt talks” with other phone manufacturers.

According to Reiner, starting in January Apple began closed-door discussions with OEMs regarding the company’s “growing displeasure” with the theft of Apple’s intellectual property.

That displeasure was first noted a year earlier at a conference call. Apple COO Tim Cook responded to a question about the Palm Pre by stating that “we will not stand for having our IP ripped off,” though Cook wasn’t necessarily talking about Palm, or just Palm, anyway. Earlier this month, Steve Jobs publicly accused HTC of theft in a press release associated with the iPhone lawsuit. Unfortunately, that lawsuit may not ultimately protect the iPhone the way Steve Jobs thinks.

However, in the short term tough talk and legal action has, according to “industry checks” by Reiner, resulted in hardware manufacturers reassessing their positions regarding Google’s Android operating system.

Rival software and hardware teams are going back to the drawing board to look for work-arounds. Lawyers are redoubling efforts to gauge potential defensive and offensive responses. And strategy teams are working to chart OS strategies that are better hedged.

Ignoring the negative impact on consumers from stifling innovation in the name of intellectual property rights, the real-world implications of driving hardware manufacturers away from Google is that they will be going towards Microsoft. With Windows Mobile as good as dead, and Windows Phone Series 7 not to be released until the end of the year, it could have been argued that Microsoft was close to being pushed out of the mobile market entirely. Don’t count on that now.

Microsoft has been quick to sniff out this burgeoning opportunity and has begun to aggressively promote the strength of its own IP portfolio, as well as its willingness to join battle with customers that come under IP attack.

It’s one thing to threaten a relatively small company like HTC, but quite another to go after Microsoft, as Apple found out once before. While temporarily disrupting Android through lawsuits isn’t going to make that problem go away, it might just help Microsoft get back in the mobile business.

“We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.”

At issue are some 20 patents relating to the “iPhone’s user interface, underlying architecture and hardware,” though specifics have not yet been divulged, nor has there been a response from HTC. More details will undoubtedly be made public as the lawsuit proceeds in both the U.S. District Court in Delaware and with the U.S. International Trade Commission.

Nonetheless, the accusation of intellectual property theft over handheld device patents sounds oddly familiar, except it wasn’t Apple making the accusation recently, but Nokia.

In December, Nokia sued Apple over patents relating to standards covering “wireless data, speech coding, security and encryption,” accusing Apple of “attempting to get a free ride on the back of Nokia’s innovation.” Apple promptly countersued, General Counsel Bruce Sewell also using the S-Word, stating that “other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours.”

If this all sounds harsh, it is. The flurry of patent lawsuits and counter-lawsuits is something of an anomaly, in that companies like Apple, HTC, and Nokia normally use their massive patent portfolios to protect themselves from litigation. It’s like the concept of nuclear weapon stockpiles and mutually assured destruction (MAD), but with lawyers. What’s got Apple and others pushing the red button now is nothing less than the future of personal computing. As portability moves from the laptop to the handheld, companies like Apple apparently feel the potential legal fallout is worth the risk.

In response to a lawsuit filed by Nokia alleging infringement on 10 patents related to wireless standards and technologies, Apple has countersued based on 13 patents of its own.

In a short, acerbic press release, Apple General Counsel Bruce Sewell smacked Nokia down, stating that “other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours.” That sounds strikingly similar to Nokia VP of Legal & Intellectual Property Ilkka Rahnasto, who said back in October that Apple was “attempting to get a free ride on the back of Nokia’s innovation.”

Nokia’s lawsuit related to GSM, UMTS, and wireless LAN standards for “wireless data, speech coding, security and encryption.” Apple’s countersuit (PDF) covers 13 patents on a variety of technical and eye-glazing minutia, from “real-time signal processing system for serially transmitted data” to “boot framework architecture for dynamic staged initial program load.” More obviously related to the iPhone, there are patents relating to the graphical user interface and touch-screen display, not that it matters which patents are named.

Normally, companies like Apple and Nokia protect themselves from patent lawsuits in the same way nuclear powers stockpile atomic bombs, the principle being mutually assured destruction through litigation. That principle may no longer apply. While Nokia and its Symbian OS still control the largest share of the mobile phone market, that share is declining. As a result, the company intends to halve its smartphone portfolio, and has recently begun closing retail outlets. Perhaps that’s why the company sounded a little like North Korea in making demands for licensing its intellectual property.

That appears to have been a mistake, at least if one takes Apple’s counter claims at face value. John Paczkowski at Digital Daily found the juicy bits first. After praising its own iPhone as a “revolutionary change” in mobile phones, Apple launched a counterstrike against Nokia’s lack of innovation.

In contrast, Nokia made a different business decision and remained focused on traditional mobile wireless handsets with conventional user interfaces. As a result, Nokia has rapidly lost share in the market for high-end mobile phones. Nokia has admitted that, as a result of the iPhone launch, “the market changed suddenly and [Nokia was] not fast enough changing with it.

Duck and cover, baby. Even better, Apple quoted Nokia VP Anssi Vanjoki in a conversation about the iPhone.

If there is something good in the world, we copy with pride.” True to this quote, Nokia has demonstrated its willingness to copy Apple’s iPhone ideas as well as Apple’s basic computing technologies, all while demanding Apple pay for access to Nokia’s purported standards essential patent. Apple seeks redress for this behavior.

It looks like DEFCON 1 is on.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Q4: All Eyes Were on Android, 4G and the Rising Tablet Tide
• In Q3, the Tablet and 4G Were the Big Stories

In an unexpected twist in the drawn-out battle between Psystar and Apple, the two companies agreed Monday to a partial settlement that could end the case after 17 months of back-and-forth between them, Computerworld is reporting. Details on the settlement are sparse, but what is known is quite surprising.

The terms of the settlement would see Psystar pay Apple damages, though the amount has not yet been determined. It would also see Apple drop any and all trademark, trade-dress and state law claims, which would effectively eliminate the need for a trial. As a partial settlement, the agreement would not go into effect until Psystar has exhausted all of its appeals before the court.

It’s an interesting deal, because it looks like it wouldn’t necessarily stop Psystar from selling its Mac clones. Instead, the company would be limited to selling its “Open” line of computers without OS X preinstalled, and that responsibility would lie instead with customers. Apparently that’s a compromise Apple is willing to live with, and with good reason, since the Mac maker would have to go after many other clone makers if it wasn’t.

Here are the terms of the deal, as stated in a motion filed Monday by Psystar:

Psystar and Apple today entered into a partial settlement that is embodied in a stipulation that will be filed with the court tomorrow. Psystar has agreed on certain amounts to be awarded as statutory damages on Apple’s copyright claims in exchange for Apple’s agreement not to execute on these awards until all appeals in this matter have been concluded. Moreover, Apple has agreed to voluntarily dismiss all its trademark, trade-dress, and state-law claims. This partial settlement eliminates the need for a trial and reduces the issues before this court to the scope of any permanent injunction on Apple’s copyright claims.

That means that Apple’s permanent injunction, which it filed last week, would still be decided by the court. Psystar moved to have its software, the Rebel EFI program, to be excepted from the injunction. Rebel EFI allows users to install any OS on any hardware, but Psystar maintains that since it is entirely its own product, and is not sold together with any hardware or Mac OS X, it should be exempt from Apple’s motion. Also, Psystar goes onto note that even its customers, should they choose to use Rebel EFI to install OS X on non-authorized hardware, should also be exempt from any legal repercussions:

Psystar’s end users do not engage in commercial use of Mac OS X and their use would qualify as use for “internal purposes” even under the standards articulated by Apple in its summary-judgment briefing.

Hard to vilify this new moderate stance taken by the clone maker, which is probably why Apple seems to have agreed to the terms. Whether or not Rebel EFI will continue to be sold, however, is now up to the courts.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

InformationWeek reports that a third-party MacBook power adapter manufacturer is being sued by Apple for allegedly violating one of its patent designs.

On Monday, Apple filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Media Solutions Holdings in federal district court in California. Apple says that the company is using various different websites and business entities to sell what they describe as a ‘knock-off’ MacBook power adapter. “Through various Web sites and otherwise,” Apple says in the suit, “…the Defendants market these knock-off power adapters for use with Apple portable computers, such as the MacBook.”

The websites include laptopsforless.com, laptopacadapter.com and ereplacements.com. Apple says these sites sell “various consumer electronic accessories at retail,” and the naughty power adapter is amongst the products they sell.

The other named defendents also include companies eReplacements and Laptops For Less.

Apple also adds in the claim that, “The Defendants’ infringing conduct has damaged Apple and inflicted irreparable harm.” They don’t elaborate on the monetary value of that “harm” but they do seek an injunction against the defendants that stops them selling their knock-off adapters. For now, the offending power adapters have been removed from sale from the websites listed in the suit (but although they can no longer be ordered, they are still listed on those sites).

The suit includes line-drawing illustrations comparing designs from Apple’s power adapter patent with photographs of the power adapter sold by the defendants. The patent was awarded to Apple by the United States Patents and Trademarks Office over six years ago, in August 2003.

InformationWeek notes that Apple is not accustomed to being the Plaintiff in patent disputes; of the 15 patent lawsuits filed during the second half of this year, Apple has been the defendant in every case but this one. At an average litigation cost of $4.5 million (through trial), that’s a tremendous expense created — for the most part — by what InformationWeek calls “non-practicing entities” but what the rest of us call Patent Trolls.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

BTG claims some of Samsung’s flash chips violate patents it owns on multilevel NAND Flash memory, according to Macworld. While BTG isn’t directly accusing Apple of the infringements, this is a potential headache for the company since so many of its devices employ Samsung’s chips for internal storage.

The MacBook Air, first-generation iPhone 8GB, third-generation iPod shuffle 4GB, and second-generation iPod touch 16GB all use Samsung’s NAND memory. It is not yet known whether Apple would be implicated in a settlement/compensation agreement should the complaint be upheld.

BTG is a “licensing company” that holds the title to many patents. Its parent company, also called BTG International, is “a pharmaceutical company based in London,” reports Macworld. I won’t say this could sound like an example of a “non-practicing entity” if you won’t.

Other brands named in the complaint that use Samsung’s chips include: Dell, Sony Vaio, Lenovo, PNY and Transcend. BTG seems to know the first rule of crafting a lawsuit: Don’t stop naming names until your list of offending companies reads like a Who’s Who of the computing industry.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• What Google’s Honeycomb Means for Apple and Microsoft
• A 2011 Connected Consumer Forecast