U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said Samsung’s Galaxy tabets infringed on Apple’s patents, but left the onus on Apple to establish the validity of their patents. As for issuing an injunction against Samsung:

At the hearing on Thursday in a San Jose, California federal court, Koh also said she would deny Apple’s request for an injunction based on one of Apple’s so-called “utility” patents.

She did not say whether she would grant the injunction based on three other Apple “design” patents.

The following courtroom conversation helps illustrate why Apple is going after Samsung for allegedly copying its flagship iOS devices:

Koh frequently remarked on the similarity between each company’s tablets. At one point during the hearing, she held one black glass tablet in each hand above her head, and asked Sullivan if she could identify which company produced which.

“Not at this distance your honor,” said Sullivan, who stood at a podium roughly ten feet away.

“Can any of Samsung’s lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?” Koh asked. A moment later, one of the lawyers supplied the right answer.

Microsoft continues to pen licensing deals with Android device manufactures, with Quanta Computer being the latest. This is just another name on Microsoft’s list, seeing as they have already worked out agreements with Android device makers Acer, Amazon, HTC, Samsung and ViewSonic. From the article on The Next Web:

The dollar figures involved here are non-trivial. Rumors have floated that OEMs are paying between 5 and 15 dollars per unit shipped to Microsoft, effectively making Redmond a massively profitable player in the Android market. And all it has to do is collect the checks. With giants such as HTC and Samsung on board, the pattern appears to be set.

With Microsoft experiencing issues growing their mobile user base, it appears Android may actually be benefiting them more than they would like to admit.

According to an article on 9to5Mac, Apple’s new iPhone 4S antenna design may infringe Samsung patents. From the article:

Pedersen and others at the Aalborg University think Apple will run into legal issues related to patents the professors sold to Samsung in 2007. The report also notes Samsung has not yet used these patents in litigation with Apple.

Regarding implementing a multi-antenna design that intelligently switches to improve reception, Danish professor Gert Frølund Pedersen stated:

“I can not say that they are directly breaking the patent, but there are not many ways they can choose the right antenna, without coming to break many patents.”

From Samsung’s official blog:

Samsung Electronics will file separate preliminary injunction motions in Paris, France and Milano, Italy on October 5 local time requesting the courts block the sale of Apple’s iPhone 4S in the respective markets.

Samsung’s preliminary injunction requests in France and Italy will each cite two patent infringements related to wireless telecommunications technology, specifically Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) standards for 3G mobile handsets.

The second paragraph plainly states this has to do with the RAND patents we’ve discussed before.

The iPhone 4S is scheduled to launch on October 14th for France, and October 28th for Italy.

According to an article on TheTelecomBlog, Microsoft has patented a technology titled ‘Legal Intercept’ that would allow them to eavesdrop on VoIP conversations. From the article:

The technology would allow Microsoft to silently record communications on VoIP networks such as Skype. While some believe it’s no reason to panic, others believe it gives Microsoft or government officials a license to secretly intercept, monitor and record Skype calls while they are doing the unmentionable.

Although the patent was filed before Microsoft acquired Skype, it does explicitly name them in an example.

As for use cases:

Microsoft says that ‘Legal Intercept’ can be used by the US government or “one of its agencies”. If further mentions that this technology would require obtaining “appropriate legal permission”, which might not be that difficult for a government to acquire.

I wasn’t shocked by who may use the technology, but I am concerned if this technology is circumvented for illegal or nefarious purposes.