Sure, Sprint and Palm are hoping the Pre turns the page on their relatively dark recent past, but karma's a bitch sometimes -- the other Palm news this week is that Sprint and Palm have settled a class-action lawsuit alleging the two companies misled customers into thinking there'd be WiFi and Bluetooth accessories for the Treo 600. Remember how crushed we all were when nothing ever hit the market? The pain was almost immeasurable -- unless you're a class-action settlement attorney, in which case you instinctively know anyone who bought a Sprint Treo 600 before October 27, 2004 is owed either a $20 Sprint service credit or a $27.50 credit to be used in Palm's online store. So, anyone still have their Treo 600 receipts from 2004? Yeah, we didn't think so.

[Via TamsPalm]

Truthfully, we're having a hard time coming to grips with this. For as long as we wished that these two would stop bickering, it's actually tough to swallow the fact that we'll never again be able to write about "yet another lawsuit" between Qualcomm and Broadcom (in theory, anyway). After nearly three full years of fighting with pencils, papers and soulless words, the courtroom throwdowns are finally ceasing. In a shocking development, the two rivals have entered into a settlement and multi-year patent agreement that will "result in the dismissal with prejudice of all litigation between the companies, including all patent infringement claims in the International Trade Commission and US District Court in Santa Ana, as well as the withdrawal by Broadcom of its complaints to the European Commission and the Korea Fair Trade Commission." The exact terms of the deal are posted after the break, though you should know that Qualcomm will have to shell out $891 million in cash (ouch!) over the next four years. The lawyers may be out of work, but you can rest assured that there's no shortage of abhorrence between these frenemies.

As expected, Google and LG have joined Apple, AT&T, and Verizon in settling their visual voicemail patent lawsuits with Klausner Technologies. The LG agreement is the more straightforward of the two, since it covers LG devices like the Versa directly, but things get more complicated with Google since it doesn't actually make its own phones -- Klausner wouldn't say if the agreement shielded Android licensees from patent claims. We're hoping Google's attorneys got it all sorted out, but we'll see who else is next on Klausner's naughty list.

Read - Google
Read - LG

You've probably never heard of Picsel Technologies, but the Scottish company claims that its technologies are in over 250m handsets worldwide from manufacturers like Motorola, Nokia, Palm, Samsung and Sony Ericsson -- and, if a lawsuit it filed today is to be believed, Apple. Picsel says the iPhone infringes on a patented method of accelerated screen updating, and as usual, the answer is probably going to be for Uncle Steve to open his $25 billion piggy bank and dole out some cash. On the other hand, Apple legal might take a little batting practice before they start hunting the big game, but honestly, that's just us wishing for a little Friday night drama.

Uh oh, Ashton, it looks like Apple might have a thing or two to say about that jailbroken iPhone of yours. Every three years the Copyright Office asks for proposed exemptions to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act's rules against breaking access protections, and this time around the lovable scamps at the Electronic Frontier Foundation have asked that jailbreaking phones -- like, yes, the iPhone -- be classified as one of those exceptions. As you might have guessed, Apple's response to the EFF isn't exactly supportive of the idea: it says the proposed rule will "destroy the technological protection of Apple's key copyrighted computer programs in the iPhone device itself and of copyrighted content owned by Apple that plays on the iPhone." Both sides have filed long briefs supporting their positions with extremely detailed legal arguments, but the main takeaways are that the EFF thinks that allowing jailbreaking will result in more apps and innovation, and Apple points out that the App Store is already hugely successful and that jailbroken phones are technically running unauthorized modifications of Apple's copyrighted iPhone code that allows them to run pirated applications. Interestingly, Apple's convoluted App Store approval process is the center of a lot of discussion, and Apple is totally disengeniuous about it, saying there's no "duplication of functionality" rule and as proof claims to have allowed "multiple general web browsers... and multiple mail programs." Note to the Copyright Office: if you believe this we have a very nice bridge to sell you.

Now, let's be clear: while we're definitely hoping the EFF pulls this one out, the worst thing that can result of all this is the status quo -- Apple isn't asking for jailbreaking to specifically be ruled illegal, it's just asking that it not be specifically ruled legal. If that sounds like a fuzzy distinction, well, it is, but that's the sort of gray area that keeps everyone else out of court for the time being. We'll find out more in the spring, when the Copyright Office holds hearings -- final rulings are due in October.

Read - EFF page on the jailbreaking debate
Read - EFF's brief (PDF)
Read - Apple's reply (PDF)
Read - EFF's second brief (PDF)

You just thought that whole AT&T-Dobson Communications tie up was completely over. Turns out, AT&T is now being asked to pay $2 million as part of a civil settlement for violating a pair of court orders related to the acquisition. According to a petition filed by the Department of Justice, the carrier failed to fulfill its obligations when divesting mobile wireless businesses in three rural service areas (two in Kentucky and one in Oklahoma). In essence, AT&T personnel reportedly obtained "unauthorized access to the divested businesses' competitively sensitive customer information, and in some situations used it to solicit and win away the divested businesses' customers," and it doesn't take a lawyer to understand how sketch that is. Tsk, tsk, AT&T.

[Via RCRWireless]

After 13 months into a five-year exclusivity deal in France, the French competition agency has ruled the Apple and Orange (the mobile subsidiary of France Telecom) cartel illegal. Something that could have a knock-on effect throughout Europe. The agency criticized the Orange/Apple pact for having "grave and immediate" effect on the overall French mobile marketplace and thus, the French consumer, by introducing "a new flavor of rigidity in a sector that already lacks competition." The injunction, while temporary, is enough to allow other French carriers to distribute the iPhone 3G in time for the holidays. Shrug.

Brutal honesty here: on election day this past November, the entire Engadget staff (well, those of us with US passports) collectively agreed that casting our vote via SMS or some other incredibly simple method would be infinitely more awesome than trudging out in the streets and waiting in hour-long lines. Clearly, some higher-ups in Estonia are on board with that concept, as its Parliament has approved a law that will likely make it the first nation on Planet Earth to give citizens the right to vote by phone in something that matters (American Idol notwithstanding). 'Course, those who choose to take advantage must first obtain a free authorization chip for their handset, which sort of kills the whole "not having to leave your house" aspect of all this. Ah well, at least we're moving in the right direction.

Good news for South Koreans who love choice; bad news for LG and Samsung... sort of. For those unaware, South Korea is currently under a rule that requires cellphones that connect to the internet to "use domestic software that standardizes network access." In theory, the regulation makes life easier for local software developers, but in reality, it has enabled locally-based LG and Samsung to combine for around 90% of all handset sales in the nation. Moving forward, however, the Korea Communications Commission intends to modify the barrier (effective next April) so that cellphone operators can use "any type of phone" they choose. We suspect three cheers for competition are in order.

Neonode AB, a wholly-owned subsidiary of US-based Neonode, Inc., has filed a petition for bankruptcy in Sweden. The company, which has focused almost all of its efforts on pushing the now aged Neonode N2 since 2004, finally caved after looking so vulnerable in late July. According to Per Bystedt, CEO and Chairman of Neonode: "For the past six months we have focused on turning the business around and solving the financial situation of Neonode AB; we continue to have great belief in our technology and believe we have a competitive product in the Neonode N2 but without sufficient funds we cannot continue operations." No word of a revamped OS. No word of hardware tweaks. Nothing that sounds to us like they really want to survive in today's high-stakes handset market. At any rate, the parent company is hoping to trudge on as a technology licensing company, with or without Mr. N2.

[Via GeekZone]

Most of the world probably missed this stunt because of how short lived it really was (thanks, NYPD!), but at any rate, we found it wacky enough to pass along. Back in late November, a few Peek faithful donned prisoner uniforms and walked around chained to BlackBerry Storms on the day Verizon launched the touchscreen RIM device. Naturally, Verizon officials were none too pleased, and everyone involved in the protest was asked to leave shortly after they arrived. Thanks to the wonders of YouTube (vid's after the break), you'll be able to watch it over, and over, and over again. Death to contracts... er, something!

[Via SlashGear]

Read - Peek's take on the event
Read - YouTube video of the prank

At last, it's over. InterDigital, which is best known for its episodes in the courtroom with Samsung and Nokia, has finally reached an agreement with the former firm. The two have been at each other's throats since April of last year regarding patents allegedly used in some of Sammy's more sophisticated phones. The decision was reached just a day before the US International Trade Commission was set to rule on whether to recommend barring affected Samsung imports altogether, which we can assure you was not at all coincidental. There's been no public disclosure of settlement value, though one analyst at Hilliard Lyons estimates that Samsung will be coughing up $400 to $500 million over the next five years to make this problem go away. Talk about a recurring nightmare.

We told you it wasn't over, and now, that once "manageable" $73 million payment could possibly balloon to upwards of $1.2 billion. As predicted, the prior suit -- which was held in a California state court -- has led to a far reaching class-action lawsuit that could "potentially cost the company as much as $1.2 billion." The suit alleges that the $150 to $200 fees violated the Federal Communications Act and laws in every state of the country, and when summed from 1999 to 2008, they total a magical $1.2 billion. Things aren't looking great for Sprint on this one either, as lawyer Scott Bursor is running the show. Who's he? Just a guy who was involved in getting Verizon to fork over $21 million for the same thing earlier this year.

[Via textually]

We figured back in August that Verizon (and LG) would eventually be forced to pay up in order to keep visual voicemail on its handsets, and sure enough, that's exactly what has gone down with the former company. Verizon and Klausner Technologies have quickly settled outstanding patent litigation by way of Verizon entering into a patent license agreement for using visual voicemail. To date, Verizon is the 15th company to ink such an agreement, ensuring that the suits at Klausner can remain firmly parked in Grand Cayman, Aruba, Maui or any other blissful location they please for the remainder of their Earthly lives. As for LG? We'd say the outcome is all but imminent at this point.

[Via phonescoop, image courtesy of MyDigitalLife]

We could start off by telling you just how much this decision will hurt Qualcomm and just how celebratory the mood must be at Broadcom, but instead, we'll key you in on this quote: "The appeals court also rejected Qualcomm's request for a new trial." At long last, we may have actually heard the end of what has seemed like a never-ending battle between the aforementioned parties. Today, a US Appeals court upheld an earlier ruling that Qualcomm had indeed infringed upon two Broadcom patents while ruling that a third patent in question was invalid. The ruling is obviously a huge win for Broadcom, who will soon be bathing in Benjamins as Qualcomm is forced to pay mandatory royalties for the chips it sells during the "sunset period" ending January 31, 2009.

[Via Reuters]