We knew Hollywood wouldn't let RealNetworks sell its RealDVD DVD-ripping-and-archiving software without a fight, and right on schedule, the six major studios have filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent it from being sold. Of course, RealNetworks has been planning on hiding behind that Kaleidescape ruling all along, but straight CSS circumvention isn't really what's at the heart of the suit: according to the studio's request for a restraining order, consumers won't be able to contain themselves in the face of RealDVD's voodoo magic and will start ripping rental DVDs en masse -- seriously, the suit calls the incentive to do so "all but overwhelming." Here's a hint, guys: if you believe the temptation to do something is that strong, it probably means you can get people to pay to do it -- and you should probably be working out a business model that embraces consumers instead of funding new BMWs for your lawyers while actual piracy tears down the fragile house of cards your entire industry is built on. Or you know, whatever.

Add LG to the list of competitors taking legal action against Vizio, in a near-replay of Mitsubishi and others taking on the upstart HDTV manufacturer over MPEG-2 patents earlier this year, LG Electronics is filing suit over alleged failures to license patented digital TV technology. Vizio's press release points out that it relies on LG for much of its plasma technology, and since they "expect this new development will influence future material sourcing decisions" we can probably count them out of the two-man horse costume at this year's Halloween party. Once again, Vizio doesn't expect this to affect its business, but with legal squabbles extending to its own suppliers, we can't help but wonder if this will put a damper on any Black Friday plans.

While it was Pulse~LINK winning the last (but obviously not final) round of this multi-year tiff, the tables have turned once more. Tzero Technologies has just announced that the US Patent Office "issued an office action rejecting all claims of US patent number 6,970,448 asserted in a lawsuit brought by Pulse~LINK against Tzero in June 2007." This decision, coupled with a stay issued by the district court, will evidently bring the lawsuit to a close "for the foreseeable future." We're told that the legal struggles between the two are now officially over, but we're admittedly hesitant to believe it.

You wouldn't think that anyone in the market for a $3,000 handheld camera capable of shooting 3K HD at 100MB/s would somehow get confused enough to end up with a mediocre LG plasma TV, but it seems like the folks at RED are worried -- the company's lawyers are preparing an opposition to LG's filing for the "Scarlet" trademark, and they've filed for their own mark. It looks like RED is getting pretty serious about protecting its marks -- president Jim Jannard is politely asking RED fans to include a trademark disclaimer when they post about the company's products, and he says that the proceedings against LG are "just the tip of the iceberg." Honestly, we think RED's going to have a tough time selling a judge on the likelihood of confusion between a consumer-oriented HDTV and a decidedly pro-grade camera, but we've been surprised in the past -- we'll see how this one plays out.

Read - Jim Jannard forum post
Read - Request for extension of time to file opposition

Why does it seem that Charter, out of all the cable carriers in the world, finds itself intertwined with so much mischief? The latest forehead-pounding episode is actually a two-fer, with gripes arising from Reno, Nevada and a rural section of North Carolina. In the Silver State, Charter is apparently looking to pull four public access channels to retrieve bandwidth for the launch of 12 new digital channels. The company's George Jostlin proclaims that the "majority of consumers are calling it on a daily basis and asking for more HD / digital programming," but the City of Reno has announced its intentions to sue the provider if an agreement can't be reached on the matter by next Wednesday. Across the country in McDowell County, NC, Charter is catching flack for wanting to strip Marion of its information channel (and combine it with the county's government channel) in order to add three HD stations. We like the intentions here, but seriously, you folks should work on the execution.

[Thanks PopWeaverHDTV, image courtesy of TSLPL]

Read - Issues in Reno
Read - Stirring the pot in rural NC

We've witnessed a few lawsuits related to Blu-ray, but this is the first one we can recall that perfectly fits the "patent troll" mold. The Patent Prospector has it that Acacia subsidiary Digital Security Systems is suing a smorgasbord of big BD players for infringing on a patent that it has held for years. Defendants named include Samsung, Best Buy, Denon, Funai, LG, Matsushita, Panasonic, Philips, Pioneer, and Sharp, though details beyond that are sadly scant. Oh, and if you're wondering where the complaint was filed, it was in the infamous Eastern District of Texas.

[Via FormatWarCentral]

It's been a while since we've heard about Canon's legal troubles with SED, but it sounds like things are taking a turn for the better -- the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that Canon had not broken its contract with Nano-Proprietary (now called Applied Nanotech Holdings) since Canon is now the sole owner of its previous joint venture with Toshiba, SED Inc. The court also reinstated Canon's license to the SED tech, but since Canon stopped working on the tech last year, it'll probably be a while before we see any SED displays actually show up. We'll see how it goes down -- hopefully those rumors of a skunkworks SED project inside Canon will make this all seem like a bad dream someday.

[Thanks, Alex]

Just an update on that Vizio vs. the world tiff, one of the major shareholders of the company and major manufacturer for the brand, Taiwan-based Amtran, chimes in that it already paid royalties for the disputed MPEG-2 patents between the end of 2007 and beginning of 2008. It's important to note that the company apparently had not seen the details of the lawsuit yet and couldn't give details, but we'll see how this affects things between the cheap HDTV manufacturer and MPEG LA.

Far from being the first time Time Warner Cable has upset its subscriber base, the Los Angeles city attorney's office is pulling a Dee Snider and refusing to take the carrier's lackluster service anymore. In a 25-page lawsuit, the city is alleging that the operator "caused major havoc and distress" two years ago when it "failed to live up to its part of the franchise cable agreement requiring that a company answer subscribers' calls within 30 seconds and begin repairs of service interruptions within 24 hours of notification in 90% of its calls for service." The suit claims that no more than 60% of customer calls were answered in time, and cable / internet service was said to be "so intermittent and inferior in quality that it was not much better than no service at all." Not surprisingly, TWC representatives chose not to comment on the whole ordeal, but the outfit could face civil penalties of tens of millions of crisp US dollars in the case. Should've picked up the phone, TWC -- it would've been easier than picking up this tab. [Disclosure: Engadget is part of the Time Warner family]

[Image courtesy of Web 2 Concepts, thanks Scott]

It's no secret the rest of the display industry hasn't been happy with Vizio shaking up the low end with its cheap HDTVs, and now Mitsubishi and others have joined in a lawsuit accusing the manufacturer of refusing to license necessary patents. The 15 patents allegedly violated are for MPEG-2 compression that Mitsu, Sony, Samsung, Philips, Thomson, JVC and Columbia University of New York claim Vizio refuses to license. Vizio says it don't need no stinking licenses, since its suppliers already have them and it believes these licenses extend to its products. MPEG-LA also filed a similar suit against Target's TruTech house brand of televisions; while we'll have to wait for a ruling on the case to see who is right, it seems if they can't compete with these lower prices, other manufacturers will make sure cheap HDTVs cost more to make. For its part, Vizio says it does not believe this suit will have a materially adverse impact on its business, so for now, let the low-price flat screens roll.

Read - Mitsubishi, Samsung Sue Vizio Over Video Patents
Read - VIZIO Comments on MPEG-2 Lawsuit By Electronics Competitors

If you had a sneaking suspicion that somewhat just wasn't right when all 15 of the VOOM HD networks suddenly vanished from DISH Network's lineup, um, you were right. Apparently EchoStar (now DISH Network) and VOOM Networks had inked a 15-year deal in 2005 that would give the latter "a license fee of $3.25 a month per HD subscriber receiving VOOM." Now, VOOM has "filed an amended complaint against EchoStar, claiming it will suffer more than $1 billion in damages." More specifically, it notes that "EchoStar had no right to terminate the affiliation agreement on the basis of a trumped-up and pretextual claim of breach simply because it no longer liked the deal it struck." As expected, EchoStar is remaining mum on the subject, but its ex-partner is seeking "substantial damages in an amount to be determined at trial." This one could get real ugly, and fast.

The timeshifting DVR patent that's been at the core of TiVo's closed-but-not-quite-closed lawsuit with DISH / EchoStar is being contested yet again by the very same company. Not content just appealing to the Supreme Court regarding the Federal Circuit's ruling against a rehearing for the last case, DISH / EchoStar has started up a whole new lawsuit against TiVo, requesting a Delaware court find the new version of their DVR software does not infringe TiVo's patents -- presumably as an embittered and pre-emptive measure before TiVo could kick off its inevitable next suit. Don't worry if you're confused as all hell, so are we -- the point is, despite the fact that decisions have been made and rulings handed down, these two companies are still managing to sue, re-sue, and counter-re-sue one another.

If it wasn't already perfectly clear by now that Monster Cable's cables aren't really worth the price (or any price above the cost of a coat-hanger), and that they're only using those bloated markups to perpetuate their reputation as money-grubbing lawsuit-happy snakeoil peddlers, we'd call your attention to their latest target: Monster Mini Golf, a chain of glow-in-the-dark mini-golf courses based out of Rhode Island. Apparently Monster Cable claims that the Monster Mini Golf brand is confusing to the public and dilute their trademark. Of course, this suit isn't really any more absurd than their suits against Monster.com, the Chicago Bears (aka the "Monsters of the Midway"), or the Pixar film Monsters, Inc. -- that is to say, it's equally and completely ridiculous. But hey, when you're making 1000%+ margin on merch, you can only swim in entire pools of liquid gold so long before seeking out the thrill only found in wasting taxpayer dollars on frivolous lawsuits.

Hey, so here's an idea: perhaps everyone should just stop buying anything made by Monster Cable. That or set up a dummy corporation with the word "monster" in the name, since you're basically guaranteed they'll spin their wheels serving a summons for merely existing. (Don't worry, you'll have limited personal liability.) You pick, whatever's easier.

[Thanks, Jason; also, here's the Monster Mini Golf site]

Vote on whether Engadget should blackball coverage of Monster Cable here.

Although DISH Network was quick to assure customers that their DVRs would stay functional after losing its patent appeal against TiVo, it looks like the company was a bit quick on the draw. Although the majority of the company's DVRs have had their software updated to include non-infringing code, the VIP 721, 921, 942 and Homezone 1022 boxes haven't been updated and installers are being told that they can no longer install or activate them. You're safe if you've already got one up and running, but if you were in the market for a specific box, it's probably wise to double check those numbers.

[Thanks, Dennis]