The Germany-based company issued its response the day after Oracle alleged SAP resorted to high-tech skullduggery to obtain confidential information about Oracle's software. Redwood Shores-based Oracle alleges SAP repeatedly raided its computers so a subsidiary called TomorrowNow can provide product support to Oracle's customers.

"SAP will not comment other than to make it clear to our customers, prospects, investors, employees and partners that SAP will aggressively defend against the claims made by Oracle in the lawsuit," spokesman Steve Bauer said in a statement.

Oracle has spent more than $20 billion in the past three years in a challenge to SAP's market leadership in business applications software -- programs that automate a wide range of administrative tasks.

McGill University hosted an interesting conference today on music and copyright reform.  The conference consisted of two panels plus an afternoon of open dialogue and featured an interesting collection of speakers including Bruce Lehman, the architect of the WIPO Internet Treaties and the DMCA, Ann Chaitovitz of the USPTO, Terry Fisher of Harvard Law School, NDP Heritage critic Charlie Angus, famed music producer Sandy Pearlman, and myself.  A video of the event has been posted in Windows format.

My participation focused on making the case against anti-circumvention legislation in Canada (it starts at about 54:30).  I emphasized the dramatic difference between the Internet of 1997 and today, the harmful effects of the DMCA, the growing movement away from DRM, and the fact that the Canadian market has supported a range of online music services with faster digital music sales growth than either the U.S. or Europe but without anti-circumvention legislation.

The most interesting - and surprising - presentation came from Bruce Lehman, who now heads the International Intellectual Property Institute.  Lehman explained the U.S. perspective in the early 1990s that led to the DMCA (ie. greater control though TPMs), yet when reflecting on the success of the DMCA acknowledged that "our Clinton administration policies didn't work out very well" and "our attempts at copyright control have not been successful" (presentation starts around 11:00).  
Moreover, Lehman says that we are entering the "post-copyright" era for music, suggesting that a new form of patronage will emerge with support coming from industries that require music (webcasters, satellite radio) and government funding.  While he says that teens have lost respect for copyright, he lays much of the blame at the feet of the recording industry for their failure to adapt to the online marketplace in the mid-1990s.

In a later afternoon discussion, Lehman went further, urging Canada to think outside the box on future copyright reform.  While emphasizing the need to adhere to international copyright law (ie. Berne), he suggested that Canada was well placed to experiment with new approaches.  He was not impressed with Bill C-60, seemingly because he does not believe that it went far enough in reshaping digital copyright issues.  Given ongoing pressure from the U.S., I'm skeptical about Canada's ability to chart a new course on copyright, yet if the architect of the DMCA is willing to admit that change is needed, then surely our elected officials should take notice.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1826/125

"The stories are so tragic our staff numbers are sorting out the information and they actually broke into tears," said Frank Jablonski, an attorney with Progressive Law Group, LLC. "This is an enormous mess-up by these companies and the amount of tragedies by these companies is huge and terrible."

Meanwhile, the company at the center of the recall is speaking out for the first time since the recall.

"Our hearts go out to the thousands of pet owners across Canada and the United States for their losses and their worries," said Paul Henderson, president and CEO of Menu Foods.

The company said it is grateful that investigators have finally pinpointed a cause. Investigators said that rat poison contaminated the pet food.

The manufacturer said it will take responsibility for veterinary costs linked to the tainted food.

As of Friday, the contaminated pet food has been blamed for at least 17 animal deaths. That number represents the confirmed cases, so the number of deaths could increase much more, WISC-TV reported.

Scientists said the Menu Foods brand of wet and gravy style food was contaminated by rat poison, but they don't know how the poison got into the food.

For information on the pet food lawsuit, visit ProgressiveLaw.com

Canadian drug company Biovail Corp. has fired Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP, the law firm that engineered the company's high-profile lawsuit that claimed hedge funds and research analysts colluded to depress its stock price.

Kasowitz Benson, which is based in New York, is embroiled in a legal controversy over whether it willfully violated a protective order when it used information subpoenaed from Banc of America Securities in a shareholder suit in New York Federal court. That information was used to draft Biovail's February 2006 complaint against SAC Capital Management LLC, Sigma Capital Management LLC, Gradient Analytics Inc., Gerson Lehrman Group, former Banc of America Securities analyst David Maris and others.

Judge Richard Owen presides over the shareholder suit filed against Biovail in 2003. For the last month, Owen has been presiding over hearings to probe the violation of the protective order. Those hearings are scheduled to resume in early April.

Biovail's public relations firm Sitrick & Co. said in an e-mail statement that the company terminated Kasowitz Benson because of "issues arising from proceedings before Judge Owen." Biovail said it "maintains confidence in its pending lawsuits."

A spokesman for Kasowitz Benson had no comment.

A lawyer defending Kasowitz Benson during the hearings in front of Owen earlier this week disclosed documents against Biovail's will. The lawyer argued in court that Kasowitz Benson had a right to disclose the information because the firm was being accused of wrongful conduct.

"We have asked Biovail to come forward and clarify the record. They have declined to do so to date," said John Siffert of Lankler Siffert & Whohl LLP. "We are not saying that Biovail had an appreciation for the protective order barring what we did anymore than we did, but at least they knew about the protective order and didn't tell us," Siffert said.

Evidence introduced in court shows that Kasowitz Benson lawyers continued to use and share material obtained from Banc of America after they were told about a March 2005 court order preventing its use in other venues.

According to evidence that came up during hearings in front of Owen, Kasowitz Benson drafted and circulated to several law firms a shareholder complaint that was later filed against SAC and others in New Jersey federal court. That complaint closely mirrors the one filed by Biovail against the same defendants a month earlier and uses some of the same information obtained from Banc of America.

Lawyers representing shareholders suing Biovail in New York federal court argued in a letter sent to Judge Owen last week that Biovail's lawyers drafted and caused the filing of the New Jersey shareholder complaint to hamper class certification in New York.

Kasowitz Benson also represents Fairfax Financial Holdings, a Canadian insurer who sued some of the same defendants and alleges a similar conspiracy to depress its stock.

Last June, Kasowitz Benson partner Marc Kasowitz testified in front of a Senate hearing about hedge funds, alleging that supposedly "independent" research reports are routinely bought and paid for by short-selling hedge funds, and warned lawmakers that "the potential for gross fraud and abuse is stunning."

"David Shapiro is a truly extraordinary legal scholar and lawyer, with whom we already have had the privilege of working on important matters for Manatt clients," said Chad Hummel, Chair of Manatt's national Litigation Division. "From our successful prior collaborations, we know that Professor Shapiro fits perfectly with our firm's national litigation practice and especially our expanding appellate and U.S. Supreme Court practice. We are honored and thrilled that Professor Shapiro has agreed to become a consultant to Manatt."

Professor Shapiro clerked for Supreme Court Justice John M. Harlan, and he joined Harvard Law School as an assistant professor in 1963. Professor Shapiro served as Associate Dean of Harvard Law School from 1971 to 1976. In 1986, he was named the William Nelson Cromwell Professor at Harvard Law School. Professor Shapiro has also been a visiting professor at various law schools around the country and internationally, including Stanford, Oxford, University of Pennsylvania, University of Arizona and New York University.

From 1988 to 1991, Professor Shapiro took a leave of absence from Harvard Law School to serve as Deputy Solicitor General for the first Bush administration. As Deputy Solicitor General, Professor Shapiro argued 10 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Throughout his career, Professor Shapiro has participated in over 60 U.S. Supreme Court cases, and in 2006 he contributed to three amicus briefs in Supreme Court cases.

Professor Shapiro received his B.A. from Harvard College, magna cum laude in 1954 and his LL.B. from Harvard Law School, summa cum laude, Fay Diploma in 1957. At Harvard Law School, he served as Note Editor for the Harvard Law Review.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/facdir.php?id=65

A federal judge said on Friday he would issue an injunction barring Vonage Holdings Corp. from using Internet phone call technology patented by Verizon Communications Inc., but delayed signing the order for two weeks.

Vonage shares fell sharply after the ruling, falling 16.8 percent, or 68 cents, to $3.37 in afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

The two-week period gives Vonage time to try and convince U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton to stay his injunction while it appeals the entire case. "I will sign the injunction at the time I rule on the stay," he said.

Hilton agreed with Verizon that it would suffer irreparable harm if he allowed continued infringement of the voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP) technologies that allow consumers to make calls over the Internet.

He rejected arguments by Vonage that the harm to Verizon was outweighed by other factors, including the public interest.

A jury on March 8 found Vonage had infringed three patents owned by Verizon. The jury said Vonage must pay $58 million plus 5.5 percent royalties on future sales.

"They could not have been commercially successful if they had not taken these patents we have and put them into their technologies," Dan Webb, an attorney for Verizon, said at Friday's hearing on the injunction request.

Webb also cited documents Vonage filed with the court under seal, saying an injunction would cause "enormous business difficulties" for Vonage. Webb said the Vonage filings suggested that "they can't live with an injunction because of the way their technology is designed."

However, Vonage's chief lawyer, Sharon O'Leary, told Reuters that Vonage customers would not be affected by the case. She declined to comment on the sealed, or secret, documents the company filed with the court.

O'Leary also she was pleased that the judge gave the company two weeks to try and stop the injunction.

"We will get the stay, either through the district court or the federal circuit court of appeals," O'Leary said. She said Judge Hilton himself raised the possibility that he could be overturned on appeal during arguments on Friday.

O'Leary said she was optimistic the company could get an appeals court to overturn both the injunction and the jury's verdict.

He declined to specify the loss. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.

"We believed green onions may have been the source based on the presumptive positive testing, so we immediately removed them from our products to put public safety first," the statement said. "We later learned they were not the source of the E. coli outbreak."

The lawsuit alleges Taco Bell officials probably knew by Dec. 9 and certainly by Dec. 11 that tests for E. coli in the green onions were negative. The company and FDA officials said Dec. 11 that the green onions were not the source of the disease, and Taco Bell posted a press release Dec. 13 on its Web site that said lettuce appeared to be the most probable source of the outbreak, according to the suit.

Creed also said Taco Bell would no longer include green onions as a food ingredient. The lawsuit noted that lettuce remains in about 70 percent of Taco Bell‘s food selections.