A federal judge in California on Thursday dismissed all claims in the second of four patent infringement lawsuits filed by Alcatel-Lucent against Microsoft Corp. . The case, which was scheduled to begin trial March 19, concerned speech recognition technology. The ruling, issued by US District Judge Rudi Brewster, will be appealed by Alcatel-Lucent.

Last Thursday, a federal jury in California awarded Alcatel-Lucent $1.52 billion in damages for violations of two of Alcatel-Lucent's digital music patents committed by Microsoft. Microsoft indicated it might appeal the verdict. Two additional patent suits between Microsoft and Alcatel-Lucent are pending, with the next trial scheduled to begin May 21.

Morgan Stanley agreed to pay a $10 million settlement to the Securities and Exchange Commission last June without admitting or denying allegations made by the SEC that the corporation had failed to protect against potential misuse of insider trading information as required by law.

Pentagon officials announced Thursday that David Hicks, an Australian detainee held in U.S. custody for more than five years, will face two counts of providing material support for terrorism, the first time anyone has been charged under the new U.S. law governing military trials for some foreign terrorism suspects.

The case against Hicks marks the first use of rules established by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which was enacted last year when Republicans still controlled Congress and after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down earlier rules for the military trials.

With their party now in control of Congress, some Democrats have been outspoken about wanting to revamp the Military Commissions Act to provide suspects with more rights and eliminate the use of evidence obtained through coercion. Sens. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., have introduced legislation that would restore rights of detainees such as Hicks to challenge their detentions via habeas corpus petitions, something a federal appeals court in Washington recently ruled were prohibited under current law.

The filing of charges also could prompt Hicks' attorneys to initiate a new legal challenge of the law. Defense attorneys for a group of foreign nationals held in the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- including Hicks -- have filed lawsuits that its provisions are unconstitutional, but recently lost at the appellate level.

The detainees' attorneys said they plan to file a petition Monday for an expedited hearing in the Supreme Court. Another Guantanamo detainee, Salim Hamdan, filed a petition with the Supreme Court this week alleging that the Military Commissions Act is unconstitutional.

Last May, the House passed a similar bill, the Federal Energy Price Protection Act, that would have required the FTC to define price gouging within six months of the bill's final passage. In addition, fuel refiners, wholesalers and retailers who engage in price gouging would have faced fines from $2 million to $150 million, the possibility of imprisonment, and increased civil penalties up to three times the amount of profits earned. The bill did not gain passage in the Senate.

An Oklahoma State House of Representatives committee approved a strict immigration bill on Wednesday for a full vote in the Oklahoma House. The Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 seeks to prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining state identification, and would require all state and local agencies to verify citizenship status of applicants before authorizing benefits. The bill would also require public employers to enter job applicants into an electronic immigration database to verify legal status, and would repeal a 2003 law that permits illegal immigrants to attend state colleges at in-state tuition levels. The proposed bill states in part:

The State of Oklahoma finds that illegal immigration is causing economic hardship and lawlessness in this state and that illegal immigration is encouraged by public agencies within this state that provide public benefits without verifying immigration status. The State of Oklahoma further finds that illegal immigrants have been harbored and sheltered in this state and encouraged to reside in this state through the issuance of identification cards that are issued without verifying immigration status, and that these practices impede and obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration law, undermine the security of our borders, and impermissibly restrict the privileges and immunities of the citizens of Oklahoma. Therefore, the people of the State of Oklahoma declare that it is a compelling public interest of this state to discourage illegal immigration by requiring all agencies within this state to fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

The bill, considered one of the toughest illegal immigration measures in the country, is expected to pass easily in the state House of Representatives. The proposal would also have to be passed in the state Senate before going to the governor for approval.

The Oklahoma legislature is also now considering the Oklahoma English Language Act, which would require all official business of the state to be conducted in English, with exceptions.

The outcome of the case may depend on a 1968 Supreme Court decision which created an exception to the general prohibition on taxpayer challenges to the government spending of tax revenue. In that case, Board of Education v. Allen, the Court allowed taxpayers to challenge congressional spending for private religious schools.

Still, Disney officials said the lawsuit is necessary to ensure that this development and others go through required environmental studies, which they claim were skipped in this proposal. City staffers have said previous reviews were sufficient.

"Our concern is, this could quickly unravel the Anaheim Resort area and the golden egg that it is for Anaheim," said Rob Doughty, a Disneyland Resort spokesman.

Mayor Curt Pringle, who was against the residential plan, said he would leave it to the lawyers to consider the merits of the case.

But he said the lawsuit was a dramatic step on the part of Disney, the city's largest employer that is the center of the resort where much of the local taxes are generated.

"This is a very significant action. This is something that we should not take lightly," Pringle said.

Some council members said they were taken aback by the lawsuit, while others saw it coming.

"It's absolutely a surprise,'' said Councilman Harry Sidhu, who voted against the zoning change. "At the same time, they have a right to defend their position and we'll see what their demands are. I do not like to see any kind of lawsuit. I'm the type of person that wants a settlement, and I would like to give them a chance to present their case."

The lawsuit stems from unusual actions taken by both the council and the Planning Commission.

In August, four of five council members asked the staff for the zoning change to pave the way for SunCal to propose a 1,500-home development, including 200 affordable units.

Affordable-housing advocates praised the plan as a way to build low-cost homes near resort jobs. But business leaders said the proposal went against the long-term vision to put hotels and tourist venues on the 26.7-acre plot.

Last month, the commission went against the council's direction and rejected the residential zoning, agreeing with Disney that homes are incompatible with the resort area.

At the same time, the commission backed the city's recommendation to approve environmental documents, which outline how much development the surrounding roads, sewers and other infrastructure can handle. City staff relied on previous studies, instead of conducting new ones.

Because the council deadlocked on the plan, the commission's vote stands as the final decision.

Disney disagrees with the commission's endorsement of the environmental studies and now is suing to force the city to conduct them.

Frank Elfend, a consultant for SunCal, said he believes the lawsuit is unfounded. SunCal is requesting a council re-hearing on the zoning change.

"We think that this is another intimidation action on Disney's part," Elfend said.