The lawsuit was filed by KinderStart , a parenting information Web site that claims it was illegally blocked from Google search results.

Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose, Calif., not only dismissed the lawsuit but granted a motion by Google to sanction KinderStart and one of its lawyers.

Fogel said Google can now seek "reasonable compensation" for attorney fees because KinderStart lawyer Gregory Yu filed claims that were factually baseless and did not perform an adequate investigation before filing the lawsuit.

Yu's claim that Google gives higher search placements to companies that pay for that privilege "should not have been made based upon the limited information identified by Yu," Fogel wrote in a ruling issued Friday. "Yu's purported evidence is either double hearsay or hearsay speculation as to the 'mysterious' causes of improvement in a Web site's position in Google's search results. Yu provides no evidence that would support KinderStart's broad attacks on the objectivity of Google's search results."

Judge Fogel said KinderStart's allegation that Google removes Web sites from search results based on political and religious reasons was also baseless.

"KinderStart does not appear to allege that KinderStart itself suffered any discrimination by Google for political or religious reasons," Fogel wrote. "It is true that Yu spoke with a number of people who believe that Google engages in religious or political discrimination, but a reasonable, competent investigation requires more than suspicions or belief. Yu had a professional responsibility to refrain from filing such allegations if he did not have appropriate supporting evidence."

In response to the ruling, Google released a statement from Hilary Ware, the company's litigation counsel: "We always felt these claims were unjustified, because courts have consistently rejected complaints over search engine rankings, so we're pleased that Judge Fogel promptly dismissed this case."

KinderStart may still be considering further action against Google.

A group representing music publishers is suing XM Satellite Radio, saying that XM violates copyright laws by giving users the ability to store and replay songs on certain devices.

The National Music Publishers' Association claimed in a lawsuit filed in federal court in New York Thursday that XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. offers an unlawful music download service that isn't covered by the royalties it pays to music publishers for broadcast rights.

The suit targets an XM service called "XM (plus) MP3," which allows XM subscribers to store songs on portable players and play them back later. The songs remain on the device as long as the customer subscribes to XM.

Like its rival Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., XM offers dozens of channels of commercial-free music as well as talk and news channels for a monthly fee of about $13. Sirius has agreed to buy XM, but the deal faces a tough regulatory review in Washington.

The music publishers' lawsuit is similar to another filed against XM last year by a group representing major record label companies, the Recording Industry Association of America. That case is still pending.

Like traditional radio broadcasters, satellite radio services must pay the publishers of music and record labels royalties for the right to broadcast music.

XM spokesman Chance Patterson said the lawsuit by the NMPA "simply represents a negotiating tactic to gain advantage in our ongoing business discussions. " He said the suit was without merit.

XM and Sirius were barred from merging under the licenses they were granted a decade ago, but they argue that much has changed since then, including the growth of other audio entertainment choices such as downloads from Apple Inc.'s iTunes stores.

The music publishers group noted in their lawsuit that XM draws attention to the ability of its XM + MP3 service to store and replay music, describing it as a substitute for using an iPod playback device and iTunes to buy music.

Also today, prosecutors asked the Moscow Municipal Court to ban the far-right National Bolshevik Party and suspend the party's activities pending a ruling. The party's leaders said the decision was politically motivated.

Many see the selection of Hong Kong's leader as a farce - the incumbent will almost certainly be picked again Sunday by a committee that usually goes with the choice of China's rulers.

But for the first time since the former British colony returned to Beijing's rule, the election has had a challenger and American-style debates. It also saw the incumbent - veteran civil servant Donald Tsang - promise a specific plan to bring full democracy to China's wealthiest city.

Tsang is expected to coast to re-election by an 800-seat election committee loaded with tycoons, leaders of special interest groups and other elites.

His rival is Alan Leong, a lawmaker and lawyer who believes stable, well-educated Hong Kong is ready for full democracy.

He says Tsang is among those dragging their feet on political reform. Leong insists that when the next leadership vote is held in 2012, Hong Kong should get rid of what's commonly known as the "small-circle election" system and let the public directly elect the winner.

The race also featured the first public debates between leadership candidates. The two men met twice in televised events that yielded spirited argument about a range of issues.

When this former British colony returned to Chinese rule 10 years ago, the Communist leadership in Beijing said Hong Kong could keep its capitalist ways, maintain its civil liberties and be semiautonomous under a "one country, two systems" formula. The city's mini-constitution, or Basic Law, says Hong Kong will eventually gain full democracy, referred to as universal suffrage, but no timeline has been given.

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