After three months of silence following the release of the Mac clone by Psystar in April, the Cupertino company sued the company over copyright infringement.

The suit was filed July 3 in the US District Court for the district of Northern California, San Francisco. Initial filings for the case are due in October, while a case management conference is scheduled for October 22, court documents indicate. Judge James Larson has been assigned to the case.

Psystar offers a Mac clone for $399, along with a higher-end version for $999. Originally called the OpenMac, the name was later changed to “Open Computer” — likely to avoid trademark infringement.

Shipping of the desktops began in late April, although it is not known how many of the machines have so far been ordered. In addition to Mac OS X, Psystar offers the option to install Windows or Linux onto its high-end model.

Representatives for Apple and Psystar could not be immediately reached for comment.

Yesterday, eBay secured an important legal victory after New York District Judge Richard Sullivan ruled the online auction service actually did do enough to thwart the sale of counterfeit jewelry.

The battle between Tiffany and eBay started four years ago in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, and has ended with a decision stating it’s the responsibility of manufacturers to police counterfeit goods sold through eBay.

All of Tiffany’s trademark infringement charges were denied by Judge Sullivan. In its suit, Tiffany focused on trying to hold eBay responsible for alleged “liable for direct and contributory trademark infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, and direct and contributory trademark dilution, on the grounds that eBay facilitated and allowed these counterfeit items to be sold on its Web site,” its 66-page filing read.

The legal case between the two companies marked the first time eBay has faced counterfeiting allegations in the United States. In France last month, high fashion manufacturer Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton (LVMH) won a judgment of $63 million for eBay’s failure to thwart the sale of counterfeit goods. And in Germany in April, a judge ordered eBay to create new guidelines to help stop the sale of counterfeit Rolex watches.

A possible eBay defeat here had analysts worried that multiple other companies would have followed suit.

“This decision validates that eBay has always been committed to fighting counterfeits in a way that goes beyond what the law requires,” eBay Senior Vice Counsel Rob Chesnut said in a statement. “We see this as an important victory for our global community of buyers and sellers.”

Tiffany is expected to appeal the decision.

EBay states it swiftly removes listings once notified about trademark infringement, and allows both companies and eBay shoppers to flag suspicious listings. Its opinion is that luxury goods manufacturers are more focused on eliminating a fair marketplace by continuing to control the sale of their goods through conventional retail channels.

The auction service reportedly has a $20 million yearly operation that involves 2,000 employees who are responsible for tracking down sales of counterfeit items. Even with its operation, the company will continue to face legal problems, especially in Europe, where infringement laws are a lot more flexible than in US courts.

eBay has won a major legal victory today, after a federal judge ruled that Tiffany was not able to prove the online auction company was responsible for the sale of counterfeit Tiffany jewelry on its Web site.

The 2004 lawsuit brought by Tiffany in U.S. District Court in New York and the ruling in eBay’s favor could influence how business is done online.

Tiffany claimed that eBay ignored the sale of fake Tiffany silver jewelry on its site. eBay said the jeweler did not participate in eBay programs that help brand owners prevent fraud.

“The Court concludes that Tiffany has failed to meet its burden in proving its claims,” wrote U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan in his opinion.

“Tiffany has failed to demonstrate that eBay knowingly encouraged others to dilute Tiffany’s trademarks,” he wrote. “Rather, to the extent that eBay may have possessed general knowledge of infringement and dilution by sellers on its Web site, eBay did not possess knowledge or a reason to know of specific instances of trademark infringement or dilution as required under the law.”

eBay said in a statement,”The ruling confirms that eBay acted reasonably and has adequate procedures in place to effectively address counterfeiting. The ruling appropriately establishes that protecting brands and trademarks is the primary burden of rights owners.”

In one of the more bizarre responses in a three-way merger deal fracas since the Viacom/Paramount/Blockbuster deal of the early 1990s, a Microsoft statement this afternoon — ostensibly to refute some of the details described in a Yahoo statement early Sunday morning — also manages to separate Microsoft’s point of view from that of financier Carl Icahn. Specifically, the statement characterizes Icahn as exacerbating a deal that Microsoft was trying to put together at the request of Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock, not the other way around.

“The enhanced proposal for an alternate search transaction that we submitted late Friday was submitted at the request of Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock as a result of apparent attempts by Mr. Icahn [emphasis ours] to have Microsoft and Yahoo engage on a search transaction on terms Mr. Icahn believed Microsoft would be willing to accept and which Microsoft understands Mr. Icahn had discussed with Yahoo.”

This new statement makes it appear as though Icahn and Yahoo were working out the terms and that Microsoft worked to meet their demands, in a move which, like the others before, ultimately failed. In his own statement this morning, Icahn said he tried to broker a deal that would enable Microsoft to purchase a chunk of Yahoo, which contained its search business but which also contained its more valuable Asian business assets, for a partial deal Icahn valued at $33 per share. Yahoo flatly refused that deal late Saturday night, Pacific coast time.

“Microsoft’s proposal did not include changes to Yahoo’s governance,” reads Microsoft’s statement this afternoon. “At the time Microsoft submitted its enhanced proposal, Microsoft asked that Yahoo confirm whether it would agree that the enhancements were sufficient to form the basis for the parties to engage in negotiations over the weekend on a letter of intent and more detailed term sheets. This discussion has been mischaracterized as a take it or leave it ultimatum, rather than a timetable in order to move forward to intensive negotiations. Yahoo informed Microsoft on Saturday that it had rejected the proposal.”

Yahoo’s statement early Sunday morning included this: “The Microsoft/Icahn proposal would require the immediate replacement of the current Board and removal of the top management team at Yahoo. The Yahoo Board believes these moves would destabilize Yahoo for the up to the one year [sic] it would take to gain regulatory approval for this deal.”

Strangely, Icahn’s statement this morning agrees with neither Microsoft’s nor Yahoo’s presentation of the events, saying that the deal would mean changes to Yahoo’s board, but that CEO Jerry Yang would stay on as “Chief Yahoo” (which may not necessarily have meant CEO).

“Yahoo tells you in their press release that a condition of the deal was the immediate replacement of the current board and removal of top management,” Icahn wrote, directing his statement to Yahoo shareholders. “Yahoo neglected to mention we were willing to discuss keeping a number of the current board members and Jerry Yang as Chief Yahoo.”

Microsoft’s statement today did not say whether it would discontinue attempts to acquire part of Yahoo, after being spurned once again over the weekend.

Chairman Kevin Martin says that the cable provider has run afoul of regulations that guarantee open access to the Internet, and should be punished.

Martin used a September 2005 policy statement from the Federal Communications Commission as the basis for his position, which was intended to ensure that broadband networks were open and affordable. It did however allow for “reasonable network management.”

The FCC chairman argues that Comcast is blocking traffic arbitrarily, regardless of how much bandwidth is being used, and is failing to inform consumers of its actions. Its move is a result of an earlier complaint that users of BitTorrent were being blocked from using the service.

A proposal to sanction Comcast was put on the table Friday by Martin, with a vote scheduled at an August 1 open meeting.

Interest group FreePress filed that complaint with the regulatory body in November 2007 (PDF available here). While it mentioned other P2P applications, the focus of its argument seemed to center around BitTorrent.

“Amid online rumors and reports, Comcast lied to both the press and the [Electronic Frontier Foundation], claiming it did not interfere with peer-to-peer traffic,” it argued. “Lying to the public about consumer allegations is inherently deceptive.”

Comcast had already appeared in a hearing in February with the FCC, where it denied that it blocked any kind of “Web site, application, or Web protocol.” However, numerous studies have shown otherwise — many of which were cited by Free Press in its complaint.

Of course, the cable company denies any wrongdoing, and argues that it is acting lawfully in managing its bandwidth to ensure that all customers are being served properly. It also claims the 2005 policy statement is not enforceable, adding “reasonable” management has never been defined by the agency.

If the FCC approves the sanctions, it could set a precedent where others accused of throttling could face similar penalties. While it is not yet known exactly what they would entail, it likely would be enough for other ISPs to rethink their practices.

“The FCC order, if passed, is a major victory,” Free Press said on its site. But the organization said it expected the ISPs to fight back “with their money, lawyers and phony grassroots groups to try to take control of the Internet and establish themselves as gatekeepers.”

According to a decision by the Frankfurt Court of Appeal the victims of WiFi theft can’t be held responsible for the thieves’ copyright infringement. The same court that previously ruled parents can’t be held responsible for the flle sharing activities of their children overturned a lower court’s decision, and potentially dealt a blow to the campaign being waged by a UK lawfirm against several hundred people for alleged copyright infringement.

Lawyers at Davenport Lyons have been sending out letters to alleged UK file sharers pointing out the German court ruling making individuals whose WiFi connection is used by others without authorization responsible for any infringement. They went on to point out that it was likely that decision would be echoed by UK courts. Don’t expect to see a similar claim about this new decision.

With the possible implications of the ruling don’t be surprised to see yet another round of arguments before things are decided for sure. Christian Solmecke, a lawyer currently defending around 500 file-sharers said “The future will show us what the highest court in Germany - the Bundesgerichtshof - says to this difficult question.”