Comments on: Handspring and Palm Settle Lawsuits

Handspring, Inc. and Palm, Inc. have jointly announced that they had entered into a memorandum of understanding with counsel to the plaintiffs in two lawsuits relating to the proposed acquisition of Handspring by Palm.
Return to Story - Permalink

Article Comments

 (16 comments)

The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. PalmInfocenter is not responsible for them in any way.
Please Login or register here to add your comments.

Comments Closed Comments Closed
This article is no longer accepting new comments.

Down

So what were the lawsuits about anyway?

gfunkmagic @ 10/22/2003 2:35:53 AM #
Anyone know?

Visit http://goodthatway.com/
-better living through better technology.
RE: So what were the lawsuits about anyway?
The Ugly Truth @ 10/22/2003 3:06:12 AM #
http://www.varantmajarian.com/

Ok, like so Jeff and Donna booked us to play the 2002 Handspring Christmas party and like I told them we don't want no brown M and Ms in the backstage party bowl, and like Hawk - our guitarist - found a brown M and M in the bowl and it like freaked him out, and like now he doesn't play so good no more. So we're suing Handspring for $38,000,666.69 for pain and suffering. Also, Carcass - our bassist - bought a Palm T³ and it like fried his SanDisk 512 MD SD card, so we're like suing for an extra $666.

NO ONE FOCKS WITH Varant Majarian©

Sometimes the truth just isn't pretty™

RE: So what were the lawsuits about anyway?
hoodoo @ 10/22/2003 8:36:50 AM #
And the band's web traffic spikes!

I'm going to book them for my office party! Rock on dudes.

RE: So what were the lawsuits about anyway?
anjrober1 @ 10/22/2003 8:41:50 AM #
I still can't even fathom what some metal band is going to sue handspring over regarding it's acquisition by palm? were they large shareholders? angry institutional investors? disillusioned dotcomers? strange.

RE: So what were the lawsuits about anyway?
hoodoo @ 10/22/2003 9:25:54 AM #
I want details of this lawsuit, this is the funniest thing I've heard in ages.

Maybe their Treos got poor reception?

RE: So what were the lawsuits about anyway?
ozz @ 10/22/2003 11:31:01 AM #
Guess who REALLY won in these lawsuits....the Lawyers representing plaintiffs and defendants, that's who! D-:
RE: So what were the lawsuits about anyway?
Admin @ 10/22/2003 12:10:31 PM #
Gaurav, you have to dig through the 400+ page S-4 document at the SEC to find the answer, I may hunt for it later unless someone else finds it.
RE: So what were the lawsuits about anyway?
indesman @ 10/22/2003 2:06:06 PM #
I hope the settlement with the moronic metal heads was something like "drop the lawsuit and we won't have Guido bust a cap on you while you're sleeping."

RE: So what were the lawsuits about anyway?
sneeb @ 10/22/2003 10:44:14 PM #
To quote from Palm Inc's S-4

"The cases are captioned Goldhirsch v. Handspring, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 20376-NC and Majarian v. Handspring, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 20381-NC. The Majarian complaint was amended on or about June 23, 2003 to, among other things, delete certain previously named officer defendants. Both complaints allege that the officers and directors of Handspring breached their fiduciary duties to Handspring stockholders by, among other things, failing to undertake an appropriate evaluation of Handspring’s net worth as a merger or acquisition candidate and failing to maximize Handspring stockholder value by not engaging in a meaningful auction of Handspring. The Majarian complaint also alleges, among other things, that the officers and directors of Handspring breached their fiduciary duties by failing to act independently so that the interests of Handspring’s public stockholders would be protected and enhanced. Both complaints allege that Palm aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty of Handspring’s officers and directors. Both complaints seek, among other things, a preliminary and permanent injunction against the transaction, a rescission of the transaction if it is consummated and unspecified damages. The Goldhirsch complaint also requests, among other things, that the Court order Handspring’s officers and directors to take all necessary steps to maximize stockholder value, including open bidding and/or an unspecified market check."

RE: So what were the lawsuits about anyway?
The Ugly Truth @ 10/23/2003 1:34:50 AM #
In case it wasn't obvious, the "NO ONE FOCKS WITH Varant Majarian©" post was a joke - much like every single lawsuit that has been levelled against Palm over the past six years. (Xerox, we're looking right at you and your patent for any conceivable set of lines representing letters. Never knew you could patent writing. Especially when Newtons were out before Xerox had said anything about patenting the Graffiti idea...)

Sometimes the truth just isn't pretty™

RE: So what were the lawsuits about anyway?
hoodoo @ 10/23/2003 11:19:12 AM #
heh, no kidding, and that was prob. the funniest post ever!



RE: So what were the lawsuits about anyway?
DarthRepublican @ 10/23/2003 6:10:46 PM #

To quote from Palm Inc's S-4

"The cases are captioned Goldhirsch v. Handspring, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 20376-NC and Majarian v. Handspring, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 20381-NC. The Majarian complaint was amended on or about June 23, 2003 to, among other things, delete certain previously named officer defendants. Both complaints allege that the officers and directors of Handspring breached their fiduciary duties to Handspring stockholders by, among other things, failing to undertake an appropriate evaluation of Handspring’s net worth as a merger or acquisition candidate and failing to maximize Handspring stockholder value by not engaging in a meaningful auction of Handspring. The Majarian complaint also alleges, among other things, that the officers and directors of Handspring breached their fiduciary duties by failing to act independently so that the interests of Handspring’s public stockholders would be protected and enhanced. Both complaints allege that Palm aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty of Handspring’s officers and directors. Both complaints seek, among other things, a preliminary and permanent injunction against the transaction, a rescission of the transaction if it is consummated and unspecified damages. The Goldhirsch complaint also requests, among other things, that the Court order Handspring’s officers and directors to take all necessary steps to maximize stockholder value, including open bidding and/or an unspecified market check."

In other words, "We bought Handspring at $40 and lost a bundle when their stock tanked so we're suing to get back our losses. The next time I lose thousands of dollars in Los Vegas, I'm suing the casino.

RE: So what were the lawsuits about anyway?
The Ugly Truth @ 10/25/2003 10:33:51 AM #
"If the court approves the settlement contemplated in the memorandum, the lawsuits will be dismissed. The terms of the settlement contemplated by the memorandum require that additional disclosure be made concerning the merger. This disclosure is contained in a Form 8-K filed by Handspring today with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The parties also agreed that plaintiffs may seek attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $215,000 that Handspring will pay if the attorney's fees and costs are granted by the court. There will be no other settlement payment by Handspring or Palm. However, there can be no assurance that the court will approve the proposed settlement or that any ultimate settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum."


Sometimes the truth just isn't pretty™

American lawsuits are a cancer.

The Ugly Truth @ 10/25/2003 11:23:53 AM #
It's amazing that any companies even bother trying to operate in this kind of environment. The scary thing is, all it takes is a single bad judgement in any of these ridiculous cases to cost the company millions. Not to nention the milions already wasted on lawyers' fees. Lawsuits are flushing America down the toilet.


On April 28, 1997, Xerox Corporation filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. The case came to be captioned Xerox Corporation v. 3Com Corporation, U.S. Robotics Corporation, U.S. Robotics Access Corp., and Palm Computing, Inc. , Civil Action No. 97-CV-6182T. The complaint alleged willful infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,596,656, entitled “Unistrokes for Computerized Interpretation of Handwriting.”
(Was thrown out and then appealed by a certain dirtbag copier company that will NEVER get any of my company's business. It would be nice to see every Palm owner write Xerox and tell them they will be boycotting Xerox products because of this bogus lawsuit. That kind of grassroots reaction to slimy business practices might get companies like that to think twice before they sue. Does anone here know how to set up a petition or letter writing campign that could be used to persuade Xerox to act more responsibly?)

On February 28, 2000, E-Pass Technologies, Inc. filed suit against “3Com, Inc.” in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and later filed, on March 6, 2000, an amended complaint against Palm and 3Com. The case is now captioned E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. 3Com Corporation, a/k/a 3Com, Inc. and Palm, Inc. , Civil Action No. 00 CIV 1523. The amended complaint alleges willful infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,276,311, entitled “Method and Device for Simplifying the Use of Credit Cards, or the Like.”
(Could this patent be any more vague?)

On March 14, 2001, NCR Corporation filed suit against Palm and Handspring, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case is captioned NCR Corporation v. Palm, Inc. and Handspring, Inc., Civil Action No. 01-169. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 4,634,845 and 4,689,478, entitled, respectively, “Portable Personal Terminal for Use in a System for Handling Transactions” and “System for Handling Transactions Including a Portable Personal Terminal.”
(I think I'm going to patent water, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and gasolene next week.)

On January 23, 2003, Peer-to-Peer Systems LLC filed a complaint against Palm in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case is captioned Peer-to-Peer Systems, LLC vs. Palm, Inc. , Civil Action No. 03-115. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,618,045 entitled “Interactive Multiple Player Game System and Method of Playing a Game Between at Least Two Players”.
(I think Palm needs to send "Guido" and "Rocco" over to Peer-to-Peer Systems LLC - probably some dummy corp invented by a teenager living in Mommy and Daddy's basement - and have a little "chat" about the finer points of patent law.)

In June 2001, the first of several putative stockholder class action lawsuits was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York against certain of the underwriters for Palm’s initial public offering, Palm and several of its officers. The complaints, which have been consolidated under the caption In re Palm, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation , Case No. 01 CV 5613, assert that the prospectus from Palm’s March 2, 2000 initial public offering failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the underwriters for the offering.
A special committee of Palm’s Board of Directors recently approved a tentative settlement proposal from plaintiffs, which includes a guaranteed recovery to be paid by the issuer defendants’ insurance carriers and an assignment of certain claims the issuers, including Palm, may have against the underwriters. Probably cheaper that spending the next ten years in court...

On August 7, 2001, a purported consumer class action lawsuit was filed against Palm and 3Com in California Superior Court, San Francisco County. The case is captioned Connelly et al v. Palm, Inc., 3 Com Corp et al , Case No. 323587. An amended complaint alleging breach of warranty and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law was filed and served on Palm on August 15, 2001. The amended complaint, filed on behalf of purchasers of Palm III, IIIc, V and Vx handhelds, alleges that certain Palm handhelds may cause damage to PC motherboards by permitting an electrical charge, or “floating voltage,” from either the handheld or the cradle to be introduced into the PC via the serial and/or USB port on the PC.

On January 23, 2002, a purported consumer class action lawsuit was filed against Palm in California Superior Court, San Francisco County. The case is captioned Eley et al v. Palm, Inc., Case No. 403768. The unverified complaint, filed on behalf of purchasers of Palm m500 and m505 handhelds, alleges (1) that the HotSync function in certain Palm handhelds does not perform as advertised and the products are therefore defective and (2) that upon learning of the problem, Palm did not perform proper corrective measures for individual customers as set forth in the product warranty.

On March 11, 2002, a purported consumer class action lawsuit was filed against Palm in the Wayne County Circuit Court, Detroit, Michigan. The case is captioned Hayman, et al. v Palm, Inc ., Case No. 02-208249-CP. Plaintiffs allege that certain of Palm’s advertisements for its Palm III, V and m100 handheld devices were false or misleading regarding the ability of the device to wirelessly and remotely access emails or the Internet without the need for additional hardware or software sold separately.

In October 2002, a purported consumer class action lawsuit was filed against Palm in Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County. The case is captioned Goldstein v. Palm, Inc ., Case No. 02CH19678. The case alleges consumer fraud regarding Palm’s representations that its m100, III, V and VII handheld personal digital assistant, as sold, would provide wireless access to the Internet and email accounts, and would perform common business functions including database management, custom form creation and viewing Microsoft Word and Excel documents, among other tasks.

In August and September 2002, four purported consumer class action lawsuits were filed against Palm in California Superior Court, Santa Clara County; California Superior Court, San Diego County; Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County; and Illinois Circuit Court, St. Clair County. The respective cases are captioned Lipner and Ouyang v. Palm, Inc. , Case No. CV-810533; Veltman v. Palm, Inc ., Case No. 02CH16143; Wireless Consumer’s Alliance, Inc. v. Palm, Inc., Case No. GIC-794940; and Cokenour v. Palm, Inc. , Case No. 02L0592. All four cases allege consumer fraud regarding Palm’s representations that its m130 handheld personal digital assistant supported more than 65,000 colors. Certain of the cases also allege breach of express warranty and unfair competition.

On February 27, 2003, a purported consumer class action lawsuit was filed against Palm in California Superior Court, Santa Clara County. The case is captioned Hemmingsen et al v. Palm, Inc., Case No. CV815074. The unverified complaint, filed on behalf of purchasers of Palm m515 handhelds, alleges that such handhelds fail at unacceptably high rates, and in particular that instant updating and synchronization of data with PCs often will not occur.


Sometimes the truth just isn't pretty™

Metal Band Lawsuit?

PalmBiscuit @ 10/25/2003 12:45:35 PM #
wait a minute here... I am understanding this correctly?

So did a metal band actually sue handspring?? And they settled it?

RE: Disco Band Lawsuit?
The Ugly Truth @ 10/25/2003 1:04:45 PM #
Nothing is settled until Hawk and Carcass get new guitars and Donna sings the duet with Hawk on the new Varant Majarian© CD, to be released on PalmSpring Records (a Sony Corp division) January 15, 2004.

Check out the new video for the first single, "(What's This Goo?)In The Palm Of My Hand". Jeff does an amazing bongo drum solo that has to be heard to be believed.


Yes we're wusses with effeminate haircuts, but we got you to look at us and a ton of free advertising.
http://www.varantmajarian.com/
Ozzy lives!



Sometimes the truth just isn't pretty™

Top

Account

Register Register | Login Log in
user:
pass:

Latest Comments

  • My comments --1' OR UNICODE(SUBSTRING((SELECT/**/ISNULL(CAST(db_name()/**/AS/**/NVARCHAR(4000
  • My comments --1' OR UNICODE(SUBSTRING((SELECT/**/ISNULL(CAST(db_name()/**/AS/**/NVARCHAR(4000
  • My comments --1' OR UNICODE(SUBSTRING((SELECT/**/ISNULL(CAST(db_name()/**/AS/**/NVARCHAR(4000
  • My comments --1' OR UNICODE(SUBSTRING((SELECT/**/ISNULL(CAST(db_name()/**/AS/**/NVARCHAR(4000
  • My comments --1' OR UNICODE(SUBSTRING((SELECT/**/ISNULL(CAST(db_name()/**/AS/**/NVARCHAR(4000
  • My comments --1' OR UNICODE(SUBSTRING((SELECT/**/ISNULL(CAST(db_name()/**/AS/**/NVARCHAR(4000
  • My comments --1' OR UNICODE(SUBSTRING((SELECT/**/ISNULL(CAST(db_name()/**/AS/**/NVARCHAR(4000
  • My comments --1' OR UNICODE(SUBSTRING((SELECT/**/ISNULL(CAST(db_name()/**/AS/**/NVARCHAR(4000