A U.S. District Court judge said SAP AG owes Oracle Corp. interest on the $1.3 billion it has been ordered to pay Oracle for copyright infringement, Bloomberg reports.

Walldorf, Germany-based SAP said the interest works out to about $16.5 million according to the calculation ordered by U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in Oakland.

Oracle, which has its headquarters in Redwood City, says it is owed $211.7 million in interest.

A jury in November ruled that SAP should pay Oracle $1.3 billion for allowing a now-defunct subsidiary to steal Oracle-owned software in an effort to lure Oracle customers away.

The verdict was the largest jury award of 2010, the largest ever for copyright infringement and the 23rd largest of all time for any jury verdict, according to Bloomberg data.

Ohio has unveiled new disclosure requirements in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier this year that eased restrictions on campaign spending.

Corporations, nonprofits and labor groups will have to show the amounts they spend on independent ads for or against candidates, under rules announced Wednesday by Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner (BROO'-nur).

The state's outgoing elections chief says the ad sponsors also will have to provide voters with a website address in their ads.

The rules include a ban on independent ad spending by businesses that have been awarded state or federal money through Ohio during the previous year.

The rules approved by a Legislative panel give the secretary of state's office the power to pursue violators.

The state Supreme Court ruled on Friday that possession of more than 8 pounds of marijuana is a serious enough charge to warrant forcing medication on a defendant so he is competent to stand trial.

The high court's 7-0 ruling came in the case of 30-year-old Christopher Seekins of Torrington, who authorities say has been ruled incompetent to stand trial because he refuses to take psychotropic medication for bipolar disorder. Justices upheld a lower court judge's order to medicate Seekins against his will.

State law says a defendant can be involuntarily medicated if the crime is serious enough and there is an overriding law enforcement interest in determining whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. Seekins argued that possessing marijuana isn't a serious crime.

Seekins' lawyer, Richard Marquette, declined to comment on the ruling Friday through an employee at his Hamden law firm.

Seekins also made headlines in 2005 when he painted large pictures of marijuana leaves on his Winsted home with the word "hemp" beneath them after being charged with growing marijuana, saying it was in support of legalizing the drug. He later agreed in a plea bargain to remove or cover up the paintings, which caused a ruckus in town because they were visible from busy Main Street.

Justice Richard Palmer, a former prosecutor, wrote in the Supreme Court's ruling that the basis for determining whether a crime is serious is the severity of the sentence it potentially carries. Palmer noted that Seekins faces a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years in prison if convicted of just three of the many charges he faces.

A federal judge in Maine yesterday denied class-action status to four lawsuits accusing Philip Morris USA of misleading smokers about the health risks of light cigarettes.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge John A. Woodcock Jr. concerns lawsuits that were filed in Illinois, Maine, California and Washington, D.C., alleging that Henrico County-based Philip Morris USA marketed light cigarettes as healthier than regular cigarettes in violation of various consumer-protection and false-advertising laws.

The lawsuits are among 15 cases that were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in federal court. In his ruling, Woodcock said the plaintiffs had not met the requirements for class-action status.

"While the judge has yet to rule on the remaining cases in the multidistrict litigation, we believe this decision should serve as a persuasive authority in denying class certification in those and other similar cases as well," said Murray Garnick, senior vice president and associate general counsel for Philip Morris USA parent company Altria Group Inc.

The federal court ruling in Maine yesterday was in contrast to a decision in a separate lawsuit in New Hampshire state court Monday.

In that case, a superior court judge granted class-action status to a lawsuit against Philip Morris USA over its marketing of light cigarettes. A spokesman for Philip Morris USA said the company will appeal that decision to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

The fate of the largest job bias lawsuit in the nation's history — a claim that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. shortchanged women in pay and promotions for many years — hinges on whether the Supreme Court will let the class-action case go to trial.

The court is likely to announce as soon as Monday whether it will hear the retail giant's appeal asserting that a single lawsuit cannot speak for more than 1.5 million employees.

Business lawyers and civil rights advocates are closely following the Wal-Mart case for its implications for class-action litigation.
"This may sound like just a technical, procedural issue, but because of the economics of it, class-action certification is often the most important issue to be decided," said Washington lawyer Roy T. Englert Jr.

If the high court permits the Wal-Mart case to proceed as a class action, it will put enormous pressure on the retailer to settle, he said. The plaintiffs have not specified the damages they would seek, but given the size of the class, it could mount into billions of dollars.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several large corporations have joined with Wal-Mart, the nation's largest employer, in urging the high court to hear the appeal and to restrict the use of class-action claims.

They argue that it is unfair to permit plaintiffs' lawyers to lump together many thousands of employees from stores spread across the country and to rely on statistics to prove illegal discrimination.