Illinois residents Daniel and Barbara Owens a lawsuit Apple, accusing the company of fraud relating to its iTunes gift card.

The lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in southern Illinois, and received by CNET, demonstrates that the couple is seeking monetary compensation for Apple in the “wrongful, illegal, improper and fraudulent actions.

In Owens Apple claim that markets gift cards, sales of individual songs on iTunes 99 cents each. Couple argues that not all songs from the iTunes Store is that cheap - some actually cost $ 1.29. They claim that they were denied the benefit of its bargain to buy any song from iTunes for 99 cents.

In April, Apple has changed the pricing structure in the iTunes Store to 99 cents per song to a variable model, where songs cost 69 cents, 99 cents, or $ 1.29. In Owens said that they have acquired a few iTunes including two cards of $ 25 cards from March 1, 2008; with Sam in a club, a $ 15 card for 19 May, 2009, with Wal-Mart.

Apple has expanded its presence in many retail outlets for many years, which allows stores like Target, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Walgreens, and others to sell gift cards.

The company is currently a lawsuit on charges including two of four counts of breach of contract, violations of Illinois consumer fraud and deceptive business practices law, and one charge of violating the statute protecting the rights of consumers.

Apple could not immediately be reached for comment.

Apple was sued by the mother 15-year-old boy, who said that his 16GB IPod Touch exploded in the pocket of his pants, burning his legs.

Ars Tech noticed case, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Perhaps one day the boy in the class “I heard a loud pop and immediately felt a burning sensation in the legs,” according to a copy of the complaint. (Click here to copy the PDF.)

According to the complaint, the boy, “realized his Apple iTouch (SIC) has been an explosion and fire trapped in his pocket. …. The plaintiff AV immediately ran to the bathroom and took off his pants burning through a friend. In Apple iTouch burned through A. The plaintiff in the pocket of trousers and melted through his nylon / spandex underwear, burning his legs. ”

The plaintiff suffered second degree burns in the explosion, according to the complaint, as well as seeking more than $ 225,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. Apple representative said the company does not comment on pending trial.

Mobile device explosion causing bodily injury, unfortunately, an old story, but in many cases, these explosions may be linked to defective batteries of mobile phones, which are often cheap knock-offs, adding users. Battery for IPod Touch, however, is not replaceable by the user.

There are awful lot of facts that should come to the surface before we know exactly what happened with the IPod Touch, but it is to watch.

Like most people, who drew attention to the Consumer Electronics Show earlier this month, Apple noticed Palm Pre.

In response to a question from financial analysts about the new Palm smartphone and its multitouch interface, COO Apple Tim Cook, without prior review immediately, making sure that everyone at Apple quarterly income call Wednesday Apple knows how to feel about intellectual property.

“We will not stand for our IP ripped Off”, Cook declared, perhaps fire shot across the bow of the Palm and executive chairman, John Rubinstein, a former member of Apple. To be clear, Cook did not accuse the Palm such acts clearly say “I do not want to talk about any specific company.”

But the context - in which Cook was the growing threat to the iPhone from competitors like Research In Motion, Google and Palm - was clear. Palm has to leave some surprise, some iPhone-like features, according to preliminary earlier this month, such as scanning the screen to switch between the windows and using multitouch gestures to zoom in and out of web pages.

Palm - full former Apple engineers have been brought under Rubinstein - did not announce the date of pre-launch, but Apple, of course, watching the developments closely. Cook promised to use every weapon at our disposal “if the company finds iPhone intellectual property is in danger, and I have a couple of houses in Puerto Vallarta, that it takes about Apple Chief Legal Officer Daniel Cooperman.

Psystar still tilting at the windmills of law in its fight against Apple, this time asserting its right to do what he wants with the products derived from legitimate Apple.

After the judge dismissed Psystar in the antitrust argument - considered all the chances for continued openly sell their computers with Mac OS X preloaded - Florida clone Maker had been allowed to amend their claims against Apple and other arguments. He has already suggested that Apple violates his copyrights to the operating system, and now she plans to argue that Psystar legally purchased copies of Mac OS X from Apple and resellers, it has the right to do basically what he wants with the software at the first sale doctrine.

Computerworld noticed court requests to this effect submitted Psystar last week. The key passage:

After the consent of the copyright holder for the sale of copies of works, the owner can not carry out the distribution rights in respect of these copies. See, for example, Merrill Bobbs-to against Strauss, 210 U.S. 339, 350-51 (1908) (recognition of more than 100 years ago, the concept of first sale and the restrictions imposed on the owner of copyright in the light of this). Psystar bought legitimate copies of Mac OS from Apple; those copies have been lawfully acquired authorized distributors including directly from Apple; Psystar paid good and valuable consideration of these copies; Psystar removed those legally purchased copies of a third party.

The problem with this argument is that the courts have rarely agreed that the first sale doctrine applies to software, given the software that is licensed, not sold, and therefore may have limitations. In one case, related to Adobe concluded that the case, but in most cases, the courts tend to side with software developers.

Apple and Psystar is scheduled to be held next week to discuss the case and the last argument.

You just can not make this stuff up.

Liskula Cohen, a Canadian model, has sued Google because of offensive remarks about her on the blog has its Blogger publishing services, in accordance with the New York Daily News. ”

36-year-old Cohen, who appeared on the cover of Australian Vogue and W magazines in the early 90’s, wants to know the identity of the anonymous blogger who called her “my # 1 skanky superstar” among other epithets excellent.

Blog called Skanks in New York, and it deals with more or less than ridiculing photos Cohen, all of which were posted on the same day: August 21, 2008. But Cohen had enough offense to continue a lawsuit against Google in Manhattan court, demanding that the Internet giant expose “Skanks” blogger is in the details.

“I’m tall, I am blond, I am modeling for many years, and people are jealous,” she told Daily News. “If I had to deal with all those jealous, I would not have time to do anything else.” Her lawyer called the site “a liar” and “slanderous.”

Meanwhile, the search terms “Liskula Cohen” and “Skanks in New York rose to the top of (ironically) Google Trends, earning” on fire “ratings. Hey, given that I have never heard of Liskula Cohen before, and I am sure that I am not only one, it might have been the best that ever happened to her.

But it is a viable claim against Google? Um, probably not.