The first: AllThingsD, which will be covering D10 in depth, with liveblogs, breaking news, videos and photos of events on stage and off. The second: Our new D10 conference app, a digital companion to the conference, offering news, video and alerts from the D team. And the third: Free video livestreams of four sessions: KPCB partner Mary Meeker, screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison and FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz.

Sure, D10 is sold out, but there’s no reason you have to miss it.

Join us here at AllThingsD this evening for the first session: A conversation with Apple CEO Tim Cook.

Full D10 Conference Coverage

Apple this morning published the schedule for its annual Worldwide Developers Conference and, along with it, the date of its most important event: The keynote. This year, that eagerly anticipated address will occur on Monday, June 11, at 10 am PT.

Speakers for the event have not been announced — nor will they, I imagine — but it’s a safe bet that, as in years past, we’ll see the standard cast of characters showing off Apple’s latest software advancements — with CEO Tim Cook presiding for the first time in his new role.

Also unveiled this morning: A WWDC app, featuring a detailed schedule of events as well as daily news and photos.

The struggling BlackBerry maker said Monday that chief legal officer Karima Bawa is retiring and will leave the company after 12 years. According to RIM, Bawa has been planning her retirement for some time and will lend a hand in bringing the company’s new chief legal officer up to speed — as soon as it names one. Interesting bit of spin there. If this move has truly been in the works for some time, one would think the company would be naming Bawa’s replacement today as well, right?

But it’s not. And Bawa’s departure follows the resignation of another RIM veteran, head of global sales, Patrick Spence, who left the company last week after 14 years. Both execs take their leave of RIM ahead of what is expected to be another big wave of layoffs, RIM’s second in less than a year. Coincidence?

News of Bawa’s resignation was first reported by Reuters.

In July of 2011, the struggling maker of BlackBerry smartphones sacked 10 percent of its global workforce — some 2,000 employees — as “a prudent and necessary step for the long-term success of the company.”

Now it’s gearing up to do it again.

Sources close to the company tell AllThingsD that RIM will soon announce another major global restructuring that will include “at least” 2,000 layoffs. “RIM has about 16,500 employees worldwide now,” one source said. “That number will be down to 14,500 before the summer’s over. … 14,500 or less.”

The cuts are expected to be companywide, with every division — from marketing and sales to legal and operations — taking some kind of hit. Expect a few executives to leave along with the rank and file. In other words, it’s looking like it’s going to be at least as bad as the last round of layoffs.

News of the looming restructuring was first reported by the Globe and Mail, which says the planned layoffs could be announced as soon as June 1 — just one day prior to the end of RIM’s first quarter.

Another unfortunate turn of events for RIM’s long-suffering workforce. But really, after the missed targets, the slashed financial outlooks and the decision against providing earnings and revenue guidance, it seemed inevitable. Remember, RIM CEO Thorsten Heins has vowed to improve execution at the company, streamlining operations and saving $1 billion by the end of fiscal 2013. His plan for achieving that, as explained by CFO Brian Bidulka: “Primarily by optimizing the cost position of our products and services and improving overall resource effectiveness and organizational efficiency.”

A well-worn corporate euphemism for “layoffs.”

So, really, RIM’s leadership said they were going to sack a bunch of folks months ago. And now that’s exactly what they’re doing.

“… It is now very clear to me that substantial change is what RIM needs,” Heins said during the company’s grim first-quarter earnings call. “I am focused on creating long-term value for this company, and I’m committed to do whatever it takes to deliver on that commitment.”

Whatever it takes.

Cisco today said it is curtailing further investment in Cius, which announced in June of 2010 as an enterprise rival to Apple’s iPad.

“Cisco will no longer invest in the Cisco Cius tablet form factor, and no further enhancements will be made to the current Cius endpoint beyond what’s available today,” OJ Winge, Cisco’s senior vice president of the TelePresence Technology Group, said in a blog post. “However, as we evaluate the market further, we will continue to offer Cius in a limited fashion to customers with specific needs or use cases.”

Evidently, the Cius didn’t prove to be much of a rival to anything. And with the “consumerization of IT” taking off in enterprise and more companies embracing Bring-Your-Own-Device programs for their employees, the device was just never able to gain any momentum. Realistically, it was probably doomed from the start. By the time Cisco managed to get Cius to market, a large percentage of the Fortune 500 and Global 500 were already testing or deploying the iPad. Effectively, the niche it was intended to address had been filled. And so Cius will now be quietly laid to rest in the company graveyard, next to Umi, Cisco’s ill-starred consumer TelePresence product, and the much-loved Flip pocket video camera.

Sources close to both companies confirmed to AllThingsD that Spence has signed on with Sonos, tapped by CEO and founder John MacFarlane to be its chief commercial officer.

The 14-year RIM veteran was growing disillusioned with the company after being passed over for COO, sources say. He’d recently begun exploring other opportunities. So evidently MacFarlane’s call came at the perfect time.

News of the appointment was first reported by Reuters.

Sonos declined comment on the hire.

Cook is forgoing $75 million in dividends to which he’s entitled.

In a Thursday SEC filing, Apple announced plans to award a $2.65-a-share quarterly dividend on restricted stock units held by its employees. It’s a nice — and unusual — perk to offer (and one certain to cement employee loyalty in a very competitive talent arena), but Cook is passing it up.

From Apple’s 8-K:

At Mr. Cook’s request, none of his restricted stock units will participate in dividend equivalents. Assuming a quarterly dividend of $2.65 per share over the vesting periods of his 1.125 million outstanding restricted stock units, Mr. Cook will forego approximately $75 million in dividend equivalent value.

That’s a lot of money to turn down. True, Cook is very well compensated — deservedly so, considering Apple’s performance — so he can obviously afford to forgo it. But, as best I can tell, he didn’t have to. 

So Cook truly did just walk away from $75 million. Which is remarkable for an executive of his standing in an era when entitlement, greed and arrogance are so often part of the job description. Which is not to say that he’s not reaping some benefits here. There’s a lot of mileage for Apple in a symbolic gesture like this, and Cook profits when Apple’s overall value increases.

Say what you will, but this was a classy gesture up and down. When was the last time you saw headlines about a successful CEO of a wildly successful company walking away from millions of dollars that he could have just as easily pocketed?

Clearly, Cook is focused on more important and interesting things than having the biggest yacht in the harbor.

Le Figaro reports that Cagni, who joined Apple in 2000, tendered his resignation Wednesday. Sources close to the company confirmed to AllThingsD that this is indeed the case, though they had no explanation for Cagni’s sudden departure.

Apple did not respond to a request for comment.

That’s the day Microsoft will learn whether anything has come of its challenge to the $1.14 billion penalty the European Union slapped it with eight years ago for failing to comply with its antitrust decision.

In just over a month’s time, the EU’s General Court will rule on Microsoft’s appeal of the fine, the culmination of a long, contentious legal battle over interoperability. Issued after it was determined that Microsoft had failed to comply with a 2004 antitrust judgment that required the company to charge fair and reasonable rates for its interoperability protocols, the $1.14 billion fine was the largest ever imposed by the EU against a single company, and the very first to be meted out for noncompliance with an EU court order.

It was also, in Microsoft’s opinion, “unnecessary, unlawful and totally disproportionate.”

“This case would not have arisen if the commission had been as explicit with respect to rates which it wanted Microsoft to charge as it had been with all other terms of licensing proposed by Microsoft,” Microsoft’s attorney Jean-François Bellis told the EU General Court at the time the company filed its appeal. “How can the Commission fine Microsoft for failing to apply reasonable rates from June 2006 to October 2007 when the final parameters were only determined on October 22, 2007?”

In short, Microsoft says it failed to comply with the order because EU regulators didn’t give it the guidance it needed to do so. Interesting argument, but will it carry any weight with the EU General Court?

In a letter to Google CEO Larry Page, CNIL head Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin said she’s reviewed Google’s response to its questions and found them to be sorely lacking — in clarity and specifics.

Answers, too.

“For a large number of questions, the elements provided do not give a precise, clear and comprehensive response to our questions,” Falque-Pierrotin wrote. “While in some cases the questions themselves may have been misunderstood or not clearly expressed, many answers merely provide illustrative examples without describing the exact [processes], procedures or systems Google actually operates.”

In other words, Google’s answers to CNIL’s questions were often incomplete or approximate. And while Falque-Pierrotin generously offers that this might be the result of poor communication, it’s hard to accept that as a legitimate explanation. At this point, the CNIL has clarified its questions to Google twice — once in writing, and a second time during the in-person meeting with Google executives that evidently preceded her letter. During that same meeting, Google was given a third version of the questionnaire, and a June 8 deadline to answer it.

Are we really to believe that Google — a company that prides itself on hiring PhDs, that once sought out cream-of-the-crop engineers with a “mind-bending” Google Labs Aptitude Test, whose mission “is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” — can’t properly answer a few questions about its privacy practices and handling of consumer data?

Because that’s about as likely as Larry Page faking his Master’s degree in computer science.

A more reasonable explanation: Google not only doesn’t want to answer these questions, it doesn’t even believe it is obligated to do so. Indeed, it essentially said as much back in April, when it specifically questioned the authority of the CNIL and the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party to even investigate it. From Google’s April 5, 2012, response to the CNIL:

1) What is the legal basis for the Working Party to act as a regulatory body, or to mandate the CNIL to conduct a regulatory review on behalf of 26 other independent DPAs?
2) What law is being applied to this review?
3) Could the Working Party explain the process being followed and the ultimate aim of the review?

Questions respectfully asked, certainly. But they clearly reflect an uncooperativeness and, more to the point, an overweening arrogance that’s so prevalent these days that it might as well be one of Google’s hallowed “10 Things We Know To Be True.” As Christian Sandvig, a researcher in communications technology and public policy at the University of Illinois, recently told the New York Times in an article on that very subject, “Google doesn’t seem to think it ever will be held accountable. And to date it hasn’t been.”

Google did not respond to a request for comment.

Image by Joy of Tech

Samsung officials tell the Korea Times that the two companies were unable to come to a clear agreement resolving their differences. Sources close to Samsung confirmed to AllThingsD that this was indeed the case.

Evidently the talks — which ran for about 16 hours over Monday and Tuesday — began and ended at an impasse, with Apple continuing to insist that Samsung “slavishly” copied the design of its iPhone and iPad, and Samsung demanding that Apple pay royalties on the wireless patents it believes the company infringed.

Given the level of animosity between the two companies at this point, it was really hard to imagine any other outcome. Locking Apple CEO Tim Cook and Samsung CEO Choi Gee-sung into a room for two days and hoping they’d emerge bosom buddies brandishing a settlement was always a bit of a pipe dream. Note that Apple last Friday filed a motion for injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1, angling to have the device yanked from U.S. shelves as soon as early June. And the week before that, it accused Samsung of destroying email evidence.

Not really the behavior of a company that’s looking for two days of easygoing mediation talks and an amicable resolution to the legal issues at hand.

As FOSS Patents’ Florian Mueller recently told Reuters, “This dispute isn’t ripe for settlement. Under the present circumstances, the two companies’ delegations should spend a couple of fun days in Yosemite Park or Napa Valley, rather than meet in court only to pretend they’re being constructive.”

Apple declined comment on the outcome of the talks.

The case heads to trial on July 30.

(Image courtesy of Joy of Tech)

According to NPD, Apple shipped 17.2 million mobile PCs* worldwide during the first quarter of 2012, enough to capture a 22.5 percent share of the market — more than double that of its closest rival, Hewlett-Packard. During the same period, HP shipped just 8.9 million mobile PCs for an 11.6 percent market share.

How did Apple manage to dominate PC leader HP in the mobile PC market? The iPad.

Of the 17.2 million “mobile PCs” Apple shipped, 13.6 million were iPads. And in that particular segment of the market — tablets — Apple’s domination is unrelenting. In the first quarter, Apple claimed a stunning 62.8 percent share of the tablet market, dwarfing every single one of its rivals. Samsung, its next closest rival, shipped just 1.6 million tablets during the quarter, for a share of 7.5 percent. Amazon followed with 900,000 tablets shipped and a 4 percent share. Bringing up the rear: Research In Motion and Asus, which sold 500,000 tablets each, for a 2.3 percent market share.

*NPD defines mobile PCs as tablets and laptops.

At $183 billion, Apple is the world’s most valuable brand, a title it claimed last year as well, though at that time the brand was worth $153.3 billion. In the ensuing year, it has grown another 19 percent. IBM ranked second with $116 billion in value. Google, which ranked second last year, this year swapped places with IBM, after its brand value slipped 3 percent year over year. With a $76.7 billion brand, Microsoft claimed fifth place, ranking below McDonalds — the only non-tech company in the top five.

The biggest year-over-year gain also went to a tech company: Facebook, which rose from No. 35 in 2011 to No. 19 in 2012. A meteoric rise, and one that spiked the company’s brand value 74 percent to $33.2 billion.

Nokia, which ranked 81st in brand value in Millward Brown’s 2011 study after a 28 percent year-over-year decline in value, fell even further in 2012. So far, in fact, that it seems to have fallen right off the chart. Not a surprise, really, given the company’s current situation. But worth noting just the same; as recently as 2008, Nokia was the world’s ninth most valuable brand.

So says Samsung design VP Chang Dong-hoon, who today took exception with claims that the Galaxy S III is “the first smartphone designed entirely by lawyers.” According to Dong-hoon, the Galaxy S III boasts a design that has gone through hundreds of iterations, all quarterbacked by Samsung’s market-leading design team. “Our change in smartphone design is part of a five-year plan, not a sudden turnaround,” he told reporters at the 2012 Seoul Digital Forum.

So the aesthetics of the S III are the result of a natural evolution and not the intervention of Samsung’s legal team. If you’ve got an issue with its design, blame Samsung’s designers, not its lawyers. Or, better yet, buy a different phone.

On Monday, a U.S. International Trade Commission judge ruled one of Kodak’s key patents invalid, undermining the photography pioneer’s efforts to assert it against Apple and Research In Motion. In his decision, ITC Judge Thomas Pender wrote that while some Apple and RIM products did indeed violate some claims of Kodak’s 6,292,218 patent, the patent itself, which covers the ability for a digital camera to preview images on an LCD screen, is invalid.

The ’218 patent is referred to by some as the “crown jewel” of Kodak’s portfolio, so Pender’s ruling is potentially a major blow to the company, which is looking to maximize the value of its IP ahead of a bankruptcy auction. Indeed, just last week Kodak accused Apple of attempting to undermine its efforts by asserting ownership claims over the ’218 patent.

“Apple’s decision to press its ownership claims now … should be seen for what it is, namely, a ploy calculated to prevent the debtors from using the [bankruptcy] sale process to obtain a fair price for Kodak’s digital capture portfolio (or to enable Apple to buy it on the cheap and extinguish its infringement exposure),” Kodak said in court documents filed last week.

It seems now that the ploy was a wasted effort. There are few better ways of extinguishing a company’s infringement exposure than having the patent asserted against it ruled invalid. And, as RIM noted in a statement issued Monday afternoon, Pender is the second ITC judge to rule the ’218 patent invalid.

That said, Apple and RIM aren’t entirely out of the woods yet. Kodak plans to appeal Pender’s ruling to the full commission. And it says it’s confident it will prevail in the end, since the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office confirmed ’218’s validity in 2010.

Regardless, Pender’s ruling couldn’t come at a worse time. Sources say that Kodak has been looking to attract a stalking-horse bidder who would put down an initial offer for its patent portfolio as it gears up for its bankruptcy auction. Having the patent that’s at the center of its high-profile battle with Apple and RIM tossed aside by the ITC isn’t going to aid that effort.