Samsung asked a Dutch court Monday to slap an injunction on Apple Inc. to prevent it from selling iPhones and iPad tablets in the Netherlands, saying Apple does not have licenses to use 3G mobile technology in the devices.

The legal battle is the latest round in a series of claims and counterclaims of patent breaches by the rival technology heavyweights playing out in courtrooms around the world.

Samsung Electronics Co. lawyer Bas Berghuis told a civil judge at The Hague District Court that Apple "never bothered to ask about licenses" before it started selling 3G-enabled iPhones.

Apple lawyer Rutger Kleemans hit back by accusing Samsung of using the patent dispute to "hold Apple hostage" because of Apple's legal battles accusing Samsung of copying its iPhone and iPad designs.

"It's a holdup," Kleemans said. "Because Apple dared to take action against Samsung's copycat tactics."

Kleemans urged the court to reject the injunction request, saying the patents involved "are not designed to be used as a weapon against Apple."

No date was immediately given for a ruling.

Earlier this month, a court in Duesseldorf, Germany, ruled that Samsung cannot sell its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany because its design too closely resembled the iPad2. The ruling only applied to direct sales from the Samsung, meaning distributors who acquire the Tab 10.1 from abroad could resell them in Germany. Samsung said it would appeal that judgment.

A German court rules that Samsung Electronics's Galaxy Tab cannot be sold in Germany because it violated patents of rival Apple's iPad2.

A Duesseldorf state court said Friday it would not allow Samsung, based in Seoul, South Korea, to market its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany because it too closely resembles the iPad2.

Already in August, the court had ruled in favor of Apple, based in Cupertino, California, forcing Samsung to withdraw its tablet from the market.

Samsung challenged the ban. The companies are involved in a series of legal disputes in countries around the world over allegations that each copies the other's technology.

A Georgia judge who pointed a gun at himself in the courtroom, berated his boss in a bizarre televised rant and admitted to regularly smoking marijuana was ousted from the bench for life by the state's top court Tuesday.

The Georgia Supreme Court's unanimous opinion also barred Catoosa County Magistrate Anthony Peters from ever holding another judicial office in Georgia, concluding he has done "nothing to show that he has any ability to live up to the high standard of conduct expected of members of the judiciary in Georgia."

Peters' home phone number was disconnected, and his attorney Chris Townley did not return calls and emails Tuesday seeking comment. But Peters said during an April hearing that the violations took place during a "rough patch" in his life, and his attorney blamed his behavior on prescription drug abuse after his client was involved in a devastating 2005 ATV accident.

Peters, who is not an attorney, was a detective for the county sheriff's office for 10 years before he was appointed as a magistrate judge in 1997. But his demeanor started changing after a difficult 2005, which began when his father committed suicide and grew worse after the ATV accident. The magistrate was taking heavy doses of pain medications by 2009 after surgeries didn't ease the pain, his lawyer said.

A proposed settlement has been reached in a federal class-action lawsuit against LegalZoom Inc., the online vendor of legal forms and documents.

The lawsuit had been scheduled go to trial Monday in U.S. District Court in Jefferson City.

But California-based LegalZoom has announced an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit that claimed the company wasn't licensed to provide legal services in Missouri. LegalZoom says it contains no admission of wrongdoing and lets the company continue offering services to Missouri residents with certain changes.

The original plaintiffs were a Missouri resident who used LegalZoom to prepare a will, and two others who used it to organize a remodeling business.

An attorney for the plaintiffs says only that the settlement involves compensation for Missouri customers and changes to how LegalZoom operates.

The Justice Department is investigating whether the Standard & Poor's credit ratings agency improperly rated dozens of mortgage securities in the years leading up to the financial crisis, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

The investigation began before Standard & Poor's cut the United States' AAA credit rating this month, but it's likely to add to the political firestorm created by the downgrade, the newspaper said. Some government officials have since questioned the agency's secretive process, its credibility and the competence of its analysts, claiming to have found an error in its debt calculations.

The Times cites two people interviewed by the government and another briefed on such interviews as its sources. According to people with knowledge of the interviews, the Justice Department has been asking about instances in which the company's analysts wanted to award lower ratings on mortgage bonds but may have been overruled by other S&P business managers.

If the government finds enough evidence to support a case, it could undercut S&P's longstanding claim that its analysts act independently from business concerns. The newspaper said it was unclear whether the Justice Department investigation involves the other two major ratings agencies, Moody's and Fitch, or only S&P.

Prosecutors said Wednesday that they will not bring charges against a tech blogger who bought an Apple iPhone prototype after it was found at a bar in March 2010 in a case that ignited an unusual First Amendment debate.

San Mateo County Assistant District Attorney Morley Pitt said charges were not filed against Gizmodo.com's Jason Chen or other employees, citing California's shield law that protects the confidentiality of journalists' sources.

"The difficulty we faced is that Mr. Chen and Gizmodo were primarily, in their view, engaged in a journalistic endeavor to conduct an investigation into the phone and type of phone it was and they were protected by the shield law," said Pitt.

"We concluded it is a very gray area, they do have a potential claim and this was not the case with which we were going to push the envelope."

Chen's house was raided and his computer seized after Gizmodo posted images of the prototype. The website and other media organizations objected, saying the raid was illegal because state law prohibits the seizure of unpublished notes from journalists.

"We feel there was not a crime to begin with and still believe that, and are pleased the DA's office has an appropriate respect for the First Amendment," said Thomas J. Nolan Jr., a lawyer for Chen.