More GPL enforcement work again.. and a very surreal but important case

I understand how these things go, and the need for non-disclosure, but I would love to know who is suing who here. I put Tomato on every router I install, because when I do that, those routers NEVER require a restart.

I would love to know what hardware NOT to buy. Please, somebody tell me it's not Buffalo Wireless.

I've been watching Harald Welte's tweets about attending a court hearing over this:

Today I learned in court that removing a module using 'rmmod' has nothing to do with the #linux #kernel ;) lol. [1]

but AFAIK noone yet knows the specifics...

[1] http://twitter.com/laf0rge

So what makes this "important" rather than "stupid"? Has it reached a court that can set precedent, or does someone just need validation, or do they somehow actually conceivably have a case, or ...?

Let me get this straight:

Company A is suing company B because B modified GPLed binaries on A's hardware. Yet you hide them. Last I checked, court actions like suing are public, yet hindered by an easy court search.

And frankly, why does this matter? If it was an important case, we'd be hearing it on CNet, slashdot, digg, reddit, MSN... You name it. Just seems like a rather stuffy case of boring, but expensive, corporate law.