Google slammed, ordered by FTC to change it's practices.
The FTC has stated that Google is going to have to make a number of changes to its business practices -- especially regarding search.
The FTC ordered Google to stop using patents purchased by Motorola to exclude competitors. These patents cover "standardized technologies" across smartphones, laptops, tablets, and gaming consoles.
During the presentation from FTC headquarters in Washington D.C., FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz described these patents as "the cornerstone of interoperability" that enable mobile phones to talk to each other.
Leibowitz said that Google's settlement with the FTC requires the company to offer a license based on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms to any company that wants to use these technologies.
The FTC's stance on this is that, "if left unchecked," these patents could give way to higher prices "as companies may pay higher royalties for the use of Google’s patents because of the threat of an injunction, and then pass those higher prices on to consumers."
The worst-case scenario, according to the FTC, would be for the technology industry to abandon standards, limiting innovation and investment altogether.
But again, the bigger changes focus on search. The FTC has ordered that Google stop "scraping" the content of its rivals for specialized search results. Businesses should now be able to opt out of Google products such as Shopping and Local without being penalized in how their companies pop up in search results.
Therefore, Leibowitz continued, this will create "organic search," which he asserted will make search engines more "vibrant" and "competitive."
Additionally, the FTC has stipulated that "Google has agreed to remove restrictions on the use of its online search advertising platform, AdWords, that may make it more difficult for advertisers to coordinate online advertising campaigns across multiple platforms."
Google's senior vice president and chief legal officer, David Drummond, published Google's response in a blog post on Thursday, explaining that businesses "will now be able to mix and copy ad campaign data within third-party services that use our AdWords API."
Drummond added:
In addition, we’ve agreed with the FTC (PDF) that we will seek to resolve standard-essential patent disputes through a neutral third party before seeking injunctions. This agreement establishes clear rules of the road for standards essential patents going forward.
Leibowitz asserted that these decisions follow "an exhaustive investigation into Google's business practices." Arguing that many competitors -- including those locked in legal battles with Google around the world -- likely wanted the FTC to go further, Leibowitz said it is "time to move on here" and that the investigation is officially closed.
He added that Google has agreed to comply to all of these changes to its business practices, and that the FTC will "vigorously monitor" the corporation to make sure these adjustments are made.
Drummond outlined the changes in a commitment letter, also published online on Thursday. Here's an overview of some of what we can expect:
• Google will make a web-based notice form for website owners to opt-out of Google's Covered Webpages (i.e. Shopping, Local, Flights, etc.) within 90 days.
• Google will remove AdWords API Terms and Conditions concerning input and copying restrictions for all AdWords API licenses within the United States within 60 days.
• Google will file an update with the FTC's Compliance Division within 60 days.
Trying to put a positive spin on the rulings, Leibowitz said that Google can go back to focusing on innovation and new products -- but that it must do so fairly.
To recall, the government agency designed to protect consumers has been investigating the Internet giant over charges of "alleged anticompetitive conduct."
This is essentially in reference to the core of Google's business -- search -- which is deeply integrated throughout the Mountain View, Calif.-based corporation's vast portfolio of products.
Up until now, it has been said that both the FTC and the European Commission have been delaying any formal decision in their respective Google/antitrust investigations.
Back in October, it was reported that the FTC was close, but it was basically the same story through November into December. Bloomberg also reported in November that the FTC was pressing Google with an "ultimatum" that consisted of the following two options: settle with the agency now or wait for the inevitable lawsuit.
So Thursday's abrupt announcement that there would be an announcement at all today might have come as a bit of a surprise to followers of the case.
The FTC ordered Google to stop using patents purchased by Motorola to exclude competitors. These patents cover "standardized technologies" across smartphones, laptops, tablets, and gaming consoles.
During the presentation from FTC headquarters in Washington D.C., FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz described these patents as "the cornerstone of interoperability" that enable mobile phones to talk to each other.
Leibowitz said that Google's settlement with the FTC requires the company to offer a license based on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms to any company that wants to use these technologies.
The FTC's stance on this is that, "if left unchecked," these patents could give way to higher prices "as companies may pay higher royalties for the use of Google’s patents because of the threat of an injunction, and then pass those higher prices on to consumers."
The worst-case scenario, according to the FTC, would be for the technology industry to abandon standards, limiting innovation and investment altogether.
But again, the bigger changes focus on search. The FTC has ordered that Google stop "scraping" the content of its rivals for specialized search results. Businesses should now be able to opt out of Google products such as Shopping and Local without being penalized in how their companies pop up in search results.
Therefore, Leibowitz continued, this will create "organic search," which he asserted will make search engines more "vibrant" and "competitive."
Additionally, the FTC has stipulated that "Google has agreed to remove restrictions on the use of its online search advertising platform, AdWords, that may make it more difficult for advertisers to coordinate online advertising campaigns across multiple platforms."
Google's senior vice president and chief legal officer, David Drummond, published Google's response in a blog post on Thursday, explaining that businesses "will now be able to mix and copy ad campaign data within third-party services that use our AdWords API."
Drummond added:
In addition, we’ve agreed with the FTC (PDF) that we will seek to resolve standard-essential patent disputes through a neutral third party before seeking injunctions. This agreement establishes clear rules of the road for standards essential patents going forward.
Leibowitz asserted that these decisions follow "an exhaustive investigation into Google's business practices." Arguing that many competitors -- including those locked in legal battles with Google around the world -- likely wanted the FTC to go further, Leibowitz said it is "time to move on here" and that the investigation is officially closed.
He added that Google has agreed to comply to all of these changes to its business practices, and that the FTC will "vigorously monitor" the corporation to make sure these adjustments are made.
Drummond outlined the changes in a commitment letter, also published online on Thursday. Here's an overview of some of what we can expect:
• Google will make a web-based notice form for website owners to opt-out of Google's Covered Webpages (i.e. Shopping, Local, Flights, etc.) within 90 days.
• Google will remove AdWords API Terms and Conditions concerning input and copying restrictions for all AdWords API licenses within the United States within 60 days.
• Google will file an update with the FTC's Compliance Division within 60 days.
Trying to put a positive spin on the rulings, Leibowitz said that Google can go back to focusing on innovation and new products -- but that it must do so fairly.
To recall, the government agency designed to protect consumers has been investigating the Internet giant over charges of "alleged anticompetitive conduct."
This is essentially in reference to the core of Google's business -- search -- which is deeply integrated throughout the Mountain View, Calif.-based corporation's vast portfolio of products.
Up until now, it has been said that both the FTC and the European Commission have been delaying any formal decision in their respective Google/antitrust investigations.
Back in October, it was reported that the FTC was close, but it was basically the same story through November into December. Bloomberg also reported in November that the FTC was pressing Google with an "ultimatum" that consisted of the following two options: settle with the agency now or wait for the inevitable lawsuit.
So Thursday's abrupt announcement that there would be an announcement at all today might have come as a bit of a surprise to followers of the case.
View Comments
Samsung Charged by the EU with abusing vital telecoms patents
The European Commission has charged Samsung Electronics with abusing its dominant position in seeking to bar rival Apple from using an patent that's essential to cell phone use.
The Commission sent a "statement of objections" to the South Korean group, with its preliminary view that Samsung was not acting fairly.
"Intellectual property rights are an important cornerstone of the single market. However, such rights should not be misused when they are essential to implement industry standards, which bring huge benefits to businesses and consumers alike," Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said in statement.
Apple and Samsung, the world's top two smartphone makers, are locked in patent disputes in at least 10 countries as they vie to dominate the lucrative mobile market and win over customers with their latest gadgets.
The filing of competition objections is the latest step in the Commission's investigation. After notifying Samsung in writing, the company will have a chance to reply and request a hearing before regulators.
If the Commission then concludes that the firm has violated the rules, it could impose a fine of up to 10 percent of the electronics firm's total annual turnover.
Technology companies are increasingly turning to the European Commission as the European Union's competition authority, to resolve their disputes. The Commission is also investigating Google and Microsoft.
In the case of Samsung, its standard-essential patents (SEPs) relate to the EU's 3G UMTS standard. When this was adopted in Europe, Samsung committed to license the patents fairly to competitors, the Commission said.
However, it began seeking an injunction in 2011 in various EU member states against Apple's use of these patents. The Commission opened its investigation in January 2012.
Samsung said it was studying the Commission's statement. It said it would cooperate fully and "firmly defend ourselves against any misconceived allegations".
"Samsung is confident that, in due course, the Commission will conclude that we have acted in compliance with European Union competition laws."
The Commission sent a "statement of objections" to the South Korean group, with its preliminary view that Samsung was not acting fairly.
"Intellectual property rights are an important cornerstone of the single market. However, such rights should not be misused when they are essential to implement industry standards, which bring huge benefits to businesses and consumers alike," Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said in statement.
Apple and Samsung, the world's top two smartphone makers, are locked in patent disputes in at least 10 countries as they vie to dominate the lucrative mobile market and win over customers with their latest gadgets.
The filing of competition objections is the latest step in the Commission's investigation. After notifying Samsung in writing, the company will have a chance to reply and request a hearing before regulators.
If the Commission then concludes that the firm has violated the rules, it could impose a fine of up to 10 percent of the electronics firm's total annual turnover.
Technology companies are increasingly turning to the European Commission as the European Union's competition authority, to resolve their disputes. The Commission is also investigating Google and Microsoft.
In the case of Samsung, its standard-essential patents (SEPs) relate to the EU's 3G UMTS standard. When this was adopted in Europe, Samsung committed to license the patents fairly to competitors, the Commission said.
However, it began seeking an injunction in 2011 in various EU member states against Apple's use of these patents. The Commission opened its investigation in January 2012.
Samsung said it was studying the Commission's statement. It said it would cooperate fully and "firmly defend ourselves against any misconceived allegations".
"Samsung is confident that, in due course, the Commission will conclude that we have acted in compliance with European Union competition laws."
Ericsson Sue's Samsung.
Samsung seems stuck in a sue sandwich. It is embroiled in patent litigation with Apple across the globe, and now Ericsson is coming after it, as well. On Tuesday, the mobile network infrastructure manufacturer sued Samsung for patent infringement, claiming that the company continues to use its mobile technology patents even though its licensing agreement has expired.
Ericsson said the suit follows two years of failed negotiations with Samsung, during which the South Korean company sought to significantly reduce the licensing fees it pays to license Ericsson’s IP under so-called fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms.
“Ericsson has tried long and hard to amicably come to an agreement with Samsung and to sign a license agreement on FRAND terms,” Ericsson’s chief intellectual property officer, Kasim Alfalahi, said in a statement. “We have turned to litigation as a last resort.”
Samsung, for its part, says that it would like to license Ericsson’s patents on FRAND terms, but that’s not what the company is offering. “Ericsson has demanded prohibitively higher royalty rates to renew the same patent portfolio,” Samsung said in a statement of its own. “As we cannot accept such extreme demands, we will take all necessary legal measures to protect against Ericsson’s excessive claims.”
Better get those ready, Samsung, because Ericsson isn’t messing around here. It alleges that Samsung has sold “hundreds of millions” of unlicensed devices since the expiration of its previous agreement, and it’s seeking damages on all of them, as well as an injunction against the infringing products themselves.
Ericsson said the suit follows two years of failed negotiations with Samsung, during which the South Korean company sought to significantly reduce the licensing fees it pays to license Ericsson’s IP under so-called fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms.
“Ericsson has tried long and hard to amicably come to an agreement with Samsung and to sign a license agreement on FRAND terms,” Ericsson’s chief intellectual property officer, Kasim Alfalahi, said in a statement. “We have turned to litigation as a last resort.”
Samsung, for its part, says that it would like to license Ericsson’s patents on FRAND terms, but that’s not what the company is offering. “Ericsson has demanded prohibitively higher royalty rates to renew the same patent portfolio,” Samsung said in a statement of its own. “As we cannot accept such extreme demands, we will take all necessary legal measures to protect against Ericsson’s excessive claims.”
Better get those ready, Samsung, because Ericsson isn’t messing around here. It alleges that Samsung has sold “hundreds of millions” of unlicensed devices since the expiration of its previous agreement, and it’s seeking damages on all of them, as well as an injunction against the infringing products themselves.
FTC recommending US government sue Google
The Federal Trade Commission has reportedly recommended that the US government pursue legal remedies against Google for violating antitrust laws. The review sprung from fears that Google is demanding sales embargoes against products that use patents required to be licensed under fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms (FRAND) terms rather than engage in the required good-faith negotiations legally required by owners holding standards-essential patents.
Google and fully-owned subsidiary Motorola Mobile are embroiled in many suits with Apple and Microsoft among others, each alleging that their patents are being infringed by other companies, generally involving smartphone and tablet technology. In most cases, the suits request that infringing products be prevented from sale in or import to the US. FTC Chariman Jon Leibowitz said in the middle of September that he expected a decision in the investigation to be reached by the end of 2012. Google declined to discuss the report, claiming that "we take our commitments to license on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms very seriously."
When the Justice Department approved the Google acquisition of Motorola Mobility, and the Nortel Network patents by a group spearheaded by Apple and Microsoft, it said it would monitor for patent misuse by any of the companies. Apple and Microsoft pledged that they wouldn't prevent any FRAND licensing of standards-essential patents. Google promised the same, as long as good-faith negotiations for the patents were underway, but maintained the right to seek court relief if no agreement could be reached on licensing.
Critics argue that this exception has allowed Motorola (and by extension Google) to avoid negotiating in good faith and demand unreasonable terms. When negotiations fail, the company files suit and claims that potential licensees refuse reasonable terms.
Motorola has historically asked for 2.25 percent of the cost of an entire device that uses even one of its patents, and rather than a rate based on just the value of the patent. For example, the current requested rate for Microsoft's Xbox 360 is $4.50 of the $200 retail price per unit sold.
Previous demands for Windows' use of the H.264 patent asked for 2.25 percent of each PC sold, and not just the retail value of Windows. Conservative estimates by Microsoft have placed the amount they would owe for the video playback patent alone in the billions of dollars, assuming the average PC was conservatively worth $500. The rate Motorola demands is several orders of magnitude larger than the capped license fee maximum of $6.5 million per year demanded for the patent by the MPEG LA group.
Google and fully-owned subsidiary Motorola Mobile are embroiled in many suits with Apple and Microsoft among others, each alleging that their patents are being infringed by other companies, generally involving smartphone and tablet technology. In most cases, the suits request that infringing products be prevented from sale in or import to the US. FTC Chariman Jon Leibowitz said in the middle of September that he expected a decision in the investigation to be reached by the end of 2012. Google declined to discuss the report, claiming that "we take our commitments to license on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms very seriously."
When the Justice Department approved the Google acquisition of Motorola Mobility, and the Nortel Network patents by a group spearheaded by Apple and Microsoft, it said it would monitor for patent misuse by any of the companies. Apple and Microsoft pledged that they wouldn't prevent any FRAND licensing of standards-essential patents. Google promised the same, as long as good-faith negotiations for the patents were underway, but maintained the right to seek court relief if no agreement could be reached on licensing.
Critics argue that this exception has allowed Motorola (and by extension Google) to avoid negotiating in good faith and demand unreasonable terms. When negotiations fail, the company files suit and claims that potential licensees refuse reasonable terms.
Motorola has historically asked for 2.25 percent of the cost of an entire device that uses even one of its patents, and rather than a rate based on just the value of the patent. For example, the current requested rate for Microsoft's Xbox 360 is $4.50 of the $200 retail price per unit sold.
Previous demands for Windows' use of the H.264 patent asked for 2.25 percent of each PC sold, and not just the retail value of Windows. Conservative estimates by Microsoft have placed the amount they would owe for the video playback patent alone in the billions of dollars, assuming the average PC was conservatively worth $500. The rate Motorola demands is several orders of magnitude larger than the capped license fee maximum of $6.5 million per year demanded for the patent by the MPEG LA group.
Microsoft Sued Over Windows 8 Live Tiles Etc.
Microsoft surprised the world earlier this year when it moved into producing its own computer hardware with the Surface, but the company's plans may not stop there. According to the Wall Street Journal's sources, Microsoft is currently testing a smartphone with Asian suppliers, although it's unclear whether or not the device will enter mass production. The phone reportedly has a screen size somewhere
More Suspicious Tracking Of Dotcom's Personal Internet Before Official Tapping.
Fri, Oct 5 2012 01:43
| Legal
www.tech-sanity.com
In a report in the New Zealand Herald this morning it claims Kim Dotcom's internet connection was being diverted inside New Zealand weeks before the Government Communications Security Bureau says it started spying on him.
The Herald has obtained details showing Telecom engineers and staff at its technology services company Gen-I were investigating irregularities with his internet connection in November.
The revelation has raised suspicion that Mr Dotcom was victim to earlier spying than the GCSB has admitted. It has brought fresh calls for an inquiry amid claims of the spy agency's role in the international "Five Eyes" Echelon Network.
The focus of the early investigation is the dedicated internet connection from Mr Dotcom's mansion in Coatesville to the Sky Tower in Auckland. It was intended to give him the fastest possible internet connection - a factor which would have been critical in his quest to be the best in the online Modern Warfare 3 game.
Mr Dotcom became the "number one" ranked player of the game before his arrest.
During the record-setting effort, Gen-I staff began an investigation into the amount of time it took for an internet signal from Mr Dotcom's home to reach an offshore Xbox computer server.
Information held by the Herald shows Gen-I studied data showing the amount of time it took information on the internet connection to reach the Xbox server. It went from 30 milliseconds to 180 milliseconds - a huge increase for online gamers.
The reason for the extra time emerged in a deeper inquiry, which saw a "Trace Route" search which tracks internet signals from their origin to their destinations. When the results were compared it showed the internet signal was being diverted inside New Zealand.
The data showed the internet signal had previously taken two steps before going offshore - but was now taking five.
The GCSB is under police investigation after admitting it illegally spied on Mr Dotcom between December 16 and January 20, the day of the raid. It is also studying three other cases of possible illegal action carried out after requests from the police.
The other cases emerged after Prime Minister John Key - who is responsible for the agency - ordered an inquiry. Asked about the possibility of earlier spying, a spokeswoman said the Prime Minister had sought and received "a fresh assurance" the GCSB and Security Intelligence Service had not carried out any surveillance before December 16.
Green co-leader Russel Norman said it could not be ruled out.
He said a commission of inquiry was needed to examine the behaviour of the GCSB.
He said it could be conducted in secrecy with sensitive material excised from a final public report.
Mr Norman highlighted the Echelon of Five Eyes agreement where the GCSB worked with intelligence agencies from the US, Australia, Canada and the UK.
Labour leader David Shearer said he also wanted an independent inquiry which could be run by a senior and trusted New Zealander. "The critical issue is who knew what and how all the checks and balances work."
A Telecom spokeswoman said the company would not give information to the police of "any other government agency" unless legally forced to do so.
In a report in the New Zealand Herald this morning it claims Kim Dotcom's internet connection was being diverted inside New Zealand weeks before the Government Communications Security Bureau says it started spying on him.
The Herald has obtained details showing Telecom engineers and staff at its technology services company Gen-I were investigating irregularities with his internet connection in November.
The revelation has raised suspicion that Mr Dotcom was victim to earlier spying than the GCSB has admitted. It has brought fresh calls for an inquiry amid claims of the spy agency's role in the international "Five Eyes" Echelon Network.
The focus of the early investigation is the dedicated internet connection from Mr Dotcom's mansion in Coatesville to the Sky Tower in Auckland. It was intended to give him the fastest possible internet connection - a factor which would have been critical in his quest to be the best in the online Modern Warfare 3 game.
Mr Dotcom became the "number one" ranked player of the game before his arrest.
During the record-setting effort, Gen-I staff began an investigation into the amount of time it took for an internet signal from Mr Dotcom's home to reach an offshore Xbox computer server.
Information held by the Herald shows Gen-I studied data showing the amount of time it took information on the internet connection to reach the Xbox server. It went from 30 milliseconds to 180 milliseconds - a huge increase for online gamers.
The reason for the extra time emerged in a deeper inquiry, which saw a "Trace Route" search which tracks internet signals from their origin to their destinations. When the results were compared it showed the internet signal was being diverted inside New Zealand.
The data showed the internet signal had previously taken two steps before going offshore - but was now taking five.
The GCSB is under police investigation after admitting it illegally spied on Mr Dotcom between December 16 and January 20, the day of the raid. It is also studying three other cases of possible illegal action carried out after requests from the police.
The other cases emerged after Prime Minister John Key - who is responsible for the agency - ordered an inquiry. Asked about the possibility of earlier spying, a spokeswoman said the Prime Minister had sought and received "a fresh assurance" the GCSB and Security Intelligence Service had not carried out any surveillance before December 16.
Green co-leader Russel Norman said it could not be ruled out.
He said a commission of inquiry was needed to examine the behaviour of the GCSB.
He said it could be conducted in secrecy with sensitive material excised from a final public report.
Mr Norman highlighted the Echelon of Five Eyes agreement where the GCSB worked with intelligence agencies from the US, Australia, Canada and the UK.
Labour leader David Shearer said he also wanted an independent inquiry which could be run by a senior and trusted New Zealander. "The critical issue is who knew what and how all the checks and balances work."
A Telecom spokeswoman said the company would not give information to the police of "any other government agency" unless legally forced to do so.
New Zealand PM calls GCSB’s efforts to intercept Kim Dotcom communications illegal Orders Full enquiry.
Mon, Sep 24 2012 04:44
| Legal
The Kim Dotcom saga continues to unfold in New Zealand after the country’s prime minister ordered a full enquiry into claims that the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) unlawfully spied on the Megaupload founder.
New Zealand PM John Key called the GCSB’s efforts to intercept Dotcom communications illegal after it emerged that the agency — the country’s equivalent of the FBI – had wiretapped his communications as part of the sting without receiving the necessary authority and permissions, Investigate Magazine reports.
A statement from Key, in which the prime minister “expressed his disappointment that unlawful acts had taken place”, read:
“I expect our intelligence agencies to operate always within the law. Their operations depend on public trust. I look forward to the Inspector-General’s inquiry getting to the heart of what took place and what can be done about it because this is also a matter for the High Court in its consideration of the Megaupload litigation.”
Dotcom took to Twitter to welcome the enquiry and he likened the latest twist to that of a James Bond film:
I welcome the inquiry by @johnkeypm into unlawful acts by the GCSB. Please extend the inquiry to cover the entire Crown Law Mega case.
— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) September 24, 2012
I’m now a real life James Bond villain in a real life political copyright thriller scripted by Hollywood & the White House.
— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) September 24, 2012
Authorities have been criticized for the perceived mishandling of a number of issues around Dotcom’s arrest and subsequent trial.
Police have been accused of acting with a heavy hand when footage of the raid on Dotcom’s mansion was aired in national television. Multiple helicopters and several police vehicles converging on his mansion while the multi-millionaire German Dotcom claimed he had been punched, kicked, kneed and otherwise treated unfairly during his arrest.
Authorities suffered a significant blow in June when the New Zealand high court ruled that search warrants for the raid were invalid.
Despite the trial ongoing Dotcom has continued his efforts to revive the Megaupload service and today he claimed that work is now 90 percent complete. Developers were offered early access to the project last month.
The Megaupload founder, formerly Kim Schmitz, is also working on music service Megabox, which he said will launch before the end of the year alongside a revamped Megaupload, that is said will not be operation in the US.
The US Department of Justice closed Megaupload down in January, in what it called one of the largest cases of copyright fraud ever. While there may have been infringing content on the site, many of its users have lost photos, files and other memories stored to the backup service.
Dotcom extradition hearing is set to take place in March 2013. The date was rescheduled from August 2012 following a series of issues relating to the way that police has handled the case.
New Zealand PM John Key called the GCSB’s efforts to intercept Dotcom communications illegal after it emerged that the agency — the country’s equivalent of the FBI – had wiretapped his communications as part of the sting without receiving the necessary authority and permissions, Investigate Magazine reports.
A statement from Key, in which the prime minister “expressed his disappointment that unlawful acts had taken place”, read:
“I expect our intelligence agencies to operate always within the law. Their operations depend on public trust. I look forward to the Inspector-General’s inquiry getting to the heart of what took place and what can be done about it because this is also a matter for the High Court in its consideration of the Megaupload litigation.”
Dotcom took to Twitter to welcome the enquiry and he likened the latest twist to that of a James Bond film:
I welcome the inquiry by @johnkeypm into unlawful acts by the GCSB. Please extend the inquiry to cover the entire Crown Law Mega case.
— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) September 24, 2012
I’m now a real life James Bond villain in a real life political copyright thriller scripted by Hollywood & the White House.
— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) September 24, 2012
Authorities have been criticized for the perceived mishandling of a number of issues around Dotcom’s arrest and subsequent trial.
Police have been accused of acting with a heavy hand when footage of the raid on Dotcom’s mansion was aired in national television. Multiple helicopters and several police vehicles converging on his mansion while the multi-millionaire German Dotcom claimed he had been punched, kicked, kneed and otherwise treated unfairly during his arrest.
Authorities suffered a significant blow in June when the New Zealand high court ruled that search warrants for the raid were invalid.
Despite the trial ongoing Dotcom has continued his efforts to revive the Megaupload service and today he claimed that work is now 90 percent complete. Developers were offered early access to the project last month.
The Megaupload founder, formerly Kim Schmitz, is also working on music service Megabox, which he said will launch before the end of the year alongside a revamped Megaupload, that is said will not be operation in the US.
The US Department of Justice closed Megaupload down in January, in what it called one of the largest cases of copyright fraud ever. While there may have been infringing content on the site, many of its users have lost photos, files and other memories stored to the backup service.
Dotcom extradition hearing is set to take place in March 2013. The date was rescheduled from August 2012 following a series of issues relating to the way that police has handled the case.
Samsung Found "Willfully" copying. Apple awarded over $1 Billion damages. Verdict in extremely fast!
In a shockingly quick return of the juries verdict Samsung has been found "wilfully" copying Apple products and design.
The fact that the jury came back extremely quickly says a lot. They obviously needed very little in the way of discussion and considered this very clear cut.
93 Comments
Awarding Apple $1,051,855,000 in damages. Samsung, on the other hand, was granted a total of $0 in damages.
Here’s a quick rundown of how the jury came down on both of the companies. Remember, there are plenty of devices at play here — on Samsung’s side alone, there’s the Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy Ace, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S, Exhibit, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, Nexus S 4G, Gem, Galaxy Tab, Galaxy Tab 10.1, Replenish, Vibrant, plus every carrier’s version of the Galaxy S II.
• The jury found no infringement by Apple on any of Samsung’s utility patents.
• The jury found that Samsung infringed on patents for ’381 “bounce back” scrolling functionality on all devices.
• On the ’915 patent, relating to one finger to scroll, two to pinch and zoom navigation, all but three Samsung devices (Ace, Intercept and Replenish) infringed.
• For Apple’s ’163 patent (tap to zoom) all Samsung devices except Captivate, Indulge, Intercept, Nexus S 4G, Transform and Vibrant infringed.
The jury then answered a question about inducement, regarding whether Samsung made its U.S. arms infringe: yes for the ’381 “bounce back” patent on all devices, yes for ’915 “one finger scrolling” for all devices except Replenish and yes for ’163 “tap to zoom” for all except Captivate, Continuum, Gem, Indulge, Nexus S 4G.
One of the biggest questions answered by the jury was if Samsung was willful in its infringement, which is where the major damages came into play. The largest damages came from the prepaid Galaxy Prevail (over $57 million).
The dense trial involved more than a dozen different patents, over 30 allegedly infringing devices and wide-ranging claims on design ownership; both sides argued their cases and defended themselves concurrently, all while enraging federal judge Lucy Koh.
Apple began with a full-fledged assault, hurling numerous trademark claims, design and technical patent claims and more; after judge Koh ordered Apple to pare it down, the company has focused on a few key patents, the simplicity of its design and working to prove a pattern of copying by Samsung. Apple’s total monetary demand was $2.525 billion.
Meanwhile, Samsung claimed that Apple’s iPhone and iPad were infringement and demanded $14.40 per device sold.
The verdict came in shockingly quickly, as the jury was only in deliberation for three days. The jury worked one hour late yesterday and reached a decision at 2:35 PT today. Over 700 individual decisions had to be made by members of the jury, which does not come from particularly technical backgrounds, on their complex worksheets.
It has been expected since the beginning of this trial that both companies would file appeals regardless of the verdict, so it would be shortsighted to assume that this is the end. That said, unless something happens as attorneys from both companies review the document, Apple is going to walk out of this courtroom much happier than Samsung is.
The fact that the jury came back extremely quickly says a lot. They obviously needed very little in the way of discussion and considered this very clear cut.
93 Comments
Awarding Apple $1,051,855,000 in damages. Samsung, on the other hand, was granted a total of $0 in damages.
Here’s a quick rundown of how the jury came down on both of the companies. Remember, there are plenty of devices at play here — on Samsung’s side alone, there’s the Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Fascinate, Galaxy Ace, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S, Exhibit, Infuse 4G, Mesmerize, Nexus S 4G, Gem, Galaxy Tab, Galaxy Tab 10.1, Replenish, Vibrant, plus every carrier’s version of the Galaxy S II.
• The jury found no infringement by Apple on any of Samsung’s utility patents.
• The jury found that Samsung infringed on patents for ’381 “bounce back” scrolling functionality on all devices.
• On the ’915 patent, relating to one finger to scroll, two to pinch and zoom navigation, all but three Samsung devices (Ace, Intercept and Replenish) infringed.
• For Apple’s ’163 patent (tap to zoom) all Samsung devices except Captivate, Indulge, Intercept, Nexus S 4G, Transform and Vibrant infringed.
The jury then answered a question about inducement, regarding whether Samsung made its U.S. arms infringe: yes for the ’381 “bounce back” patent on all devices, yes for ’915 “one finger scrolling” for all devices except Replenish and yes for ’163 “tap to zoom” for all except Captivate, Continuum, Gem, Indulge, Nexus S 4G.
One of the biggest questions answered by the jury was if Samsung was willful in its infringement, which is where the major damages came into play. The largest damages came from the prepaid Galaxy Prevail (over $57 million).
The dense trial involved more than a dozen different patents, over 30 allegedly infringing devices and wide-ranging claims on design ownership; both sides argued their cases and defended themselves concurrently, all while enraging federal judge Lucy Koh.
Apple began with a full-fledged assault, hurling numerous trademark claims, design and technical patent claims and more; after judge Koh ordered Apple to pare it down, the company has focused on a few key patents, the simplicity of its design and working to prove a pattern of copying by Samsung. Apple’s total monetary demand was $2.525 billion.
Meanwhile, Samsung claimed that Apple’s iPhone and iPad were infringement and demanded $14.40 per device sold.
The verdict came in shockingly quickly, as the jury was only in deliberation for three days. The jury worked one hour late yesterday and reached a decision at 2:35 PT today. Over 700 individual decisions had to be made by members of the jury, which does not come from particularly technical backgrounds, on their complex worksheets.
It has been expected since the beginning of this trial that both companies would file appeals regardless of the verdict, so it would be shortsighted to assume that this is the end. That said, unless something happens as attorneys from both companies review the document, Apple is going to walk out of this courtroom much happier than Samsung is.
Dot Com's Extradition stopped until US produces evidence.
Thu, Aug 23 2012 05:56
| Legal
www.tech-sanity.com
The Fiasco continues:
The New Zealand high court has ruled that the the United States must hand over all evidence in its case against Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom before any extradition can take place. The decision shut down the US Department of Justice's appeal of a lower New Zealand's court decision earlier in the year blocking the extradition pending case information.
New Zealand Justice Helen Winkelmann ruled that without a review of the evidence against him, Dotcom would be "significantly constrained" defending himself, while giving the US Department of Justice a large advantage prosecuting him.
Megaupload's lawyer Ira Rothken told Wired that "our expectation is that that the United States through the Crown lawyers will appeal the judgment and further delay the extradition hearing." The hearing is currently scheduled for March 25, 2013.
Dotcom was arrested at his Auckland, New Zealand mansion after the US orchestrated a raid based on criminal copyright violations and racketeering of the file storage locker that allegedly netted Dotcom and his cohorts $175 million. The legality of the evidence seized was questioned in court, when a judge ruled that the warrants didn't describe the offenses alleged and were illegal.
The raid and evidence search that started the shutdown of Megaupload took place on January 19, effectively closing Megaupload permanently. Dotcom and company co-founders were arrested on January 20, after a raid at a Carpathia server farm in Dulles, VA.
Megaupload lawyers have filed a motion to dismiss all US government charges for violating due process rights in not properly serving the international company outside of US jurisdiction. The FBI and Department of Justice are seeking Dotcom's extradition to face criminal conspiracy and copyright violation charges in the United States, but the federal judge assigned to the case suspects that the trial in the US may not happen for a variety of procedural reasons.
The Fiasco continues:
The New Zealand high court has ruled that the the United States must hand over all evidence in its case against Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom before any extradition can take place. The decision shut down the US Department of Justice's appeal of a lower New Zealand's court decision earlier in the year blocking the extradition pending case information.
New Zealand Justice Helen Winkelmann ruled that without a review of the evidence against him, Dotcom would be "significantly constrained" defending himself, while giving the US Department of Justice a large advantage prosecuting him.
Megaupload's lawyer Ira Rothken told Wired that "our expectation is that that the United States through the Crown lawyers will appeal the judgment and further delay the extradition hearing." The hearing is currently scheduled for March 25, 2013.
Dotcom was arrested at his Auckland, New Zealand mansion after the US orchestrated a raid based on criminal copyright violations and racketeering of the file storage locker that allegedly netted Dotcom and his cohorts $175 million. The legality of the evidence seized was questioned in court, when a judge ruled that the warrants didn't describe the offenses alleged and were illegal.
The raid and evidence search that started the shutdown of Megaupload took place on January 19, effectively closing Megaupload permanently. Dotcom and company co-founders were arrested on January 20, after a raid at a Carpathia server farm in Dulles, VA.
Megaupload lawyers have filed a motion to dismiss all US government charges for violating due process rights in not properly serving the international company outside of US jurisdiction. The FBI and Department of Justice are seeking Dotcom's extradition to face criminal conspiracy and copyright violation charges in the United States, but the federal judge assigned to the case suspects that the trial in the US may not happen for a variety of procedural reasons.
Pirated Android app sites killed by FBI.
www.tech-sanity.com
Android users who like to "steal" apps rather than pay the developer for their hard work are going to find it a bit harder in the future. The Department of Justice is targeting pirate Android apps sites. With the help of Dutch and French law enforcement, the FBI has now seized three popular Android app sharing sites (Appbucket, Snappzmarket and Applanet) that offered illegal downloads. As noted in their press release, they will continue to seize such sites as part of their cracking down on the piracy of copyrighted works :
“Cracking down on piracy of copyrighted works – including popular apps – is a top priority of the Criminal Division,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer. “Software apps have become an increasingly essential part of our nation’s economy and creative culture, and the Criminal Division is committed to working with our law enforcement partners to protect the creators of these apps and other forms of intellectual property from those who seek to steal it.”
“Criminal copyright laws apply to apps for cell phones and tablets, just as they do to other software, music and writings. These laws protect and encourage the hard work and ingenuity of software developers entering this growing and important part of our economy. We will continue to seize and shut down websites that market pirated apps, and to pursue those responsible for criminal charges if appropriate,” said U.S. Attorney Yates.
I won't go into a rant about piracy on Android but it's there and people know it. Now, with The Department of Justice stepping in and closing some of the more prominent sites down hopefully this will convince others to start paying for the apps they really want. Besides, there is other reasons to not pirate apps aside from the money you'll be spending.
Android users who like to "steal" apps rather than pay the developer for their hard work are going to find it a bit harder in the future. The Department of Justice is targeting pirate Android apps sites. With the help of Dutch and French law enforcement, the FBI has now seized three popular Android app sharing sites (Appbucket, Snappzmarket and Applanet) that offered illegal downloads. As noted in their press release, they will continue to seize such sites as part of their cracking down on the piracy of copyrighted works :
“Cracking down on piracy of copyrighted works – including popular apps – is a top priority of the Criminal Division,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer. “Software apps have become an increasingly essential part of our nation’s economy and creative culture, and the Criminal Division is committed to working with our law enforcement partners to protect the creators of these apps and other forms of intellectual property from those who seek to steal it.”
“Criminal copyright laws apply to apps for cell phones and tablets, just as they do to other software, music and writings. These laws protect and encourage the hard work and ingenuity of software developers entering this growing and important part of our economy. We will continue to seize and shut down websites that market pirated apps, and to pursue those responsible for criminal charges if appropriate,” said U.S. Attorney Yates.
I won't go into a rant about piracy on Android but it's there and people know it. Now, with The Department of Justice stepping in and closing some of the more prominent sites down hopefully this will convince others to start paying for the apps they really want. Besides, there is other reasons to not pirate apps aside from the money you'll be spending.
Samsung’s Report Says Galaxy Would Be Better If it Were More Like the iPhone
www.tech-sanity.com
As part of its case against Samsung, Apple has shown snippets of an internal Samsung document comparing the original Galaxy S phone with the iPhone.
On Tuesday, Apple managed to get the whole 132-page document admitted into evidence. And it’s a doozy.
The 2010 report, translated from Korean, goes feature by feature, evaluating how Samsung’s phone stacks up against the iPhone.
Authored by Samsung’s product engineering team, the document evaluates everything from the home screen to the browser to the built in apps on both devices. In each case, it comes up with a recommendation on what Samsung should do going forward and in most cases its answer is simple: Make it work more like the iPhone.
In short, the evaluation report makes the case that the Galaxy (identified here as the “S1″) would be better if it behaved more like the iPhone and featured a similar user interface. And it appears to play directly into Apple’s charge that Samsung “slavishly copied” the iPhone.
As part of its case against Samsung, Apple has shown snippets of an internal Samsung document comparing the original Galaxy S phone with the iPhone.
On Tuesday, Apple managed to get the whole 132-page document admitted into evidence. And it’s a doozy.
The 2010 report, translated from Korean, goes feature by feature, evaluating how Samsung’s phone stacks up against the iPhone.
Authored by Samsung’s product engineering team, the document evaluates everything from the home screen to the browser to the built in apps on both devices. In each case, it comes up with a recommendation on what Samsung should do going forward and in most cases its answer is simple: Make it work more like the iPhone.
In short, the evaluation report makes the case that the Galaxy (identified here as the “S1″) would be better if it behaved more like the iPhone and featured a similar user interface. And it appears to play directly into Apple’s charge that Samsung “slavishly copied” the iPhone.
Samsung China Found Using Child Labour and Forcing Excessive Hours In Assembly Lines.
www.tech-sanity.com
A Chinese company that assembles devices for Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) hired children at its production facilities and forced employees to work excessive hours, violating labor laws, China Labor Watch said in a report.
Seven children younger than 16 were working in the factory of HEG Electronics (Huizhou) Co. that makes phones and DVD players for Samsung, according to the report issued today. Child workers faced the “same harsh conditions” as adults and were paid only 70 percent of the wages of other workers, according to the New York-based group, which said it conducted investigations in June and July.
China Labor Watch previously published reports on explosions at factories and in 2010 accused Foxconn Technology Group, the assembler of Apple Inc. (AAPL) iPhones and iPads, of running a sweatshop in the country after a spate of suicides, a charge the Taiwanese company denied. The latest report said working conditions at HEG are “well below” those at Apple suppliers.
“Samsung Electronics has conducted two separate on-site inspections on HEG’s working conditions this year but found no irregularities on those occasions,” Nam Ki Yung, a spokesman for Samsung, said in an e-mailed statement. “Given the report, we will conduct another field survey at the earliest possible time to ensure our previous inspections have been based on full information and to take appropriate measures to correct any problems that may surface.”
Undercover Investigation
Li Qiang, a director at China Labor Watch in New York, said a group member took a job at the factory to conduct the investigation and interviewed the seven children. The group used aliases when referring to the children in the report to protect them, he said.
China Labor Watch did not report the cases to public security bureaus or other government agencies, Li said.
“What we want, most of all, is for the children to go back to school,” Li said by phone today.
Four calls to two telephone numbers in Huizhou, southern China, listed on HEG’s website were unanswered, and an e-mail sent to the company’s designated address bounced back. HEG is a unit of Harbin Electronic Group Corp., according to its website.
“The company has clearly violated Chinese labor laws,” China Labor Watch said about HEG Electronics. “A serious light needs to be shined on these issues.”
Overtime of between three to five hours a day in addition to the routine eight-hour work day is compulsory for HEG employees, China Labor Watch said in the report. Workers on HEG’s 11-hour night shift are given only a 40-minute break for meals, the labor rights group said.
“Child labor is a common practice in the factory,” the report said. Student workers amount to 80 percent of the factory workforce, it said.
A Chinese company that assembles devices for Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) hired children at its production facilities and forced employees to work excessive hours, violating labor laws, China Labor Watch said in a report.
Seven children younger than 16 were working in the factory of HEG Electronics (Huizhou) Co. that makes phones and DVD players for Samsung, according to the report issued today. Child workers faced the “same harsh conditions” as adults and were paid only 70 percent of the wages of other workers, according to the New York-based group, which said it conducted investigations in June and July.
China Labor Watch previously published reports on explosions at factories and in 2010 accused Foxconn Technology Group, the assembler of Apple Inc. (AAPL) iPhones and iPads, of running a sweatshop in the country after a spate of suicides, a charge the Taiwanese company denied. The latest report said working conditions at HEG are “well below” those at Apple suppliers.
“Samsung Electronics has conducted two separate on-site inspections on HEG’s working conditions this year but found no irregularities on those occasions,” Nam Ki Yung, a spokesman for Samsung, said in an e-mailed statement. “Given the report, we will conduct another field survey at the earliest possible time to ensure our previous inspections have been based on full information and to take appropriate measures to correct any problems that may surface.”
Undercover Investigation
Li Qiang, a director at China Labor Watch in New York, said a group member took a job at the factory to conduct the investigation and interviewed the seven children. The group used aliases when referring to the children in the report to protect them, he said.
China Labor Watch did not report the cases to public security bureaus or other government agencies, Li said.
“What we want, most of all, is for the children to go back to school,” Li said by phone today.
Four calls to two telephone numbers in Huizhou, southern China, listed on HEG’s website were unanswered, and an e-mail sent to the company’s designated address bounced back. HEG is a unit of Harbin Electronic Group Corp., according to its website.
“The company has clearly violated Chinese labor laws,” China Labor Watch said about HEG Electronics. “A serious light needs to be shined on these issues.”
Overtime of between three to five hours a day in addition to the routine eight-hour work day is compulsory for HEG employees, China Labor Watch said in the report. Workers on HEG’s 11-hour night shift are given only a 40-minute break for meals, the labor rights group said.
“Child labor is a common practice in the factory,” the report said. Student workers amount to 80 percent of the factory workforce, it said.
EC investigating Microsoft's lack of compliance with browser choice commitment
www.tech-sanity.com
The European Commission revealed today that it plans to open proceedings against Microsoft to investigate whether the software giant has failed to comply with a 2009 browser choice commitment. Browser makers have complained at the lack of Metro browser choice in the company's upcoming Windows 8 software. If Microsoft is found guilty of breaching its legally binding commitments, it may be fined up to 10 percent of its total annual turnover. Microsoft was forced to implement a browser ballot box in its Windows operating system to ensure users were presented with a choice of web browsers. The ruling followed the result of a European Union competition case that found Microsoft had abused its dominance in the market with Internet Explorer.
The Commission believes Microsoft may have failed to implement the browser choice screen correctly with Windows 7 Service Pack 1, released in February 2011. "We take compliance with our decisions very seriously," says Joaquín Almunia, a member of the European Commission. "I trusted the company's reports were accurate. But it seems that was not the case, so we have immediately taken action. If following our investigation, the infringement is confirmed, Microsoft should expect sanctions."
The European Commission revealed today that it plans to open proceedings against Microsoft to investigate whether the software giant has failed to comply with a 2009 browser choice commitment. Browser makers have complained at the lack of Metro browser choice in the company's upcoming Windows 8 software. If Microsoft is found guilty of breaching its legally binding commitments, it may be fined up to 10 percent of its total annual turnover. Microsoft was forced to implement a browser ballot box in its Windows operating system to ensure users were presented with a choice of web browsers. The ruling followed the result of a European Union competition case that found Microsoft had abused its dominance in the market with Internet Explorer.
The Commission believes Microsoft may have failed to implement the browser choice screen correctly with Windows 7 Service Pack 1, released in February 2011. "We take compliance with our decisions very seriously," says Joaquín Almunia, a member of the European Commission. "I trusted the company's reports were accurate. But it seems that was not the case, so we have immediately taken action. If following our investigation, the infringement is confirmed, Microsoft should expect sanctions."
FTC set to fine Google for Hacking Safari on Iphone/Ipad 
www.tech-sanity.com
The Federal Trade Commission appears ready to fine Google millions of dollars for hacking around privacy settings on iPhones and iPads. Consumer Watchdog filed a complaint in February with the FTC after Stanford Researcher Jonathan Mayer revealed what the Internet giant was doing.
Sara Forden of "Bloomberg News" today reported the Commission is negotiating with Google about how big the fine will be. She cited an unidentified source as saying the fine could amount to more than US$10 million.
"Google hacked past a key privacy setting on iPhones and iPads and other devices using Apple's Safari browser, placed tracking cookies on them and then lied, saying the settings were still effective," says John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog's Privacy Project director. "I am delighted the FTC appears ready to take strong action against an obvious violation of Google's promises to honor users' privacy in its 'Buzz' Consent Decree with the Commission."
Under the terms of the consent decree, the FTC can fine Google up to $16,000 per violation per day. Read Consumer Watchdog's complaint to the FTC at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/ltrleibowitz021712.pdf .
A study released Feb. 17 by Jonathan Mayer of Stanford University's Security Lab, and the Center for Internet and Society, found that Google has been circumventing a privacy setting in Apple's Safari web browser. Like most web browsers, Safari provides the option not to receive third-party "cookies."
Cookies are small bits of code placed on the browser and can be used by ad networks to track you as you surf the web. Blocking third-party cookies is supposed to prevent such tracking. Safari is the primary browser on the iPhone and iPad. It is also the default browser on Apple's computers. Read Jonathan Mayer's study at http://webpolicy.org/2012/02/17/safari-trackers/ .
The Federal Trade Commission appears ready to fine Google millions of dollars for hacking around privacy settings on iPhones and iPads. Consumer Watchdog filed a complaint in February with the FTC after Stanford Researcher Jonathan Mayer revealed what the Internet giant was doing.
Sara Forden of "Bloomberg News" today reported the Commission is negotiating with Google about how big the fine will be. She cited an unidentified source as saying the fine could amount to more than US$10 million.
"Google hacked past a key privacy setting on iPhones and iPads and other devices using Apple's Safari browser, placed tracking cookies on them and then lied, saying the settings were still effective," says John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog's Privacy Project director. "I am delighted the FTC appears ready to take strong action against an obvious violation of Google's promises to honor users' privacy in its 'Buzz' Consent Decree with the Commission."
Under the terms of the consent decree, the FTC can fine Google up to $16,000 per violation per day. Read Consumer Watchdog's complaint to the FTC at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/ltrleibowitz021712.pdf .
A study released Feb. 17 by Jonathan Mayer of Stanford University's Security Lab, and the Center for Internet and Society, found that Google has been circumventing a privacy setting in Apple's Safari web browser. Like most web browsers, Safari provides the option not to receive third-party "cookies."
Cookies are small bits of code placed on the browser and can be used by ad networks to track you as you surf the web. Blocking third-party cookies is supposed to prevent such tracking. Safari is the primary browser on the iPhone and iPad. It is also the default browser on Apple's computers. Read Jonathan Mayer's study at http://webpolicy.org/2012/02/17/safari-trackers/ .
EU Regulators Open Two Antitrust Cases Against Motorola.
www.tech-sanity.com
Our previous article on Google found guilty and now Motorola (who of course is being bought by Google) being probed. Not a good week by the looks of things. On Tuesday, the European Commission opened two antitrust cases against Motorola Mobility for possible patent abuses, following complaints by Apple and Microsoft.
“… The commission will investigate … whether by seeking and enforcing injunctions against Apple’s and Microsoft’s flagship products such as iPhone, iPad, Windows and Xbox on the basis of patents it had declared essential to produce standard-compliant products, Motorola has failed to honor its irrevocable commitments made to standard setting organizations,” the Commission said in a statement.
Also subject to the Commission’s probe: Allegations by both Apple and Microsoft that Motorola has refused to license standards-essential patents on the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms by both the Commission and standard-setting organizations.
Apple complains that Motorola has demanded from it “a maximum per-unit royalty of 2.25 percent” on each iPhone sold for the standards-essential patents used in the device. And Microsoft says Motorola is demanding royalties of $22.50 on every midrange laptop that makes use of its portfolio of 50 patents on the H.264 video standard. Both companies argue that those rates are vastly inflated compared to the rest of the industry. More to the point, they don’t seem fair or reasonable. But they do seem to run contrary to the principles of FRAND licensing commitments by which Motorola is expected to abide.
So it will be interesting to see how this all plays out. The Commission can fine companies up to 10 percent of their worldwide annual income if it finds them guilty of antitrust violations. It can also force them to change their business practices. In other words, the potential consequences here are quite serious, not just for Motorola, but also for Google, which is acquiring it.
“If and when Google closes the deal, it will effectively buy itself into two more EU antitrust investigations,” FOSS Patents’ Florian Mueller observes. “It’s time for some people in Mountain View to realize that a multi-front war against competition authorities, on three continents in parallel, is a war that they won’t be able to win.”
Google, for its part, is steeling itself for the double probe.
“We haven’t finalized our acquisition of Motorola Mobility, but will work with the European Commission to answer any questions they might have,” a company spokeswoman told us “We have longstanding concerns about patent abuses, including lawsuits and royalty demands targeting the Android ecosystem.”
Good luck.
Our previous article on Google found guilty and now Motorola (who of course is being bought by Google) being probed. Not a good week by the looks of things. On Tuesday, the European Commission opened two antitrust cases against Motorola Mobility for possible patent abuses, following complaints by Apple and Microsoft.
“… The commission will investigate … whether by seeking and enforcing injunctions against Apple’s and Microsoft’s flagship products such as iPhone, iPad, Windows and Xbox on the basis of patents it had declared essential to produce standard-compliant products, Motorola has failed to honor its irrevocable commitments made to standard setting organizations,” the Commission said in a statement.
Also subject to the Commission’s probe: Allegations by both Apple and Microsoft that Motorola has refused to license standards-essential patents on the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms by both the Commission and standard-setting organizations.
Apple complains that Motorola has demanded from it “a maximum per-unit royalty of 2.25 percent” on each iPhone sold for the standards-essential patents used in the device. And Microsoft says Motorola is demanding royalties of $22.50 on every midrange laptop that makes use of its portfolio of 50 patents on the H.264 video standard. Both companies argue that those rates are vastly inflated compared to the rest of the industry. More to the point, they don’t seem fair or reasonable. But they do seem to run contrary to the principles of FRAND licensing commitments by which Motorola is expected to abide.
So it will be interesting to see how this all plays out. The Commission can fine companies up to 10 percent of their worldwide annual income if it finds them guilty of antitrust violations. It can also force them to change their business practices. In other words, the potential consequences here are quite serious, not just for Motorola, but also for Google, which is acquiring it.
“If and when Google closes the deal, it will effectively buy itself into two more EU antitrust investigations,” FOSS Patents’ Florian Mueller observes. “It’s time for some people in Mountain View to realize that a multi-front war against competition authorities, on three continents in parallel, is a war that they won’t be able to win.”
Google, for its part, is steeling itself for the double probe.
“We haven’t finalized our acquisition of Motorola Mobility, but will work with the European Commission to answer any questions they might have,” a company spokeswoman told us “We have longstanding concerns about patent abuses, including lawsuits and royalty demands targeting the Android ecosystem.”
Good luck.
Google found guilty!
www.tech-sanity.com
An Australian court has ruled that Google misled its users in the country by showing "misleading and deceptive" advertisements with its search results. The decision overturns an earlier ruling on the issue following an appeal by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). Google was found guilty of displaying advertisements for competitors of the company searched for — for example, a search for Harvey World Travel returned ads for STA Travel with the query included in the headline. The court ruled that this was likely to mislead customers into believing that there was an association between the two companies, and ordered Google to set up a compliance program so that it doesn't make the same infringement in future.
The ACCC's legal action was intended to make Google responsible for its content, and while the cited examples of misleading advertisements were all from a few years back, the ruling sets a potentially important precedent for the future in how Google returns its results. The company, for its part, tells Bloomberg that it has changed the way it displays search results in recent years and is examining its legal options.
An Australian court has ruled that Google misled its users in the country by showing "misleading and deceptive" advertisements with its search results. The decision overturns an earlier ruling on the issue following an appeal by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). Google was found guilty of displaying advertisements for competitors of the company searched for — for example, a search for Harvey World Travel returned ads for STA Travel with the query included in the headline. The court ruled that this was likely to mislead customers into believing that there was an association between the two companies, and ordered Google to set up a compliance program so that it doesn't make the same infringement in future.
The ACCC's legal action was intended to make Google responsible for its content, and while the cited examples of misleading advertisements were all from a few years back, the ruling sets a potentially important precedent for the future in how Google returns its results. The company, for its part, tells Bloomberg that it has changed the way it displays search results in recent years and is examining its legal options.
Hackers Steal Account Details From 1.5 Million US Credit Cards
Mon, Apr 2 2012 08:24
| Legal
www.tech-sanity.com
\
Over the weekend, Global Payments—a massive international credit-card processor—announced that it suffered a security breach. Hackers managed to acquire customer information from up to 1.5 million accounts across North America.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the news came to light when Visa withdrew from using the company's services as a result of the problem. Though card and account information was exported from the the servers of Global Payment, it's currently thought that the criminals didn't obtain card-holder names, addresses or Social Security numbers.
A spokesperson from Global Payments told the Wall Street Journal that "[b]ased on the forensic analysis to date, network monitoring and additional security measures, the company believes that this incident is contained."
The move by Visa to stop using the services of Global Payment is a big one: it's a rare occurrence in the industry, so signals a complete lack of trust. It's not yet clear whether others will follow suit. As of Friday, banks were taking extra care to monitor accounts for suspicious activity. [Wall Street Journal]
Online travel agency Expedia (and a dozen others) on Friday accused Google of breaching EU rules
www.tech-sanity.com
Google seems to be in more trouble as the EU watchdog is now investigating the world's most popular search engine after rivals, including Microsoft, accused Google of abusing its dominant position in the market for Web search engines.
EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said earlier this week that he would decide after Easter whether to formally charge Google or drop the investigation.
Expedia said it had details of specific business and search practices by Google that violated EU competition and consumer protection laws.
"The complaint offers evidence of how Google's conduct harms not only competition, but consumers," Brent Thompson, senior vice president of government affairs, said in a statement.
"Expedia believes that strong action is needed by the European Commission to restore a fair and competitive marketplace in online search that respects consumers' rights," he said.
Google said it has not been informed of the complaint yet.
"We haven't seen the complaint yet, but we've been working to explain how our business works, cooperating with the European Commission since this investigation began," Google spokesman Al Verney said in a statement.
"Because there's always room for improvement, we're happy to discuss any concerns the Commission might have," he said.
There are now 12 complaints with the EU watchdog, the majority of them small competitors across Europe, which claimed that Google demoted their sites and promoted its own services. Google has denied that it stifles competition.
U.S. enforcers are also investigating Google which controls more than two-thirds of the global search market.
EU privacy regulators are also scrutinizing Google's new privacy policy which came into effect on March 1.
Google seems to be in more trouble as the EU watchdog is now investigating the world's most popular search engine after rivals, including Microsoft, accused Google of abusing its dominant position in the market for Web search engines.
EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said earlier this week that he would decide after Easter whether to formally charge Google or drop the investigation.
Expedia said it had details of specific business and search practices by Google that violated EU competition and consumer protection laws.
"The complaint offers evidence of how Google's conduct harms not only competition, but consumers," Brent Thompson, senior vice president of government affairs, said in a statement.
"Expedia believes that strong action is needed by the European Commission to restore a fair and competitive marketplace in online search that respects consumers' rights," he said.
Google said it has not been informed of the complaint yet.
"We haven't seen the complaint yet, but we've been working to explain how our business works, cooperating with the European Commission since this investigation began," Google spokesman Al Verney said in a statement.
"Because there's always room for improvement, we're happy to discuss any concerns the Commission might have," he said.
There are now 12 complaints with the EU watchdog, the majority of them small competitors across Europe, which claimed that Google demoted their sites and promoted its own services. Google has denied that it stifles competition.
U.S. enforcers are also investigating Google which controls more than two-thirds of the global search market.
EU privacy regulators are also scrutinizing Google's new privacy policy which came into effect on March 1.
Samsung fined for obstructing Korean government investigation into price fixing
www.tech-sanity.com
Samsung is among the companies being fined for price fixing in the handset space, and now the Korean Fair Trade Commission has issued an additional fine of 400 million won ($356,000) after Samsung was found to have obstructed the FTC's investigation. This latest penalty is in addition to the 14.2 billion won fine ($12.6 million) the company already received for its part in the price fixing scandal. According to a report from the Korea Joonang Daily, when FTC officials arrived to investigate Samsung's offices in Suwon, they found their way impeded by a team of security guards. Meanwhile, employees were ordered to delete data and replace computers that contained important information, while an executive falsely stated that he was away on a business trip to avoid an interview. By the time FTC officials made their way into the building, nearly an hour later, there was just one employee in the office. It was also revealed that some of the data that Samsung actually turned in had been manipulated.
The FTC's latest fine is its largest yet in an obstruction case. All told, the commission has issued around $40 million in fines to Korean telecommunications companies and handsets manufacturers, who are accused of colluding to artificially raise the prices on phones, and then using subsidies to make the devices look like a good deal.
Samsung is among the companies being fined for price fixing in the handset space, and now the Korean Fair Trade Commission has issued an additional fine of 400 million won ($356,000) after Samsung was found to have obstructed the FTC's investigation. This latest penalty is in addition to the 14.2 billion won fine ($12.6 million) the company already received for its part in the price fixing scandal. According to a report from the Korea Joonang Daily, when FTC officials arrived to investigate Samsung's offices in Suwon, they found their way impeded by a team of security guards. Meanwhile, employees were ordered to delete data and replace computers that contained important information, while an executive falsely stated that he was away on a business trip to avoid an interview. By the time FTC officials made their way into the building, nearly an hour later, there was just one employee in the office. It was also revealed that some of the data that Samsung actually turned in had been manipulated.
The FTC's latest fine is its largest yet in an obstruction case. All told, the commission has issued around $40 million in fines to Korean telecommunications companies and handsets manufacturers, who are accused of colluding to artificially raise the prices on phones, and then using subsidies to make the devices look like a good deal.
FTC Chairman: New Google Privacy Plan Forces Consumers to Make a “Brutal Choice”
www.tech-sanity.com
It’s just a few days now until Google’s new privacy policy goes into effect. And lawmakers and regulators continue to raise eyebrows over the agreement, which will grant the company greater license to share user account information between a number of services. The latest to do so: Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz.
Asked about Google’s new policy, which goes into effect on March 1, during an episode of C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers,” Leibowitz offered this assessment:
“It’s a fairly binary and somewhat brutal choice that they are giving consumers. I think I can’t say much more. But we’re aware.”
A brutal choice.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of these new privacy settings that Google contends are in everyone’s best interests.
And while Leibowitz concedes that Google is offering consumers a clear disclosure on its plans, his characterization of it suggests some discomfort with its implementation.
That’s something that concerns others, as well. Last week, an alliance of 36 state attorneys general sent a letter to Google CEO Larry Page, demanding assurances that the policy doesn’t jeopardize consumer privacy. Prior to that, some House lawmakers criticized the company for failing to answer some important questions about how easy or difficult it is for users to protect their privacy and control how their personal information is shared across Google’s services.
“Our updated Privacy Policy will make our privacy practices easier to understand, and it reflects our desire to create a seamless experience for our signed-in users,” Google said in a statement to AllThingsD. “We’ve undertaken the most extensive notification effort in Google’s history, and we’re continuing to offer choice and control over how people use our services.The privacy policy change mainly affects users with a Google Account, and you can continue to use many of our services — including Search, Maps and YouTube — when you are logged out.”
It’s just a few days now until Google’s new privacy policy goes into effect. And lawmakers and regulators continue to raise eyebrows over the agreement, which will grant the company greater license to share user account information between a number of services. The latest to do so: Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz.
Asked about Google’s new policy, which goes into effect on March 1, during an episode of C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers,” Leibowitz offered this assessment:
“It’s a fairly binary and somewhat brutal choice that they are giving consumers. I think I can’t say much more. But we’re aware.”
A brutal choice.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of these new privacy settings that Google contends are in everyone’s best interests.
And while Leibowitz concedes that Google is offering consumers a clear disclosure on its plans, his characterization of it suggests some discomfort with its implementation.
That’s something that concerns others, as well. Last week, an alliance of 36 state attorneys general sent a letter to Google CEO Larry Page, demanding assurances that the policy doesn’t jeopardize consumer privacy. Prior to that, some House lawmakers criticized the company for failing to answer some important questions about how easy or difficult it is for users to protect their privacy and control how their personal information is shared across Google’s services.
“Our updated Privacy Policy will make our privacy practices easier to understand, and it reflects our desire to create a seamless experience for our signed-in users,” Google said in a statement to AllThingsD. “We’ve undertaken the most extensive notification effort in Google’s history, and we’re continuing to offer choice and control over how people use our services.The privacy policy change mainly affects users with a Google Account, and you can continue to use many of our services — including Search, Maps and YouTube — when you are logged out.”
Proview Loses Bid to Ban iPad in Shanghai
www.tech-sanity.com
A major setback for Proview in its battle with Apple over the rights to the iPad trademark in China.
The Pudong District People’s Court has denied the company’s request for an injunction that would have temporarily halted iPad sales in Shanghai.
“We had requested an injunction that would force Apple to stop sales of the iPad on the grounds that they are infringing upon Proview’s trademark, but the court has rejected our request and decided that it will not hear the case,” said Proview attorney Xie Xianghui.
The decision doesn’t end Apple’s contentious battle with Proview, but it’s an important victory for the company, nonetheless. It keeps the iPad on the shelves of Apple’s three flagship stores in Shanghai, and postpones further proceedings until the Guangdong Provincial High Court hears its appeal on the broader trademark dispute. And it sets a tough precedent for Proview, which hopes to squeeze Apple for more money to turn over the China trademark.
A major setback for Proview in its battle with Apple over the rights to the iPad trademark in China.
The Pudong District People’s Court has denied the company’s request for an injunction that would have temporarily halted iPad sales in Shanghai.
“We had requested an injunction that would force Apple to stop sales of the iPad on the grounds that they are infringing upon Proview’s trademark, but the court has rejected our request and decided that it will not hear the case,” said Proview attorney Xie Xianghui.
The decision doesn’t end Apple’s contentious battle with Proview, but it’s an important victory for the company, nonetheless. It keeps the iPad on the shelves of Apple’s three flagship stores in Shanghai, and postpones further proceedings until the Guangdong Provincial High Court hears its appeal on the broader trademark dispute. And it sets a tough precedent for Proview, which hopes to squeeze Apple for more money to turn over the China trademark.
Apple, Proview trade barbs during Shanghai trial
www.tech-sanity.com
Apple claims iPad sales are 'national interest'
Lawyers for Apple and Proview exchanged heated words today in a Shanghai court hearing, according to reports from the Associated Press and Reuters. Proview is seeking a ban on iPad sales in the city as a part of its ongoing trademark dispute with Apple. "Apple has no right to sell iPads under that name," said a lawyer for Proview Shenzhen, Xie Xianghui. Proview once sold a product called the IPAD, or Internet Personal Access Device.
The product has been unavailable for years however. "Proview has no product, no markets, no customers and no suppliers. It has nothing," a lawyer for Apple told the court. "Apple has huge sales in China. Its fans line up to buy Apple products. The ban, if executed, would not only hurt Apple sales but it would also hurt China's national interest."
Outside of court, Xie told reporters that both Apple and Proview have a "willingness" to negotiate. "Official negotiation hasn't started yet, and both sides will submit their plans before the talks. A settlement outside the court is quite possible," he explained. Proview has previously said that it will continue legal actions against Apple while pursuing a settlement at the same time. A ruling in the Shanghai case could take weeks or months.
Apple claims iPad sales are 'national interest'
Lawyers for Apple and Proview exchanged heated words today in a Shanghai court hearing, according to reports from the Associated Press and Reuters. Proview is seeking a ban on iPad sales in the city as a part of its ongoing trademark dispute with Apple. "Apple has no right to sell iPads under that name," said a lawyer for Proview Shenzhen, Xie Xianghui. Proview once sold a product called the IPAD, or Internet Personal Access Device.
The product has been unavailable for years however. "Proview has no product, no markets, no customers and no suppliers. It has nothing," a lawyer for Apple told the court. "Apple has huge sales in China. Its fans line up to buy Apple products. The ban, if executed, would not only hurt Apple sales but it would also hurt China's national interest."
Outside of court, Xie told reporters that both Apple and Proview have a "willingness" to negotiate. "Official negotiation hasn't started yet, and both sides will submit their plans before the talks. A settlement outside the court is quite possible," he explained. Proview has previously said that it will continue legal actions against Apple while pursuing a settlement at the same time. A ruling in the Shanghai case could take weeks or months.
Microsoft Accuses Google, Motorola Mobility of FRAND Patent Abuse
www.tech-sanity.com
Allegations of standards-essential patent abuse are piling up against Motorola Mobility.
This morning, Microsoft said it has filed a complaint with the European Commission against the company alleging it is not offering some of its standards-essential patents on FRAND (fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory) terms.
“In legal proceedings on both sides of the Atlantic, Motorola is demanding that Microsoft take its products off the market, or else remove their standards-based ability to play video and connect wirelessly,” Microsoft vice president and deputy general counsel Dave Heiner wrote in a blog post today. “The only basis for these actions is that these products implement industry standards, on which Motorola claims patents.”
Heiner notes that Motorola is demanding royalties of $22.50 on every midrange laptop that makes use of its portfolio of 50 patents on the H.264 video standard. In contrast, Microsoft pays a group of 29 companies just two cents per laptop for license to use their pool of 2,300 H.264 patents. His implication: Motorola’s FRAND terms are vastly inflated compared to the rest of the industry.
Which is something we’ve heard before. Apple recently lodged a complaint with the European Commission against Motorola Mobility claiming the company was demanding royalites of 2.25 percent of Apple’s sales of wireless devices for use of certain standards-essential patents — terms Motorola Mobility’s new owner Google has endorsed. It alsopetitioned the European Telecommunications Standards Institute to create for the telecom industry a consistent licensing scheme that would set “appropriate” royalty rates for the patents necessary to make wireless devices.
“Motorola has broken its promise,” Heiner concluded. “Motorola is on a path to use standard essential patents to kill video on the Web, and Google as its new owner doesn’t seem to be willing to change course. … For a company so publicly committed to protecting the Internet, one might expect them to join the growing consensus against using standard essential patents to block products. … Google’s unwillingness so far to make this commitment is very concerning.”
Reached for comment, Google criticized Microsoft for the move. “We haven’t seen Microsoft’s complaint, but it’s consistent with the way they use the regulatory process to attack competitors,” a company representative said. “It’s particularly ironic, given their track record in this area and collaboration with patent trolls.”
Motorola issued an even more terse response: “We are yet to receive a copy of the complaint, but Motorola is committed to vigorously defending its intellectual property.”
Allegations of standards-essential patent abuse are piling up against Motorola Mobility.
This morning, Microsoft said it has filed a complaint with the European Commission against the company alleging it is not offering some of its standards-essential patents on FRAND (fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory) terms.
“In legal proceedings on both sides of the Atlantic, Motorola is demanding that Microsoft take its products off the market, or else remove their standards-based ability to play video and connect wirelessly,” Microsoft vice president and deputy general counsel Dave Heiner wrote in a blog post today. “The only basis for these actions is that these products implement industry standards, on which Motorola claims patents.”
Heiner notes that Motorola is demanding royalties of $22.50 on every midrange laptop that makes use of its portfolio of 50 patents on the H.264 video standard. In contrast, Microsoft pays a group of 29 companies just two cents per laptop for license to use their pool of 2,300 H.264 patents. His implication: Motorola’s FRAND terms are vastly inflated compared to the rest of the industry.
Which is something we’ve heard before. Apple recently lodged a complaint with the European Commission against Motorola Mobility claiming the company was demanding royalites of 2.25 percent of Apple’s sales of wireless devices for use of certain standards-essential patents — terms Motorola Mobility’s new owner Google has endorsed. It alsopetitioned the European Telecommunications Standards Institute to create for the telecom industry a consistent licensing scheme that would set “appropriate” royalty rates for the patents necessary to make wireless devices.
“Motorola has broken its promise,” Heiner concluded. “Motorola is on a path to use standard essential patents to kill video on the Web, and Google as its new owner doesn’t seem to be willing to change course. … For a company so publicly committed to protecting the Internet, one might expect them to join the growing consensus against using standard essential patents to block products. … Google’s unwillingness so far to make this commitment is very concerning.”
Reached for comment, Google criticized Microsoft for the move. “We haven’t seen Microsoft’s complaint, but it’s consistent with the way they use the regulatory process to attack competitors,” a company representative said. “It’s particularly ironic, given their track record in this area and collaboration with patent trolls.”
Motorola issued an even more terse response: “We are yet to receive a copy of the complaint, but Motorola is committed to vigorously defending its intellectual property.”
Google Sued by Apple Safari-User Over Web-Browser Privacy
www.tech-sanity.com
Google Inc. officials are being sued for violating users’ privacy rights on Apple Inc.’s Safari Web browser by bypassing computer settings designed to block monitoring of consumers’ online activity.
Google, the world’s biggest Internet-search company, has been dodging privacy settings in Safari, and IE. Lawyers for an Illinois man who uses the Safari browser said in a lawsuit filed today in federal court in Delaware.
“Google’s willful and knowing actions violated” federal wiretapping laws and other computer-related statutes, attorneys for Matthew Soble said in the complaint.
Google has drawn regulatory scrutiny and pressure from consumer advocates for the way it handles personal information. Last year, it agreed to settle claims with the Federal Trade Commission that Google used deceptive tactics and violated its own privacy policies when it introduced its Buzz social- networking service in 2010.
Chris Gaither, a spokesman for Mountain View, California- based Google, said in an e-mail that the company declined to comment on the suit’s allegations.
Researchers at Stanford University said today Google programmers developed codes that allowed them to avoid privacy settings created by their rivals at Cupertino, California-based Apple.
Privacy Circumvented?
The settings were designed to block cookies, or small pieces of code, that can be used to follow users’ activities on the Web. The Wall Street Journal reported Google’s actions in bypassing the privacy settings earlier this week.
Soble is seeking class-action status for his suit, which was filed on behalf of individuals “whose default privacy settings on the web browser software produced by Apple, known as Safari, were knowingly circumvented by Google,” according to the suit.
Google’s actions also prompted Consumer Watchdog to send a letter to the FTC today demanding action against the Internet- search provider.
“Safari users with the browser set to block third-party cookies thought they were not being tracked,” John Simpson, privacy project director of Consumer Watchdog, said in the letter. “Nonetheless, because of an element invisible to the user, but designed to mimic a form, DoubleClick was able to set tracking cookies in an obvious violation of the set preference.”
Lawmaker Attention
The allegations that Google bypassed Apple’s privacy settings to gather information on user’s Web browsing habits also have drawn attention from lawmakers.
“I fully intend to look into this matter and determine the extent to which the practice was used by Google and other third parties to circumvent consumer choice,” West Virginia Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, a Democrat and chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said in a statement.
“We are taking immediate steps to address concerns, and we are happy to answer any questions regulators and others may have,” Google’s Gaither said in an e-mailed response.
The case is Matthew Soble v. Google Inc., U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Wilmington).
Google Inc. officials are being sued for violating users’ privacy rights on Apple Inc.’s Safari Web browser by bypassing computer settings designed to block monitoring of consumers’ online activity.
Google, the world’s biggest Internet-search company, has been dodging privacy settings in Safari, and IE. Lawyers for an Illinois man who uses the Safari browser said in a lawsuit filed today in federal court in Delaware.
“Google’s willful and knowing actions violated” federal wiretapping laws and other computer-related statutes, attorneys for Matthew Soble said in the complaint.
Google has drawn regulatory scrutiny and pressure from consumer advocates for the way it handles personal information. Last year, it agreed to settle claims with the Federal Trade Commission that Google used deceptive tactics and violated its own privacy policies when it introduced its Buzz social- networking service in 2010.
Chris Gaither, a spokesman for Mountain View, California- based Google, said in an e-mail that the company declined to comment on the suit’s allegations.
Researchers at Stanford University said today Google programmers developed codes that allowed them to avoid privacy settings created by their rivals at Cupertino, California-based Apple.
Privacy Circumvented?
The settings were designed to block cookies, or small pieces of code, that can be used to follow users’ activities on the Web. The Wall Street Journal reported Google’s actions in bypassing the privacy settings earlier this week.
Soble is seeking class-action status for his suit, which was filed on behalf of individuals “whose default privacy settings on the web browser software produced by Apple, known as Safari, were knowingly circumvented by Google,” according to the suit.
Google’s actions also prompted Consumer Watchdog to send a letter to the FTC today demanding action against the Internet- search provider.
“Safari users with the browser set to block third-party cookies thought they were not being tracked,” John Simpson, privacy project director of Consumer Watchdog, said in the letter. “Nonetheless, because of an element invisible to the user, but designed to mimic a form, DoubleClick was able to set tracking cookies in an obvious violation of the set preference.”
Lawmaker Attention
The allegations that Google bypassed Apple’s privacy settings to gather information on user’s Web browsing habits also have drawn attention from lawmakers.
“I fully intend to look into this matter and determine the extent to which the practice was used by Google and other third parties to circumvent consumer choice,” West Virginia Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, a Democrat and chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said in a statement.
“We are taking immediate steps to address concerns, and we are happy to answer any questions regulators and others may have,” Google’s Gaither said in an e-mailed response.
The case is Matthew Soble v. Google Inc., U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Wilmington).
Microsoft alleges Google dodged IE privacy settings too.
www.tech-sanity.com
Microsoft's Corporate VP for Internet Explorer, Dean Hachamovitch, made allegations Monday that Google was bypassing Internet Explorer's privacy settings, not just Safari's measures. After checks, he claimed that Google's cookie text files, meant to allow +1 actions for those who were signed into Google, were skirting the P3P Privacy Protection standard as it was implemented in Internet Explorer 9. The technique supposedly made IE9 take third-party cookies that it would block by default while keeping the action a secret.
To honor P3P, Google was supposed to send a set of policy tokens indicating how the cookie's information would be shared. Google was supposedly exploiting a P3P clause that skipped users' preferences if the policies weren't defined. Any browser that used P3P interpreted the message that the token was "not a P3P policy" as a sign to allow the cookie, letting Google have its intended +1 effect but also possibly allowing third-party ads despite the usual blocking settings.
The executive implied this wasn't just a casual trick, since Google would have had to use "technically skilled" staff with "special tools" to see the P3P descriptions.
Microsoft had developed a cookie blocking list update for IE9 (link only working inside the post) as "protection" from the cookies and suggested that those concerned could implement a complete block of all Google cookies, although this would break all account-based Google activity. Hachamovitch wasn't clear on whether it would change its own software to prevent what Google allegedly did outright, but he implied that Microsoft was considering taking a recommendation from P3P founders that the spec be changed such that undefined tokens be rejected outright, not let through.
Google hadn't responded to the new accusations as of Monday afternoon.
The claims if borne out would point to Google using multiple browser-specific tricks to push the +1 allowance regardless of a visitor's browser choice or their security settings. Google has already said that the cookies weren't intended for any other purpose, although at least the Safari implementation allowed multiple third-party advertisers.
Some skepticism has emerged over Hachamovitch's post given Microsoft's tendency to exaggerate Google's privacy position for the sake of its own search market share. While more technically sound, the reaction is still based around getting users to drop all their Google services rather than arguing for a measured reaction.
Microsoft's Corporate VP for Internet Explorer, Dean Hachamovitch, made allegations Monday that Google was bypassing Internet Explorer's privacy settings, not just Safari's measures. After checks, he claimed that Google's cookie text files, meant to allow +1 actions for those who were signed into Google, were skirting the P3P Privacy Protection standard as it was implemented in Internet Explorer 9. The technique supposedly made IE9 take third-party cookies that it would block by default while keeping the action a secret.
To honor P3P, Google was supposed to send a set of policy tokens indicating how the cookie's information would be shared. Google was supposedly exploiting a P3P clause that skipped users' preferences if the policies weren't defined. Any browser that used P3P interpreted the message that the token was "not a P3P policy" as a sign to allow the cookie, letting Google have its intended +1 effect but also possibly allowing third-party ads despite the usual blocking settings.
The executive implied this wasn't just a casual trick, since Google would have had to use "technically skilled" staff with "special tools" to see the P3P descriptions.
Microsoft had developed a cookie blocking list update for IE9 (link only working inside the post) as "protection" from the cookies and suggested that those concerned could implement a complete block of all Google cookies, although this would break all account-based Google activity. Hachamovitch wasn't clear on whether it would change its own software to prevent what Google allegedly did outright, but he implied that Microsoft was considering taking a recommendation from P3P founders that the spec be changed such that undefined tokens be rejected outright, not let through.
Google hadn't responded to the new accusations as of Monday afternoon.
The claims if borne out would point to Google using multiple browser-specific tricks to push the +1 allowance regardless of a visitor's browser choice or their security settings. Google has already said that the cookies weren't intended for any other purpose, although at least the Safari implementation allowed multiple third-party advertisers.
Some skepticism has emerged over Hachamovitch's post given Microsoft's tendency to exaggerate Google's privacy position for the sake of its own search market share. While more technically sound, the reaction is still based around getting users to drop all their Google services rather than arguing for a measured reaction.
Google hit with FTC complaint, says circumventing Safari privacy features accidental (Yeah Right!)
www.tech-sanity.com
This cookie was an accident
The Consumer Watchdog advocacy group today asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether Google violated a previous privacy agreement with the FTC by tracking cookies in a way that circumvents default privacy settings in Apple's Safari browser.
Google's method of getting around Safari's default blockage of third-party cookies was detailed today in astudy by Stanford grad student Jonathan Mayer and in two articles in the Wall Street Journal. One Journalheadline calls it "Google's iPhone tracking," but the technique actually works across iPhones, iPads, iPod touches, and desktop computers. After being contacted by the Journal, Google disabled the code that had allowed it to install tracking cookies on Safari, even though the browser is designed to block such cookies by default.
Google says it was unintentional, but this is also concerning—the advertising cookies spread without Google even realizing it.
This cookie was an accident
The Consumer Watchdog advocacy group today asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether Google violated a previous privacy agreement with the FTC by tracking cookies in a way that circumvents default privacy settings in Apple's Safari browser.
Google's method of getting around Safari's default blockage of third-party cookies was detailed today in astudy by Stanford grad student Jonathan Mayer and in two articles in the Wall Street Journal. One Journalheadline calls it "Google's iPhone tracking," but the technique actually works across iPhones, iPads, iPod touches, and desktop computers. After being contacted by the Journal, Google disabled the code that had allowed it to install tracking cookies on Safari, even though the browser is designed to block such cookies by default.
Google says it was unintentional, but this is also concerning—the advertising cookies spread without Google even realizing it.
Google's "Don't Be Evil" iPhone Tracking bypassing your security settings, Naughty Google.
www.tech-sanity.com
Web Giant, Others Bypassed Apple Browser Settings for Guarding Privacy
Google Inc. and other advertising companies have been bypassing the privacy settings of millions of people using Apple Inc.'s Web browser on their iPhones and computers—tracking the Web-browsing habits of people who intended for that kind of monitoring to be blocked.
The companies used special computer code that tricks Apple's Safari Web-browsing software into letting them monitor many users. Safari, the most widely used browser on mobile devices, is designed to block such tracking by default.
Google disabled its code after being contacted by The Wall Street Journal.
Tracking Leaves a Trail
Web Giant, Others Bypassed Apple Browser Settings for Guarding Privacy
Google Inc. and other advertising companies have been bypassing the privacy settings of millions of people using Apple Inc.'s Web browser on their iPhones and computers—tracking the Web-browsing habits of people who intended for that kind of monitoring to be blocked.
The companies used special computer code that tricks Apple's Safari Web-browsing software into letting them monitor many users. Safari, the most widely used browser on mobile devices, is designed to block such tracking by default.
Google disabled its code after being contacted by The Wall Street Journal.
Tracking Leaves a Trail
Apple says that Proview refuses to honor their agreement to transfer iPad trademark
www.tech-sanity.com
Numerous online stores in China have taken the iPad off their shelves, after Proview said that Apple was breaking their trademark on the term “iPad”. The fight continues in court, but today, Apple has released a statement to China Daily about Proview’s allegations of Apple breaking the trademark.
“We bought Proview’s worldwide rights to the iPad trademark in 10 different countries several years ago. Proview refuses to honor their agreement with Apple, and a Hong Kong court has sided with Apple in this matter,” according to the statement, which also said the case is still pending on the Chinese mainland.”
Apple says that they purchased Proview’s iPad trademark over several years ago, in 10 different countries. Proview is refusing to transfer the trademark, and Hong Kong courts have already sided with Apple, according to their statement.
Many have accused the Mainland Chinese government of favoring local companies in these types of matters so it may not be as easy as it should to clear this hurdle for Apple. Chinese customs havealready said that the iPad is too powerful to be banned even though Proview tried to block iPads from coming in or going out of China earlier this week.
Proview countered the Hong Kong situation:
“Apple is worried the iPad trademark will be resold before the hearing is finished, so itasked the Hong Kong court to forbid Proview Shenzhen from doing that,” he said,adding that the court’s decision to prevent the trademark from being transferred cannot be seen as showing that it has ruled in favor of Apple. “The root cause of the dispute is Apple’ underestimation of the legal complications inChina,” the lawyer said, adding the case also serves as a warning to companies inChina to think twice about risks before “going abroad”.
If Apple can’t prove that Proview didn’t honor its agreement to transfer the name, Apple will likely settle for somewhere significantly south of the $1.5B that Proview wants for the name or simply choose another name for the iPad in China.
Numerous online stores in China have taken the iPad off their shelves, after Proview said that Apple was breaking their trademark on the term “iPad”. The fight continues in court, but today, Apple has released a statement to China Daily about Proview’s allegations of Apple breaking the trademark.
“We bought Proview’s worldwide rights to the iPad trademark in 10 different countries several years ago. Proview refuses to honor their agreement with Apple, and a Hong Kong court has sided with Apple in this matter,” according to the statement, which also said the case is still pending on the Chinese mainland.”
Apple says that they purchased Proview’s iPad trademark over several years ago, in 10 different countries. Proview is refusing to transfer the trademark, and Hong Kong courts have already sided with Apple, according to their statement.
Many have accused the Mainland Chinese government of favoring local companies in these types of matters so it may not be as easy as it should to clear this hurdle for Apple. Chinese customs havealready said that the iPad is too powerful to be banned even though Proview tried to block iPads from coming in or going out of China earlier this week.
Proview countered the Hong Kong situation:
“Apple is worried the iPad trademark will be resold before the hearing is finished, so itasked the Hong Kong court to forbid Proview Shenzhen from doing that,” he said,adding that the court’s decision to prevent the trademark from being transferred cannot be seen as showing that it has ruled in favor of Apple. “The root cause of the dispute is Apple’ underestimation of the legal complications inChina,” the lawyer said, adding the case also serves as a warning to companies inChina to think twice about risks before “going abroad”.
If Apple can’t prove that Proview didn’t honor its agreement to transfer the name, Apple will likely settle for somewhere significantly south of the $1.5B that Proview wants for the name or simply choose another name for the iPad in China.
Judge rules that Microsoft it is legally ok targeting Android for Obliteration.
An ITC judge tossed out the main defense Barnes & Noble wanted to use in a patent suit by Microsoft. The full opinion lays out the existential threat Android faces from patent claims.
On January 31st we discovered Barnes & Noble had suffered a major setback in a patent-infringement lawsuit filed against the company by Microsoft.
That day, an administrative law judge (ALJ) at the International Trade Commission (ITC) had tossed out the company’s key defense, that Microsoft was engaging in “patent misuse” as part of a larger scheme to “kill Android.” Today the full opinion has been made public.
I found the decision thanks to a story by GeekWire’s Todd Bishop, who noted that Theodore Essex, administrative law judge for the International Trade Commission, had called Microsoft’s negotiating tactics “certainly hard bargaining,” but not illegal. (You can see the full PDF here.)
Here’s what the ALJ said:
On January 31st we discovered Barnes & Noble had suffered a major setback in a patent-infringement lawsuit filed against the company by Microsoft.
That day, an administrative law judge (ALJ) at the International Trade Commission (ITC) had tossed out the company’s key defense, that Microsoft was engaging in “patent misuse” as part of a larger scheme to “kill Android.” Today the full opinion has been made public.
I found the decision thanks to a story by GeekWire’s Todd Bishop, who noted that Theodore Essex, administrative law judge for the International Trade Commission, had called Microsoft’s negotiating tactics “certainly hard bargaining,” but not illegal. (You can see the full PDF here.)
Here’s what the ALJ said:
Apple's new Motorola suit is message to Google and regulators
www.tech-sanity.com
On Monday afternoon, the European Commission announced approval of Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility, with a caveat. In a statement, an EC official said the approval should not be construed as approval of Motorola Mobility or Google assertions of infringement with regard to standard-essential patents.
On Monday afternoon, the European Commission announced approval of Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility, with a caveat. In a statement, an EC official said the approval should not be construed as approval of Motorola Mobility or Google assertions of infringement with regard to standard-essential patents.
The Pirate Bay Says Goodbye to (Most) Torrents on February 29
www.tech-sanity.com
The Pirate Bay has confirmed that all torrent files being shared by more than 10 people will be deleted on February 29. The decision is causing a small panic among the site’s users, but in reality little will change as all files will remain available through magnet links. The Pirate Bay crew told TorrentFreak that this is merely a “step forward in technology” and confirmed that the site is here to stay.
For half a decade The Pirate Bay has been the leading BitTorrent site, but soon its users will no longer be able to download .torrent files.
The first step in this direction will be taken on February 29, the Pirate Bay announced today.
For half a decade The Pirate Bay has been the leading BitTorrent site, but soon its users will no longer be able to download .torrent files.
The first step in this direction will be taken on February 29, the Pirate Bay announced today.
Apple sues Motorola over Qualcomm license, makes us dream of a world without lawyers
Sat, Feb 11 2012 01:36
| Legal
www.tech-sanity.com
There are literally no words (at least no family-friendly ones) to describe the insanity that is the ongoing legal war between practically every player in the mobile scene. You can't lay the blame entirely atCupertino's stoop either -- Motorola, HTC and Samsung all deserve plenty of our ire as well. The tablet and smartphone industry appears to be trying to sue itself out of existence, and Apple's filing today against Motorola Mobility in the US District Court of Southern California is just latest in a long line of legal ploys likely to inspire you to slam your head against a wall. The purveyors of all things "i" has accused Moto of breaching a licensing contract with Qualcomm when Moto hit Apple with four patent claims in Germany. That license covers wireless technology Qualcomm uses in its MDM6610 chip, and also purportedly covers Qualcomm's customers who purchase and use said chips. Naturally, that bit of silicon is a component in the iPhone 4S, so Apple argues that it's safe under the terms of the contract. Furthermore, Cupertino claims Motorola is barred from suing under the doctrine of exhaustion -- which is a legal defense that once a patented item is sold (i.e. when Moto licensed its technology to Qualcomm), the patentee's control over that item is exhausted and it can't sue anyone else for infringement.
So, this new suit filed in San Diego seeks to prevent Motorola from enforcing its claims in Deutschland. It also aims to keep Motorola from suing Apple for its use of Qualcomm components incorporating licensed Moto technology anywhere else. Confused? We won't lie, we are a little bit too, but all is revealed in the complaint found at the source link below.
There are literally no words (at least no family-friendly ones) to describe the insanity that is the ongoing legal war between practically every player in the mobile scene. You can't lay the blame entirely atCupertino's stoop either -- Motorola, HTC and Samsung all deserve plenty of our ire as well. The tablet and smartphone industry appears to be trying to sue itself out of existence, and Apple's filing today against Motorola Mobility in the US District Court of Southern California is just latest in a long line of legal ploys likely to inspire you to slam your head against a wall. The purveyors of all things "i" has accused Moto of breaching a licensing contract with Qualcomm when Moto hit Apple with four patent claims in Germany. That license covers wireless technology Qualcomm uses in its MDM6610 chip, and also purportedly covers Qualcomm's customers who purchase and use said chips. Naturally, that bit of silicon is a component in the iPhone 4S, so Apple argues that it's safe under the terms of the contract. Furthermore, Cupertino claims Motorola is barred from suing under the doctrine of exhaustion -- which is a legal defense that once a patented item is sold (i.e. when Moto licensed its technology to Qualcomm), the patentee's control over that item is exhausted and it can't sue anyone else for infringement.
So, this new suit filed in San Diego seeks to prevent Motorola from enforcing its claims in Deutschland. It also aims to keep Motorola from suing Apple for its use of Qualcomm components incorporating licensed Moto technology anywhere else. Confused? We won't lie, we are a little bit too, but all is revealed in the complaint found at the source link below.
EU competition chief threatens patent war smackdown
Sat, Feb 11 2012 01:28
| Legal
www.tech-sanity.com
European anti-competition chief Joaquin Almunia has warned that the EU won't stand for any messing about with technology standards-related patents.
Almunia, giving a speech today at the Concurrences conference in Paris, said that he was prepared to use the EU's enforcement measures, such as fines of up to 10 per cent of a biz's global turnover, to make his point.
European anti-competition chief Joaquin Almunia has warned that the EU won't stand for any messing about with technology standards-related patents.
Almunia, giving a speech today at the Concurrences conference in Paris, said that he was prepared to use the EU's enforcement measures, such as fines of up to 10 per cent of a biz's global turnover, to make his point.
Piratebay of to jail
Microsoft currently testing its own smartphone, says WSJBy Sam Byford on November 2, 2012 12:51 am Email @345triangle98COMMENTS34LikeTweet140This page has been shared 140 times. View these Tweets.85inShareMicrosoft surprised the world earlier this year when it moved into producing its own computer hardware with the Surface, but the company's plans may not stop there. According to the Wall Street