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.
Showing posts with label Legal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Legal. Show all posts
Friday, January 04, 2013
Saturday, December 22, 2012
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."
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
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.
Friday, November 02, 2012
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.
Thursday, November 01, 2012
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 between four and five inches.
The Verge previously heard that while Microsoft was considering making its own flagship Windows Phone, such a device would be unlikely to see the light of day before the year is out. Indeed, Microsoft has gone out of its way to promote the efforts of hardware partners such as HTC and Nokia, and our sources tell us that any "Surface phone" would likely be deployed as a "Plan B" should Windows Phone 8 fail to gain significant traction. If the Journal's report is to be believed, however, this plan may be further along than previously thought.
The Verge previously heard that while Microsoft was considering making its own flagship Windows Phone, such a device would be unlikely to see the light of day before the year is out. Indeed, Microsoft has gone out of its way to promote the efforts of hardware partners such as HTC and Nokia, and our sources tell us that any "Surface phone" would likely be deployed as a "Plan B" should Windows Phone 8 fail to gain significant traction. If the Journal's report is to be believed, however, this plan may be further along than previously thought.
Friday, October 05, 2012
More Suspicious Tracking Of Dotcom's Personal Internet Before Official Tapping.
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.
Monday, September 24, 2012
New Zealand PM calls GCSB’s efforts to intercept Kim Dotcom communications illegal Orders Full enquiry.
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.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
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.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Dot Com's Extradition stopped until US produces evidence.
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.
Wednesday, August 08, 2012
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.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
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."
Saturday, May 05, 2012
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/ .
Wednesday, April 04, 2012
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.
Monday, April 02, 2012
Hackers Steal Account Details From 1.5 Million US Credit Cards
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]
Saturday, March 31, 2012
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.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
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.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
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.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)