AllThingsD » John Paczkowski

State AGs Want Google to Address New Privacy Policy

John Paczkowski — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 23:26:43 +0000

Google says its new privacy policy will dramatically improve its users’ online experience, but government regulators aren’t so sure. On Wednesday an alliance of 36 state attorneys general sent a letter to Google CEO Larry Page demanding assurances that the new policy, which unifies Google’s services under a single user agreement and grants the company greater license to share user account information between them, doesn’t jeopardize consumer privacy.

“Until now, users of Google’s many products could use different products in different ways, expecting that information they provide for one product, such as YouTube, would not be synthesized with information they provide for another product, such as Gmail and Maps,” the AGs wrote. “The new policy forces these consumers to allow information across all of these products to be shared, without giving them the proper ability to opt out.”

A harsh indictment of the privacy policy changes, which are due to go into effect on March 1. And the AGs didn’t stop there. They went on to question Google’s motives for adjusting its policy and raise an eyebrow over the company’s history of altruistic posturing over privacy.

“We … are also concerned that Google’s new privacy policy goes against a respect for privacy that Google has carefully cultivated as a way to attract consumers. Google boasts that it puts a premium on offering users ‘meaningful and fine-grained choices over the use of their personal information,’ developing its products and services in ways that prevent personal information from being ‘held hostage.’ It has made these and other privacy-respecting representations repeatedly over the years, and many consumers have chosen to use Google products over other products because of these representations. Now these same consumers are having their personal information ‘held hostage’ within the Google ecosystem.”

The implication here is clear: Google has been less than forthright in its representations about privacy, and the public needs more assurances about how their personal information is shared across its services.

Google for its part continues to defend its plans, insisting these new privacy settings are in everyone’s best interests.

“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,” a company spokesperson told 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 services. Of course we are happy to discuss this approach with regulators globally.”

Inside Foxconn: Little Evidence of Abuse, but Workers Sure Want a Raise

John Paczkowski — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:48:26 +0000

Last night, ABC’s “Nightline” broadcast its unprecedented look at Apple’s Chinese manufacturing partner, Foxconn, which for years has been plagued by accusations of labor abuse and poor working conditions. And while it was certainly an illuminating look at Foxconn’s suicide net-festooned Shenzhen, China, factory complex and the people who work there, it didn’t uncover much evidence of any offenses. In fact, aside from a few noteworthy tidbits helpfully compiled by The Verge, the report revealed very little we didn’t already know.

Of course, Foxconn knew “Nightline” was coming and was obviously well prepared for its visit. Indeed, there are already allegations that Foxconn has been hiding underage employees from investigators.

That said, the Fair Labor Association is at this very moment conducting a massive audit of Foxconn that will see it not only examining production lines and employee dormitories, but digging through the company’s employment records in search of evidence of more serious problems. So perhaps there’s more to learn here. Maybe, Foxconn really doesn’t meet social responsibility standards.

But perhaps it does. And if — if — that’s the case and the FLA’s probe concludes without incident, maybe it’s time for the conversation to expand from allegations of employee abuse to subjects like fair wages, which actually seem to be top of mind for the Foxconn employees interviewed by “Nightline.”

Not to downplay any past or as yet uncovered worker mistreatment, but right now Foxconn seems to be just a massive contract manufacturer that folks living in industrialized nations probably wouldn’t want to work for. But thousands of others do, because, troubling though it may be, collecting $1.78 per hour for performing mind-numbing labor for 12 hours a day is a better alternative to remaining in the rural villages they come from.

Microsoft Accuses Google, Motorola Mobility of FRAND Patent Abuse

John Paczkowski — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:54:08 +0000

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 also petitioned 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.”

AT&T CEO Pays $2 Million for T-Mobile Deal Debacle

John Paczkowski — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:00:48 +0000

AT&T’s failed takeover of T-Mobile cost the company dearly — $4.2 billion in breakup fees paid out in cash and spectrum rights.

Turns out it cost CEO Randall Stephenson, as well — $2.08 million in bonuses.

In a new filing with the SEC, AT&T’s board called Stephenson out for the collapse of what would have been a $39 billion merger between the nation’s second-largest and fourth-largest mobile phone operators.

“Although costs incurred in large merger transactions (such as T-Mobile) are to be excluded in calculating final performance attainment, the Committee determined to include the T-Mobile transaction costs in determining payouts for all outstanding executive officer performance share awards, resulting in reduced final award payouts for performance shares with a 2009-2011 performance period,” the board explained in the filing.

And then it took the scalpel to Stephenson’s incentive pay, slashing his short-term bonus to approximately $1,260,000 — a 25 percent cut — and his stock award to about $820,000 — a 6 percent reduction.

End result: A nasty $2 million pay cut that helped drop Stephenson’s total compensation for the year to $22 million, a 19 percent decline from the $27.3 million he received in 2010.

Surprise -- Proview's Ready to Talk Settlement With Apple

John Paczkowski — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:45:29 +0000

Proview's Shenzhen Headquarters

Proview, the bankrupt company embroiled in a pitched battle with Apple over the Chinese rights to the iPad trademark, says it’s willing to negotiate out of court to reach a settlement. On the eve of a hearing that would determine whether or not an injunction against iPad sales in Shanghai is upheld, lawyers for the foundering Chinese company indicated it was looking for a deal.

“We are now preparing for negotiations,” attorney Xie Xianghui told the AFP. “The court cases will continue until we reach an agreement.”

Thing is, Apple contends an agreement was reached years ago, when it first purchased Proview’s worldwide rights to the iPad trademark in 10 different countries, and it has a fair bit of evidence to back it up. Among the documents supporting Apple’s argument — a Dec. 23, 2009 contract signed by a Proview representative, stipulating that the company will transfer to Apple all rights, “powers and benefits belonging or accrued to the [iPad] trademarks, including the right to sue for past infringements and passing off.”

Given this, is Apple even open to an agreement with a company it claims is not only reneging on an agreement, but smearing it in the media in the hopes of squeezing it for a chunk of go-away money?

Let’s just say Proview might want to lower its hopes a tad.

RELATED POSTS:

Proview to Apple: You Owe Us $2 Billion

Take a Look at Some of Apple’s Evidence in Proview iPad Dispute

Here’s the Chinese Court Ruling Backing Apple in iPad Trademark Tiff

Apple: China’s Proview Trying to Weasel Out of iPad Trademark Deal

All Apple coverage

Microsoft Disputes Report of Office for iPad

John Paczkowski — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:29:40 +0000

Microsoft may well be working on a version of Office for iPad, but it’s not the one detailed in a report today from The Daily. Nor will it soon be submitted to Apple for approval.

“The Daily story is based on inaccurate rumors and speculation,” Microsoft spokesman Frank Shaw told AllThingsD. “We have no further comment.”

Not the most hardcore of denials. Certainly, it doesn’t explicity debunk the idea that Microsoft might be developing a version of its popular office suite for the iPad. But it does punch a sizable hole in The Daily’s report.

But what of that photo accompanying The Daily’s story, the one that seems to show a touch-based version of Office running on an iPad? Sources close to Microsoft say it’s “not legit.” ZDNet’s Mary Jo Foley is hearing similar things from her sources.

The Daily, for its part, is standing firm, as evidenced by Editor Peter Ha’s tweeted response to such talk:

(Image courtesy of The Daily)

PlayBook OS 2 Plugs Some Gaps

John Paczkowski — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:29:05 +0000

It has taken months longer than Research In Motion promised it would, but the company’s BlackBerry PlayBook finally has native email.

This morning, RIM released PlayBook OS 2, the long-awaited update to its tablet operating system that adds a number of key features which were inexplicably absent from its first iteration. Top among them: Access to email and calendar programs without having to tether the PlayBook to a BlackBerry smartphone. RIM initially promised to add these features within three months of the tablet’s launch, but multiple postponements delayed them for another five.

Also included: An Android app player that allows the PlayBook to run applications written for devices powered by Google’s Android OS; integration with social networking services like Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn; and a new version of BlackBerry Bridge, which transforms BlackBerry smartphones into remote controls for PlayBooks.

Overall, a nice update for the troubled tablet, one that shores up many of the weaknesses for which it has drawn criticism. Lack of native email and calendar apps earned the PlayBook some harsh reviews when it first debuted, hurting sales from the get-go. RIM sold just 850,000 PlayBooks through the end of November 2011 — poor enough sales that it was forced to take a $485 million writedown on the value of unsold PlayBook inventory following sharp discounts.

Barnes & Noble Announces $199 Nook

John Paczkowski — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:55:18 +0000

Barnes & Noble is fighting fire with fire. The book retailer Tuesday morning debuted a new version of its Nook tablet that matches Amazon’s Kindle Fire in price and memory. The new device is identical in form to its predecessor, except with 8 gigabytes of storage and a $199 price tag. Barnes & Noble announced the new Nook the same day it reported better-than-expected third-quarter profit and improved sales.

Coming Soon From Amazon: Kindle Towering Inferno

John Paczkowski — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:30:58 +0000

Here’s another report to add to the chorus of predictions that Amazon is gearing up to launch a larger version of its Kindle Fire tablet. The occasionally reliable Digitimes claims that Foxconn has won the contract for a new 10-inch Fire and is expected to begin shipping the devices in the second quarter of 2012.

More Kindle Fire augury, I know. But it does jibe with recent reports from China Times and Pacific Crest analyst Chad Bartley, who both claim that Amazon’s got a bigger Fire in the pipeline.

Why does Amazon even need to bring a larger Fire to market? Perhaps to take on the iPad in the market it created? Or perhaps it has decided that the device’s current 7-inch form factor isn’t as optimal as it once thought — something Apple CEO Steve Jobs remarked on back in 2010.

“One naturally thinks that a seven-inch screen would offer 70 percent of the benefits of a 10-inch screen,” Jobs said. “Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. The screen measurements are diagonal, so that a seven-inch screen is only 45 percent as large as iPad’s 10-inch screen. You heard me right: Just 45 percent as large. If you take an iPad and hold it upright in portrait view, and draw an imaginary horizontal line halfway down the screen, the screens on these seven-inch tablets are a bit smaller than the bottom half of the iPad’s display. This size isn’t sufficient to create great tablet apps, in our opinion. … The seven-inch tablets are tweeners, too big to compete with a smartphone and too small to compete with an iPad.”

Apple Threatens to Sue Proview for Defamation -- Read the Letter

John Paczkowski — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:43:55 +0000

Proview’s legal battle with Apple over the iPad trademark grows more inane by the day.

This morning, the bankrupt company said it won a ruling from People’s Intermediate Court in Huizhou barring Sundan, a Chinese electronics retail chain, from selling iPads. But the decision applies only to Sundan’s Huizhou branch. So it’s not exactly a broad-reaching victory.

Essentially, it’s like a court telling your local RadioShack to stop selling iPads.

Meanwhile, Apple, which insists it purchased the iPad trademark in China from Proview years ago, is threatening to sue the company for defamation, alleging its founder, Yang Rongshan, has made false and misleading statements against it.

“It is inappropriate to release information contrary to the facts to the media, especially when such disclosures have the effect of wrongfully causing damage to Apple’s reputation,” said a letter to Yang. “Making misrepresentations in the press to inflame the situation is adversely affecting the interests of the parties in seeking any resolution of the matter. On behalf of Apple, we formally reserve all rights to take further legal action against any individuals and entities for any damages that may result from defamatory statements and unlawful actions intended to wrongfully interfere with Apple’s business and business relationships.”

Proview did not respond to a request for comment.

The letter in full, below:

Apple_proview –

RELATED POSTS:

Proview to Apple: You Owe Us $2 Billion

Take a Look at Some of Apple’s Evidence in Proview iPad Dispute

Here’s the Chinese Court Ruling Backing Apple in iPad Trademark Tiff

Apple: China’s Proview Trying to Weasel Out of iPad Trademark Deal

All Apple coverage

Office for iPad? Not Likely. [Updated]

John Paczkowski — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:30:13 +0000

If you’re hoping Microsoft might someday release a version of Office for Apple’s iPad, prepare to be disappointed. Though it’s been rumored that Microsoft is adapting the popular office suite for the iPad, the chances that it will actually release a compatible version of the software are slim at best, says Nomura Research analyst Rick Sherlund.

Why? Well, it’s obvious, isn’t it? What better way to differentiate Windows 8 tablets from their rivals than by making them the only tablets that can run a touch-based version of Office?

“Don’t hold your breath for Office on the iPad,” Sherlund wrote in a research note to clients today. “If there were a tug of war of conflicting interest with the Office team on one end of the rope and Steve Sinofsky and Steve Ballmer on the other, we would expect there would be no Office on iPad anytime soon.”

Perhaps it’s time to resign ourselves to QuickOffice HD, OnLive Desktop and Apple’s iWork suite.

UPDATE: Looks like Microsoft may soon prove Sherlund wrong. The Daily, which claims to have had some hands-on time with Office for iPad, says Microsoft is preparing to submit the app to Apple.

Proview to Apple: You Owe Us $2 Billion

John Paczkowski — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:10:59 +0000

Proview's iPad, which bears an uncanny resemblance to another famous Apple product.

Proview, the foundering Chinese company battling with Apple over the iPad trademark, originally wanted millions of dollars for the rights to the mark in China. Now it wants billions.

At a press conference in Beijing on Friday, Li Su, chairman of Hejun Vanguard Group, a consulting company representing Proview’s creditors, said the company is gearing up to sue Apple in the U.S. to collect what it feels it’s owed. “Right now we are selecting from three American law firms to sue Apple in the United States for $2 billion in compensation,” he said.

As for allegations that Proview is breaching its iPad trademark deal to squeeze Apple for more money, Proview CEO Yang Rongshan says that’s not the case at all. “We own the iPad trademark in China,” Yang said. “If you were in my position … you would try to protect your rights.”

Apple, however, argues that it’s not Proview’s rights that need to be protected. Apple insists that it acquired the iPad mark fair and square from Proview several years ago, and that Proview refuses to honor their agreement. As documents first published by AllThingsD show, Proview in December of 2009 agreed to transfer to Apple all rights to the iPad trademark in a number of countries, including China. (Ironically, an email from a Proview executive to the Apple agent negotiating the trademark transfer concludes, “As you know my company is an international company and always keep[s] its promise.”)

Apple has sued Proview once, in the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court, arguing that the iPad trademark in China should be transferred to it per the original agreement, but the court dismissed that lawsuit, “due to the lack of facts and legal proof.” Apple subsequently appealed that ruling to the Higher People’s Court of Guangdong province, and will argue its case once again in a Feb. 29 hearing.

RELATED POSTS:

Proview to Apple: You Owe Us $2 Billion

Take a Look at Some of Apple’s Evidence in Proview iPad Dispute

Here’s the Chinese Court Ruling Backing Apple in iPad Trademark Tiff

Apple: China’s Proview Trying to Weasel Out of iPad Trademark Deal

All Apple coverage

Consumers More Interested in Make-Believe Amazon Phone Than Fabled Facebook Phone

John Paczkowski — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:31:55 +0000

If Facebook or Amazon were to release a smartphone of their own, would anyone buy it?

Impossible to say for certain when neither device exists — yet. But a new assessment of current consumer sentiment toward a smartphone from either company suggests that Amazon would have a far easier time selling one than Facebook.

According to Baird Equity Research’s latest U.S. consumer smartphone survey, the debut of an Amazon or Facebook smartphone would likely be met with middling curiosity.

Of the 875 consumers Baird queried, 42 percent said they are either “interested” or “very interested” in an Amazon smartphone, while 29 percent volunteered that they were either “not interested” or “probably not interested.” About 30 percent said they weren’t sure.

So, lukewarm interest in the Amazon phone — at best.

The rumored Facebook phone fared quite a bit worse. Only 12 percent of respondents said that they would be “interested” or “very interested” in a smartphone from the social networking company. The majority of them — 73 percent — said that they would likely either be “not interested or “probably not interested.”

With hundreds of million users, both companies have vast potential markets for their own branded smartphone. Too bad those users don’t find the idea of a smartphone from either company all that compelling.

Take a Look at Some of Apple's Evidence in Proview iPad Dispute

John Paczkowski — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:02:41 +0000

You’ve seen the text of the Chinese court decision that sided with Apple in its dispute with Proview Technology over rights to the iPad trademark in China. Now, here’s some of the supporting documentation.

Quick recap: Apple says it bought Proview Technology’s worldwide rights to the iPad trademark in 10 different countries several years ago, and that Proview refuses to honor their agreement. Proview says Apple bought the rights from an affiliate that didn’t own them.

Additional documents obtained by AllThingD include email from a representative of Proview Technology — not the other affiliate — to Apple’s representative regarding the deal, as well as a copy of the agreement itself.

Proview did not respond to requests for comment.

RELATED POSTS:

Proview to Apple: You Owe Us $2 Billion

Take a Look at Some of Apple’s Evidence in Proview iPad Dispute

Here’s the Chinese Court Ruling Backing Apple in iPad Trademark Tiff

Apple: China’s Proview Trying to Weasel Out of iPad Trademark Deal

All Apple coverage

Here's the Chinese Court Ruling Backing Apple in iPad Trademark Tiff

John Paczkowski — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:25:23 +0000

Proview's Shenzhen Headquarters

“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.”

That was Apple’s statement to AllThingsD Wednesday on its increasingly contentious battle with Hong Kong-based Proview Technology, which insists it still owns the rights to the iPad trademark in China. And here’s the court decision to back it up.

In it, Judge Hon Poon writes that Proview’s conduct smells of conspiracy driven by financial desperation, and that there’s reason to believe that it acted in breach of its agreement with Apple by wrongfully refusing to honor its obligation to hand over the iPad trademark in China.

The key paragraph:

“The conduct of all the defendants demonstrate that they have combined together with the common intention of injuring Apple and IP Application [Apple's agent in the purchase] by acting in breach of the agreement. Proview Holdings, Proview Electronics and Proview Shenzhen, all clearly under [Proview CEO Yang Rongshan's] control, have refused to take any steps to ensure compliance with the agreement so that the China Trademarks are properly assigned or transferred to [Apple]. Instead, they attempt to exploit the situation as a business opportunity for the Proview Group by seeking an amount of US $10 million from Apple.”

The decision in full, below:

ProviewHongKongDecision

[Image credit Ciaxin Online]

RELATED POSTS:

Proview to Apple: You Owe Us $2 Billion

Take a Look at Some of Apple’s Evidence in Proview iPad Dispute

Here’s the Chinese Court Ruling Backing Apple in iPad Trademark Tiff

Apple: China’s Proview Trying to Weasel Out of iPad Trademark Deal

All Apple coverage

Kindle Fire Claims 14 Percent of Tablet Market

John Paczkowski — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:07:08 +0000

Apple’s leadership in the tablet market was shaken slightly in the fourth quarter of 2011, but not by competitors like Amazon’s Kindle Fire and Samsung’s Galaxy Tab.

No, the iPad’s biggest rival was the newly introduced iPhone 4S.

According to a report issued Thursday by IHS’s iSuppli, the iPad’s share of the tablet market slipped to 57 percent from 64 percent in Q4 2011. But that decline was driven by its diminutive iOS sibling, not the Fire.

Said IHS’s Rhoda Alexander, “The rollout of the iPhone 4S in October generated intense competition for Apple purchasers’ disposable income, doing more to limit iPad shipment growth than competition from the Kindle Fire and other media tablets.”

Interesting, no? Seems the tablet market is looking more and more like the ~~digital music player~~ iPod market every day …

That said, the Fire performed pretty well. Amazon shipped 3.9 million Fires in the fourth quarter to claim 14.3 percent of the market. That makes it the world’s second-largest tablet vendor, surpassing Samsung, which has been in the market far longer and with many more devices.

“Kindle Fire shipments in the fourth quarter came right in line with the IHS early December forecast of 3.9 million units, representing a respectable start for the Fire.” Alexander explained. “However, the long-term viability of the product will hinge on the success of Amazon’s business gamble, which depends on tablet sales driving substantial new online merchandise sales at Amazon.com in order to attain profitability.”

Apple: China's Proview Trying to Weasel Out of iPad Trademark Deal

John Paczkowski — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:30:31 +0000

Proview Technology, the cash-strapped Chinese company scrapping with Apple over the iPad trademark, best steel itself for a long, grueling legal battle.

Cupertino is adamant that it legally owns the iPad mark throughout Asia, and that Proview is doing nothing more than squeezing it for additional money to use the trademark in China, despite the fact that it has already purchased those rights.

“We bought Proview’s worldwide rights to the iPad trademark in 10 different countries several years ago,” Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet told AllThingsD. “Proview refuses to honor their agreement with Apple in China, and a Hong Kong court has sided with Apple in this matter.”

And that does appear to be the case. In July, Judge Hon Poon ruled that there was more than enough evidence to suggest that Proview has breached its agreement with Apple by refusing to transfer to it the iPad trademark in China.

“The conduct of all the defendants demonstrate that they have combined together with the common intention of injuring Apple … by acting in breach of the agreement,” Judge Hon Poon wrote. “Proview Holdings, Proview Electronics and Proview Shenzhen, all clearly under [Proview CEO Yang Rongshan's] control, have refused to take any steps to ensure compliance with the agreement so that the China Trademarks are properly assigned or transferred to [Apple]. Instead, they attempt to exploit the situation as a business opportunity for the Proview Group by seeking an amount of US $10 million from Apple.”

But that’s not how Proview sees the situation.

According to Proview, Apple’s agreement is with its Proview Electronics affiliate, which never controlled the iPad trademark for the Chinese market. It claims that Proview Technology, another affiliate, holds the rights to that mark to this day. Hard to believe that Apple would purchase the Asian rights to the iPad trademark without doing proper due diligence, but that is essentially what Proview is arguing.

And, of course, it is eager to sell that last mark at the highest possible price, now more than ever, as it has fallen on hard financial times.

As Yang told the FT back in 2012, “It is arrogant of Apple to just ignore our rights and go ahead selling the iPad in this market, and we will oppose that. Besides that, we are in big financial trouble and the trademarks are a valuable asset that could help us sort out part of that trouble.”

Hard not to read that as opportunistic. That said, it’s important to remember that Proview sold the global iPad trademark to Apple’s agent for about $55,104 in 2006, and since 2010 has likely been kicking itself for selling what is now a highly valuable mark for such a pittance.

Quite the rat’s nest here. And it’s only getting worse. Proview has now filed a request with Chinese Customs to block the import and export of iPads on trademark grounds.

As of this writing, Proview and CEO Yang Rongshan had not responded to requests for comment.

RELATED POSTS:

Proview to Apple: You Owe Us $2 Billion

Take a Look at Some of Apple’s Evidence in Proview iPad Dispute

Here’s the Chinese Court Ruling Backing Apple in iPad Trademark Tiff

Apple: China’s Proview Trying to Weasel Out of iPad Trademark Deal

All Apple coverage

At Long Last, PlayBook OS 2.0

John Paczkowski — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:21:42 +0000

First announced at the Consumer Electronics Show this past January, the 2.0 verison of Research In Motion’s BlackBerry PlayBook OS is nearly ready for launch.

RIM Senior Brand Manager Jeff Gadway assures PC Magazine that the company is sticking to its promised timetable for the update and will ship it “very soon.”

In other words, it’s likely to be released during the 2012 Mobile World Congress trade show at the end of the month, where RIM is expected to have a fairly large presence.

A 400 megabyte update, PlayBook OS 2.0 will bring a number of important features to RIM’s struggling tablet, among them an Android App player and the long-awaited addition of the native email, calendar and contact apps that the device inexplicably debuted without.

Apple: App Access to Contact Data Will Require Explicit User Permission

John Paczkowski — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:33:44 +0000

After a week of silence, Apple has finally responded to reports that dozens of iOS applications have been accessing, transmitting and storing user contact data without explicit permission. Path was the first to be flagged for this, and others, including Twitter, Yelp and Foursquare, have since tidied up the way they ask for address book data. Apple has faced growing criticism that it has given iOS developers far too much access to address book information without requiring a user prompt.

Today, the company agreed with that assessment, and said that soon, apps that use address book data will require explicit user permission to do so.

“Apps that collect or transmit a user’s contact data without their prior permission are in violation of our guidelines*,” Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr told AllThingsD. “We’re working to make this even better for our customers, and as we have done with location services, any app wishing to access contact data will require explicit user approval in a future software release.”

So Apple has done the right thing, arguably something it should have done long ago: Assure users that no app can read their contact data without their permission.

Apple’s comment follows, by minutes, an inquiry from Congress, expressing concerns that iOS developers may be accessing and storing user data without proper permission. “This incident raises questions about whether Apple’s iOS app developer policies and practices may fall short when it comes to protecting the information of iPhone users and their contacts,” House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and Commerce Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee Chair G.K. Butterfield said in a letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook. “How many iOS apps in the U.S. iTunes Store transmit information from the address book? How many of those ask for the user’s consent before transmitting their contacts’ information?”

The Committee’s full letter, below:

Mr. Tim Cook
Chief Executive Officer, Apple Inc.
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, CA 95014

Dear Mr. Cook:

Last week, independent iOS app developer Arun Thampi blogged about his discovery that the social networking app “Path” was accessing and collecting the contents of his iPhone address book without ever having asked for his consent.[1] The information taken without his permission — or that of the individual contacts who own that information — included full names, phone numbers, and email addresses.[2] Following media coverage of Mr. Thampi’s discovery, Path’s Co-Founder and CEO Dave Morin quickly apologized, promised to delete from Path’s servers all data it had taken from its users’ address books, and announced the release of a new version of Path that would prompt users to opt in to sharing their address book contacts.[3]

This incident raises questions about whether Apple’s iOS app developer policies and practices may fall short when it comes to protecting the information of iPhone users and their contacts.

The data management section of your iOS developer website states: “iOS has a comprehensive collection of tools and frameworks for storing, accessing, and sharing data. … iOS apps even have access to a device’s global data such as contacts in the Address Book, and photos in the Photo Library.”[4] The app store review guidelines section states: “We review every app on the App Store based on a set of technical, content, and design criteria. This review criteria is now available to you in the App Store Review Guidelines.”[5] This same section indicates that the guidelines are available only to registered members of the iOS Developer Program.[6] However, tech blogs following the Path controversy indicate that the iOS App Guidelines require apps to get a user’s permission before “transmit[ting] data about a user”.[7]

In spite of this guidance, claims have been made that “there’s a quiet understanding among many iOS app developers that it is acceptable to send a user’s entire address book, without their permission, to remote servers and then store it for future reference. It’s common practice, and many companies likely have your address book stored in their database.”[8] One blogger claims to have conducted a survey of developers of popular iOS apps and found that 13 of 15 had a “contacts database with millions of records” — with one claiming to have a database containing “Mark Zuckerberg’s cell phone number, Larry Ellison’s home phone number and Bill Gates’ cell phone number.”[9]

The fact that the previous version of Path was able to gain approval for distribution through the Apple iTunes Store despite taking the contents of users’ address books without their permission suggests that there could be some truth to these claims. To more fully understand and assess these claims, we are requesting that you respond to the following questions:

- Please describe all iOS App Guidelines that concern criteria related to the privacy and security of data that will be accessed or transmitted by an app.

- Please describe how you determine whether an app meets those criteria.

- What data do you consider to be “data about a user” that is subject to the requirement that the app obtain the user’s consent before it is transmitted?

- To the extent not addressed in the response to question 2, please describe how you determine whether an app will transmit “data about a user” and whether the consent requirement has been met.

- How many iOS apps in the U.S. iTunes Store transmit “data about a user”?

- Do you consider the contents of the address book to be “data about a user”?

- Do you consider the contents of the address book to be data of the contact? If not, please explain why not. Please explain how you protect the privacy and security interests of that contact in his or her information.

- How many iOS apps in the U.S. iTunes Store transmit information from the address book? How many of those ask for the user’s consent before transmitting their contacts’ information?

- You have built into your devices the ability to turn off in one place the transmission of location information entirely or on an app-by-app basis. Please explain why you have not done the same for address book information.

Please provide the information requested no later than February 29, 2012. If you have any questions regarding this request, you can contact Felipe Mendoza with the Energy and Commerce Committee Staff at 202-226-3400.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Member

G.K. Butterfield, Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade

*These are the guidline to which Apple refers

17.1: Apps cannot transmit data about a user without obtaining the user’s prior permission and providing the user with access to information about how and where the data will be used

PLA
3.3.9 You and Your Applications may not collect user or device data without prior user consent, and then only to provide a service or function that is directly relevant to the use of the Application, or to serve advertising. You may not use analytics software in Your Application to collect and send device data to a third party.

Apple Requests Approval to Sue Kodak Into Oblivion

John Paczkowski — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:30:42 +0000

More ugly news for Eastman Kodak, in a month filled with it. After filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and shuttering its digital camera business, the company now finds itself in Apple’s crosshairs.

Apple late Tuesday asked a U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York for permission to sue the photography pioneer for allegedly infringing patents related to technologies used in printers, digital cameras and digital picture frames. If the court gives its approval, Apple intends to file a complaint against Kodak at the International Trade Commission, and a suit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, as well. Its aim: An order blocking Kodak’s infringement and an ITC bar on the importation of certain Kodak devices.

An unfortunate turn of events for Kodak, which really seems to have brought all this upon itself. Back in 2010, Kodak sued Apple, claiming the iPhone infringes a Kodak patent related to previewing images. But Apple argues that it is the true owner of the patents, and that Kodak pilfered some of its IP when the two companies were exploring how best to commercialize Apple’s digital camera technologies back in the early ’90s.

So, as I said, ugly news for the beleagured Kodak, which is clearly in a poor financial position to defend itself against such claims.

Apple Dividend More Likely Than $100 Billion Toga Party

John Paczkowski — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:05:46 +0000

Will Apple ever return some of its growing cash pile to investors? Can shareholders expect a dividend, now that the company has amassed nearly $100 billion in cash and marketable securities?

Maybe.

That was the gist of Apple CEO Tim Cook’s remarks on the issue on Tuesday, at the Goldman Sachs Technology and Internet Conference. According to Cook, Apple’s cash holdings are top of mind at the company. “We’re in very active discussions at the board level on what we should do,” he said, adding that careful consideration is the guiding principle here. “We are not going to run out and have a toga party.”

“We are judicious in our spending,” Cook said. “We are deliberate. We spend our money like it is our last penny. … I think shareholders want us to do that. They don’t want us to act like we are rich.”

Of course. But many shareholders wouldn’t mind if Apple were to issue a dividend. Surely a meaningful one-time payment like that would have little impact to the company’s earnings or cash flow these days. And Apple hasn’t paid a dividend since December of 1995.

Seventeen years is a long time.

So, can investors expect a dividend announcement at Apple’s annual shareholder meeting on Feb. 23?

Impossible to say, but read what you will into Cook’s final comment on the issue:

“I’d be the first to admit we have more cash than we need to run the daily business. So we’re actively discussing it. I only ask for a bit of patience, so we can do it in a way that’s best for the shareholders.”

Apple TV? Still Fine-Tuning, Says Cook.

John Paczkowski — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:57:03 +0000

For those of us that use it, we’ve always felt that there’s something there. If we keep following our intuition and pull that string, it could be larger.

– Apple CEO Tim Cook on the future of Apple TV

Cook: The iPad Stands on the Shoulders of Everything That Came Before It

John Paczkowski — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:44:59 +0000

Apple shipped some 55 million iPads since first bringing the device to market. It took 22 years to sell that many Macs and three years to sell that many iPhones. What’s driving that hockey-stick ramp up, among the fastest of any product in history?

That question was put to Apple CEO Tim Cook at the Goldman Sachs Technology and Internet Conference Tuesday, and he had an interesting answer for it. The iPad’s trajectory is driven by the products that came before it.

“The pace of innovation around iPad is absolutely incredible,” Cook said. “We’ve gone from iPad 1 to iPad 2 in very short order, and the eocsystem around it is clearly thriving. The reason the iPad’s ramp has been so large in my view is that the iPad has stood on the shoulders of everything that came before it — the iTunes store, the iPhone. People trained on these products so by the time the iPad launched it was intuitive to use. I gave one to my mother and she knew how to use it, like this, just from watching the commercial.”

Apple CEO Cook Reiterates Commitment to Workers' Welfare

John Paczkowski — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:05:29 +0000

Apple CEO Tim Cook made a rare appearance at the Goldman Sachs Technology and Internet Conference Tuesday and he couldn’t have picked a better time for his first big investor event since the death of Steve Jobs.

Apple is on a tear after a monster quarter, the best in its 35-year history, and many believe it’s headed into one of its strongest product cycles ever, a stretch that will see a next-generation iPad in March, and a new iPhone and long-rumored Apple Television before the end of the year.

But it was a more troubling topic that he wanted to address first: Concerns about working conditions at its suppliers.

“The first thing that I want everyone to know — Apple takes working conditions very, very seriously,” he said. “And we have for a very long time. We care about every worker. I’ve spent a lot of time in factories personally and not just as an executive. I worked at a paper mill in Alabama and an aluminum plant in Virginia. So we are closely connected to the production process and we understand these manufacturing issues on a very granular level. We believe that every worker has a right to a fair and safe work environment … and Apple’s manufacturing partners must live up to this to do business with us.”

“No one in our industry is doing more to improve working conditions than Apple,” he continued. “We are constantly auditing facilities, going deep into the supply chain, looking for problems, finding problems, and more importantly fixing them. And we report everything because we believe that transparency is so very important in this area. I am so incredibly proud of the work our teams are doing in this area. They focus on the most difficult problems, and they stay with them until they fix them. They are truly a model for the industry.

“We think that the use of underage labor is abhorrent — it’s extremely rare in our supply chain, but our top priority is to eliminate it. If we find a supplier that intentionally hires underage labor, that’s a firing offense.”

“As you may have read,” Cook said, “the Fair Labor Association is doing an audit of our manufacturing partners. This audit is the most detailed in history of mass manufacturing in scale, scope and transparency, and I am looking forward to the results.”

Apple Stock Now Worth an iPad Per Share

John Paczkowski — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:50:53 +0000

A decade ago, you could have purchased Apple stock for around $10 a share. Today, Apple is trading at more than 50 times that, its price driven upward by the company’s monster holiday quarter and the seemingly unstoppable momentum of the iOS juggernaut.

As I write this, AAPL is trading at well over $503 per share, after closing above $500 — for the first time — on Monday. That’s $3 more than the cost of a 16 gigabyte iPad 2. The company’s market cap is currently $469 billion, and if/when its stock reaches $537, Apple will become a half-trillion dollar company.

And if its ascent continues after that? Another $100 or so more, and Apple could claim the title of most valuable company of all time, beating Microsoft’s record of $650 billion during the dotcom bubble.