AllThingsD » complaint

The Facebook Lawsuit: A Look at the Documents

Jennifer Valentino-DeVries — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:25:03 +0000

So, remember last year when that guy came out of nowhere and sued Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, claiming he owned 84 percent of the social-networking company?

Well, he’s back. And he has emails.

Paul Ceglia, the plaintiff, filed an amended complaint Monday claiming rights to half of Mr. Zuckerberg’s equity in the company. For those of you keeping score at home, Mr. Zuckerberg’s net worth has been estimated at more than $13.5 billion.

Facebook is categorically denying the accusations, saying the emails are part of a fraud and casting doubt on Mr. Ceglia, who was accused by the New York attorney general in 2009 of defrauding customers of his wood-pellet fuel company.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Exclusive: AOL Fires Moviefone Editor Who Offered Fired Freelancers the Chance to Work for, Um, Free

Kara Swisher — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:28:30 +0000

Yesterday, AOL’s Huffington Post Media Group got into hot water after the top editor at its Moviefone unit sent a memo to freelancers it was in the midst of firing, offering them an opportunity to “contribute as part of our non-paid blogger system.”

Today, that exec–Moviefone Editor-in-Chief Patricia Chui–was fired by the company, which is in the midst of drastically rejiggering its stable of writers.

Many of those were freelance bloggers under contract to AOL, who are now getting the boot in favor of reallocating staff back to largely paid journalists.

Thus came the controversial email from Chui, which read, in part:

“We will, indeed, be moving away from a freelancer model and toward one relying on full-time staffers. Sometime soon-–this week, I believe–-many of you will be receiving an email informing you that your services as a freelancer will no longer be required. You will be invited to contribute as part of our non-paid blogger system; and though I know that for many of you this will not be an option financially, I strongly encourage you to consider it if you/d like to keep writing for us, because we value all of your voices and input.”

Oh dear. Really, oh dear, especially since the Huffington Post has had its own share of controversies over not paying some bloggers (although it never quite ever offered up a doozie that this letter was).

Sources said Chui was terminated by John Montorio, the HuffPo Media Group’s culture, entertainment and lifestyle editor. Arianna Huffiington is head of all content at AOL, which recently paid $315 million to buy the Huffington Post.

Since she took over, Huffington has tried to stress a return to journalism over more algorithmic content creation. The unloading of its freelance writers was part of that effort.

Thus, Chui’s missteps did not help matters.

But it was not the first time recently that she had made an ill-advised editorial judgment.

Sources said the firing is also due to an incident several weeks ago, in which Chui appeared to defend a marketing employee who sent an email to TechCrunch writer Alexia Tsotsis, asking her to soften a review of “Source Code” due to studio relationship considerations.

AOL bought TechCrunch, a well-known tech news site, last fall. At the time, its CEO Tim Armstrong promised editorial independence and no meddling over advertising concerns.

Instead of taking this minion to task, on Moviefone’s own blog Chui said, in part:

“The reality of our situation is that, as a movies site, we work with movie studios every day, and it is in our best interests to stay on good terms with them. Staying on good terms with studios means that we will relay information if asked. It does not mean that we would ever force a writer or an editor to edit their work for the sake of a studio–or anyone else.”

Even with the last line, it is not exactly a profile in courage, because it was clear violation of the traditional separation of church and state in force at most media organizations.

Typically, editors are supposed to come down on any such communication. That has certainly been my experience in journalism over the years at the Washington Post and Dow Jones–including during its News Corp. ownership. In fact, I have often been shielded from such requests to pass such complaints onto me and only found out much later of advertiser discomfort about my reporting.

At the time, TechCrunch quite clearly called for Chui’s firing and that happened today.

Here is Chui’s full memo to freelancers, as well as the one about TechCrunch, neither of which were apparently cleared with higher-ups:

From: Chui, Patricia
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 11:26 AM
To: MoviefoneWriters
Subject: Moviefone/Cinematical–Status of Writers

Dear Moviefone/Cinematical Writers,

I know there’s been a lot of uncertainty regarding the future of freelancers and your status as a writer for the site. I personally apologize for the lack of communication, but I’ll tell you what I can.

We will, indeed, be moving away from a freelancer model and toward one relying on full-time staffers. Sometime soon–this week, I believe–many of you will be receiving an email informing you that your services as a freelancer will no longer be required. You will be invited to contribute as part of our non-paid blogger system; and though I know that for many of you this will not be an option financially, I strongly encourage you to consider it if you’d like to keep writing for us, because we value all of your voices and input.

Some of you have indicated interest in applying for full-time writer and editor positions, and the status of those positions are also part of discussions that are ongoing right now. I cannot at this point, however, tell you how many positions there are, or what the exact nature of those positions will be.

Despite the move toward a full-time staff vs. freelancer model, I’m told that there will be room for “exceptions”–for example, in the cases of writers who specialize in certain subjects. Again, what these exceptions are for Moviefone, and what the budget for them would be, is still being discussed.

As for Cinematical, the resignation of Erik Davis is certainly a loss. But I am continuing to have conversations with the editorial leadership here, and I am hopeful that we will still be able to maintain the Cinematical brand and voice going forward. Again, I will share with you any pertinent information as I have it.

In the meantime, those of you who already have assignments, please do continue to work on them unless you hear otherwise. If you’re uncertain of the status of your assignment, check with me. It may take me a while to get back to you, so please be patient–but I will respond.

I am sorry that I don’t have more specific details to give you, but I promise that I’ll keep you as well-informed as I possibly can. Don’t hesitate to reach out if you have questions or concerns.

Best,

patricia

By now you may have read the recent post in TechCrunch regarding that site’s SXSW coverage of the film “Source Code.” A representative from Moviefone, who set up the interview with Summit Entertainment, received some feedback from the studio and passed it along to TechCrunch (our sister site here at AOL). That email has now caused something of a Internet kerfuffle.

Here is the email–reprinted in the post–that was sent to the TechCrunch writer.

Hey Alexia,

Hope you’re having a good time at SxSW and that it’s not been too crazy busy for you!

First wanted to thank you for covering Source Code/attending the party, etc. But also wanted to raise a concern that Summit had about the piece that ran. They felt it was a little snarky and wondered if any of the snark can be toned down? I wasn’t able to view the video interviews but I think their issue is just with some of the text. Let me know if you’re able to take another look at it and make any edits. I know of course that TechCrunch has its own voice and editorial standards, so if you have good reasons not to change anything that’s fine, I just need to get back to Summit with some sort of information. Let me know.

Thanks!

TechCrunch’s issue with Moviefone is that by sending this email, we, in their words, “asked us to change our post. It’s not just sad, it’s wrong.”

I wanted to take this opportunity to clarify a few things.

1) The person who wrote that email was not acting in an editorial capacity. That person’s job is to act as an intermediary between the studios and editorial–not to dictate content, nor to weigh in on the content of Moviefone or any other AOL site. In fact, the presence of a person with that role is just one means we have of ensuring editorial integrity on Moviefone.

2) This is important: We never told TechCrunch to change the post in any way. A publicist at Summit reached out asking if we could convey the studio’s feedback to TechCrunch. We did so. If the editors had responded that they declined to edit the post–which, naturally, is entirely their call–we simply would have conveyed that information back to Summit.

The reality of our situation is that, as a movies site, we work with movie studios every day, and it is in our best interests to stay on good terms with them. Staying on good terms with studios means that we will relay information if asked. It does not mean that we would ever force a writer or an editor to edit their work for the sake of a studio–or anyone else.

We take editorial integrity seriously at Moviefone, and it’s painful to be depicted as a pawn of the studios when that is emphatically not the case. You may think it unseemly for a studio to request changes in an article; that’s certainly your right. But the accusation of pandering on our part or crossing an editorial line is, to my mind, completely unfair, and I would hope that a reasonable reader would be able to recognize the situation for what it is–overblown and unwarranted.

Patricia Chui
Editor-in-Chief, Moviefone

Irony Alert: Microsoft Files Formal Complaint Against Google With EC

Kara Swisher — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:25:02 +0000

Microsoft’s legal eagle Brad Smith didn’t even bother to pretend the software giant’s filing of a formal antitrust complaint against Google with the European Commission wasn’t a wee bit ironic.

Wrote Smith in a blog post late last night:

“There of course will be some who will point out the irony in today’s filing. Having spent more than a decade wearing the shoe on the other foot with the European Commission, the filing of a formal antitrust complaint is not something we take lightly. This is the first time Microsoft Corporation has ever taken this step.”

But take it the company did, noting: “Microsoft is filing a formal complaint with the European Commission as part of the Commission’s ongoing investigation into whether Google has violated European competition law.”

Google, no surprise, disagreed, via a statement from a spokesman.

“We’re not surprised that Microsoft has done this, since one of their subsidiaries was one of the original complainants. For our part, we continue to discuss the case with the European Commission and we’re happy to explain to anyone how our business works.”

Here is the whole Microsoft post, in which Smith outlines Microsoft reasons for its action:

Adding our Voice to Concerns about Search in Europe

30 Mar 2011 9:00 PM

Posted by Brad Smith

Senior Vice President & General Counsel, Microsoft Corporation

Microsoft is filing a formal complaint with the European Commission as part of the Commission’s ongoing investigation into whether Google has violated European competition law. We thought it important to be transparent and provide some information on what we’re doing and why.

At the outset, we should be among the first to compliment Google for its genuine innovations, of which there have been many over the past decade. As the only viable search competitor to Google in the U.S. and much of Europe, we respect their engineering prowess and competitive drive. Google has done much to advance its laudable mission to “organize the world’s information,” but we’re concerned by a broadening pattern of conduct aimed at stopping anyone else from creating a competitive alternative.

We’ve therefore decided to join a large and growing number of companies registering their concerns about the European search market. By the European Commission’s own reckoning, Google has about 95 percent of the search market in Europe. This contrasts with the United States, where Microsoft serves about a quarter of Americans’ search needs either directly through Bing or through our partnership with Yahoo!.

At Microsoft we’ve shown that we’re prepared to work hard and invest literally billions of dollars annually to offer Bing, a search service that many now regard as the most innovative available. But, hard work and innovation need a fair and competitive marketplace in which to thrive, and twice the Department of Justice has intervened to thwart Google’s unlawful conduct from impeding fair competition. In 2008 the DOJ moved to file suit against Google for its unlawful attempt to tie up and set search advertising prices at Yahoo!, causing Google to back down. And last year the DOJ formally objected to Google’s efforts to monopolize book content, a position affirmed by a federal district court in New York just last week. Unfortunately, even this has not stopped the spread by Google of new and disconcerting practices in the United States.

As troubling as the situation is in United States, it is worse in Europe. That is why our filing today focuses on a pattern of actions that Google has taken to entrench its dominance in the markets for online search and search advertising to the detriment of European consumers.

How does it do this? Google has built its business on indexing and displaying snippets of other organizations’ Web content. It understands as well as anyone that search engines depend upon the openness of the Web in order to function properly, and it’s quick to complain when others undermine this. Unfortunately, Google has engaged in a broadening pattern of walling off access to content and data that competitors need to provide search results to consumers and to attract advertisers.

On PCs it is usually not difficult for people to navigate to any search engine. Google in fact makes this point virtually every time someone raises antitrust concerns about their practices. Their defense ignores the hugely important fact that there are many other important ways that search services compete. Search engines compete to index the Web as fully as possible so they can generate good search results, they compete to gain advertisers (the source of revenue in this business), and they compete to gain distribution of their search boxes through Web sites. Consumers will not benefit from clicking to alternative sites unless all search engines have a fair opportunity to compete in each of these areas.

Our filing details many instances where Google is impeding competition in these areas. A half-dozen examples below help illustrate some of our concerns.

First, in 2006 Google acquired YouTube–and since then it has put in place a growing number of technical measures to restrict competing search engines from properly accessing it for their search results. Without proper access to YouTube, Bing and other search engines cannot stand with Google on an equal footing in returning search results with links to YouTube videos and that, of course, drives more users away from competitors and to Google.

Second, in 2010 and again more recently, Google blocked Microsoft’s new Windows Phones from operating properly with YouTube. Google has enabled its own Android phones to access YouTube so that users can search for video categories, find favorites, see ratings, and so forth in the rich user interfaces offered by those phones. It’s done the same thing for the iPhones offered by Apple, which doesn’t offer a competing search service.

Unfortunately, Google has refused to allow Microsoft’s new Windows Phones to access this YouTube metadata in the same way that Android phones and iPhones do. As a result, Microsoft’s YouTube “app” on Windows Phones is basically just a browser displaying YouTube’s mobile Web site, without the rich functionality offered on competing phones. Microsoft is ready to release a high quality YouTube app for Windows Phone. We just need permission to access YouTube in the way that other phones already do, permission Google has refused to provide.

Third, Google is seeking to block access to content owned by book publishers. This was underscored in federal court in New York last week, in the decision involving Google’s effort to obtain exclusive and unfettered access to the large volume of so-called “orphan books–books for which no copyright holder can readily be found. Under Google’s plan only its search engine would be able to return search results from these books. As the federal court said in rejecting this plan, “Google’s ability to deny competitors the ability to search orphan books would further entrench Google’s market power in the online search market.” This is an important initial step under U.S. law, but it needs to be reinforced by similar positions in Europe and the rest of the world.

Fourth, Google is even restricting its customers’–namely, advertisers’–access to their own data. Advertisers input large amounts of data into Google’s ad servers in the course of managing their advertising campaigns. This data belongs to the advertisers: it reflects their decisions about their own business. But Google contractually prohibits advertisers from using their data in an interoperable way with other search advertising platforms, such as Microsoft’s adCenter.

This makes it much more costly for Google’s advertisers to run portions of their campaigns with any competitor, and thus less likely that they will do so. That is a significant problem because most advertisers figure that they have to advertise first with Google. If it’s too expensive to port their advertising campaign data to competing advertising platforms, many won’t do it. Competing search engines are left with less relevant ads, and less revenue. And while this restraint isn’t visible to consumers, its effects are nonetheless felt across the Web. Advertising revenue is the economic propellant fueling the billions of dollars needed for ongoing search investments. By reducing competitors’ ability to attract advertising revenue, this restriction strikes at the heart of a competitive market.

Fifth, this undermining of competition is reflected in concerns that go beyond Google’s control over content. One of the ways that search engines attract users is through distribution of search boxes through Web sites. Unfortunately, Google contractually blocks leading Web sites in Europe from distributing competing search boxes. It is obviously difficult for competing search engines to gain users when nearly every search box is powered by Google. Google’s exclusivity terms have even blocked Microsoft from distributing its Windows Live services, such as email and online document storage, through European telecommunications companies because these services are monetized through Bing search boxes.

Finally, we share the concerns expressed by many others that Google discriminates against would-be competitors by making it more costly for them to attain prominent placement for their advertisements. Microsoft has provided the Commission with a considerable body of expert analysis concerning how search engine algorithms work and the competitive significance of promoting or demoting various advertisements.

Over the past year, a growing number of advertisers, publishers, and consumers have expressed to us their concerns about the search market in Europe. They’ve urged us to share our knowledge of the search market with competition officials. As they’ve pointed out, the stakes are high for the European economy. On any given day, more than half of all Europeans use the Internet, and more than 90 percent of them look for information about goods and services on the Web. Indeed, the European Commission’s Digital Agenda made clear that commerce is moving online, where two-thirds of Europeans begin their shopping process. It’s therefore critical that search engines and online advertising move forward in an open, fair and competitive manner.

There of course will be some who will point out the irony in today’s filing. Having spent more than a decade wearing the shoe on the other foot with the European Commission, the filing of a formal antitrust complaint is not something we take lightly. This is the first time Microsoft Corporation has ever taken this step. More so than most, we recognize the importance of ensuring that competition laws remain balanced and that technology innovation moves forward.

We readily appreciate that Google should continue to have the freedom to innovate. But it shouldn’t be permitted to pursue practices that restrict others from innovating and offering competitive alternatives. That’s what it’s doing now. And that’s what we hope European officials will assess and ultimately decide to stop.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Nokia to Apple: From Hell's Heart I Stab at Thee

John Paczkowski — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:55:29 +0000

Nokia’s obsession with Apple has officially crossed over into the Ahabian.

Aghast at the U.S. International Trade Commission’s ruling on its first complaint against Apple, Nokia has filed a second, accusing Apple of infringing its patents “in virtually all of its mobile phones, portable music players, tablets, and computers.”

At issue in the complaint are seven patents that Nokia argues “are now being used by Apple to create key features in its products in the areas of multi-tasking operating systems, data synchronization, positioning, call quality and the use of Bluetooth accessories.” Taken together with the IP cited in Nokia’s previous ITC complaint and related cases in the U.S., U.K., Germany and The Netherlands, the company has nearly four dozen patents in play in its suit against Apple.

“Our latest ITC filing means we now have 46 Nokia patents in suit against Apple, many filed more than 10 years before Apple made its first iPhone,” Paul Melin, Nokia’s VP of intellectual property said in a statement. “Nokia is a leading innovator in technologies needed to build great mobile products and Apple must stop building its products using Nokia’s proprietary innovation.”

Almost sounds like Nokia’s saying it invented the iPhone, doesn’t it? Which is ironic, considering the company is on the record professing its fondness for Apple’s handset.

Asked once about the striking similarities between a touchscreen device it was designing and the iPhone, Anssi Vanjoki, Nokia’s head of multimedia devices at the time, replied, “If there is something good in the world then we copy with pride.”

PREVIOUSLY:

Nokia Sues Apple

Did Nokia Sue Apple Before Apple Could Sue Nokia?

Nokia’s New Focus Is Mobile Services? Sure It’s Not Lawsuits Against Apple?

Apple Countersues Nokia for Copying iPhone (Plus Disputed Patents and Full Text of Counterclaim)

ITC Investigating Nokia Over Apple Patent Complaints and Vice Versa

Nokia Accuses Apple of “Legal Alchemy.” Stops Short of “Chymistry” and “Heresy.”

Apple Vs. Nokia: The Battle of Britain

Apple Vs. Nokia: The Battle of Britain II

ITC: Apple Did Not Infringe Nokia Patents

Apple Vs. Nokia: The Battle of Britain II

John Paczkowski — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:19:05 +0000

Another blow landed in the Apple-Nokia patent punch-up. Apple on Tuesday sued Nokia in the High Court in London seeking to invalidate one of the patents at issue between the companies. This particular one covers touchscreen scrolling and is one of a number of patents Nokia has accused Apple of infringing.

Nokia, for its part, doesn’t seem much worried by the action. “[We're] confident that all of the 37 patents [we have] asserted against Apple [are valid],” a spokesperson told Bloomberg. “We are examining the filing and will take whatever actions are needed to protect our rights.”

PREVIOUSLY:

Nokia Sues Apple

Did Nokia Sue Apple Before Apple Could Sue Nokia?

Nokia’s New Focus Is Mobile Services? Sure It’s Not Lawsuits Against Apple?

Apple Countersues Nokia for Copying iPhone (Plus Disputed Patents and Full Text of Counterclaim)

ITC Investigating Nokia Over Apple Patent Complaints and Vice Versa

Nokia Accuses Apple of “Legal Alchemy.” Stops Short of “Chymistry” and “Heresy.”

Apple Vs. Nokia: The Battle of Britain

Intel Will Pay Nvidia $1.5 Billion to "Maintain Patent Peace"

Arik Hesseldahl — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 21:36:57 +0000

Intel has agreed to pay Nvidia $1.5 billion to settle their long-simmering legal dispute that had been set to go before a Delaware Chancery Court in December.

Intel will pay Nvidia in five annual installments beginning Jan. 18, and in return will receive full access to Nvidia’s full range of patents, which had been part of the dispute. Nvidia will retain use of certain Intel patents that had also been in dispute.

“This agreement ends the legal dispute between the companies, preserves patent peace and provides protections that allow for continued freedom in product design,” said Doug Melamed, Intel senior vice president and general counsel, in a statement.

The fight had been over the terms of a 2004 agreement under which Intel granted Nvidia access to some of Intel’s technology for use in its chipsets, the chips that sit between the microprocessor and the graphics chip like connecting tissue. The cross-licensing agreement allowed Nvidia to make chipsets that were compatible with Intel microprocessors.

The trouble began in 2008, when Intel released its Nehalem generation of PC chips. The two companies disagreed over whether the 2004 agreement allowed Nvidia to make chipsets that would work with Nehalem chips and generations of chips that would follow. They filed dueling lawsuits in the Delaware Court of Chancery in early 2009. Intel asked a judge to rule that the agreement didn’t cover Nehalem and future generations of chips, while Nvidia sued for breach of contract, and sought to terminate Intel’s right to use some Nvidia patents that had been part of the agreement.

As I reported last December for Businessweek, the dispute caught the attention of the Federal Trade Commission, which added it to an antitrust complaint that was later settled.

The larger backdrop here is the growing threat Nvidia’s chips, known as graphics processing units (or GPUs), pose to Intel’s chips in servers and supercomputers. Engineers often refer to this as the CPU-GPU debate, where Intel’s chips are referred to as CPUs.

GPUs are common in most PCs, and usually handle the processing required to make games look good and run smoothly, working in concert with the CPU.

Since GPU chips do certain kind of math known as a floating point operation a lot faster than a CPU, they’re increasingly being used in systems that Intel has traditionally considered its primary domain: Heavy-duty financial modeling (oil and gas exploration is a good example). They’re also making a huge splash in the rarefied world of supercomputing: Nvidia GPU chips are being used in three of the top five systems on the elite Top 500 list of the world’s most powerful supercomputers. And as we all saw at CES last week, they’re starting to show up in tablet and other PC-like devices running Windows with the full support of Microsoft.

The dispute between them, which effectively put Nvidia out of the business of making chipsets that were compatible with Intel chips, certainly hurt. Though for Intel’s part, losing the Nvidia patents in question could have conceivably hurt its new Sandy Bridge chips, which combine a GPU and a CPU into one single component. Intel formally launched Sandy Bridge at CES last week.

And as recently as last week, sources familiar with the matter were saying that a new trial date was scheduled for February. Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang was careful not to directly answer a question about that from Mobilized’s Ina Fried in an interview at our D@CES event last week:

[ See post to watch video ]

Intel and Nvidia had mysteriously withdrawn the case from the court’s calendar days before opening arguments were set to get underway on Dec. 6. Bloomberg News then reported that settlement talks were underway, though by mid-December there were signs that those talks had stalled, and sources said that a new trial date had been agreed to. That was until today, when sources at both companies started to drop hints that news was imminent.

Seventh Person Arrested in Insider Trading Probe

Arik Hesseldahl — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 20:17:54 +0000

The FBI has arrested another person in the ongoing investigation into the sharing of insider information with investors by consultants working for so-called expert firms.

The latest to be arrested is Winifred Jiau, 43, of Fremont, Calif. Like others charged or arrested on Dec. 16, she has ties to Primary Global Research. She’s accused of providing inside information to Primary Global clients who were portfolio managers at hedge funds of Nvidia and Marvell Technology during a period from 2006 to 2008. Prosecutors say she collected $200,000 during that time. She’s facing charges of conspiracy and securities fraud.

In August of 2008, the complaint says, she provided managers of two hedge funds with detailed numbers for quarterly revenues, per-share earnings and gross margins for the quarter ending that month. The complaint says that in the conversations she made it clear she had obtained the information directly from an employee of Marvell. The funds in question–they were not named in the complaint–allegedly made $820,000 on trades from the information.

On Aug. 8, 2008, the complaint says, Jiau provided the hedge fund managers with an early look at Nvidia’s quarterly revenue and told them it planned to announce a stock buyback, which it did four days later.

I’ve embedded the complaint below.

Jiau, Winifred Complaint

Labor Board Backs Worker Who Criticized on Facebook

Melanie Trottman — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:00:50 +0000

The National Labor Relations Board is taking a stand on employees’ rights to post negative comments about supervisors on social networking sites, alleging that a company illegally fired a worker for criticizing her boss on Facebook. The agency disclosed the complaint last week against ambulance service American Medical Response of Connecticut Inc.

The NLRB, an independent federal agency that settles disputes between private-sector employers and employees, said the supervisor questioned the employee about a customer complaint on her work but that the employer illegally denied her representation from her union during the probe. The employee later posted the negative remark about the supervisor on her personal Facebook page from her home computer.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

BoomTown as Judge Judy, Um, Judge BigApps

Kara Swisher — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:37:04 +0000

With All Things Digital Global HQ located in the heart of the Castro in San Francisco, BoomTown tries hard not to judge–even that dude who likes to come into the Starbucks (SBUX) naked.

But I made an exception to be a judge for an innovative civic geek contest that New York City is doing for the second year called BigApps 2.0.

Get it? Big Apple…BigApps!

In any case, Mayor Michael Bloomberg is opening up a whole mess of government information–350 data sets from more than 40 agencies–and letting software developers have at it.

According to NYC:

“The City continues to open more data on the www.NYC.gov Data Mine as part of transparency initiative. The Data Mine was established for last year’s competition and, as part of the City’s efforts to promote transparency across agencies, all data will remain available for public use after the conclusion of the competition. Additional datasets will be made available throughout the year.”

Some of the new juicy data includes: CompStat data, buildings complaints and real-time traffic numbers.

The winners for the best apps created to help New York City citizens will get cash prizes totaling $20,000.

Last year, there were 84 apps, including a winner from Big Apple Ed, a guide to schools there.

The new winners will be announced in March of 2011, after fellow judges of mine–including Union Square Ventures’ Fred Wilson, Hunch CEO Chris Dixon and Betaworks CEO John Borthwick–decide who is the best.

And how much do you want to bet there will be a bed-bug app submitted this year?

Here’s the official press release from NYC:

MAYOR BLOOMBERG Launches NYC BIGAPPS 2.0 COMPETITION

More than 350 Datasets Provided by More than 40 City Agencies and Commissions, Doubling Last Year’s Availability

Competition Builds on Citywide Efforts to Increase Government Transparency and Provide Greater Public Access to City Data

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Deputy Mayor for Economic Development Robert K. Steel and Deputy Mayor for Operations Stephen Goldsmith today launched NYC BigApps 2.0, the second annual contest for software developers and members of the public to create web or mobile applications using City data. Building upon the success of the inaugural NYC BigApps Competition launched in October 2009, the City has roughly doubled the number of datasets available, bringing the total to more than 350. These datasets provide developers and programmers with additional material, including public safety data, buildings complaints, and real-time traffic numbers from which to create new digital applications. Last year’s winning applications are today helping New Yorkers find mass transit routes, review public school information and gather an array of information based on their current location. This year’s winning applications will receive cash prizes totaling $20,000. Deputy Mayor Steel will detail the program this evening at NY Tech Meetup, a monthly meeting of tech entrepreneurs where companies and developers demonstrate new technologies. Deputy Mayor Steel will be joined at the announcement by New York City Economic Development Corporation President Seth W. Pinsky, Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications Commissioner Carole Post and Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment Commissioner Katherine Oliver.

“NYC BigApps combines two of our Administration’s important priorities: making civic information more readily available to New Yorkers and promoting innovation and entrepreneurship in New York City,” said Mayor Bloomberg. “The inaugural NYC BigApps competition yielded an array of creative uses for City data, and–with nearly twice as much data formatted for application use this year–there are even more possibilities with version 2.0.”

“The most important thing that the public sector can do to help create jobs through technology innovation is to provide our talented entrepreneurs with the tools to create new products,” said Deputy Mayor Steel. “The BigApps competition does this by providing open access to City Data. Through the competition, we encourage the development of applications that can then be commercialized, spurring job growth and economic development in New York City.”

“NYC BigApps is redefining the relationship between City agencies and enterprising citizens, all while delivering value to the public,” said Deputy Mayor Goldsmith. “Last year, NYC BigApps contestants came up with innovative applications that would have never been created in the normal course of business. There is more data available for use in this year’s competition, so the potential for new and innovative tools that can benefit New Yorkers is even greater.”

“Last year’s Big Apps competition was an enormously successful way to achieve multiple goals: supporting the City’s important technology sector, giving entrepreneurs opportunities to create new products, and increasing the accessibility and transparency of City government,” said New York City Economic Development Corporation President Pinsky. “This year’s expanded contest promises to promote even more innovation and creative thinking among the vibrant and growing tech community in New York. We look forward to seeing the results of their efforts.”

“NYC BigApps, and the DataMine site that supports it, sits at the heart of the City’s open data efforts,” said Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications Commissioner Post. “This effort complements the many other ways we’ve worked to bring technology to life for New Yorkers, including 311 Online and the 311 iPhone app. Beyond today’s competition, we’ll continue enhancing the functionality of DataMine and expanding the amount of data available there for use across the City and around the globe.”

“At the Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment, we’re exploring new ways to share information about City resources and services across multiple platforms,” said Commissioner Oliver. “Already we’ve reached new audiences through QR codes on the Staten Island Ferry and on the sides of sanitation trucks, and we’re making the content of our online Video On Demand player available on various mobile devices. The NYC BigApps Competition is the perfect opportunity to further communication between the government and the public.”

The NYC BigApps Competition is open to individuals, and companies and non-profit organizations with fewer than 50 employees. More than 160 datasets have been added to the 190 compiled for the inaugural competition. New York City Economic Development Corporation and the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications coordinated with over 40 City agencies and commissions to provide the datasets, with 15 new City agencies, including the Department of Environmental Protection, the School Construction Authority and the Campaign Finance Board, participating in Data Mine for the first time. New data on public safety, the City budget, complaints to the Department of Buildings, and real-time traffic information will all be available for download today at www.nyc.gov/data .

The Data Mine was established for last year’s competition and, as part of the City’s efforts to promote transparency across agencies, all data will remain available for public use after the conclusion of the competition. Additional datasets will be made available throughout the year. Information and updates on the NYC BigApps competition, as well as official rules, can be accessed at the competition website: www.NYCBigApps.com .

Fourteen winners will be chosen in total, including two new prizes–best application created by a high school, college or full-time graduate school student; and a Large Organization Recognition Award for organizations with 50 or more employees, which will not eligible for a cash prize. A panel of judges from the technology and venture capital community will select winners for Best Overall Application (Grand Prize, Second Prize, Third Prize and five honorable mentions), Investor’s Choice Application, City Talent Award, Student Award, and the Large Organization Recognition Award. Two Popular Choice Application awards will be determined by public voting. Judging criteria will include the benefit to residents, visitors and City government; the quality and implementation of the idea; and potential commercial value.

All submissions are due on January 12, 2011. The Popular Choice Application winners will be selected by public vote through www.NYCBigApps.com between January 26 and February 26. Winners will be selected and announced at an awards ceremony to be held in March.

Last year’s winners included: WayFinder NYC–an application that allows users to find the nearest and best directions to New York City subway and New Jersey PATH stations; Taxihack–an application that allows users to post live comments on New York City taxis and their drivers via email (alert@taxihack.com) or Twitter (@taxihack); Big Apple Ed–an education application that provide residents with an easy-to-use guide to schools in the City, including school searches, top ten lists , analyses , comparison charts , and detailed school profiles ; and NYC Way–an iPhone application that bundles more than 30 New York City resources and provides information sorted by the user’s current location. The developer of NYC Way, MyCityWay, received the first investment by the NYC Entrepreneurial Fund, a $22 million seed and early-stage investment fund established by the City and managed by FirstMark Capital.

The judging panel is comprised of: Dawn Barber, Founder, Tech Meetup; John Borthwick, CEO, Betaworks; Chris Dixon, CEO & Co-founder, Hunch; Esther Dyson, Chairman, Edventure; Stuart Ellman, Co-Founder & General Partner, RRE Ventures; Lawrence Lenihan, Founder, CEO and Managing Director, FirstMark Capital; Danny Schultz, Co-founder & Managing Director, Draper Fisher Jurvetson Gotham Ventures; Naveen Selvadurai, Co-founder, Foursquare; Kara Swisher, Co-Executive Editor, AllThingsD.com; and Union Square Ventures Partner Fred Wilson.

“We are thrilled to be powering the second NYC BigApps competition, with significantly more data made available for software developers and the general public,” said ChallengePost Founder and CEO Brandon Kessler. “We were wowed by the creativity of the apps in the first competition, and we look forward to giving new entrants the great exposure they deserve.”

“New York is home to some of the world’s best developers,” said Foursquare Co-founder Naveen Selvadurai. “It is great to see the City rewarding this talent and taking advantage of it to increase transparency and make the wealth of information on NYC.gov more easily accessible.”

Motorola Sues Apple Over…Everything

Peter Kafka — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:12:17 +0000

Motorola has filed a patent complaint against Apple that covers…a lot.

In Motorola’s (MOT) words, the 18 patents in question concern “key technology areas found on many of Apple’s core products and associated services, including MobileMe and the App Store. The Motorola patents include wireless communication technologies, such as WCDMA (3G), GPRS, 802.11 and antenna design, and key smartphone technologies including wireless email, proximity sensing, software application management, location-based services and multi-device synchronization.”

They don’t seem to be upset about Ping, though.

We’ve asked Apple (AAPL) for a response. Here’s Motorola’s release:

LIBERTYVILLE, Ill., Oct. 6 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — Motorola, Inc. (NYSE: MOT) today announced that it’s subsidiary, Motorola Mobility, Inc., has filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging that Apple’s iPhone, iPad, iTouch and certain Mac computers infringe Motorola patents. Motorola Mobility also filed patent infringement complaints against Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) in the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District of Florida.

Overall, Motorola Mobility’s three complaints include 18 patents, which relate to early-stage innovations developed by Motorola in key technology areas found on many of Apple’s core products and associated services, including MobileMe and the App Store. The Motorola patents include wireless communication technologies, such as WCDMA (3G), GPRS, 802.11 and antenna design, and key smartphone technologies including wireless email, proximity sensing, software application management, location-based services and multi-device synchronization.

Motorola Mobility has requested that the ITC commence an investigation into Apple’s use of Motorola’s patents and, among other things, issue an Exclusion Order barring Apple’s importation of infringing products, prohibiting further sales of infringing products that have already been imported, and halting the marketing, advertising, demonstration and warehousing of inventory for distribution and use of such imported products in the United States. In the District Court actions, Motorola Mobility has requested that Apple cease using Motorola’s patented technology and provide compensation for Apple’s past infringement.

Kirk Dailey, corporate vice president of intellectual property at Motorola Mobility, said, “Motorola has innovated and patented throughout every cycle of the telecommunications industry evolution, from Motorola’s invention of the cell phone to its development of premier smartphone products. We have extensively licensed our industry-leading intellectual property portfolio, consisting of tens of thousands of patents in the U.S. and worldwide. After Apple’s late entry into the telecommunications market, we engaged in lengthy negotiations, but Apple has refused to take a license. We had no choice but to file these complaints to halt Apple’s continued infringement. Motorola will continue to take all necessary steps to protect its R&D and intellectual property, which are critical to the company’s business.”

Google Asks Court to Toss Oracle's Android Lawsuit

John Paczkowski — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:50:45 +0000

Silicon Valley’s latest Goliath versus Goliath battle is officially on.

Google today responded to Oracle’s (ORCL) claims that its Android OS infringes copyrights and patents related to Java, which Oracle acquired as part of its purchase of Sun Microsystems earlier this year. This morning, the search sovereign filed an answer to Oracle’s suit, denying all seven of its patent-infringement charges, and asking that the company’s copyright-infringement claim be dismissed because Google (GOOG) feels it is “legally deficient.”

And, interestingly, the answer calls Oracle out as a hypocrite–a company that pushed for a fully open Java platform when the OS was owned by Sun, only to blatantly ignore the open source community’s requests to fully open source it after its acquisition of Sun closed.

“It’s disappointing that after years of supporting open source, Oracle turned around to attack not just Android, but the entire open source Java community with vague software patent claims,” the company said in a statement. “Open platforms like Android are essential to innovation, and we will continue to support the open source community to make the mobile experience better for consumers and developers alike.”

Google’s prayer for relief makes that disappointment quite clear. In it, the company asks not only for a judgment dismissing Oracle’s complaint against it with prejudice, but also for a judgment in favor of Google on all of its counterclaims; a declaration that Google has not infringed, contributed to the infringement of, or induced others to infringe, either directly or indirectly, any valid and enforceable claims of the Patents-in-Suit; a declaration that the Patents-in-Suit are invalid; a declaration that Oracle’s claims are barred by the doctrines of laches, equitable estoppel, and/or waiver; a declaration that the Oracle’s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands; a declaration that this case is exceptional and an award to Google of its reasonable costs and expenses of litigation, including attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees; and such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

Here are three of the more pointed graphs from the answer, followed by a copy of the document in its entirety.

7. Sun came under significant criticism from members of the open source community, including Oracle Corp., for its refusal to fully open source Java. For example, in August of 2006, the Apache Software Foundation (“ASF”), a not-for-profit corporation that provides organizational, legal, and financial support for open source software projects, attempted to obtain a TCK from Sun to verify Apache Harmony’s compatibility with Java. Although Sun eventually offered to open source the TCK for Java SE, Sun included field of use (“FOU”) restrictions that limited the circumstances under which Apache Harmony users could use the software that the ASF created, such as preventing the TCK from being executed on mobile devices. In April of 2007, the ASF wrote an open letter to Sun asking for either a TCK license without FOU restrictions, or an explanation as to why Sun was “protect[ing] portions of Sun’s commercial Java business at the expense of ASF’s open software” and violating “Sun’s public promise that any Sun-led specification [such as Java] would be fully implementable and distributable as open source/free software.” However, Sun continued to refuse the ASF’s requests.

8. Oracle Corp., as a member of the Executive Committee (“EC”) of the Java Community Process (“JCP”), the organization tasked with managing Java standards, voiced the same concerns regarding Sun’s refusal to fully open source the Java platform. Later that year, in December of 2007, during a JCP EC meeting, Oracle Corp. proposed that the JCP should provide “a new, simplified IPR [intellectual property rights] Policy that permits the broadest number of implementations.” At that same meeting, BEA Systems – which at the time was in negotiations that resulted in Oracle Corp. purchasing BEA – proposed a resolution that TCK licenses would be “offered without field of use restrictions . . . enabling the TCK to be used by organizations including Apache.” Oracle Corp. voted in favor of the resolution.

9. Just over a year later, in February of 2009, Oracle Corp. reiterated its position on the open-source community’s expectation of a fully open Java platform when it supported a motion that “TCK licenses must not be used to discriminate against or restrict compatible implementations of Java specifications by including field of use restrictions on the tested implementations or otherwise. Licenses containing such limitations do not meet the requirements of the JSPA, the agreement under which the JCP operates, and violate the expectations of the Java community that JCP specs can be openly implemented.”

UPDATE: Oracle has issued this statement on Google’s answer.

“In developing Android, Google chose to use Java code without obtaining a license. Additionally, it modified the technology so it is not compliant with Java’s central design principle to ‘write once and run anywhere.’ Google’s infringement and fragmentation of Java code not only damages Oracle, it clearly harms consumers, developers and device manufacturers.”

UPDATE: Engadget’s Nilay Patel has a good analysis of Google’s strategy, here — as well as some potential holes in it.

2010.10.04 – Google Answer and Counterclaims _filed_ –

Love, Larry: Here Is the Oracle Statement and Final Complaint Versus Google

Kara Swisher — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 01:46:51 +0000

For those who love to get legal, here is Oracle’s complaint against Google, as well as the full statement, in its fight over intellectual property.

This afternoon, the database software giant said it was suing Google (GOOG), alleging patent and copyright infringement of Java-related intellectual property in the development of Android mobile operating system software.

Java is a software programming language and platform created by Sun Microsystems, which Oracle (ORCL) bought this year.

A Google PR person said the Silicon Valley search giant hadn’t been served, so it declined comment on the complaint until it had a chance to review it.

The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Enjoy (if you’re not Google. that is!):

FINAL Complaint

Google Complaint

New Silicon Valley Battle Royale: Oracle Sues Google

Kara Swisher — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:59:11 +0000

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison–fresh from slapping around Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) for ousting CEO Mark Hurd–is aiming his company’s legal guns at another powerhouse.

This afternoon, the database software giant said it was suing Google, alleging patent and copyright infringement of intellectual property related to Java in the development of Android mobile operating system software.

Java is a software programming language and platform created by Sun Microsystems, which Oracle (ORCL) bought this year.

“Sun is now Oracle America and continues to hold all of Sun’s interest, rights, and title to the patents and copyrights at issue in this litigation,” said Oracle in its complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Ironically, before he headed the Silicon Valley search giant, Google (GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt was a key exec at Sun back in the day, guiding the development of Java and actually leading its efforts.

In a short press release, Oracle alleged Google “knowingly, directly and repeatedly infringed Oracle’s Java-related intellectual property.”

A Google PR person said the company hadn’t been served, so it declined comment on the complaint until it had a chance to review it.

You can read that complaint here, as well as the actual Oracle statement.

Nokia's New Focus Is Mobile Services? Sure It's Not Lawsuits Against Apple?

John Paczkowski — Fri, 07 May 2010 15:42:06 +0000

Nokia might not be able mount a reasonable challenge to Apple in the smartphone market, but it can certainly mount one in court. The company escalated its legal battle with the iPhone maker this morning, lodging a fourth patent-infringement complaint against it.

Filed in Federal District Court in the Western District of Wisconsin, the suit alleges that Apple’s (AAPL) iPhone and iPad 3G infringe on five Nokia (NOK) patents related to enhanced speech and data transmission, the use of positioning data in applications, and innovations in antenna configurations.

“Nokia has been the leading developer of many key technologies in mobile devices,” said Paul Melin, general manager, Patent Licensing at Nokia. “We have taken this step to protect the results of our pioneering development and to put an end to continued unlawful use of Nokia’s innovation.”

Nokia first sued Apple in October 2009, claiming the iPhone violated 10 of its patents covering various wireless data, speech coding, security and encryption technologies.

Then, in December, Nokia filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission alleging that Apple infringes its patents “in virtually all of its mobile phones, portable music players and computers.”

Shortly thereafter, the company sued Apple in U.S. District Court in Delaware, making similar allegations.

Apple declined comment, but counterclaims Apple filed against Nokia last December offer a bit of insight into what its thinking on the matter might be.

In 2007, Apple introduced the iPhone a ground-breaking device that allowed users access to the functionality of the already popular iPod on a revolutionary mobile phone and Internet device. The iPhone is a converged device that allows users to access and ever expanding set of software features to take and send pictures, play music, play games do research, serve as a GPS device and much more….The iPhone platform has caused a revolutionary change in the mobile phone category.

In contrast, Nokia made a different business decision and remained focused on traditional mobile wireless handsets with conventional user interfaces. As a result, Nokia has rapidly lost share in the market for high-end mobile phones. Nokia has admitted that, as a result of the iPhone launch, “the market changed suddenly and [Nokia was] not fast enough changing with it.

In response, Nokia chose to copy the iPhone, especially its enormously popular and patented design and user interface….

As Anssi Vanjoki, Nokia’s executive Vice President and General Manager of Multimedia, stated at Nokia’s GoPlay event in 2007 when asked about the similarities of Nokia’s new offerings to the already released iPhone: “[i]f there is something good in the world, we copy with pride.” True to this quote, Nokia has demonstrated its willingness to copy Apple’s iPhone ideas as well as Apple’s basic computing technologies, all while demanding Apple pay for access to Nokia’s purported standards essential patent. Apple seeks redress for this behavior.

Five dollars and a dusty old Nokia 1100 says this thing settles out of court.

VirnetX Sues Microsoft a Second Time

John Paczkowski — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:10:49 +0000

Now that a Texas jury has found that Windows Vista, Windows XP and Office Communicator infringed its patents, VirnetX Holding has set out to prove that a few other Microsoft products do as well.

Two days after winning a $105.75 million jury verdict against the software giant, VirnetX has filed a new complaint claiming Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 infringe those patents as well. Those products hadn’t yet been released when VirnetX first went after Microsoft, so the company is now circling back, hoping to collect damages for their alleged infringement.

“This is a tactical and procedural post-trial action to ensure and protect our property rights as we proceed to final resolution with Microsoft,” Kendall Larsen, VirnetX president and CEO, wrote in a March 18 statement.

Microsoft (MSFT) has vowed to appeal the first verdict, which it described as “legally and factually unsupported,” and took a similarly dim view of the latest VirnetX assault. “Microsoft respects intellectual property, and we believe our products do not infringe the patents involved,” Microsoft flack Kevin Kutz told the Seattle Post Intelligencer. “Moreover, we believe those patents are invalid. We will challenge VirnetX’s claims.”

To that end, the company has petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to re-examine the VirnetX patents, evidently with some success. In a preliminary review, the USPTO has found all but one of the VirnetX claims invalid. This doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll be rejected, but for Microsoft, it’s a step in the right direction.

Why HTC, Apple? And Why Now?

John Paczkowski — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:17:26 +0000

With Apple’s lawsuit against HTC this morning, the company has clearly brought out the big guns against the parade of iPhone doppelgängers that have hit the mobile market since the device’s debut. Though Apple has traded intellectual property suits with rivals in the past–Nokia (NOK), for example–this is the first time it has really gone on the offensive against a rival.

Why?

Though Apple (AAPL) asks for triple damages and maximum interest in the complaint, its motivation here clearly isn’t financial. Apple could not care less about the money; it is sitting on $40 billion or so in cash and investments, and its business is doing quite well.

No, this isn’t about money. Apple is not suing in hopes of scoring some huge financial windfall–although obviously, it would happily take one if it is awarded. Apple is suing to make an example out of HTC and lengthen the engineering time-to-market for Android handset builders.

If you plan to launch a new Android smartphone now, you had better make damn sure it doesn’t infringe on Apple’s IP. And doing so is going to take time, more so if you find you need to develop a noninfringing technology to replace a potentially infringing one in your device. Meanwhile, Apple continues to iterate the iPhone, extending its growing lead in the market.

“Apple is sending a message to the industry here: be careful what you’re doing,” Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster told me this morning. “And that’s significant, because the company has been rattling its sabre for a year-and-a-half now over iPhone-related IP infringement, and this is the first time it’s really taken an offensive position on it.”

Why now?

That’s tough to say. As Munster notes, Apple has been threatening to do something like this for quite some time now. And given the number of surprisingly iPhone-like smartphones on the market today, one could argue that the move is long overdue. Perhaps, Google’s recently launched and HTC-built Nexus One–really the first smartphone to rival the iPhone–was enough to force Apple’s hand. Better to slow the Android market down now than to wait for Google to run away with it.

And finally, why HTC?

Why not, say, Palm (PALM), which seemed a prime target for a suit like this a year ago? The answer to that question is a bit more obvious. HTC is a bigger target and an easier one. By filing a scorch-the-earth suit like this against HTC, which manufactures a great number of Android and Windows Mobile devices, Apple is putting the entire industry on notice.

And unlike Palm, which has a robust patent portfolio in the mobile space, HTC is an original design manufacturer that may not have the IP wherewithal to easily fend off a suit of this kind. “Yes, HTC is a significant player in the industry, but it’s a contract manufacturer,” says RBC analyst Mike Abramsky. “I’m not sure it has a big enough patent base with which to defend itself. It’s more vulnerable.”

Further Reading:

Apple Sues Nexus One Maker HTC Over iPhone Patents

Apple Sues HTC [Complete Court Filings]

Apple vs. Google: Game On

ITC Investigating Nokia Over Apple Patent Complaints and Vice Versa

John Paczkowski — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:42:04 +0000

The U.S. International Trade Commission, which in December launched an investigation against Apple at Nokia’s behest, has now agreed to launch a separate investigation against Nokia at Apple’s behest.

Requested after Nokia accused Apple of unfairly benefiting from its wireless technology, the investigation will seek to determine whether the Finnish cellphone giant has violated 13 Apple patents and tried to copy the iPhone to maintain its status in the industry. As with Nokia’s complaint against Apple, the stakes here are quite high: A ban on importation of the products found to contain infringing technology.

News of the ITC action, which is to be completed in 45 days, comes as Apple (AAPL) steps up its legal campaign against Nokia (NOK). Last Friday, the company lobbed another court filing at Nokia, this one accusing it of antitrust violations.

Nokia, says Apple, misled industry standard-setting groups into including its patented technologies in things like Wi-Fi and then charged excessive royalty fees to license them. Apple’s position: If Nokia holds patents on technologies built into relevant standards, it has the power to raise their price and thereby exclude competition. And that’s exactly what the company did–according to Apple, anyway.

“Having suffered losses in the marketplace, Nokia has resorted to demanding exorbitant royalties from Apple for patents that Nokia claims are essential to various compatibility standards….” Apple said in the filing. “Throughout the negotiation process, Nokia blatantly attempted to circumvent its contractual obligation to offer non-discriminatory licensing terms to Apple.”

The complaint continues: “While Nokia said it was offering Apple its ‘standard’ royalty terms, Nokia repeated[ly] refused Apple’s request to substantiate that naked representation. Nokia refused to provide any information about what other licensees were for the same standards-essential patent rights and, indeed, demanded that any licensing terms between Nokia and Apple should shrouded in secrecy. Thus, despite its obligation to offer Apple non-discriminatory license terms, Nokia effectively denied Apple that opportunity.”

Apple’s legal counsel certainly seems to be earning its retainer this year.

EPIC FAIL: Electronic Privacy Information Center Files FTC Complaint Over Google Buzz

John Paczkowski — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:25:50 +0000

While well-intentioned, Google’s “sorry, we didn’t get everything quite right” apology hasn’t absolved the company of the bungled launch of Buzz, its new social networking service and its foolish decision to transform our private Gmail address books into public social networks. On Tuesday afternoon, the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission claiming Buzz violates federal consumer protection law.

“EPIC urges the Commission to investigate Google, determine the extent of the harm to consumer privacy and safety,” EPIC said in its complaint. “[And it asks that the Commission] require Google to provide Gmail users with opt-in consent to the Google Buzz service, require Google to give Gmail users meaningful control over personal information, require Google to provide notice to and request consent from Gmail users before making material changes to their privacy policy in the future, and seek appropriate injunctive and compensatory relief.”

Another embarrassing blow for Google (GOOG), which has spent the better part of a week being pilloried for its unfortunate misstep. Responding to EPIC’s complaint, Google again stressed its efforts to improve Buzz and, somewhat ironically, thanked the group for airing its concerns.

“We designed Buzz to make it easy for users to connect with other people and have conversations about the things that interest them,” the company said. “Buzz was launched only a week ago. We’ve already made a few changes based on user feedback, and we have more improvements in the works. We look forward to hearing more suggestions and will continue to improve the Buzz experience with user transparency and control top of mind. We also welcome dialogue with EPIC and appreciate hearing directly from them about their concerns. Our door is always open to organizations with suggestions about our products and services.”

Evidently, Buzz is a work in progress to which all are free to contribute–even if they do so in the form of an FTC complaint.

Motorola Asks ITC for BlackBerry Block

John Paczkowski — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:42:01 +0000

The mobile handset market is quite the hotbed for litigation these days, isn’t it? Nokia sues Apple, accusing the company of hitching a “free-ride” on its intellectual property; Apple (AAPL) countersues Nokia (NOK), claiming it essentially copied the iPhone; and now Motorola is joining in the fun.

On Friday, Motorola filed a complaint against Research In Motion with the U.S. International Trade Commission, claiming the BlackBerry maker has infringed five of its patents related to Wi-Fi access, user interface and power and application management.

“These patented technologies are important to Motorola as they allow for more comprehensive connectivity, a better user experience and lower product costs,” Motorola (MOT) said in its complaint that requests an exclusion order to stop RIM (RIMM) from importing any BlackBerry device found to infringe its patents and from selling or marketing such devices if they have already been imported.

“Through its early-stage development of the cellular industry and billions of dollars spent on research and development, Motorola has created an industry-leading intellectual property portfolio that is respected by the entire telecommunications industry,” Jonathan Meyer, senior VP of intellectual property law at Motorola said in a statement.

“In light of RIM’s continued unlicensed use of Motorola’s patents, RIM’s use of delay tactics in our current patent litigation, and RIM’s refusal to design out Motorola’s proprietary technology,” Meyer added, “Motorola had no choice but to file a complaint with the ITC to halt RIM’s continued infringement.”

RIM has not yet commented on Motorola’s charges.

Feds to Facebook Privacy Critics: Let's Talk

Peter Kafka — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:27:07 +0000

Meaningful? Or meaningless? You make the call: The Federal Trade Commission has told the group that filed a grievance about Facebook’s recent privacy changes that its “complaint raises issues of particular interest at this time.”

And that means? Hard to say.

In a letter (pdf) to the Electronic Privacy Information Center, David Vladeck, the FTC’s director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, says his agency would be happy to talk to EPIC about its concerns. But that’s about all he’s promising for now.

Just as important, Vladeck points out that he can’t and won’t say whether the FTC is formally investigating EPIC’s complaint: “Please be advised, however, that any Commission investigation is non-public until the Commission decides to issue a formal complaint or investigation. As a result, we can neither confirm nor deny that we are conducting an investigation of the issues raised by your complaint.”

So there you go. Either the Feds are taking this very seriously or they’re not.

As I’ve said before, Facebook may face some regulatory blowback for its privacy overhaul–otherwise known as the “please share as much of yourself as you can” campaign–in the U.S., and more likely, in Europe. But unless the social networking service starts hearing from advertisers, I’m not sure how much farther this goes.

Is That a Real New York Times App or a Fake? Apple Doesn't Want to Know.

Peter Kafka — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:30:13 +0000

Has the New York Times finally started charging people to read its news online? Not yet.

But it sure looks like the Times is charging online readers if you visit Apple’s iTunes Store, which is selling two different New York Times (NYT) iPhone apps at 99 cents a pop.

The Times has nothing to do with either app, both of which are called the “New York Times Mobile Reader.” And both are supposed to do the same thing: Spit out the paper, along with other Web content like podcasts, in iPhone-friendly form.

You’d think the Times would want Apple (AAPL) to remove the miniprograms, if only to protect the value of the paper’s own app, which is both free and very good.

When I pointed out the apps to a Times spokeswoman on Tuesday, she asked around and later confirmed that the two apps “are not authorized and our legal department is looking into the matter.” But as of Thursday morning, the apps are still there, ranked No. 14 and No. 18 on Apple’s list of top paid news apps.

As Josh Quittner notes, hijacking publishers’ names and content and turning them into paid apps isn’t uncommon at iTunes. I count at least eight such offerings among the top paid news apps at the online store.

But it shouldn’t be that hard for Apple to put the kibosh on this stuff. For instance: It ought to be fairly obvious that developer Chad Rivoli, who has produced one of the “New York Times” apps–along with ones that boast brands like CNET, Fox News, the BBC and the Drudge Report–is not authorized to do so.

But Apple’s approach to this is weirdly passive. Here’s the statement I got from Apple PR’s Trudy Muller yesterday:

As an IP holder ourselves, we understand the importance to developers of protecting their IP. We have a process in the App Store for developers to alert us to possible IP infringement. When we’re notified, our policy includes the removal of the infringing app until a resolution is reached between the parties.

If this approach sounds familiar, it’s because it’s a lot like the one Google (GOOG) takes toward YouTube copyright complaints: Put it up, then take it down if someone complains.

In Google’s case, the company claims it has no idea what people are uploading to YouTube–anyone can throw anything up there. And that approach may well be protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (we’ll see). But Apple knows exactly what it’s selling via iTunes because it approves every new app individually.

Maybe the Times isn’t hell-bent on griping to Apple because it has other priorities, like working with Apple on something for the upcoming wondertablet. And maybe every other publisher whose stuff is getting repurposed for profit doesn’t want to bother Apple either. Hard to believe there is really big money being made here, after all.

All I know is that this situation wouldn’t last long at all on the regular Internet: Good luck starting a “New York Times” Web site and charging people to visit–or even just linking to the paper while using its iconic “T.”

What’s different about iTunes?

UPDATE: At least two other publishers are aware, and unhappy, about unauthorized apps. CNET tells AdAge that it has asked at least one of the developers using its stuff to take it down, apparently without success.

And Fox News says it complained directly to Apple in December, says MediaWeek. In that case, though, it seems to had at least some effect: “Mobile News Pro — Fair & Balanced” is still available in the app store, and still aggregates Fox News content, including radio feeds. But the app’s description does note that it has “removed FOX wording per FOX request.”

Nokia: Most of Apple Product Line Infringes Our Patents

John Paczkowski — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:59:38 +0000

Oh, it’s really on now.

Nokia today upped the ante in its ongoing patent dispute with Apple, filing a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission in which it claims that Apple infringes its patents “in virtually all of its mobile phones, portable music players and computers.”

According to the Finnish cellphone maker, Apple (AAPL) is illegally leveraging seven Nokia (NOK) patents related to user-interface design and camera, antenna and power-management technologies to “create key features” in its products.

“Nokia has been the leading developer of many key technologies in small electronic devices,” said Paul Melin, general manager of patent licensing at Nokia. “This action is about protecting the results of such pioneering development….The ITC case filed today is about Apple’s practice of building its business on Nokia’s proprietary innovation.”

Nokia’s ITC complaint escalates a nasty legal battle that began in October when it sued Apple, claiming the company’s iPhone infringed 10 of its patents. Apple subsequently countersued, alleging Nokia copied the iPhone and 13 of the patented technologies on which it is based.

I’ve asked Apple for comment and will update here if the company responds.

Next Step in the Facebook Privacy Blowback: The FTC Complaint. The Real Question: Will Advertisers Care?

Peter Kafka — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:03:24 +0000

The clamor about Facebook’s changes to its privacy policy–the ones whereby the social network encourages its users to abandon their privacy–is getting louder.

Today, a coalition of privacy groups, led by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission asking the regulators to force Facebook to turn on its old settings. The complaint, and Facebook’s response, are at the bottom of this post.

I have no idea if the Feds will end up getting Facebook to do anything. But the privacy groups can still accomplish a lot without injunctive relief.

“What we’re going to do is drag Facebook into the halls of the FTC, and have them examine all of their policies,” says Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, one of the groups backing the complaint.

That could certainly slow down the company. So could inquiries from European governments, which have become more inclined to regulate American technology outfits. Just ask Microsoft (MSFT).

The real concern for Facebook is if the private sector starts complaining. Recall that Facebook only reversed course on its ill-fated Beacon project two years ago after advertisers started questioning the program, which was designed to share your shopping and branding choices with your pals.

Since that debacle, marketers seem to have gotten comfortable with Facebook, and Mark Zuckerberg has a real ad business now. And I’ve yet to hear a peep from big brands with second thoughts. But if the privacy blowback gets big enough, that could change.

Again, I don’t think the proposition that Facebook is offering its users–the opportunity to share every detail about their online lives with anyone with a browser–is an inherently bad one. There are lots of people who are comfortable with the notion.

The problem is that Facebook has switched course midstream. It started off as a site that limited users’ information to the outside world and now wants to invert that. But the switch has been badly explained, done in such a way that many users don’t understand what happened.

Facebook says this criticism is overblown and that lots of people do understand the switch. Spokesman Barry Schnitt says at least half of Facebook’s users have made changes to their privacy settings since the new rules went into place. Which means, he argues, that at least half of its users understand them.

Entirely possible. But Facebook now has up to 350 million users. Which means that tens of millions of users could be unaware of what’s going on. And they’ll only find out when their party pictures or baby videos or whatever turn up on Google (GOOG).

Facebook could easily solve this by clearly explaining that its “Share With Everyone” option really does mean everyone and–crucially–making it an opt-in proposition. But then adoption rates would shrivel, and the company wouldn’t be able to pull off its goal: Making as much of the site as public as possible.

This one isn’t going away anytime soon.

EPIC’s complaint, followed below by Facebook’s response:

EPIC-FacebookComplaint –

Facebook’s response:

We’ve had productive discussions with dozens of organizations around the world about the recent changes and we’re disappointed that EPIC has chosen to share their concerns with the FTC while refusing to talk to us about them.

Facebook’s plan to provide users control over their privacy and how they share content is unprecedented in the Internet age. We have gone to great lengths to inform users about our platform changes, beginning with our July announcement; founder Mark Zuckerberg’s open letter to our 350 million users; our robust press and analyst outreach; the notice-and-comment framework for our new privacy policy; and simple customization tools for users.

We’re pleased that so many users have already gone through the process of reviewing and updating their privacy settings and are impressed that so many have chosen to customize their settings, demonstrating the effectiveness of Facebook’s user empowerment and transparency efforts. Of course, the new tools offer users the opportunity to decide on privacy with every photo, link or status update they wish to post, so the process of personalizing privacy on Facebook will continue.

We discussed the privacy program with many regulators, including the FTC, prior to launch and expect to continue to work with them in the future.

FTC Sues Intel (Plus Full Text of Complaint)

John Paczkowski — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:21:52 +0000

It’s going to be a long, cold winter for Intel legal.

The Federal Trade Commission filed suit against Intel (INTC) this morning, accusing the company of waging “a systematic campaign to shut out rivals’ competing microchips by cutting off their access to the marketplace.”

In its complaint (full text below), the FTC claims Intel used threats and bundled prices or other offers to encourage exclusive deals, hamper competition or unfairly manipulate the chip market.

The agency also alleges that Intel secretly redesigned certain compiler software in a way that deliberately stunted the performance of competitors’ chips. Intel then claimed the software performed better on its chips than on those of competitors, neglecting to disclose that performance differences were due largely to its compiler design.

“Intel has engaged in a deliberate campaign to hamstring competitive threats to its monopoly,” said Richard A. Feinstein, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “It’s been running roughshod over the principles of fair play and the laws protecting competition on the merits. The Commission’s action today seeks to remedy the damage that Intel has done to competition, innovation, and, ultimately, the American consumer.”

Significantly, the FTC complaint also takes issue with Intel’s behavior in graphics, accusing the chip maker of attempting to extend its monopoly to graphics processing units, which have become an increasingly important part of the PC industry.

“Having succeeded in slowing adoption of competing CPU chips over the past decade until it could catch up to competitors like Advanced Micro Devices, Intel allegedly once again finds itself falling behind the competition–this time in the critical market for graphics processing units, commonly known as GPUs, as well as some other related markets,” the FTC claims. “These products have lessened the need for CPUs, and therefore pose a threat to Intel’s monopoly power.”

The FTC charges that Intel has responded to this competitive challenge by embarking on a similar anticompetitive strategy, which aims to preserve its CPU monopoly by smothering potential competition from GPU chips such as those made by Nvidia. As part of this latest campaign, Intel misled and deceived potential competitors in order to protect its monopoly, the complaint alleges, adding that there is a dangerous probability that Intel’s unfair methods of competition could allow it to extend its monopoly into the GPU chip markets.

The FTC is seeking an order that would prevent Intel from using threats, bundled prices and similar tactics to encourage exclusive deals and hamper competition. The Commission’s action against Intel comes about a month after the chip maker settled its long-running antitrust dispute with rival AMD (AMD) for $1.25 billion.

Reached for comment, Intel called the suit “misguided” and “based largely on claims that the FTC added at the last minute and has not investigated.”

“This case could have, and should have, been settled,” said Intel general counsel Doug Melamed. “Settlement talks had progressed very far but stalled when the FTC insisted on unprecedented remedies–including the restrictions on lawful price competition and enforcement of intellectual property rights set forth in the complaint–that would make it impossible for Intel to conduct business.”

Melamed further asserts that “The FTC’s rush to file this case will cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars to litigate issues that the FTC has not fully investigated. It is the normal practice of antitrust enforcement agencies to investigate the facts before filing suit. The Commission did not do that in this case.”

The company’s statement in full, below:

Intel Comments on FTC Suit

SANTA CLARA, Calif., December 16, 2009 – Intel Corporation issued the following statement regarding the suit filed by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC): “Intel has competed fairly and lawfully. Its actions have benefitted consumers. The highly competitive microprocessor industry, of which Intel is a key part, has kept innovation robust and prices declining at a faster rate than any other industry. The FTC’s case is misguided. It is based largely on claims that the FTC added at the last minute and has not investigated. In addition, it is explicitly not based on existing law but is instead intended to make new rules for regulating business conduct. These new rules would harm consumers by reducing innovation and raising prices.”

Intel senior vice president and general counsel Doug Melamed added, “This case could have, and should have, been settled. Settlement talks had progressed very far but stalled when the FTC insisted on unprecedented remedies–including the restrictions on lawful price competition and innovation set forth in the complaint–that would make it impossible for Intel to conduct business.”

“The FTC’s rush to file this case will cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars to litigate issues that the FTC has not fully investigated. It is the normal practice of antitrust enforcement agencies to investigate the facts before filing suit. The Commission did not do that in this case,” said Melamed.

And the FTC’s complaint:

091216intelcmpt –

Beatles Boost EMI. (But About That Debt…)

Peter Kafka — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:11:10 +0000

First, some good news for EMI Music Group, the big music label that’s troubled even by the music industry’s troubled standards: They still have the Beatles.

And it turns out that people still care about John, Paul, et al.

EMI says it has sold a staggering 10 million copies of the band’s remastered albums since September. The total includes the giant box sets of the band’s work (if you bought the stereo set, that accounted for 14 albums in one purchase; if you went with the mono discs, that counted for 11), as well as downloads for the sort-of successful Beatles Rock Band game.

And, of course, nada from iTunes. Sidebar: If and when the band finally starts selling its music on Apple’s (AAPL) digital storefront, will there be anyone left to buy it?

But back to EMI, which has much more unpleasant news to deal with, namely that owner Terra Firma seems to be at the end of its rope. The private equity firm is now suing Citibank (C), which lent it the billions it needed to buy the music company in 2007, for fraud.

And Terra Firma is reportedly looking for investors to lend it another $1.6 billion to keep the company afloat, in large part because it fears it will default on the money it has already borrowed from Citi.

The conventional wisdom, meanwhile, is that all of this is simply a precursor to an eventual combination between EMI and Warner Music Group (WMG)–a deal the two companies have been trying to pull off for close to a decade.

Terra Firma’s complaint, via the New York Times’s Dealbook, makes for fascinating reading, in large part because of the cognitive dissonance created by Terra Firma’s description of itself.

The company describes itself as a clueless investor duped by Citigroup into buying the music company in an auction with no other bidders and as a savvy manager that has turned around the ailing music company.

Can both descriptions be true?

Terra Firma’s Lawsuit Against Citi Over EMI

(Also, some free fact-checking for Terra Firma’s attorneys: The iTunes Store launched in 2003, not 2005.)