Asa Mathat / AllThingsD.com

Oracle sued ServiceKey in the U.S. District Court for Northern California last February, saying that ServiceKey plus a second company had used Oracle software code and access credentials as part of a scheme to sell support services to companies that had no active support contract in place with Oracle itself.

ServiceKey admitted in court that it downloaded, copied and distributed Oracle’s Solaris Operating System, acquired by Oracle when it bought Sun Microsystems in 2010. The company then advertised that it could provide Solaris software patches to customers. It also trafficked in passwords to gain access to Oracle’s customer support website.

Oracle had accused ServiceKey, as IDG News reported last month, of paying Oracle technical support fees for a small number of Solaris machines it owned, but then using those credentials to offer support to its customers.

Oracle will receive no monetary damages as a result of the judgment.

Shortish version:

• Aereo, which distributes broadcast TV programming over the Web but doesn’t pay the broadcasters to do so, has won a couple of important legal victories in federal court.
• Now the IAC-backed company plans on expanding to 22 cities outside of the New York area, starting with Boston this month.
• CBS, one of the broadcasters that is suing Aereo, has said it will oppose Aereo every time it opens in a new market, with a new suit. Last month, CBS spokesman Dana McClintock warned of new lawsuits via Twitter (at least twice), and CBS CEO Les Moonves said the same thing during an earnings call last week.
• Aereo, which cites both men in its complaint, is essentially asking the same court that granted it its first legal victory — New York’s Southern District — to preemptively rule against CBS in any of the cities it has announced plans to enter this year.

And here’s the comment from CBS:

These public relations and legal maneuvers do not change the fundamentally illegal nature of Aereo’s supposed business. The issue of unauthorized streaming of copyrighted television programming is now being contested in the 2nd Circuit and the 9th Circuit, and wherever Aereo attempts to operate there will be vigorous challenges to its Illegal business model.

Still here? You must really want to read this thing! Here you go:

Aereo Complaint for Declaratory Judgment – FINAL FILED

Noting massive changes in technology, Goodlatte said he wanted to evaluate whether copyright law is still working in the digital age.

“Contrast how American citizens kept up with the latest news in Boston last week to when Paul Revere rode nearby to warn the local communities of the British advance in 1775,” he said.

Goodlatte didn’t describe his aims in great big flashing antipiracy lights, though he did specify that the issues to discuss may include compensation for copyright owners, historical access, statutory licenses and damages for infringement. He said the hearings would occur “in the months ahead.”

Details in a second, but for the shortest attention spans, check out YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley’s victory dance, directed at Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman, on Twitter:

Hey Philippe, wanna grab a beer to celebrate?! YouTube Again Beats Viacom’s Massive Copyright Infringement Lawsuitj.mp/ZCuWCQ

— Chad Hurley (@Chad_Hurley) April 18, 2013

Shortish version: Last year, Viacom convinced the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to make U.S. District Court Judge Louis Stanton review his 2010 ruling. He did, and finds that YouTube is still in the clear.

In essence, he argues that YouTube and its corporate owner Google enjoy broad protection against copyright violation claims because of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act — just like YouTube and Google have argued. Not surprisingly, Viacom says it will appeal.

Stanton’s decision is quite emphatic. In one of his choicest quotes, he dings Viacom for making its case based on “an anachronist, pre Digital Millennium Copyright Act concept.”

Also of note: Stanton’s decision frequently cites a different but parallel set of copyright case suits by Universal Music Group against Veoh, a now-defunct video service; judges in those cases have also sided in favor of Web aggregators versus copyright owners.

Here’s YouTube’s initial comment: “The court correctly rejected Viacom’s lawsuit against YouTube, reaffirming that Congress got it right when it comes to copyright on the Internet. This is a win not just for YouTube, but for people everywhere who depend on the Internet to exchange ideas and information.” (Update: Here’s a YouTube blog post that says the same thing with more words.)

And here’s Viacom’s: “This ruling ignores the opinions of the higher courts and completely disregards the rights of creative artists. We continue to believe that a jury should weigh the facts of this case and the overwhelming evidence that YouTube willfully infringed on our rights, and we intend to appeal the decision.”

Here’s the ruling:

Viacom v. YouTube

But when it comes to digital media, that doesn’t work. That’s the gist of a new Federal court ruling, which says that startup ReDigi can’t do what it says it can do — let users resell songs they bought on iTunes.

In a judgment filed Saturday, U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan sided with Universal Music Group’s Capitol Records, which had sued ReDigi for copyright violation.

Sullivan’s argument, in a nutshell: Unless the copyright owner gives you explicit permission to do so, you can’t resell a digital media file. ReDigi used multiple arguments to support its case, including the “first sale doctrine” that supports companies like Netflix when it comes to physical goods; you can see Sullivan shoot them all down in his decision (also embedded below, courtesy Jordan Golson).

Sullivan granted a partial summary judgment in Universal’s favor, and told both sides to report back to him by April 12 for next steps.

Capitol Records v. ReDigi Judgment by MacRumors

AT&T Inc., Cablevision Systems Corp., Time Warner Cable Inc, Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp. have put into place an alerts system with “six strikes,” with various degrees of penalty for subscribers accused of piracy.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

A video of the wreck, shot by a fan and uploaded almost immediately to YouTube, detailed some of the carnage that swept across the stands and the race-goers that filled them. In a particularly intense moment, one person appeared to be pinned down by an errant wheel that flew off one of the wrecked cars.

But just as quickly as it was uploaded, the video was taken down from YouTube at Nascar’s request, citing copyright concerns.

Odd, that, considering a quick YouTube search for Daytona Crash 2013 returns a host of videos from the event, yet to be pulled.

So what gives? Is Nascar lagging on taking down all the copyrighted content showing up, or is Nascar selectively censoring the more gruesome footage showing up on YouTube?

It seems the latter is the case, though Nascar positions it in a more noble light.

“The fan video of the wreck on the final lap of today’s Nascar Nationwide Series race was blocked on YouTube out of respect for those injured in today’s accident,” said Steve Phelps, Nascar SVP and Chief Marketing Officer, in a statement issued to AllThingsD. “Information on the status of those fans was unclear and the decision was made to err on the side of caution with this very serious incident.”

Nascar wouldn’t respond to my further questions of whether the organization would pull other fan videos, referring me to the company’s original statement.

So it looks as if we can view this in a couple ways: Either Nascar is indeed concerned with the well-being of the injured, or Nascar is trying to avoid a major PR headache by stifling the viral video of the brutal injuries its fans suffered. Call me a cynic, but I’m leaning toward the latter case.

But whatever side you want to take, there’s another problem here: Nascar may not have the standing to request takedowns of these videos in the first place.

“Nascar is likely arguing that the ticket restricts recording of any event the ticket-holder attends,” Chip Stewart, associate professor at TCU’s Schieffer School of Journalism, told AllThingsD. “The thing is, I don’t see how that gives Nascar automatic copyright to anything a fan records; the copyright belongs to the person creating the content — in this case, recording the video.”

When YouTube receives takedown requests from outside organizations citing copyright, Google’s video arm almost always complies, Stewart said, in order to avoid liability concerns. But as Stewart asks, “How can one in good faith ask to take down a video when one doesn’t have a copyright in it in the first place?”

Good question! We’ll see if that changes in the coming days, and if Nascar decides to change its tune. In the meantime, YouTube has not responded to a request for comment.

Update 7:45 pm PT: Well would you look at that. Not more than a few hours later, the video in question has been unblocked, and is now viewable on YouTube user Tyler4DX’s page.

Nascar hasn’t responded to my request as to why the video is now back up for viewing, but a YouTube spokesperson sent me the following statement:

Our partners and users do not have the right to take down videos from YouTube unless they contain content which is copyright infringing, which is why we have reinstated the videos.

Looks like Professor Stewart was right, and YouTube deemed that Nascar’s copyright argument lacked sufficient standing. Still waiting to hear what Nascar has to say about that.

Hundreds of full-length feature films including blockbusters from Walt Disney Co. and Sony Corp.’s Columbia and Tristar studios have been illegally uploaded to the world’s most popular video site, generating hundreds of millions of views over the past year.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

To celebrate Data Privacy Day — which is apparently an actual thing — Twitter and Google released updates to their dedicated Transparency Report sites, pages dedicated to listing the number of government-issued requests for data the companies receive on a quarterly basis.

It’s comprehensive insofar as the reports show which countries are the most apt to be requesting data, though not the nature of each request.

Surprise, surprise, most of the information requests came from the U.S. government for both Twitter and Google.

Not surprisingly, information requests aimed at Google far outweighed the number that Twitter receives on a regular basis; Google got upward of 21,000 requests from July through December last year, while Twitter had only around 1,800.

Still, the number of requests being made of both companies continues to trend upward, which may be disconcerting to some privacy advocates. To Google’s credit, though, the number of times the company has complied with user-data requests seems to be decreasing over time since 2010. Perhaps that’s just because the number of superfluous requests has gone up as the volume has increased, but I’d say it’s better than seeing an upward disclosure trend.

Among the other data listed in Twitter’s report: Copyright takedown requests — which have included surprisingly few from the RIAA over the past six months — as well as general content removal requests, which only number in the low double-digits.

Where’s Facebook in all this data-disclosure hubbub? I’ve asked the company whether it plans to issue its own transparency report, but haven’t heard back yet. In the meantime, Facebook did unveil its Q&A series with Erin Egan, the company’s chief privacy officer, for users to ask questions they may have about the company’s policies.

Lars just left my house in NYC. The litigation between us in 2000 is now a distant memory.

– Napster co-founder Sean Parker, talking about Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich, via a 4:03 am Twitter post. Metallica had sued the file-sharing service, but now Parker and the band are business partners: Yesterday Metallica announced that it is distributing its music on Spotify, where Parker is an investor.

I’m speaking of that jargon-filled status update that — if your friends are anything like mine — keeps popping up in users’ Facebook news feeds.

It’s a blanket disclaimer which essentially claims copyright on all things posted to Facebook, including items like photos — Facebook users’ stock-in-trade, these days — status updates, and works of art, and demands Facebook can only use that material after being given “written consent” by the user. Here’s a snippet:

In response to the new Facebook guidelines, I hereby declare that my copyright is attached to all of my personal details contained in my personal and business profiles, including, but not limited to: all postings, status updates, comments, illustrations, paintings, drawings, art, photographs, music, videos, etc. as per the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, (a/k/a the Berne Convention). For commercial use of any of the above, my written consent is required in each instance and at all times.

It’s most likely a response to Facebook’s recently announced changes to dealing with privacy policies on the site. Instead of putting any changes to a massive, billion-user, network-wide vote as is decorum, Facebook seeks to end the policy and start making those decisions in a different way.

There’s a problem here. By virtue of becoming a Facebook user, you’ve already signed over consent to let Facebook republish your work wherever it wants. And that includes alongside the myriad ads flanking the sides of your page.

You know that block of text you skipped reading upon signing up for your Facebook account? There are actually important details embedded therein. Namely that you’ve already granted Facebook a “a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License).”

Don’t fret. You still retain copyright on anything you post to Facebook. Just not the right to ban it from the licenses you’ve already agreed to. It didn’t work the last time these status updates were circulating, and it won’t work now.

So do us all a favor and, next time, Snopes that bogus rumor first. I’m tired of seeing the same thing in my feed.

Just don’t mess with our font.

The publisher has lodged a complaint with Twitter against Benjamin Kabak, who runs the “@NYTOnIt” account, which is dedicated to calling out stories Kabak deems overly obvious.

The logo for the account is the Times distinctive “T,” along with … I’m not quite sure. A beret?

Now Twitter has suspended the account, but Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy said that’s not what the paper wanted: ”We’re not seeking to disable the account, however, it is important to The Times that our copyright is protected and that it is clear to all users of Twitter that parody accounts or other unofficial Times accounts are not affiliated nor endorsed by The Times.”

So what does protecting the Times’ copyright mean in this case? Via email, I asked Murphy to clarify. Her response: “The use of our trademarked logo is of most concern. We would also like the account labeled unofficial per Twitter’s rules.”

(Update: Murphy also says, via email, that she should have written “trademark” instead of “copyright” in her initial statement.)

You can argue that the Times shouldn’t spend time complaining about a Twitter account, but you can’t argue that they’re being inconsistent.

This isn’t the first time the paper has gone after people who have appropriated the T: Back in 2009, the Times’ legal team sent Michael Wolff’s Newser (remember Newser?) a grouchy letter or two about the same topic — along with the fact that Newser was using its photography without permission.

Now Newser doesn’t use the T. And Kabak, via Facebook, says he’ll “remove the materials [the Times] claim are problematic.”

And we’ll probably see a replay of this within the next three years, when someone else makes the mistake of tweaking the Times and using its logo at the same time.

Update 2: Twitter PR offers standard boilerplate: “We don’t comment on individual accounts for privacy and security reasons.”

Update 3: And now the @NYTOnIt account is back up, sans T. Kabak said he’ll have a contest to find a new logo.

According to a Swiss news report, Apple is paying out $21 million to settle a copyright dispute with SBB, the Swiss railway operator that owns the design for this iconic station clock.

That same design appeared to show up, uncredited, in the new iPad app that Apple rolled out in its iOS 6 software in September.

Last month SBB announced it had reached a licensing deal that would allow Apple to use the design in iPads and iPhones, but didn’t disclose any details.

We’ve asked Apple for comment.

The settlement disclosed Thursday allows U.S. publishers to remove digitized titles from the Google Library Project if they want. The settlement also “acknowledges the rights and interests of copyright-holders.” Court approval isn’t necessary.

The Authors Guild is still pursuing the legal case.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

She’s also continuing to demand that YouTube, the video-sharing website owned by Google Inc., take down the 14-minute trailer for the film. Her argument, according to the suit, will stipulate that YouTube cannot couch itself in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act because the company did not remove the video, even though the copyright owner, Garcia, demanded they do so.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

This also falsely insinuates that craigslist broadly serves humanity as a “free” service, a grossly misleading characterization given craigslist’s accumulation of enormous and largely undisclosed profits, a pattern and practice of predatory lawsuits (such as this one) aimed at obstructing innovation.

– From a claim filed Monday against Craigslist by data company 3Taps, accusing Craigslist of perpetuating a monopoly. Craigslist filed a copyright complaint against 3Taps this summer.

In the filing, 3Taps argues that online classifieds are simply facts, and Craigslist’s continued refusal to let others syndicate its ads and improve on their user interface is anticompetitive.

The filing alleges a pattern of “sham cease & desist letters and sham lawsuits,” copyright misuse, overly restrictive terms of use, and hiding posts from third-party sites.

“Craigslist has an overwhelming share in numerous online classified ad markets and improperly maintains those monopoly shares through a broad-based, anticompetitive scheme,” 3Taps alleges.

3taps is trying to use the media to its advantage, having contacted me and other reporters last week about its plans to countersue, and emailing the countersuit now at the same time it was electronically filed at the Federal District Court for Northern California. This is the opposite strategy of Craigslist, which has not deigned to acknowledge the disagreement with even a simple “no comment.”

While Craigslist has issued other cease-and-desist letters before to sites that do things like display postings on a map, this seems to be the first time a developer has fought back in a serious way.

3Taps CEO Greg Kidd has been raring to fight Craigslist, saying the for-profit site is acting like a copyright troll while benefiting from its friendly image of being a public service.

Other developers aren’t willing to put their names on the lawsuit, but at least one told me he is grateful that Kidd is bankrolling the services of top law firm Skadden, which is representing 3Taps in the dispute along with intellectual property lawyers from the firm Locke Lord. (Kidd had previously told AllThingsD he was using Morrison Foerster, but that has since changed.)

3Taps compares itself to ITA, the airfare search provider that Google bought, and services like PadMapper to Kayak, which provides a search interface based on ITA data that many users prefer. PadMapper and other sites like it send traffic back to Craigslist but give individual posters broader distribution for their classified ads.

PadMapper developer Eric DeMenthon said he had no update to share at this time on his own response to the Craigslist lawsuit.

And of course, Craigslist did not respond to a request for comment.

Here’s the countersuit:

3taps Answer

That’s because Aereo doesn’t pay broadcast networks for their programming, and the cable guys do. But if Aereo doesn’t, then perhaps the cable guys can get off the hook, too.

That, however, could take an awfully long time to play out. In the meantime, here’s a pay-TV company weighing in on the side of the status quo — Cablevision has filed a friend-of-the-court brief that sides with the broadcasters in their fight with Aereo.

In addition to the pay TV/free TV dynamic referenced above, there’s one other reason this one is worth skimming: Aereo’s entire structure is based on a legal victory Cablevision won back in 2009 to operate a cloud-based DVR.

Big tech players like Google and Amazon have used the same ruling to create cloud-based music lockers without licenses from labels. And Aereo is basically making the same argument with its Rube Goldbergesque array of teeny-tiny TV antennas.

Short version:  Cablevision’s lawyers take great pains to argue that their setup is nothing like Aereo’s. The longer version, below, runs 24 pages.

Amicus brief 12-2807 _as filed 9.21.12_

Swiss railway operator SBB says the design of a new clock app on the iPad copies its signature — and trademarked — clock.

“The rights for this design of the watch are (owned) by the SBB,” a railway spokesperson told AllThingsD. “We are in contact with Apple to seek together an agreement about the rights.”

The clock is the design of Swiss engineer Hans Hilfiker, with licensed versions selling for hundreds of dollars.

An Apple representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Design issues aside, the clock is a welcome addition to the iPad, which until now has bizarrely lacked the alarm clock and timer features found on other iOS devices.

This is a sort of voluntary alternative to the infamous SOPA and PIPA legislation, which would have required ISPs and search engines to block access to sites accused of copyright infringement.

William Morris Endeavor Agency Co-CEO Ari Emanuel

Hollywood hates Google’s hands-off approach to copyright infringement. At our D10 conference in May, leading Hollywood talent agent Ari Emanuel had angrily targeted Google (and its defenders!), saying that the company should be able to filter for copyrighted material the same way it blocks child pornography.

Today, Google’s Amit Singhal explained that the company has sufficient data that it can lower search rankings for repeat offenders.

Google is now “receiving and processing more copyright-removal notices every day than we did in all of 2009 — more than 4.3 million URLs in the last 30 days alone,” Singhal noted.

Singhal said the changes would go into effect next week. He noted that those who feel their content had been unfairly removed can continue to ask for it to be reinstated.

RIAA CEO Cary Sherman has already praised today’s Google’s announcement as a “potentially significant change.”

“This change is an important step in the right direction — a step we’ve been urging Google to take for a long time — and we commend the company for its action,” he said. “As Google itself has acknowledged, this is not the only approach, and of course, the details of implementation will matter.”

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20120810/in-self-imposed-alternative-to-sopa-google-will-ding-repeat-copyright-offenders-in-search-results/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20120807/judge-orders-google-and-oracle-to-disclose-who-they-paid-to-write-about-java-trial/ http://allthingsd.com/20120807/judge-orders-google-and-oracle-to-disclose-who-they-paid-to-write-about-java-trial/#comments Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:13:18 +0000 Arik Hesseldahl http://allthingsd.com/?p=238814 In something of a peculiar turn in the nearly concluded lawsuit between Oracle and Google over the Java platform, the judge in the case has ordered both parties to disclose who they paid to cover and write about the trial.

Judge William Alsup, who presided over the case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, wrote in his order that he’s “concerned that the parties and/or counsel herein may have retained or paid print or Internet authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have and/or may publish comments on the issues in this case.”

Google and Oracle have 10 days from today to “file a statement herein clear identifying all authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have reported or commented on any issues in this case and who have received money (other than normal subscription fees) from the party or its counsel during the pendency of this action.”

The only one known so far is Florian Mueller, who writes a blog called Foss Patents that covered the legal maneuvering in the trial extensively. He disclosed on April 18 (see the relevant section in the last four paragraphs or so) that he had been hired by Oracle as a consultant.

Oracle spokeswoman Deborah Hellinger just sent a comment that seems to put the onus on Google to disclose some relationship that both parties know about:

Oracle has always disclosed all of its financial relationships in this matter, and it is time for Google to do the same. We read this order to also include indirect payments to entities who, in turn, made comments on behalf of Google.

Google has yet to return my email seeking comment. If there’s anything that either party has yet to disclose on the subject I guess we’ll learn that from the filings, which are due no later than next Friday.

Of course this goes without saying, but I’ll say it anyway: While I wrote quite a bit about this case, no one paid me, aside from my AllThingsD salary, to write anything about it or to color the direction of my coverage one way or the other. And if you want any further information on the subject you can refer yourself to the ethics statement that’s linked directly to the right of my grinning mug at the top of this page.

Now that we’ve got that out of the way you can read the full filing, all one page of it, below.

ORDER RE DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH COMMENTATORS ON ISSUES IN THIS CASE

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20120807/judge-orders-google-and-oracle-to-disclose-who-they-paid-to-write-about-java-trial/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20120727/3taps-is-raring-to-fight-craigslist-over-data-access/ http://allthingsd.com/20120727/3taps-is-raring-to-fight-craigslist-over-data-access/#comments Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:00:15 +0000 Liz Gannes http://allthingsd.com/?p=234755 The CEO of a company sued by Craigslist earlier this week said he’s armed (with legal precedents, not weapons) and ready to fight the local classifieds giant.

“We believe Craigslist is acting like a copyright troll,” said Greg Kidd, who founded the data exchange 3taps in 2009. He contends that basic information in an exchange can’t be covered by copyright. “Just because you can write a snarky TOU doesn’t make it so.”

Craigslist sued 3taps alongside PadMapper, a site that provides an alternate interface with sorting tools for apartment listings. That followed an earlier exchange in which Craigslist forced PadMapper to take down its Craigslist-sourced data, but then the site turned to 3taps to bring back Craigslist posts.

A week ago, Craigslist filed a lawsuit in federal district court against PadMapper and 3taps, alleging copyright and trademark infringement, breach of contract and unfair competition, among other claims.

But 3taps says it is specifically designed in order to not gather data directly from Craigslist — which has historically expressed concern about added pressure on its servers from aggregators. Rather, 3taps uses methods such as scraping cached pages on search engines.

The San Francisco-based company is quite focused on its crosstown neighbors at Craigslist. 3taps rather blatantly labels its service as “Your One-Stop Craigslist API,” and it had built its own alternative interface to Craigslist, called Craiggers, which is still live but no longer linked from the 3taps front page.

It’s clear that 3taps is raring for a fight. Here’s Kidd’s somewhat ominous description of the situation, in an email to AllThingsD:

“We may be tech geeks, but there’s another side to our doings on the public policy side of the ledger.

“And bite they did.”

Kidd — who was formerly an analyst at the U.S. Federal Reserve and was an early investor in Twitter and Square — said 3taps has retained Morrison Foerster’s copyright team in order to fight Craigslist over the issue of what exactly is in the public domain.

Craigslist has a history of aggressively protecting its classified postings by sending cease-and-desist letters to outside developers and filing lawsuits against them. It will be interesting to see if 3taps taking the company head-on could help set a legal precedent on the matter.

3taps CEO Greg Kidd

For his part, Kidd clearly didn’t give me the standard “we can’t talk about pending litigation” line, instead rattling off references to a couple of Supreme Court decisions over whether facts can be copyrighted.

3taps as a company is working to prepare a set of public statements about its position that tries to paint Craigslist as anti-innovation and immensely profitable, despite describing itself as a benevolent community caretaker.

But the specific legal issue is about data access. Here’s that talking point, as sent to AllThingsD in a draft Thursday night:

“Craigslist can’t have it both ways; either they make their users’ data available to search engines in order to drive website hits, or they keep it private. But not both.”

To be fair, Craigslist does allow some developers access to its data, but that’s specifically through a license for display on mobile devices.

Craigslist has not replied to requests for comment on the matter. A month ago, founder Craig Newmark tweeted a statement of sorts: “folks, please remember, #craigslist community feedback massively against the use of their stuff for the profit of others.”

Meanwhile, PadMapper developer Eric DeMenthon was a bit more conciliatory when we talked with him about the lawsuit earlier this week. “I wish we had just been able to talk and reach a reasonable solution, but they weren’t willing to talk with me about it,” he said. “I would have been willing to do quite a bit, including shutting down whatever they thought was competitive about the site.”

(Image courtesy of Diego Cervo/Shutterstock)

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20120727/3taps-is-raring-to-fight-craigslist-over-data-access/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20120719/dear-hollywood/ http://allthingsd.com/20120719/dear-hollywood/#comments Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:02:50 +0000 Voices http://allthingsd.com/?p=231725

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of changing their views to fit the facts, they try to change the facts to fit their views.

– Kim Dotcom, in an open letter to Hollywood, written from house arrest in New Zealand

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20120719/dear-hollywood/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20120707/google-slaps-oracle-with-4-million-legal-bill/ http://allthingsd.com/20120707/google-slaps-oracle-with-4-million-legal-bill/#comments Sat, 07 Jul 2012 16:35:24 +0000 John Paczkowski http://allthingsd.com/?p=227993 Oracle’s narrow victory over Google in the pair’s intellectual-property dispute over Android and Java may end up costing it far more than the paltry $150,000 to $200,000 in damages awarded it in the case. The search behemoth feels it deserves million of dollars in reimbursement for the expenses it incurred over the course of the trial.

And on Thursday it appealed to the presiding judge to force Oracle to pay them.

“Google prevailed on a substantial part of the litigation,” Google said in a Bill of Costs filed with the court, and obtained by Wired. “[Oracle] recovered none of the relief it sought in this litigation. Accordingly, Google is the prevailing party and is entitled to recover costs.”

Those costs amount to roughly $4 million, including transcript fees of about $143,000, court-appointed expert fees of $987,000 and a jaw-dropping $2.9 million for obtaining, copying and organizing documents used in the case.

That’s pocket change for Oracle. But Google’s demand for it is certainly a twist of the knife to its antagonist, which had once hoped to recoup billions of dollars in damages for Android’s alleged Java-related patent infringement. The judge presiding over the case has yet to rule on Google’s request.

Oracle has said it plans to appeal the court’s ruling. A company spokeswoman declined comment on Google’s reimbursement request.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20120707/google-slaps-oracle-with-4-million-legal-bill/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20120704/in-latest-internet-policy-win-acta-rejected-by-european-parliament/ http://allthingsd.com/20120704/in-latest-internet-policy-win-acta-rejected-by-european-parliament/#comments Wed, 04 Jul 2012 19:02:23 +0000 Liz Gannes http://allthingsd.com/?p=227458 As expected, the European Parliament today rejected far-reaching copyright law ACTA, on a decisive vote of 478-39, with 165 abstentions. The international treaty still has support elsewhere in the world, including the U.S., but it hasn’t been ratified anywhere yet.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20120704/in-latest-internet-policy-win-acta-rejected-by-european-parliament/feed/ 0