You might be thinking: A thermostat’s a thermostat … right?

In Honeywell’s view, it’s not so simple. In the complaint, filed in a U.S. district court in Minnesota, the maker of aerospace systems, consumer products and technology solutions identified seven patents it believes Nest Labs infringes on.

Honeywell is also seeking damages from Best Buy, which features and sells Nest’s product in home-energy departments around the U.S. (Best Buy also sells Honeywell programmable thermostats.)

Nest Labs was recently launched by Matt Rogers and Tony Fadell, a former Apple executive who worked on the iPod. Last fall, Nest Labs began selling the Nest Learning Thermostat, a buzzed-about, easily programmable “smart” thermostat that uses the same wheel interface as the original iPod. The device can be controlled from a user’s smartphone, tablet or Web browser, and Fadell has been quoted as saying the Nest will save users up to 30 percent off their utility bills. With Nest, the uncool thermostat suddenly became a hot item.

Nest Labs did not respond to requests for comments on the suit, except to release a statement yesterday, saying they had not yet reviewed the actual filing, and that the company will provide comment once they’ve had the opportunity to review it.

Speaking for Honeywell, Bruce Eric Anderson, the company’s director of external communications, expounded on Honeywell’s statement from yesterday, saying that intellectual property is a “part of what Honeywell is as a company. We have 20,000 engineers that come here every day and it’s about protecting those individuals. This suit is not unique,” Anderson added.

Rather than go through the filing patent by patent, here are a few of the key sticking points of the suit:

First, Honeywell points out that it commercialized the first adjustable thermostat that allowed users to sleep through the night without having to manually turn their furnaces on and off; and that it is a global leader of innovative thermostats, and created the iconic “round” thermostat that’s now featured in the Smithsonian museum collection.

Honeywell goes on to mention more recent innovations, including its Prestige 2.0 Comfort Systems and RedLINK Wireless Comfort Sytems. More on the Prestige in a bit.

In the section titled “Acts Giving Rise to the Action,” the Honeywell filing points to various features of the Nest thermostat that have been promoted by Nest Labs and Best Buy as “innovative,” including the ability to connect the device to the Internet, store private data and control the Nest remotely through a Wi-Fi connection. Honeywell also takes issue with Fadell and Rogers having said that there hasn’t been any real innovation in decades in the thermostat space, though the sources of this quote and others are unclear.

Honeywell alleges that Nest Labs does not appear to have originated the design or functionality of the Nest thermostat — and says the key functional features at the core of the device are the results of years of research and development that culminated in patents owned by Honeywell.

For example, Honeywell’s complaint says, the fact that the Nest thermometer came with a patented “question system” — “What are the lowest and highest temperatures you’d like when you are away?” — is not new. Honeywell’s Prestige thermostat, introduced in late 2008, also incorporates an “interview-based interface.”

Honeywell also says that controlling a thermostat remotely through the Internet is not a Nest Labs innovation.

Interestingly, General Electric also offers consumers — as part of a home-energy management system — the ability to remotely control a GE “smart” thermostat from a smartphone or home computer. “Connect seamlessly to your programmable thermostat to remotely adjust your home climate,” says GE’s Web page for this feature.

When I asked Anderson whether Honeywell had ever examined GE’s system, he simply said, “I don’t know. I’m not familiar with that product.”

In the filing, Honeywell also references this AllThingsD video from last November as showing evidence that Nest Labs was examining “numerous” Honeywell thermostats in its research, indicating that Nest — which it calls a “well-funded, sophisticated company” — was well aware of Honeywell’s contributions to the thermostat industry.

So, Honeywell says, it has suffered and will suffer monetary damages and irreparable harm as a result of Nest Labs’s infringements, as well as from Best Buy’s infringements by using, offering to sell and/or selling the Nest device.

Since we don’t have a more detailed response from Nest Labs yet, it’s hard to know how this will play out. It’s also unclear whether Honeywell contacted Nest Labs prior to filing the formal suit.

Ed Weisz, a senior intellectual property lawyer at the firm of Cozen O’Connor (which is not involved in the Honeywell suit), says that most cases like this one result in a settlement. However, if it is determined that there has been a patent infringement, Weisz says, Honeywell could seek an injunction — which the courts may be more likely to grant, because there’s actually a product already out on the market.

Weisz also said that, while Best Buy is enjoined in the suit, he doesn’t think the retailer will be on the hook for additional damages, as their sale of goods — even ones that might infringe on IP — will be covered by the Uniform Commercial Code.

“It’s way too premature to have any read on the merits of this,” Weisz said.

What we do know is that in Silicon Valley — and in Honeywell’s case, outside of the Valley, too — tech-patent lawsuits are hardly uncommon, especially in the smartphone and tablet market.

We’ll keep you posted as this story evolves.

Some initial reactions to the proposal, which was pre-announced at the DLD conference in Munich and then published on Wednesday, were harshly critical.

Writer Jeff Jarvis was armed and ready to rebut European Commissioner Viviane Reding’s opening address on “the right to be forgotten” at DLD, having criticized her data protection stance in his new book “Public Parts.”

“I very much fear Reding’s ‘right to be forgotten’ and its impact [on] free speech and the right to know,” Jarvis wrote.

A European Microsoft executive was also quick with the skepticism. “We have been pushing for harmonisation of privacy laws for several years, but we are concerned that these proposals may be too prescriptive,” Ron Zink, who is Microsoft Europe’s chief operating officer and associate general counsel, told the Financial Times.

Analysts and industry groups called Reding’s ideas “draconian,” “prescriptive,” “onerous” and expensive.

But now that Reding has formally proposed her legislation, Web companies seemed more measured in their response. Though they didn’t endorse the bill, they seemed willing to work with it. Of course, they’d prefer to avoid walking into fines of up to two percent of their revenue.

In statements emailed to AllThingsD, Google asked for a “simple” solution, while Facebook continued to talk up its positive impact on European jobs.

Said Google: “We support simplifying privacy rules in Europe to both protect consumers online and stimulate economic growth. It is possible to have simple rules that do both. We look forward to debating the proposals over the coming months.”

A Google executive at a conference in Brussels further questioned how, exactly, third-party sites could be responsible for deleting all instances of data online after it had been posted.

Here’s Facebook’s extended statement:

The revision of Europe’s Data Protection framework is an important opportunity to develop regulation that both protects privacy and supports the creation and growth of modern services over the global Internet. We welcome the move towards more harmonization of Data Protection laws in the EU which will help create legal certainty and confidence for companies to operate.

We agree with the recent statements made by Commissioner Reding that the new regulation should foster growth and job creation. Services like Facebook already contribute significantly to economic activity in the EU and can be a major driver of growth and new jobs in the future.

We will continue to work closely with politicians and regulators in the EU in order to share our experience and expertise and contribute to achieving sound privacy regulation and a thriving digital sector.

Reputation.com CEO Michael Fertik, whose company offers what could be seen as “the right to be forgotten” as a paid service to customers, said he didn’t necessarily support Reding’s proposal but he disapproved of industry hysteria around regulation of the Internet.

“I think that light regulation is often a stimulant to innovation,” Fertik said.

“Right now the absence of law supports the incumbents of the Internet, which are advertising businesses,” he added. “But what’s bad for Facebook today may be good for a thousand companies tomorrow. The biggest promise of the right to be forgotten is it’s going to enhance the trust of the Internet, which could be a boon to e-commerce.”

As for some other major Web companies in the business of identity and user-generated content, Twitter declined to comment on EU data protection policy, while Tumblr — which had been especially active in fighting SOPA — did not respond to a request for comment.

Meanwhile, U.S. lawmakers on Thursday expressed concerns about Google’s new unified privacy policy.

Viacom and Google, who have been tangling over copyright violations at YouTube since 2007, will be at it again today at a federal courthouse in New York. The two sides will start oral arguments for Viacom’s appeal of the case, which Google won decisively in a 2010 ruling.

In the past, both sides have tried digging up evidence to discredit each others’ arguments, and while both came up with plenty of embarrassing stuff, they couldn’t find a smoking gun.

So now we’re back to the basic question of the case: How much protection does the Digital Millennium Copyright Act offer YouTube, or any other site that lets users upload and distribute content they don’t own?

That question has come up to the courts in at least three different suits in recent years: Viacom versus Google, Universal Music Group versus Veoh, and EMI versus MP3Tunes. And in all three cases, federal judges have offered up the same response: The DMCA gives Web sites enormous latitude. As long as the site serves a legitimate function, it can’t be held responsible if users upload stuff they don’t own. If copyright owners find something that shouldn’t be there, and they ask the site to take the offending piece down, the site has to comply. But that’s about it.

So far, that’s very encouraging news for all manner of digerati. And in theory, it’s quite threatening to media companies and other people who create, finance and distribute intellectual property for a living.

But things might not be quite so dire for the media guys. While you can read the recent court rulings as an invitation for a free-for-all, it looks a little different in the real world.

YouTube, for instance, has spent a lot of time and money creating systems to filter content on its site, which hoovers up more than 24 hours of stuff every minute. And it works hand in hand with most big media companies to help them keep stuff they don’t want off the site — and to help them distribute other stuff they do want there.

Included in that list of companies playing very nicely with YouTube — Viacom’s sister company, CBS. And once this suit finally gets settled — which could still take years — my hunch is Viacom will want to work closely with the world’s biggest video site, too.

[Image credit: Sweetheart/Shutterstock]

The bill requires that online retailers charge sales taxes on purchases even where their “presence” is not physical but through affiliates. Amazon had warned participants yesterday that it would have to turn off the program later this year if the bill was signed, and Gov. Jerry Brown made it official later in the day.

There’s some question as to whether the law will be challenged in court on the grounds that it violates federal law, because it is broader than similar laws that have led to Amazon cutting affiliate programs in Connecticut, Arkansas and other states. In states where it has a physical presence, such as its Washington home base, Amazon does charge sales taxes.

In a statement, Paul Misener, Amazon VP of Global Public Policy, said, “This legislation is counterproductive and will not cause our retail business to collect sales tax for the state.”

I’d say it’s astonishing no one has done it before, but it’s not: The music business has a long tradition of resisting good ideas. So how did the Turntable.fm guys finally get the industry on board?

They haven’t. The start-up doesn’t have deals in place with any labels or publishers.

[Record-scratch sound here.]

This doesn’t mean that Turntable.fm is illegal. The company believes it’s obeying the law, and it might be right. But this thing has gotten so buzzy, so fast, that it’s going to be hard for the label lawyers to stay away.

Here’s how Turntable got started, how it works, and why it might be able to stick around. But if you haven’t already, go play with it now, just in case.

The backstory:

Turntable started as Stickybits, which did something hard to explain involving barcodes and geotagging, and seemed more like an art project than a business. Last year it raised nearly $2 million.

This spring, CEO Billy Chasen abandoned that idea and used his remaining money to build Turntable. This one is easy to describe.

Here goes: You and up to four other people take turns streaming just about any song you want for anyone who wants to listen, for free, in one of the site’s “rooms.” A deal with MediaNet, a digital content provider, gives Turntable access to millions of songs, and if the song you want to play isn’t there, you can upload your own MP3 to the site and play that. There’s a chat feature so you can compare notes, and you can “follow” your pals.

That’s about it. There’s a “gamification” element where you can collect points and rewards for playing music people like, but that’s definitely secondary. The real thrill is sharing music, and discovering music.

The law:

So how can any of that be legal without label deals? In short, Chasen believes he’s able to run the service under the protection of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) — the same law that lets Pandora operate without label deals — as a “non-interactive” Web radio service.

That description will seem odd to most people who’ve used Turntable. Because the service doesn’t seem like radio at all, and it is most definitely interactive.

You pick the songs you want to play, and the order you want to play them. And if you’re really into it, you’ll change that on the fly, based on the song the person before you just played.

But if you spend enough time mucking around with Turntable, you’ll start to run into small constraints here and there. You can’t play music in a room by yourself, for instance. And there’s a limit on the number of times you can play a song by a single artist per hour. And you can’t see the next song another user has cued up.

None of these limits seem like real limits, because they don’t detract from the service’s core appeal. But these are all rules that “DMCA-compliant” Webcasters work under, and they’re evidence that Chasen is trying to do the same thing. If it works, he’ll simply pay music owners a flat fee for each song he streams every month, just like Pandora does.

The precedent:

In addition to Pandora, Chasen has another model to work with here: 8tracks, a three-year-old service that also lets you play any music you want, and listen to other people’s music, for free, using a DMCA license. The main difference is that instead of playing the songs live, you create “mixtapes,” which other users play back on their own time.

8tracks never got the same kind of buzz that Turntable is getting, but it has diligently built up a fan base, and now draws more than two million users a month. Just as important, it’s been able to stay out of legal trouble. I think it’s a pretty great story.

There’s a technical difference between 8tracks and Turntable, too: 8tracks relies on songs its users own and upload, while it seems like most people on Turntable are using the tracks Chasen and Medianet provide. That distinction seems like a small one, but some music biz folks I’ve talked to have pointed to that as a red flag.*

The problems:

The risk for Turntable is the same one every music start-up without label deals faces: Not that a court will find them guilty of something, but that they’ll have to spend a lot of time and money on lawyers.

And while it seems blindingly obvious that Turntable.fm is a great thing for the music business — it lets music fans tell other music fans about music they like, the best possible advertising — I wouldn’t put it past a label or two to gripe about the service. Particularly if it makes the leap from the digerati into the mainstream.

(It’s important to note here that there are lots of traditional music business folks who are resentful of Pandora’s success, even though the company pays out more than half its revenue to copyright owners.)

If Turntable does sidestep legal challenges, it will have to make money one day, too. This is also an issue, since no one’s actually proved that free, ad-supported Web music can be profitable.

But I’m much less worried about this one. If it gets to that point, the Turntable guys should at least be able to tell advertisers that their ads will be much more effective, since Turntable users spend a whole lot of time looking at their screens.

Does any of this matter?

I’m an unlikely candidate to get swept up in the buzz around a hot Web site.

I’m reflexively cautious about that kind of behavior, and it’s easy to point to buzzy start-ups that shot up, then cratered (Myspace), or never got above the buzz stage to begin with (Chatroulette). And even if Turntable does stick around, it’s possible that it’s just a feature and not a business.

But this one feel pretty special. We’ve had plenty of music sites, and plenty of social sites, but none that mixed them well together. I hope they make it work.

——————————

*Don’t want to bog this down in legalese, but note that Google and Amazon’s music locker service, which doesn’t have the labels’ blessing, relies on music its users provide. But Apple got the labels’ blessing to provide a “scan and match” service, where a single master track could be used by multiple listeners. I wouldn’t be shocked to hear a music label lawyer tell Turntable its model is closer to Apple’s, and requires a separate deal.

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.

Twitter has been ordered by a U.S. federal judge to turn over documents related to several people involved with WikiLeaks to the Justice Department.

Tonight, a Twitter spokeswoman responded to a request for comment on the situation:

“We’re not going to comment on specific requests, but, to help users protect their rights, it’s our policy to notify users about law enforcement and governmental requests for their information, unless we are prevented by law from doing so. We outline this policy in our law enforcement guidelines.”

In an onstage interview I did with Twitter CEO Dick Costolo at a D@CES event last night in Las Vegas, he referenced the issue, but would not give any specifics.

While he said he could not talk about WikiLeaks specifically, he indicated that he disliked government mandates to keep things quiet and reiterated Twitter’s desire to connect people with useful information.

“We’re going to lash out at things that prevent us from doing that, as aggressively as we can,” said Costolo, who also used Twitter crackdowns in China as an example.

It might be a Herculean task to fight the federal government, which is aggressively going after WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange.

Some Web companies, such as eBay’s PayPal unit, have cut off WikiLeaks.

On the other hand, Twitter took legal action to unseal the court order, which allowed it to inform those involved, giving them 10 days to object. Otherwise, the San Francisco microblogging service would have had to turn over information without the knowledge of these users.

There will surely be more of these to other Web companies, with obvious candidates being Google and Facebook.

The order from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia is ordering Twitter to fork over subscriber names, user names, screen names, mailing addresses, residential addresses and more of several people involved with WikiLeaks.

But you can read for yourself–here is the court order, as well as the unsealing order:

twitter1

twitter2

For all those in a tizzy–including BoomTown–about Facebook’s deal with Goldman Sachs, which some think is designed to circumvent securities rules related to shareholder numbers and financial disclosure, meet Section 12(g)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Because if anyone cared to read the actual text of the law in question (as I did, after it was pointed out to me), even if it was determined that Facebook had 500 shareholders at this very moment, it is technically not required to disclose any of its financial details until May of 2012.

As in next spring, which is exactly when its execs have told many sources it will finally have its much anticipated IPO. Thus, look Facebook to finally go public in the second quarter of 2012.

As far as government literature goes, 12(g)(1) is pretty clear, noting that any company of Facebook’s size, after it reaches 500 shareholders, must make financial and other disclosures “within one hundred and twenty days after the last day of its…fiscal year.”

For Facebook, its current fiscal year ends December 31, 2011, making its disclosure deadline April 29, 2012.

As the New York Times noted today:

“Section 12 (g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 came about in the 1960s as over-the-counter trading in shares of privately held companies began to heat up and regulators worried that investors were not getting enough information.”

The huge amount of time Facebook has to adhere to the private company disclosure law has not been noted in copious coverage of the deal, in which Goldman Sachs clients would be able to invest up to $1.5 billion in the Silicon Valley company, as part of a single entity “special purpose vehicle.”

But it brings into focus–given its long lead time–whether Facebook would go to such lengths to keep its shareholder size small at this point.

Nonetheless, from a perceptual viewpoint, the Goldman investment has brought unneeded scrutiny to Facebook, from both the public and also government regulators.

It has also painted the company–which has an everyman, mainstream image, in general–as elitist and consorting with rich Wall Street bankers.

In any case, with the Goldman deal, a lot of financial information about Facebook is now seeping out anyway, as part of the investment bank’s offering documents to the clients it is presenting the Facebook opportunity to.

As The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday:

“According to people familiar with the document, Facebook had net income of $200 million in 2009 on revenue of $777 million. Figures for 2010 weren’t disclosed, but analysts have said the company’s revenue last year could be as much as $2 billion, fueled by advertising growth.”

Whether that smallish net income and revenue deserves a $50 billion valuation or not will be up to investors to decide. But, as the Journal also pointed out, the Facebook offering is oversubscribed already, even without any significant information about the company’s finances.

Which Facebook can keep from us all for a while–although I urge CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google-style, to FREE THE DATA!

And if you don’t believe me, please enjoy the 12(g)(1) below:

Every issuer which is engaged in interstate commerce, or in a business affecting interstate commerce, or whose securities are traded by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce shall—(a) within one hundred and twenty days after the last day of its first fiscal year ended after July 1, 1964, on which the issuer has total assets exceeding $10,000,000 and a class of equity security (other than an exempted security) held of record by seven hundred and fifty or more persons; and (b) within one hundred and twenty days after the last day of its first fiscal year ended after two years from July 1, 1964, on which the issuer has total assets exceeding $10,000,000 and a class of equity security (other than an exempted security) held of record by five hundred or more but less than seven hundred and fifty persons, register such security by filing with the Commission a registration statement (and such copies thereof as the Commission may require) with respect to such security containing such information and documents as the Commission may specify comparable to that which is required in an application to register a security pursuant to subsection (b) of this section. Each such registration statement shall become effective sixty days after filing with the Commission or within such shorter period as the Commission may direct. Until such registration statement becomes effective it shall not be deemed filed for the purposes of section 18. Any issuer may register any class of equity security not required to be registered by filing a registration statement pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph. The Commission is authorized to extend the date upon which any issuer or class of issuers is required to register a security pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph.

The release of funds follows a number of denial-of-service attacks earlier this week that were aimed at the document-leaking site’s providers. Most of the providers are now refusing to work with WikiLeaks after the U.S. government accused it of being in possession of documents that were provided in violation of U.S. law.

Yesterday, WikiLeak’s founder Julian Assange was arrested and denied bail in London. He’s accused of sexual misconduct in Sweden.

While PayPal is releasing the residual funds to WikiLeaks, it is not reinstating the ability for it to receive donations.

PayPal was caught up in a brief media storm this morning, after PayPal’s VP of Platform Osama Bedier gave the impression at LeWeb in Paris that PayPal had cut off access to WikiLeaks because of direct pressure by the U.S. government.

PayPal now wants to set the record straight, and says that it reviewed its policies regarding WikiLeaks after the U.S. Department of State publicized a letter stating that WikiLeaks may be in possession of documents that were provided in violation of U.S. law. The letter was published, and not sent to PayPal directly.

“PayPal was not contacted by any government organization in the U.S. or abroad. We restricted the account based on our Acceptable Use Policy review,” writes PayPal’s General Counsel John Muller. “Ultimately, our difficult decision was based on a belief that the WikiLeaks website was encouraging sources to release classified material, which is likely a violation of law by the source.”

Further, the company disclosed that twice before–in 2008 and 2009–PayPal reviewed and restricted the account associated with WikiLeaks “for reasons unrelated to our Acceptable Use Policy. As soon as proper information was received from the account holder, the restrictions were lifted.”

PayPal has been one of many providers that have been the victim of computer attacks, where servers were inundated with traffic. A spokesperson told us that it mostly affected the company’s blog site, and did not directly affect its payments services.

Other affected companies include MasterCard and Swiss bank PostFinance, The Wall Street Journal reports. No one is yet claiming responsibility for the attacks, but some say they are being organized by the ad hoc “Operation Payback.”

Google earlier this year said that the camera-equipped cars it uses to mark the location of wireless networks and take pictures for its Street View service had for years inadvertently collected data from publicly accessible wireless networks. Google initially said that no significant personal data was collected, but last month admitted that emails and passwords had also been copied.

On Wednesday, U.K. Information Commissioner Christopher Graham, the regulator in charge of data protection, issued a statement saying that, as a result of the “significant breach” of law, his office would audit Google’s data-protection practices in the U.K. and ask the Mountain View, Calif., company to sign an official commitment affirming that such breaches wouldn’t occur again. The U.K. regulator had earlier found that Google didn’t collect meaningful personal details.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

A 2005 California law bans those under 18 from buying or renting violent videogames that appeal to “a deviant or morbid interest in minors.” Lower courts struck down the law, under precedent authorizing government to restrict youth from only one type of material, obscene sexual content.

In seeking the law’s reinstatement, Zackery Morazzini, a deputy state attorney general, told the court: “California is no less concerned with a minor’s access to the deviant level of violence that is presented in a certain category of video games” than it is with sexually explicit material.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

They didn’t bother to obliterate the U.S. Supreme Court. But in the real world, that’s where the $10.5 billion videogame industry faces its greatest threat. On Tuesday, the court’s nine justices will consider whether to strip First Amendment protection from violent videogames that critics say appeal to the deviant interests of children.

A 2005 California law prohibits selling or renting such games to minors based on legislative findings that they stimulate “feelings of aggression,” reduce “activity in the frontal lobes of the brain” and promote “violent antisocial or aggressive behavior.” The law never took effect because lower courts found it violated free-expression rights.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Another reputation smeared in the Hewlett-Packard/Oracle slag-fest. Turns out Joe Nocera (pictured here)–the New York Times (NYT) business columnist who penned that scathing piece on former SAP chief and incoming Hewlett-Packard (HP) CEO Léo Apotheker for his involvement in a lawsuit over intellectual property theft between SAP (SAP) and Oracle (ORCL)–has a conflict of interest.

Nocera’s fiancée, Dawn Schneider, is director of communications for Boies, Schiller & Flexner, the law firm that just so happens to represent Oracle in its very same suit against SAP.

Here’s the editor’s note the Times just appended to Nocera’s story.

In the Talking Business column in Business Day on Saturday, Joe Nocera wrote about a lawsuit by Oracle against a division of SAP, claiming theft of intellectual property. Mr. Nocera learned after the column was published  that Oracle was represented by the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, where his fiancée works as director of communications. To avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, Mr. Nocera would not have written about the case if he had known of the law firm’s involvement.

Odd to learn that Nocera, the Times’ star business columnist, was unaware that his own fiancée was a flack for the law firm repping Oracle in the suit (see screenshot above, with Boies named as counsel) that provided so much of the subject matter for his column.

But it seems he was not, up to today, when he made a CNBC appearance on the subject.

It’s not clear when Nocera found out about his conflict of interest. His column on the Oracle-HP spat, however, has been the talk of Silicon Valley over the last several days, including a smack back at it by incoming HP Chairman Ray Lane in a letter to the Times’ editor.

Here’s a video of Nocera talking about his HP column on CNBC:

[Nocera photo credit: Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times]

Investment bankers and stock markets can calm down–Microsoft and Adobe are not in talks about an acquisition.

Spurred by a story in the New York Times that Microsoft was eyeing the software company for purchase, Adobe (ADBE) stock went wild today, up 11.5 percent to $28.69.

Except, according to numerous sources at both companies with whom I talked today, it’s “nonsense.”

Sure, it might be an interesting idea–kind of like AOL (AOL) and Yahoo (YHOO) merging–but that’s not the case at this point either.

Chalk this one up to blabby bankers and stock speculators–this might be a good rumor for regulators to look into.

Of course, as is typical, the execs at both companies talk a lot–you might have noticed that Adobe has a lot of software that is popular on the Windows operating system.

So, they had a meeting!

But it is kind of hard to do an acquisition when “Steven A. Ballmer, Microsoft’s chief executive, recently showed up with a small entourage of deputies at Adobe’s offices to hold a secret meeting with Adobe’s chief executive, Shantanu Narayen.”

Memo to the Times: When there is an acquisition afoot–in my experience–it’s all private airplanes and law offices and not a company HQ visit by the very loud and very noticeable Ballmer, the exact polar opposite of a shrinking violet.

In any case, it is not a big surprise at this point if longtime rivals like Adobe and Microsoft (MSFT)–which makes a competing video technology called Silverlight to Adobe’s Flash–talk about trying to stop the explosive growth of Apple, especially in the mobile space.

Microsoft is about to launch its Windows Phone 7, after many cloddish efforts in the arena have failed, and Adobe has been subject to a withering attack from Apple (AAPL) and its CEO Steve Jobs.

Jobs, in no uncertain terms, has dissed Flash relentlessly as a technology.

Others have not, such as Google (GOOG), which recently showed strong support for Adobe’s Flash in its recent launch of Google TV.

In fact, it is Google that is more mentioned in Silicon Valley as the logical acquirer of Adobe, if there were to be a sale.

Along with all its various assets, such as the Photoshop and Acrobat software that dominates online publishing, Adobe’s Omniture unit is one of the more powerful and popular analytics companies on the Web, which is right in Google’s wheelhouse.

Personally, that’s the one I would bet on, although that’s entirely me speaking.

Until that happens, here is a video interview of Jobs smacking around Adobe and Flash at the eighth D: All Things Digital conference in June:

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101007/adobsoft-nonsense-on-the-microsoft-adobe-rumor-in-any-case-itd-more-likely-be-goodobe/feed/ 13 http://allthingsd.com/20100825/are-sext-messages-a-teenage-felony-or-folly/ http://allthingsd.com/20100825/are-sext-messages-a-teenage-felony-or-folly/#comments Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:00:23 +0000 Nathan Koppel and Ashby Jones http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=28739 State lawmakers around the U.S. are struggling to decide if teenage “sexting”—the practice of sending nude or sexually suggestive photos by cellphone—is a serious crime, or juvenile folly run amok.

About 20 states have enacted or proposed measures that deal with teenage sexters. Generally, the legislation is aimed at treating minors in a more lenient fashion than if they were prosecuted under existing child-pornography or child-exploitation laws, which include the possibility of prison time and sex-offender status.

Since May, states including Arizona, Connecticut, Louisiana and Illinois have enacted laws that impose relatively modest penalties against minors who sext, while maintaining harsher penalties for adult offenders.

While many of the new rules make sexting punishable by small fines and short stints in a juvenile-detention facility, there is still little agreement on what the appropriate penalty is—or whether prosecutors should be involved at all.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100825/are-sext-messages-a-teenage-felony-or-folly/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20100617/gawker-settles-a-libel-suit-with-a-correction-but-not-a-check/ http://allthingsd.com/20100617/gawker-settles-a-libel-suit-with-a-correction-but-not-a-check/#comments Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:09:59 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=20621 Sometimes Nick Denton likes to boast about Gawker Media’s legal battles. Other times, he keeps quiet.

Like earlier this month, when Denton settled a libel suit filed by motorcycle-maker Confederate Motors. His blog network’s only comment about the case is an oblique “correction” on his Jalopnik car blog, noting that Confederate does not appear to be “unable to do business” in New York.

MediaPost and media law blogger Ben Sheffner seem to be the only two outlets keeping tabs on the case, and you can get the full download at their sites.

But the very short story is that Confederate sued Gawker over an April 9, 2009, post (now deleted, though Google shows traces) about some of its vehicles.

Things Confederate (Really! I know!) didn’t like included an assertion that its bikes are “so unreliable you’ll have to push them” and that “we heard the Alabama-based company was being sued so heavily in state courts by disgruntled owners that they were unable to do business here.”

The Jalopnik post seems to be the sum total of Gawker’s concessions to Confederate. Gawker COO Gaby Darbyshire tells MediaPost her company didn’t pay Confederate a penny and that it settled only “because it was too trivial an issue to take to court….One must pick one’s battles.”

Sounds reasonable! Especially when there are much bigger battles looming on the horizon.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100617/gawker-settles-a-libel-suit-with-a-correction-but-not-a-check/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20100608/new-chinese-internet-document-redlines-bs-meter/ http://allthingsd.com/20100608/new-chinese-internet-document-redlines-bs-meter/#comments Tue, 08 Jun 2010 22:14:42 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=42075 Though it has given no indication otherwise, China would like the world to know that it has no plans to allow free access to online content–Google’s “new approach” to the country be damned. In a lengthy white paper titled “The Internet in China,” China’s State Council Information Office reaffirmed the government’s longstanding commitment to censorship.

“The Chinese government attaches great importance to protecting the safe flow of Internet information, actively guides people to manage Web sites in accordance with the law and use the Internet in a wholesome and correct way,” the paper reads. “The Decision of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee on Guarding Internet Security, Regulations on Telecommunications of the People’s Republic of China and Measures on the Administration of Internet Information Services stipulate that no organization or individual may produce, duplicate, announce or disseminate information having the following contents…”

What follows is a list so broad and vague it could easily be applied to nearly any speech Beijing finds undesirable: “subverting state power…propagating superstitious ideas…spreading rumors…and other contents forbidden by laws and administrative regulations.”

But steer clear of those and you’re free to say what you like because “Chinese citizens fully enjoy freedom of speech on the Internet”–according to this white paper, anyway.

The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China confers on Chinese citizens the right to free speech. With their right to freedom of speech on the Internet protected by the law, they can voice their opinions in various ways on the Internet. Vigorous online ideas exchange is a major characteristic of China’s Internet development, and the huge quantity of BBS posts and blog articles is far beyond that of any other country….The Chinese government has actively created conditions for the people to supervise the government, and attaches great importance to the Internet’s role in supervision….The Internet provides unprecedented convenience and a direct channel for the people to exercise their right to know, to participate, to be heard and to oversee, and is playing an increasingly important role in helping the government get to know the people’s wishes, meet their needs and safeguard their interests. The Chinese government is determined to unswervingly safeguard the freedom of speech on the Internet enjoyed by Chinese citizens in accordance with the law.

And if “safeguarding” freedom of speech involves, say, blocking YouTube, Picasa and a bunch of other services offered by Google (GOOG)? Well, I guess that’s just the Chinese government “voicing its opinion” in this “vigorous online ideas exchange.”

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100608/new-chinese-internet-document-redlines-bs-meter/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20100518/germany-questions-googles-data-mistake/ http://allthingsd.com/20100518/germany-questions-googles-data-mistake/#comments Tue, 18 May 2010 10:59:51 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=40821

With its admission last week that its Street View cars unwittingly captured data sent over unsecured wireless Wi-Fi networks, Google (GOOG) appears to have run afoul of regulators on both sides of the Atlantic.

Sources familiar with the matter tell the Financial Times that the Federal Trade Commission is considering an inquiry into the matter, and the panel of European privacy regulators that advises the European Commission is calling for a full investigation to determine exactly what information was collected and whether the manner of its collection was a violation of privacy law.

The Europeans seem particularly miffed over the cock-up and Google’s explanation for it, which they find a bit suspect. Over the weekend, Peter Schaar, Germany’s federal commissioner for data protection and freedom of information, fired off a caustic blog post questioning the credibility of the company’s claim that personal data were collected accidentally.

“So everything was a simple oversight, a software error!” Schaar wrote. “The data was collected and stored against the will of the project’s managers and other managers at Google. If we follow this logic further, this means: The software was installed and used without being properly tested beforehand. Billions of bits of data were mistakenly collected, without anyone in Google noticing it, including Google’s own internal data protection managers, who two weeks ago were defending to us the company’s internal data protection practices.”

Have to admit, he does have a point. How does a company with Google’s smarts and technological acumen collect and store Wi-Fi network payload data in more than 30 countries for three years without being aware of it?

Mistakes are made, I suppose. But the breadth of this one is pretty incredible. As Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told the Financial Times, “This may be one of the most massive surveillance incidents by a private corporation that has ever occurred. It is unprecedented vacuuming of WiFi data by a private company. Can you imagine what would happen if a German corporation was sending cars through Washington sucking up all this information?”

Yes, but to err is human…

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100518/germany-questions-googles-data-mistake/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20100512/big-music-wins-one-limewire-loses-court-fight/ http://allthingsd.com/20100512/big-music-wins-one-limewire-loses-court-fight/#comments Wed, 12 May 2010 20:17:10 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=19368 A big victory for Big Music: A federal court has ruled in favor of the music labels in their fight against LimeWire, one of the most prominent file-sharing services on the Web.

You can read all of U.S. District Court Judge Kimba Wood’s ruling at the bottom of the post. But the short version is that Wood, using the Supreme Court’s Grokster decision as a guide, found that LimeWire is indeed guilty of copyright violations. In her words:

LimeWire… (1) is aware that LimeWire’s users commit a substantial amount of copyright infringement; (2) markets LimeWire to users predisposed to committing infringement; (3) ensures that LimeWire enables infringement and assists users committing infringement; (4) relies on the fact that LimeWire enables infringement for the success of its business; and (5) has not taken meaningful steps to mitigate infringement.

LimeWire is unusual among post-Napster, post-Grokster file-sharing operations in that it operates out in the open, in the U.S. The company, based in New York City and owned by investor Mark Gorton, actually sells a smattering of music itself with the blessing of some of the smaller music labels. But while the company has been engaged in a long back-and-forth with the big guys, it has never reached a settlement.

Meanwhile, almost all of the music available on the service (93 percent, according to a study used in the lawsuit) and even more of the stuff actually downloaded (98.8 percent, via the same study) is protected by copyright and should not have been there. Court documents state that LimeWire generated revenue of $20 million in 2006.

LimeWire does tell its users they shouldn’t steal music. This is the warning you get when you try to do so:

But that’s not enough, Wood ruled. And certainly not when the service was going out of its way to court users searching Google (GOOG) for free tunes. From her ruling:

LimeWire conducted a marketing campaign through Google AdWords, whereby Google users who entered certain search queries, such as “replacement napster,” “napster mp3,” “napster download,” “kazaa morpheus,” “mp3 free download,” and dozens of other phrases containing the words “napster,” “kazaa,” or “morpheus,” would see an advertisement leading them to the LimeWire website.

The next step in the case is a June 1 conference. Here’s LimeWire CEO George Searle’s statement, which doesn’t include a vow to appeal the ruling:

LimeWire strongly opposes the Court’s recent decision. LimeWire remains committed to developing innovative products and services for the end-user and to working with the entire music industry, including the major labels, to achieve this mission. We look forward to our June 1 meeting with Judge Wood.

And here’s the end-zone dance from Mitch Bainwol, CEO of the music industry’s lobbying group:

This definitive ruling is an extraordinary victory for the entire creative community. The court made clear that LimeWire was liable for inducing widespread copyright theft.

LimeWire is one of the largest remaining commercial peer-to-peer services. Unlike other P2P services that negotiated licenses, imposed filters or otherwise chose to discontinue their illegal conduct following the Supreme Court’s decision in the Grokster case, LimeWire instead thumbed its nose at the law and creators. The court’s decision is an important milestone in the creative community’s fight to reclaim the Internet as a platform for legitimate commerce. By finding LimeWire’s CEO personally liable, in addition to his company, the court has sent a clear signal to those who think they can devise and profit from a piracy scheme that will escape accountability.

We are gratified by the court’s careful and thorough analysis of the facts and applicable law.

Bigger question: What does this mean for the music industry? Assuming Wood’s ruling stands, this one will definitely feel good for the labels, and it would have been a very big deal had they lost. But it certainly won’t help them in fighting less formally organized P2P services or those set up outside the U.S.

Arista Records Summary Judgment Opinion

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100512/big-music-wins-one-limewire-loses-court-fight/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20100511/uspto-upholds-i4i-patent-in-microsoft-spat/ http://allthingsd.com/20100511/uspto-upholds-i4i-patent-in-microsoft-spat/#comments Tue, 11 May 2010 22:08:22 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=40316 Microsoft has suffered another loss in its pitched-battle patent dispute with i4i. On Wednesday, i4i announced that the patent at the heart of the dispute, No. 5,787,449, has been upheld by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office despite Microsoft’s best efforts to have it tossed.

“This is a very material step in our litigation against Microsoft. Put simply: i4i’s patent is clearly and unequivocally valid,” i4i chairman Loudon Owen said in a statement. “Even though Microsoft attacked i4i’s patent claims with its full arsenal, the Patent Office agreed with i4i and confirmed the validity of our ’449 patent.”

The XML technology covered by the patent might be “obscure,” as Microsoft (MSFT) has argued, but that doesn’t mean it’s not patentable. This being the case, Microsoft would seem to be liable for its transgression: Incorporating i4i’s “obscure” patented technology into Word 2003 and Word 2007.

A tough break for Microsoft, which was ordered last year to pay i4i $200 million for doing so.

The company’s only recourse now it seems is to appeal to the Supreme Court, something it appears to be considering, according to Director of Public Affairs Kevin Kutz. Said Kutz: “We are disappointed, but there still remain important matters of patent law at stake, and we are considering our options to get them addressed, including a petition to the Supreme Court.”

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100511/uspto-upholds-i4i-patent-in-microsoft-spat/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20100510/a-do-not-call-the-ftc-about-facebook-privacy-registry-great-idea-tim/ http://allthingsd.com/20100510/a-do-not-call-the-ftc-about-facebook-privacy-registry-great-idea-tim/#comments Mon, 10 May 2010 17:50:43 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=40168

“We understand you may not want everyone in the world to have the information you share on Facebook; that is why we give you control of your information. Our default privacy settings limit the information displayed in your profile to your school, your specified local area, and other reasonable community limitations that we tell you about.”

–Facebook Privacy Policy, 2006

“When you connect with an application or website it will have access to General Information about you. The term General Information includes your and your friends’ names, profile pictures, gender, user IDs, connections, and any content shared using the Everyone privacy setting….The default privacy setting for certain types of information you post on Facebook is set to “everyone.”…Because it takes two to connect, your privacy settings only control who can see the connection on your profile page. If you are uncomfortable with the connection being publicly available, you should consider removing (or not making) the connection.”

– Facebook Privacy Policy, 2010

Perfect.

Facebook has enlisted a former senior Bush administration regulator to defend its privacy practices in Washington. Tim Muris, an attorney at law firm O’Melveny & Myers who served as chairman of the Federal Trade Commission from 2001 to 2004, is advising the company, whose privacy disclosures and fast and loose handling of user data are increasingly drawing scrutiny on Capitol Hill.

Indeed, on May 5, the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a complaint with the FTC alleging that Facebook has engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of consumer protection law.

“[The site] continues to manipulate the privacy settings of users and its own privacy policy so that it can take personal information provided by users and make it widely available for commercial purposes,” the Washington-based advocacy group said. “The company has done this repeatedly and users are becoming increasingly frustrated and angry.”

Clearly, the Facebook privacy backlash, which has been building for years now, has begun in earnest.

What better time, then, to seek the help of someone like Muris, who created the popular U.S. Do Not Call Registry and just last week received the Miles W. Kirkpatrick Award “for his significant and lasting contributions to the FTC, antitrust law, and the cause of consumer protection.”

Reached for comment, Facebook said Muris is not an official employee. “There have been some reports that Tim Muris has joined Facebook,” the company told me. “Muris has not joined Facebook.”

But he is serving as a consultant, something sources close to the company have told me, though Facebook declined to comment on.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100510/a-do-not-call-the-ftc-about-facebook-privacy-registry-great-idea-tim/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20100506/viral-video-machete-slices-and-dices-arizona-law/ http://allthingsd.com/20100506/viral-video-machete-slices-and-dices-arizona-law/#comments Thu, 06 May 2010 08:38:45 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=28058

Talk about good timing–Robert Rodriguez’s upcoming “Mexploitation” movie, “Machete,” centers on Mexican immigrants and the border, a perfect flashpoint for the controversial and appalling new immigration-related search laws passed by Arizona recently.

Director Rodriguez used the opportunity yesterday of Cinco de Mayo to release an anti-Arizona promo for the film, which had its origins as a fake trailer in his previous work, “Grindhouse.”

Enjoy:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100506/viral-video-machete-slices-and-dices-arizona-law/feed/ 2 http://allthingsd.com/20100420/buzz-follo/ http://allthingsd.com/20100420/buzz-follo/#comments Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:26:59 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=38749 Months after its ill-starred launch, Google’s Buzz social networking service continues to inspire outcry among privacy advocates. The latest to cry foul: An alliance of privacy commissioners from 10 countries who think Google’s “sorry we didn’t get everything right” apology for its failure to adequately protect the privacy of Buzz users is a cop-out.

In a letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt, privacy commissioners from France, Germany, Canada, and the U.K., among other countries, slagged the search giant for failing to take adequate account of privacy considerations when rolling out new services.

“We are increasingly concerned that, too often, the privacy rights of the world’s citizens are being forgotten as Google rolls out new technological applications,” the commissioners wrote. “We were disturbed by your recent rollout of the Google Buzz social networking application, which betrayed a disappointing disregard for fundamental privacy norms and laws….”

Mincing no words, they added, “It is unacceptable to roll out a product that unilaterally renders personal information public, with the intention of repairing problems later as they arise. Privacy cannot be sidelined in the rush to introduce new technologies to online audiences around the world.”

While the first few lines of the statement largely repeat criticisms we’ve heard before, the last two really get at the crux of the entire debacle. If Google (GOOG) didn’t recognize the privacy flaws in Buzz before it released it to the public, it should have. And if it did recognize them and released the service anyway figuring it would address them later–well, that’s just plain reckless.

“Sorry we didn’t get everything right” doesn’t absolve the company from its misstep, though Google clearly seems to think it does, according to the statement it issued on the letter.

“We try very hard to be upfront about the data we collect, and how we use it, as well as to build meaningful controls into our products. Google Dashboard, the Ads Preferences Manager and our data liberation initiative are all good examples of such initiatives,” the company said.

“Of course we do not get everything 100 percent right–that is why we acted so quickly on Buzz following the user feedback we received. We have discussed all these issues publicly many times before and have nothing to add to today’s letter–instead we are focused on launching our new transparency tool which we are very excited about.”

[Image credit: Asaf Hanuka, Tropical Toxic]

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100420/buzz-follo/feed/ 0