When there is no driver, the answer turns complicated, and the possible targets of lawsuits expand. Is it the company that designed the technology? The car’s owner, or a passenger who should have assumed control? The auto maker that built the car?

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

It’s as though this week was tailor-made for Bartkiewicz (pictured), who argues that companies in the cloud business–and their customers, too–are in denial about risk. And by risk I mean not the technological possibility that a service may fail to work as advertised, but in the financial liability sense.

In Amazon’s case, there’s not been any real discussion of financial liability. Even though several companies effectively had to pause operations during the period of its outage last week, the only compensation they seem to be getting, at least for the moment, is a credit on their bill for the time that affected systems were offline and an apology. Apologies and billing credits won’t work for large companies. In a case like that, someone, somewhere has to be on the hook financially in the case of failure.

Handing your data over to someone is in a way comparable to handing goods over to a shipping company who promises to get it safely from one place to the other. Something bad can happen along the way, and often does. Trains derail, ships sink or get attacked by pirates. This is why the insurance industry exists. Yes, data is slightly different because it can be copied, but you get the idea.

Anyway, as if on cue, I found in my in-box today a report from Bartkiewicz’s company, CyberFactors, which specializes in risk analysis related to cloud services. It made for very interesting reading: It has estimated the financial costs associated with the Epsilon breach, and the findings should get your attention. The security breach and release of customer data at the email marketing provider has exposed the company to liabilities that could be as high as $225 million. According to CyberFactor’s research, as many as 75 other companies were involved and the total number of affected email addresses may be as high as 60 million.

Dealing with the repercussions of the breach–informing customers about it, making changes to marketing strategies, and so on–could eventually cost those at the affected companies, which included household names like Best Buy, J.P. Morgan Chase, Citibank, Walgreen’s and the Walt Disney Company, as much as $412 million, pushing the aggregate cost of the incident to $637 million. Think about that. The exposure of an email database could wind up costing more than half a billion dollars.

Yet even that isn’t the worst of it. Once you take into account down-the-line costs, such as fines, forensic audits, litigation and loss of business, the total cost could exceed $3 billion. Roughly half of the total costs to the affected companies will occur in the first year after the breach, and the rest will come in the second and third years. Security breaches have a way of costing long after the incident itself fades from the headlines. Cloud companies, CyberFactors argues, are going to have to start thinking more like banks, insurance companies and hedge funds. The cloud is going to have to grow up.

It hasn’t happened yet, but Drew Bartkiewicz read it and became rather taken by the idea–so much so that he registered the Web domain name cloudcatastrophe.com. Once a regional sales manager for Salesforce.com, he had already drunk deep of the Cloud Kool-Aid. By the time he registered the domain, though, he was working in the insurance industry underwriting insurance policies for technology companies as vice president for cyber and information security risks at The Hartford.

His unique job history has led him to start asking fundamental questions about cloud computing and its business models that should if nothing else give some potential cloud customers pause and nudge cloud service providers–as varied as Salesforce, Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure and the like–to think about something they rarely talk about: Risk.

Don’t confuse this with security. Talk to the executive of any cloud provider, as I did recently with Adam Selipsky of Amazon, and you quickly find out that cloud providers take security seriously and they mean it, because without it they’re out of business.

Rather, the question is this: If a cloud catastrophe happens–critical, financially valuable data is breached or exposed or destroyed on a large scale–who’s financially liable for the damage to the customer’s business? Is it the cloud provider, who agreed to manage the data on behalf of the customer? Or is cloud computing still a use-at-your-own-risk sort of thing? The answer is, there is no clear answer. Bartkiewicz thinks the cloud computing industry will have to start answering it, and soon.

Bartkiewicz recently launched a new company called CyberFactors that aims to do two things. First it evaluates cloud providers for the risk they assume based on the amount of data they manage. Second, the firm helps develop warranties that cloud providers can offer to their customers and cloud policies for insurers so that both sides of the cloud relationship can be prepared for the worst. I caught up with him last week after he spoke at the Cloud Connect conference in Santa Clara, CA.

NewEnterprise: In a nutshell, what do you think is wrong with the cloud computing business models that are so popular and winning over so many customers?

Bartkiewicz: I’m an old Salesforce guy, so I was a big believer in the cloud, and then I got involved underwriting technology risk for insurance companies. I started to see some very interesting patterns emerge. The cost of failure is going up. So are the number of data breaches, and so are the laws imposing regulation on companies that handle data. Cloud computing companies are not being required to address in their models the implied financial liabilities they have on their balance sheet.

So where’s the implied risk you’re talking about?

If you take 100,000 customers of cloud computing companies, each is going to value their data in very different ways. Some use the cloud merely to track sales leads, others use it for trade secrets. Still others have identifying information on their customers. If a cloud company were to wind up suffering a catastrophic breach it would be in the long-term position of arguing with the customer over the value of the data compromised. The end result is a tremendous off-balance sheet liability, and shareholders and analysts who follow these companies aren’t connecting the dots. They need to be asking tough questions about this.

So where do you come into the picture?

Right now the thinking among the cloud companies is that any problem created by technology can be solved by more technology. They talk a lot about security, and they’re serious, but this isn’t a security issue. There’s not an industry in the world that doesn’t disperse risk through the means of insurance. I don’t mean to suggest that the cloud companies need to get insurance. What I mean is that they need to make insurance easy to get and affordable for their customers.

Wouldn’t something like risk be covered in a service-level agreement?

Right now the norm is that cloud companies cap their indemnification at the value of the contract. So if you spend $10,000 a year on a cloud application, the maximum you can get in the case of a breach is $10,000. But the data in question could be worth many times that. The average cyber-incident in our models costs $4.5 million.

And what does Cyberfactors actually do?

It’s a risk quantification tool. Companies that have cyber risk on their books today, whether or not it’s in the cloud, can make better informed transactions with cloud companies. Companies who use cloud computing need to know who absorbs the cost to fail, given the cost to fail is going up. There is a record number of class action lawsuits over privacy breaches, and regulators are imposing a lot of costs that result from a breach that have to be absorbed. This is a global problem in terms of data liability. Second, we have a platform called Cloudinsure.com that tries to “mash” cloud computing with insurance. Cloud computing needs massive risk transfer in order to save itself from itself.

So what companies are you working with?

I can’t say, but I can say we’re working with two cloud companies right now to help them design warranties. We just launched the company. And if a cloud has too much risk, and the warranty approach doesn’t make sense, we can also design insurance policies and then bring in the insurance companies to help back it.

What do the cloud companies think of this? Have you taken the idea to them?

I brought this concept to a cloud company. When I told them they need to disperse their risk, they said it would slow down the sales cycle. It was quite telling because the number one growth pattern for companies right now is denial.

And an expected one too. MPEG LA CEO Larry Horn warned that this was coming. Here’s an excerpt from my conversation with him last May–the day after Google announced its WebM video format and release of the VP8 video codec as an open standard:

JP: Let me ask you this: Are you creating a patent pool license for VP8 and WebM? Have you been approached about creating one?

Larry Horn: Yes, in view of the marketplace uncertainties regarding patent licensing needs for such technologies, there have been expressions of interest from the market urging us to facilitate formation of licenses that would address the market’s need for a convenient one-stop marketplace alternative to negotiating separate licenses with individual patent holders in accessing essential patent rights for VP8 as well as other codecs, and we are looking into the prospects of doing so.

Evidently, the prospects were pretty good, because the group is moving forward with the patent pool, and if it’s able to pull one together, Google’s royalty-free video standard may not be royalty-free for much longer. Which raises a few questions: If VP8 isn’t royalty-free, who’s going to foot the bill? And is Google willing to indemnify partners who opt to use it?

That’s what Google did today, announcing that its Chrome browser will ship without native support for H.264, the video specification on which the Web is arguably standardized (certainly it’s the one prefered by folks like Apple and Microsoft). Instead it will support WebM, Google’s open-source, royalty-free codec, and Theora, another open compression developed by the Xiph.org Foundation.

“We are changing Chrome’s HTML5 video support to make it consistent with the codecs already supported by the open Chromium project,” Google said in a post to the Chromium blog. “Specifically, we are supporting the WebM (VP8) and Theora video codecs, and will consider adding support for other high-quality open codecs in the future. Though H.264 plays an important role in video, as our goal is to enable open innovation, support for the codec will be removed and our resources directed towards completely open codec technologies.”

A ballsy move on Google’s part and one that will certainly spark off the video codec contretemps once more. Sadly, it’s going to make the the HTML 5 transition even more messy than it already is. Right now, video can be encoded in H.264 and served up to pretty much any browser or mobile platform–using a Flash wrapper if necessary. But once Google ends support for H.264, video producers will have to encode their content a second time to play natively in Chrome.

Which seems unfortunate. Particularly because Google is billing its decision as a move to free, open standards and away from proprietary ones like H.264 that must be licensed. By ending support for H.264, Google is actually encumbering video producers with additional costs. Said SmugMug CEO Don MacAskill, “I’m left with two choices: Gulp and double my costs on an unknown tech, or return to Flash as primary solution. Ugh. Thanks, Google.”

But Flash isn’t free and open standard, either. If Google’s goal is to “enable open innovation” shouldn’t it be dumping Flash from Chrome as well? Evidently, that’s not part of the master plan which includes Adobe as a WebM partner …

PREVIOUSLY:

• Google’s “Royalty-Free” WebM Video May Not Be Royalty-Free for Long
• Google Open Sources VP8 Video Codec. Will Apple, Microsoft and Intel Use It?

Late Tuesday a Federal judge ordered SAP to pay interest on the gargantuan sum Oracle won against it in a November copyright infringement trial. But it also agreed to calculate that interest using a different method from the one employed by Oracle. And in doing so it lopped about $195 million dollars off the prejudgment interest Oracle had originally sought.

So good news or, rather, significantly better bad news. Certainly, SAP was pleased to learn it’s not obligated to pile quite as much prejudgment interest atop Oracle’s award as it might have been.

“While we believe that Oracle should only be awarded damages, we appreciate that the Court agreed with SAP on the proper calculation of interest in this case which dramatically lowered the amount,” an SAP spokesman told me. “The interest the Court ordered, based on the statutorily-set interest rate of .3 percent and the accrual period of September 29, 2006 through December 23, 2010, is approximately $16.5 million, rather than the over 200 million Oracle was seeking.”

Of course, that doesn’t make Oracle’s damages award any less massive. But then SAP hopes to whittle that down as well. As the company said in its filing last week: “Defendants plan to challenge that verdict on a variety of grounds in their post-judgment motions, including that it is excessive and overcompensates Oracle.”

Oracle declined comment.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Oracle to SAP: You Owe Us Another $212 Million
• Oracle-SAP Verdict: SAP Owes Oracle $1.3 Billion
• Oracle-SAP: Closing Statements Followed by Closing Insults
• Oracle-SAP Case Closes With $1.67 Billion Difference of Opinion
• LOLCatz: Safra on The Stand Again in Oracle-SAP Trial
• Plattner and White No-Shows at Oracle-SAP Trial
• Damages Expert to SAP: You Owe Me $14 Million and Oracle Four Times That
• Oracle, SAP and the Apotheker Sideshow
• Better Late: SAP Co-CEO Apologizes for Oracle IP Theft
• SAP Co-CEO Expected to Testify in Oracle Trial Today
• HP to Oracle: Leave Léo Alone
• Oracle Still Hoping to Snag HP’s Apotheker for SAP Trial
• HP CEO to Oracle: Here’s Looking at You, Kid–Suntory Time!
• Ellison to Self: Damn, Damn. I Knew I Should Have Said $4.5 Billion
• SAP Attorney: Board Knew TomorrowNow Was Infringing at Time of Acquisition
• Oracle Co-President on SAP’s Damages Offer: “It’s Crazy”
• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

This in addition to the $120 million in attorneys’ fees SAP agreed to pay when the trial first began.

SAP, which believed that the damages amounted to about $28 million, had argued that Oracle was looking for an undeserved bonanza out of the jury, while Oracle contended the market value of licensing the IP was between $1.65 billion and $3 billion.

As Nucleus Research’s Rebecca Wettemann notes, the damage award is “a drop in the bucket” to Oracle, but a stern warning to the industry. Looking forward, she said, “You have to bet Oracle will be reminding customers they’re choosing between thought leaders and intellectual property thieves–and what that indicates more broadly about how SAP does business.”

In a statement issued after the verdict , SAP was contrite:

“We are, of course, disappointed by this verdict and will pursue all available options, including post-trial motions and appeal if necessary. This will unfortunately be a prolonged process and we continue to hope that the matter can be resolved appropriately without more years of litigation. The mark of a leading company is the way it handles its mistakes. As stated in court, we regret the actions of TN, we have accepted liability, and have been willing to fairly compensate Oracle. Throughout this matter, our customers, employees and partners have stood by us and, for that, we are grateful. Our focus now is looking forward, helping our customers be best run businesses, and extending our legacy of industry leadership well into the future. We thank the jury for its diligent service through this lengthy trial and the Court for its supervision of this complex case.”

On behalf of Oracle, President Safra Catz sounded as clinical as Jack Webb wrapping up an episode of “Dragnet.” “For more than three years, SAP stole thousands of copies of Oracle software and then resold that software and related services to Oracle’s own customers,” she said in a statement. “Right before the trial began, SAP admitted its guilt and liability; then the trial made it clear that SAP’s most senior executives were aware of the illegal activity from the very beginning. As a result, a United States Federal Court has ordered SAP to pay Oracle $1.3 billion. This is the largest amount ever awarded for software piracy.”

PREVIOUSLY:

• Oracle-SAP: Closing Statements Followed by Closing Insults
• Oracle-SAP Case Closes With $1.67 Billion Difference of Opinion
• LOLCatz: Safra on The Stand Again in Oracle-SAP Trial
• Plattner and White No-Shows at Oracle-SAP Trial
• Damages Expert to SAP: You Owe Me $14 Million and Oracle Four Times That
• Oracle, SAP and the Apotheker Sideshow
• Better Late: SAP Co-CEO Apologizes for Oracle IP Theft
• SAP Co-CEO Expected to Testify in Oracle Trial Today
• HP to Oracle: Leave Léo Alone
• Oracle Still Hoping to Snag HP’s Apotheker for SAP Trial
• HP CEO to Oracle: Here’s Looking at You, Kid–Suntory Time!
• Ellison to Self: Damn, Damn. I Knew I Should Have Said $4.5 Billion
• SAP Attorney: Board Knew TomorrowNow Was Infringing at Time of Acquisition
• Oracle Co-President on SAP’s Damages Offer: “It’s Crazy”
• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

[Image credit: Pre-Ellison Samurai image by Artem Mirolevioch]

“I think it would have been helpful and important for the jury to hear from him. On the other hand, it wasn’t essential. We were able to put our case in anyway.”

– Oracle attorney David Boies changes his tune on the importance of HP CEO Léo Apotheker’s testimony in the company’s copyright infringement lawsuit against SAP

ORACLE on SAP
“Oracle brought suit to stop the illegal conduct and hold SAP fully accountable for its actions. Four years ago we discovered massive and indiscriminate downloading of software and support materials from an Oracle support Web site.

SAP immediately and, for three and a half years, repeatedly denied wrongdoing and responsibility. But on the eve of trial SAP began a series of admissions to claims of copyright infringement, violations of state and federal computer fraud laws, unfair competition, breach of contract, interference and other claims that settled liability before the trial began. Trial evidence and testimony showed that the SAP Executive Board was fully aware of the illegal activity and still acquired TomorrowNow to unlawfully take Oracle support revenues and move Oracle customers to SAP products and to disrupt and discredit Oracle. SAP not only failed to take action to stop the behavior, but it expanded it for 18 months after Oracle filed suit.

The pre-trial admissions and testimony over the last few weeks have exposed SAP’s scheme to capitalize on the use of stolen intellectual property. While Oracle seeks damages to fairly compensate it for this massive theft, it is perhaps more important to expose the illegal conduct by a dominant player in the industry and to send a message that intellectual property rights must be respected.”

SAP on ORACLE
The time for testimony and sidewalk claims by plaintiff’s counsel are over. The actual testimony took place in court.

We are very proud of the SAP legal team and our counsel Jones Day for their work in presenting our defense. We believe we have presented a solid case for the reasonable and appropriate compensation for damages by the limited actions of TomorrowNow. This case is not about who knew what, did what or supervised what…those issues were handled by stipulations prior to trial. This case is only about the damages, and we trust now in the jury to examine the evidence and testimony and reach a fair and just conclusion.

SAP has a long history as a trusted partner and we believe our legacy will extend beyond this matter. Throughout this matter over these three years, our customers and partners have stood by us and for that we are grateful. The mark of a successful leading company is the way it handles it’s mistakes. As indicated in court, we regret the mistakes of TN, we apologize to Oracle, and we have sought to address these mistakes by compensating Oracle for the damages. All along, we have done the responsible thing by admitting to the mistakes, taking care of the customers, winding down the TN business, and accepting liability. We are confident we can put this matter behind us and continue our leadership of this industry.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Oracle-SAP: Closing Statements Followed by Closing Insults
• Oracle-SAP Case Closes With $1.67 Billion Difference of Opinion
• LOLCatz: Safra on The Stand Again in Oracle-SAP Trial
• Plattner and White No-Shows at Oracle-SAP Trial
• Damages Expert to SAP: You Owe Me $14 Million and Oracle Four Times That
• Oracle, SAP and the Apotheker Sideshow
• Better Late: SAP Co-CEO Apologizes for Oracle IP Theft
• SAP Co-CEO Expected to Testify in Oracle Trial Today
• HP to Oracle: Leave Léo Alone
• Oracle Still Hoping to Snag HP’s Apotheker for SAP Trial
• HP CEO to Oracle: Here’s Looking at You, Kid–Suntory Time!
• Ellison to Self: Damn, Damn. I Knew I Should Have Said $4.5 Billion
• SAP Attorney: Board Knew TomorrowNow Was Infringing at Time of Acquisition
• Oracle Co-President on SAP’s Damages Offer: “It’s Crazy”
• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

“The defendants have admitted that their infringement was massive and prolonged,” Boies said in his closing statement. “It is clear that SAP’s board and top executives expected it would be worth billions of dollars.” And just because SAP wasn’t able to generate that kind of value from Oracle’s pilfered IP, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t pay full fare for its infringement. “They took it and they have to pay for it regardless of whether they did well or didn’t do well using it.”

But SAP would rather not pay what it describes as a poorly caluclated “bonanza” award. “This case comes down to what is the best measure of compensation,” SAP attorney Robert Mittelstaedt argued. “Oracle’s [proposed damages] are based on guesswork,” while SAP’s are “based on reality.”

And evidently factoring “reality” into the equation cuts a hell of a lot of fat off the damages award at issue here. Because Mittelstaedt says SAP feels it owes Oracle just $28 million, which is, remarkably, even less than the $40.6 million its high-paid damages expert suggested.

PREVIOUSLY:

• LOLCatz: Safra on The Stand Again in Oracle-SAP Trial
• Plattner and White No-Shows at Oracle-SAP Trial
• Damages Expert to SAP: You Owe Me $14 Million and Oracle Four Times That
• Oracle, SAP and the Apotheker Sideshow
• Better Late: SAP Co-CEO Apologizes for Oracle IP Theft
• SAP Co-CEO Expected to Testify in Oracle Trial Today
• HP to Oracle: Leave Léo Alone
• Oracle Still Hoping to Snag HP’s Apotheker for SAP Trial
• HP CEO to Oracle: Here’s Looking at You, Kid–Suntory Time!
• Ellison to Self: Damn, Damn. I Knew I Should Have Said $4.5 Billion
• SAP Attorney: Board Knew TomorrowNow Was Infringing at Time of Acquisition
• Oracle Co-President on SAP’s Damages Offer: “It’s Crazy”
• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

“[Their offer] doesn’t value our intellectual property at all,” she said, adding that TomorrowNow’s infringement encompassed more than just support documentation. “Yes, there were documents and help guides and things like that, but there was also the software itself–probably millions of lines of code, which is what the products really are….And we spend billions a year on R&D. This is a business where intellectual property is worth billions.”

Greg Lanier, a Jones Day attorney representing SAP, pressed her on that point insisting that Oracle isn’t owed such a large damages award because the value that the company lost to TomorrowKnow’s infringement is that “Oracle doesn’t get the chance to sell that software to someone else.”

But Catz wasn’t having any of it.

“You know, if Warner Brothers had a little subsidiary that copied Disney’s entire library and started selling it for $2 a copy, and they got caught and then offered to give Disney back half of what they made, is Disney’s library only worth $50?” she asked. “I mean, really. It’s valuable. The fact that it was copied doesn’t change that it’s valuable.”

Lanier quickly dismissed Catz’s point as a “colorful analogy,” reminding her that there are only 358 lost customers at issue in this case. Hard to imagine that such a “colorful analogy” in an otherwise tedious enterprise software case didn’t resonate with the jury, though.

Closing arguments in the case begin on Monday, with jury deliberations to follow.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Plattner and White No-Shows at Oracle-SAP Trial
• Damages Expert to SAP: You Owe Me $14 Million and Oracle Four Times That
• Oracle, SAP and the Apotheker Sideshow
• Better Late: SAP Co-CEO Apologizes for Oracle IP Theft
• SAP Co-CEO Expected to Testify in Oracle Trial Today
• HP to Oracle: Leave Léo Alone
• Oracle Still Hoping to Snag HP’s Apotheker for SAP Trial
• HP CEO to Oracle: Here’s Looking at You, Kid–Suntory Time!
• Ellison to Self: Damn, Damn. I Knew I Should Have Said $4.5 Billion
• SAP Attorney: Board Knew TomorrowNow Was Infringing at Time of Acquisition
• Oracle Co-President on SAP’s Damages Offer: “It’s Crazy”
• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

Indeed, speaking to reporters in the courtroom hallway this morning, Boies said that the evidence Oracle presented during the trial proved that Apotheker had knowledge of the copyright infringement scheme at issue in the case. “The testimony and evidence prove that Mr. Apotheker oversaw the copyright infringement scheme,” Boies said. “We did not show the 2 year old video deposition because it was taken before SAP stipulated to liability.”

Of course if Apotheker was as pivotal a figure as Boies maintains, one would think that there would at least be some content in his video deposition worth showing the jury. Certainly, that’s the view of SAP, which continues to maintain that Oracle’s repeated shots at Apotheker are more about the PR trial being conducted outside the courtroom than anything else.

“Today’s proceedings focused on the damages, and we remain confident that we have demonstrated a clear case for fair compensation to Oracle for the limited operations of TomorrowNow,” an SAP spokesperson said in a statement. “We trust now in the jury to bring this matter to an appropriate conclusion.”

HP has not yet commented on Boies’s remarks. The company reports earnings next week, and Oracle would obviously not be unhappy if any of this legal unpleasantness happened to lodge in investors’ minds.

UPDATE: Here’s HP’s official comment: “Oracle’s current stance is clear proof that they have been trying to harass Léo and interfere with his work at HP. As HP has said repeatedly, Oracle had ample opportunity to question Léo in the two years after he gave a full-day deposition. Léo was never asked to give an additional deposition. As HP and SAP have noted, Oracle chose not to include Leo as a live trial witness until after he was named CEO of HP. Léo had a limited role in the matter.”

PREVIOUSLY:

• Plattner and White No-Shows at Oracle-SAP Trial
• Damages Expert to SAP: You Owe Me $14 Million and Oracle Four Times That
• Oracle, SAP and the Apotheker Sideshow
• Better Late: SAP Co-CEO Apologizes for Oracle IP Theft
• SAP Co-CEO Expected to Testify in Oracle Trial Today
• HP to Oracle: Leave Léo Alone
• Oracle Still Hoping to Snag HP’s Apotheker for SAP Trial
• HP CEO to Oracle: Here’s Looking at You, Kid–Suntory Time!
• Ellison to Self: Damn, Damn. I Knew I Should Have Said $4.5 Billion
• SAP Attorney: Board Knew TomorrowNow Was Infringing at Time of Acquisition
• Oracle Co-President on SAP’s Damages Offer: “It’s Crazy”
• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

Then it’s on to closing arguments, now scheduled for Monday, and finally deliberation. Odd to think that the case has reached this point with so few SAP board members actually testifying live in court. Looking over the final witness list for the trial reveals a number of noteworthy no-shows (beyond Hewlett-Packard CEO Léo Apotheker): Former SAP CEO Henning Kagermann, COO and board member Gerhard Oswald, co-founder and board chairman Hasso Plattner, and, most interestingly, CFO Mark White, SAP’s designated corporate representative for the trial and the guy tapped by its board to clean up the TomorrowNow mess.

Why didn’t SAP put them on the stand? Perhaps it’s because Werner Brandt and SAP co-Chief Executive Officer Bill McDermott, the only board members to take the stand, fared so poorly there.

Or perhaps it’s simply because of the way the trial has played out. “We’ve said from the start that our focus is on damages, that we are interested in resolution of this dispute and determining a reasonable number for damages, and putting the matter behind us,” an SAP spokesperson told me. “The witnesses we call support that focus. Please keep in mind that there were 73 names on the witness list when it was submitted. Since that list was submitted, the scope of the trial has been narrowed considerably and the length of the trial has been shortened.”

UPDATE: I’m told Kagermann was prepared to testify live, but did not due to time constraints. His video deposition was played instead.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Damages Expert to SAP: You Owe Me $14 Million and Oracle Four Times That
• Oracle, SAP and the Apotheker Sideshow
• Better Late: SAP Co-CEO Apologizes for Oracle IP Theft
• SAP Co-CEO Expected to Testify in Oracle Trial Today
• HP to Oracle: Leave Léo Alone
• Oracle Still Hoping to Snag HP’s Apotheker for SAP Trial
• HP CEO to Oracle: Here’s Looking at You, Kid–Suntory Time!
• Ellison to Self: Damn, Damn. I Knew I Should Have Said $4.5 Billion
• SAP Attorney: Board Knew TomorrowNow Was Infringing at Time of Acquisition
• Oracle Co-President on SAP’s Damages Offer: “It’s Crazy”
• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

But SAP damages expert Stephen Clarke argues it shouldn’t be more than $40.6 million.

Which is ironic considering SAP paid Clarke’s firm $14 million in fees to determine how much the company owed Oracle for infringing its IP. That’s more than 25 percent of the sum Clarke ultimately settled on (and $10 million more than the fees Oracle’s expert collected for his testimony).

But, according to Clarke, calculating damages accurately requires a certain detached objectivity and evidently it comes at a price. “There’s no anger or punishment allowed,” Clarke said Tuesday. “What happened as a result of that infringement is what matters. The only way to do that is focus on the actual number of contracts at issue here.”

And that number is just 358, well shy of the “thousands” of contracts SAP hoped to win away from Oracle.

Too bad there’s no dollar value on SAP co-CEO Bill McDermott’s apology to Oracle yesterday.

Oracle’s cross-examination of Clarke is expected to continue into Thursday, after which SAP will likely show a bit of testimonial footage and rest its case. Presumably that will be followed by some rebuttal witnesses from Oracle on Friday and closing arguments sometime the following week.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Oracle, SAP and the Apotheker Sideshow
• Better Late: SAP Co-CEO Apologizes for Oracle IP Theft
• SAP Co-CEO Expected to Testify in Oracle Trial Today
• HP to Oracle: Leave Léo Alone
• Oracle Still Hoping to Snag HP’s Apotheker for SAP Trial
• HP CEO to Oracle: Here’s Looking at You, Kid–Suntory Time!
• Ellison to Self: Damn, Damn. I Knew I Should Have Said $4.5 Billion
• SAP Attorney: Board Knew TomorrowNow Was Infringing at Time of Acquisition
• Oracle Co-President on SAP’s Damages Offer: “It’s Crazy”
• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

Why is Oracle so intent on putting former SAP CEO and new HP chief Léo Apotheker on the stand in the trial that will determine damages in Oracle’s long-running IP battle with its German rival?

SAP insists it’s to create a “PR sideshow”–which is true to an extent. But sometimes there’s more to a sideshow than meets the eye. Which is not to say that some nefarious scheme lies at the heart of all this, just that there is a lot of subtext to make sense of in this case. And it’s being written from two very different views of how damages should be calculated and how important Apotheker is as a variable in that calculation.

SAP’s view is that now that it has stipulated to liability, damages should be determined according to the actual number of contracts won by TomorrowNow and their value–not according to the number of contracts it hoped to win.

Oracle’s view is that damages should be determined by value of the intellectual property stolen from it and SAP’s ambitions for it. And while SAP’s stipulation to liability prevents Oracle from introducing evidence on liability, it leaves it free to introduce evidence for “context” on damages.

And that’s where Apotheker comes in.

According to evidence presented in the case, Apotheker chaired the launch of the Safe Passage program, of which the TomorrowNow acquisition was one part. And in his depositions, former SAP board member Shai Agassi clearly identified Apotheker as having some responsibility for TomorrowNow post acquisition, along with Gerd Oswald.

“I was the guy who led the the evaluation [of TomorrowNow] with Werner Brandt, who managed the acquisition teams at the time,” Agassi said. “The day of the acquisition, it was basically moved to Gerd Oswald, and the sales effort was moved over to Apotheker. So Safe Passage was managed by Apotheker and Oswald.”

Add to this the fact that Apotheker reported on TomorrowNow and the Safe Passage program in SAP earnings calls and was the only senior SAP exec quoted in a company release touting the program’s success, and it seems reasonable to expect that he might be able to provide some of the “context” Oracle is looking for (click document below to enlarge). One could argue that his expectations and forecasts for the program’s success speak directly to Oracle’s damages.

Or one could argue, as SAP and HP do, that his involvement was incidental and that he had no responsibility for TomorrowNow’s day-to-day operations and hence no knowledge of its transgressions.

But unless he testifies under oath, we’ll never know who’s right. And with Apotheker quietly going about his business at an undisclosed location, it’s looking like that’s how things will end up.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Better Late: SAP Co-CEO Apologizes for Oracle IP Theft
• SAP Co-CEO Expected to Testify in Oracle Trial Today
• HP to Oracle: Leave Léo Alone
• Oracle Still Hoping to Snag HP’s Apotheker for SAP Trial
• HP CEO to Oracle: Here’s Looking at You, Kid–Suntory Time!
• Ellison to Self: Damn, Damn. I Knew I Should Have Said $4.5 Billion
• SAP Attorney: Board Knew TomorrowNow Was Infringing at Time of Acquisition
• Oracle Co-President on SAP’s Damages Offer: “It’s Crazy”
• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

Apotheker’s first day as CEO of HP, Nov. 1, is also the first day of the trial. And he’s on Oracle’s witness list.

But if he’s called, will he show up?

Oracle’s not sure he will, but it wants everyone to know that it has big plans for him in the courtroom, whether he does or not.

In a statement Tuesday night, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison essentially dared Apotheker to appear on the witness stand, suggesting that HP’s newly appointed Chairman, Raymond Lane–a former Oracle president–might try to keep him from testifying.

“A few weeks ago I accused HP’s new CEO, Leo Apotheker, of overseeing an industrial espionage scheme centering on the repeated theft of massive amounts of Oracle’s software. A major portion of this theft occurred while Mr. Apotheker was CEO of SAP,” Ellison said in a statement.

“HP’s Chairman, Ray Lane, immediately came to Mr. Apotheker’s defense by writing a letter stating, ‘Oracle has been litigating this case for years and has never offered any evidence that Mr. Apotheker was involved.’ Well, that’s what we are planning to do during the trial that starts next Monday. Unless, Mr. Lane and the rest of the HP Board of Directors decide to keep their new CEO far, far away from HP Headquarters until that trial is over. If HP keeps Leo Apotheker far from HP headquarters we cannot subpoena him to testify at that trial.”

Which is true–as a foreign national, Apotheker is under no legal obligation to appear at the trial if called to testify (his name has been on Oracle’s witness list since August 5, 2010–see image below). But given the recent war of words between Oracle and HP over his hiring, it would be odd for him not to, particularly if, as HP claims, he wasn’t involved in the IP theft at the center of Oracle’s suit.

That said, it seems HP is already setting the stage for Apotheker to be a no-show.

“Oracle had ample opportunity to question Leo during his sworn deposition in October 2008,” the company said in a statement. “Given Leo’s limited knowledge of and role in the matter, Oracle’s last-minute effort to require him to appear live at trial is no more than an effort to harass him and interfere with his duties and responsibilities as HP’s CEO.”

One last thing: If you missed the reference in the headline of this post, here’s your explanation:

Earlier this week, the three companies filed amicus briefs in support of Google and YouTube, which are defending themselves against a $1 billion copyright lawsuit by Viacom. In the briefs, they urge the judge presiding over the case to dismiss Viacom’s suit, claiming to do otherwise is to violate protections given Google under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

From the briefs:

[Viacom's] legal arguments, if accepted, would retard the development of the Internet and electronic commerce, create uncertainty for service providers regarding their legal exposure for alleged infringements, and inhabit the growth and development of user-centric online models that, day after day, make the Internet and the world more democratic.

The expression of support by Yahoo (YHOO), Facebook and eBay (EBAY) for Google follows a similar move by Hollywood. Earlier this month, Warner Bros., NBC Universal, Disney, the Screen Actors Guild and Directors Guild of America filed amicus briefs of their own arguing, as Viacom (VIA) has, that Google (GOOG) is not protected by the DMCA, which shields Internet service providers from liability for copyright violations committed by users.

The friends of the court in this case, then, are aligned on both sides. All that remains is to determine whether the DMCA protects YouTube. And Viacom is confident that the court will determine that it does not.

“The courts have been clear that creating and building a Web-based business on the intellectual property of others is illegal,” a Viacom spokesperson told Bloomberg. “That is exactly what YouTube did in its formative years. Nothing in this case threatens the principles of the DMCA or the ability of legitimate Internet-based businesses to flourish.”

“The world would have a new free format unencumbered by software patents,” the Free Software Foundation enthused in an open letter to Google (GOOG) earlier this year. “Viewers, video creators, free software developers, hardware makers–everyone–would have another way to distribute video without patents, fees, and restrictions.”

A new era of Web video without the patent-encumbered formats that have defined the Internet to date. That seems ideal. But like many ideals, it may prove to be unattainable. As a number of observers have already noted VP8 isn’t free from patent liability. And now that Google has open-sourced it as part of WebM, that liability is likely to become an issue.

And quickly, too.

Indeed, Larry Horn, CEO of MPEG LA, the consortium that controls the AVC/H.264 video standard, tells me that the group is already looking at creating a patent pool license for VP8. Here’s an excerpt from my email exchange with him:

JP: Let me ask you this: Are you creating a patent pool license for VP8 and WebM? Have you been approached about creating one?

Larry Horn: Yes, in view of the marketplace uncertainties regarding patent licensing needs for such technologies, there have been expressions of interest from the market urging us to facilitate formation of licenses that would address the market’s need for a convenient one-stop marketplace alternative to negotiating separate licenses with individual patent holders in accessing essential patent rights for VP8 as well as other codecs, and we are looking into the prospects of doing so.

It would seem, then, that VP8 may end up subject to the same licensing issues as H.264. If MPEG LA does create a patent pool license for the standard, the free lunch Google promised yesterday may not be free after all.

Google certainly has the market muscle to guarantee broad acceptance of WebM and the VP8 codec–if it’s a royalty-free standard. But what if it’s not truly royalty free? Who’ll foot the bill? And is the company willing to indemnify its partners from patent litigation to push WebM?

For what it’s worth, Google seems to believe that it has done its due diligence here and has the necessary patent clearance for VP8. Said Google product manager Mike Jazayeri: “We have done a pretty thorough analysis of VP8 and On2 Technologies (VP8′s developer) prior to the acquisition and since then, and we are very confident with the technology and that’s why we’re open sourcing.”

Question is, was that analysis thorough enough?

I’ve asked Google for comment on Horn’s remarks and will update here if I’m given one.

And we’re off! Court filings in the YouTube-Viacom suit were just unsealed and both sides are distributing them now.

This post will be a work in progress as I ingest the paperwork. I’ll link to places where you can sort through the files for yourself, and I’ll be posting what I can on this site as well. Most important, I’ll try to interpret the documents and pull out the most interesting stuff.

As we start, a reminder of what we’re looking at: Both sides are releasing their legal arguments and supporting evidence in the three-year-old case. In short, Viacom (VIA) says that Google’s (GOOG) video site infringed on its copyright and wants a billion dollars in damages; YouTube says the site is protected by federal law.

Slightly longer version: Viacom is arguing that YouTube is a giant version of Napster and Grokster, the music file-sharing sites knocked down in earlier court rulings. That makes it important for the cable network to show that YouTube executives knew users were uploading licensed work and that the executives were encouraging it.

YouTube, meanwhile, is arguing that the company has always tried to discourage users from uploading licensed stuff and has gone to great lengths to take down stuff that copyright owners don’t want there. The video service also argues that Viacom has uploaded plenty of its stuff to YouTube on its own and continues to do so. Key part of Google’s defense, in plain English:

Given Viacom’s own actions, there is no way YouTube could ever have known which Viacom content was and was not authorized to be on the site. But Viacom thinks YouTube should somehow have figured it out. The legal rule that Viacom seeks would require YouTube–and every Web platform–to investigate and police all content users upload, and would subject those web sites to crushing liability if they get it wrong.

It’s important to remember that all of this is already old news to the U.S. District Court judge who will rule in the case. While this may seem like a reality show, the public doesn’t get a vote on this one.

Now let’s get to the filings. Here is Viacom’s request for summary judgment, followed by its “statement of undisputed facts”–essentially supporting evidence. Viacom is also posting most of the documents and depositions here, though some items have been redacted.

Viacom Summary Judgment Motion –

Viacom Statement of Undisputed Facts –

And here’s a link to YouTube’s statement. The company’s legal memorandum follows:

20100318_google_viacom_youtube_memorandum

Below is a statement from YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley, which amounts to a legal version of a press release. Note the many references he makes to his desire to keep the site free of copyrighted stuff–at least initially.

C Hurley Declaration –

But how do you find cool music blogs? That’s where Twones, a Dutch start-up wants to come in: It has launched a new service designed to bring you stuff you might like. Or at least that you’ve never heard before.

Sound familiar? It should: You can describe The Hype Machine the same way, and that service is already cherished by Web-savvy music lovers.

And investors, too. But due to worries that it’s a lawsuit waiting to happen, Hype Machine hasn’t attracted any serious money despite four years of accolades.

That’s because the MP3s the music blogs post are almost always copyright violations, technically speaking. That’s not a problem for the blogs because the big labels now tend to turn a blind eye (usually).

But Hype Machine caches those songs, which means you can hear them almost instantly, but which also puts it in a legal gray area (at best). I know of at least a couple prominent investors who are convinced they would be sued as soon as they sent the company a check. So they haven’t.

Back to Twones. The service, which is set up as a toolbar for Firefox browsers, sidesteps Hype Machine’s legal landmines (I think) by simply sending users directly to the music blogs themselves. When you select a song (or Twones picks one for you) it opens the page in a new browser window, and the song is supposed to play automatically.

So no legal liability (theoretically). No licensing fees either.

But it’s not nearly so much fun. At least in the brief spins I’ve seen. Precisely because the songs aren’t cached, going from one Twones blog to another can mean there’s a gap between songs as the page loads. Or no song at all if Twones steers you to a dead link.

It could be that all of this is simply early-stage kinks, because the service just opened to the public this morning. But I fear that playing by the rules will ultimately cost Twones here.

In China, the search giant is battling hackers and the government, who may be one and the same. In Europe, the company is being hauled in front of an antitrust review. And Italy? Total disaster.

Yesterday, an Italian court convicted three Google (GOOG) executives of privacy violations in a case that stems from a clip uploaded to Google Video in 2006. The executives, who include former CFO George Reyes, have been sentenced to six-month prison sentences.

And that verdict follows a December ruling whereby an Italian court found the company guilty of copyright violations on YouTube, the video site it bought in 2006. Mediaset, the broadcaster that brought the suit–and which is controlled by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi–is looking for more than $730 million in damages.

Google has responded to the video convictions with an outraged blog post. Note that the language is more forceful than the company used to describe its China problem. But also note that the company isn’t threatening to pull out of Italy altogether. Maybe it should.

Serious threat to the web in Italy
2/24/2010 01:57:00 AM
In late 2006, students at a school in Turin, Italy filmed and then uploaded a video to Google Video that showed them bullying an autistic schoolmate. The video was totally reprehensible and we took it down within hours of being notified by the Italian police. We also worked with the local police to help identify the person responsible for uploading it and she was subsequently sentenced to 10 months community service by a court in Turin, as were several other classmates who were also involved. In these rare but unpleasant cases, that’s where our involvement would normally end.

But in this instance, a public prosecutor in Milan decided to indict four Google employees–David Drummond, Arvind Desikan, Peter Fleischer and George Reyes (who left the company in 2008). The charges brought against them were criminal defamation and a failure to comply with the Italian privacy code. To be clear, none of the four Googlers charged had anything to do with this video. They did not appear in it, film it, upload it or review it. None of them know the people involved or were even aware of the video’s existence until after it was removed.

Nevertheless, a judge in Milan today convicted 3 of the 4 defendants–David Drummond, Peter Fleischer and George Reyes–for failure to comply with the Italian privacy code. All 4 were found not guilty of criminal defamation. In essence this ruling means that employees of hosting platforms like Google Video are criminally responsible for content that users upload. We will appeal this astonishing decision because the Google employees on trial had nothing to do with the video in question. Throughout this long process, they have displayed admirable grace and fortitude. It is outrageous that they have been subjected to a trial at all.

But we are deeply troubled by this conviction for another equally important reason. It attacks the very principles of freedom on which the Internet is built. Common sense dictates that only the person who films and uploads a video to a hosting platform could take the steps necessary to protect the privacy and obtain the consent of the people they are filming. European Union law was drafted specifically to give hosting providers a safe harbor from liability so long as they remove illegal content once they are notified of its existence. The belief, rightly in our opinion, was that a notice and take down regime of this kind would help creativity flourish and support free speech while protecting personal privacy. If that principle is swept aside and sites like Blogger, YouTube and indeed every social network and any community bulletin board, are held responsible for vetting every single piece of content that is uploaded to them–every piece of text, every photo, every file, every video–then the Web as we know it will cease to exist, and many of the economic, social, political and technological benefits it brings could disappear.

These are important points of principle, which is why we and our employees will vigorously appeal this decision.

Posted by Matt Sucherman, VP and Deputy General Counsel–Europe, Middle East and Africa

“Although the United States believes the parties have approached this effort in good faith and the amended settlement agreement is more circumscribed in its sweep than the original proposed settlement, the amended settlement agreement suffers from the same core problem as the original agreement,” the DOJ said in a filing with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

“It is an attempt to use the class action mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute before the court in this litigation,” the report continues. “Under the [revised proposal], Google would remain the only competitor in the digital marketplace with the rights to distribute and otherwise exploit a vast array of works in multiple formats. Google also would have the exclusive ability to exploit unclaimed works–including so-called ‘orphan works’–without risk of liability.”

And then there was this:

Google’s exclusive access to millions and millions of books may well benefit Google’s existing online search business. Google already holds a relatively dominant market share in that market. That dominance may be further entrenched by its exclusive access to content through the ASA. Content that can be discovered by only one search engine offers that search engine at least some protection from competition. This outcome has not been achieved by a technological advance in search or by operation of normal market forces; rather, it is the direct product of scanning millions of books without the copyright holders’ consent.

In other words, the amended deal continues to give Google (GOOG) significant anticompetitive advantages and rewards the company for scanning books in violation of copyright protections. And while the Justice Department did not go so far as to explicitly urge rejection of the deal, it recommended that parties to the settlement make further changes before the Feb. 18 fairness hearing at which it is to be reviewed.

Another setback for Google, or as Gary Reback–a Silicon Valley antitrust lawyer who represents Microsoft (MSFT) and the Open Book Alliance, a coalition opposed to the settlement–said, the filing is a “profound embarrassment–bordering on an outright humiliation” for the search company.

On Tuesday, the agency sent a letter to the search company inquiring about the $350 “equipment recovery fee” it has attached to its new Nexus One phone. Levied in addition to a $200 termination fee from T-Mobile, Google’s charge means that Nexus One users who cancel service in under 120 days face a total of $550 in penalties.

“The combination of ETFs from Google and T-Mobile for the Nexus One is unique among the four major national carriers,” the FCC said in its letter. “Consumers have been surprised by this policy and by its financial impact. Please let us know your rationale(s) for these combined fees, and whether you have coordinated or will coordinate on these fees and on the disclosure of their combined effect.”

Among the other questions put to Google:

• Does the ETF itself vary by device (e.g., higher ETFs for advanced devices)? If higher ETFs apply to a certain class of devices, exactly how is that class defined?
• Are ETFs prorated so that the customer’s liability decreases over time? If so, what is the exact schedule by which they are prorated?
• Press reports and public statements from wireless companies have attributed ETFs to several different factors. What is the rationale for your ETF(s), and how specifically do the structure and level of those ETF(s) relate to that rationale?

Google (GOOG) has previously dismissed questions likes these, claiming fees like those it has implemented are “standard practice” for third-party resellers of mobile service, who are only trying to recoup subsidies they offer customers who sign up for multiyear service contracts.

But that doesn’t quite explain why the fees charged by Google and T-Mobile together amount to far more than most ETFs. Now that the FCC is asking, Google will have to offer a more complete explanation.

Craigslist this morning turned the tables on South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, suing him for threatening to file criminal charges over its adult classifieds. The suit seeks declaratory relief and a restraining order against McMaster, who alleges that those classifieds often display advertisements for prostitution and graphic pornographic material.

“Despite craigslist’s legal immunity from criminal or civil liability under State law for unlawful third-party content on its Web site, and despite the numerous good-faith actions that craigslist has voluntarily taken to deter abuse of its service by third parties notwithstanding its legal immunity, McMaster has persisted in threats to criminally prosecute craigslist on the basis of third-party content appearing on the craigslist Web site,” the suit reads. “…Given Defendant McMaster‘s persistent and continuing public threats, craigslist is presently faced with the untenable choice of either completely shutting down all portions of its website that are directed at South Carolina or else putting itself and its management at risk of imminent criminal prosecution by Defendant McMaster.”

Or calling McMaster’s bluff, as craigslist has so excellently done here. And with great success, apparently. Within a few hours of the suit’s announcement, McMaster backed down, issuing a rather remarkable statement proclaiming himself victor in the spat. “The defensive legal action craigslist has taken against the solicitors and my office is good news,” he wrote. “It shows that craigslist is taking the matter seriously for the first time. More importantly, overnight they have removed the erotic services section from their website, as we asked them to do. And they are now taking responsibility for the content of their future advertisements. If they keep their word, this is a victory for law enforcement and for the people of South Carolina.”

Craigslist this morning turned the tables on South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, suing him for threatening to file criminal charges over its adult classifieds. The suit seeks declaratory relief and a restraining order against McMaster, who alleges that those classifieds often display advertisements for prostitution and graphic pornographic material.

“Despite craigslist’s legal immunity from criminal or civil liability under State law for unlawful third-party content on its Web site, and despite the numerous good-faith actions that craigslist has voluntarily taken to deter abuse of its service by third parties notwithstanding its legal immunity, McMaster has persisted in threats to criminally prosecute craigslist on the basis of third-party content appearing on the craigslist Web site,” the suit reads. “…Given Defendant McMaster‘s persistent and continuing public threats, craigslist is presently faced with the untenable choice of either completely shutting down all portions of its website that are directed at South Carolina or else putting itself and its management at risk of imminent criminal prosecution by Defendant McMaster.”

Or calling McMaster’s bluff, as craigslist has so excellently done here. And with great success, apparently. Within a few hours of the suit’s announcement, McMaster backed down, issuing a rather remarkable statement proclaiming himself victor in the spat. “The defensive legal action craigslist has taken against the solicitors and my office is good news,” he wrote. “It shows that craigslist is taking the matter seriously for the first time. More importantly, overnight they have removed the erotic services section from their website, as we asked them to do. And they are now taking responsibility for the content of their future advertisements. If they keep their word, this is a victory for law enforcement and for the people of South Carolina.”