Archive for the ‘Law!’ Category

Perfect 10 Sues Google Over Image Search Results

This article was written by Jason Lee Miller for WebProNews

Google’s standard rule of not telling anybody anything until its
too late has caused worldwide speculation as to what on Earth they
plan to do with all that new money. A recent New York
invitation-only meeting with Eric Schmidt and Sergey Brin did
little to change that silent trend.

In fact, the information coming out of that meeting isn’t exactly
flowing, leading some to speculation that Schmidt and Brin
exercised some version of the Jedi mind trick.

“There was a lot of talk about China,” cloudily recalls Howard
Ward, a fund manager at Gabelli Funds LLC who attended the meeting
among 300 other analysts and investors.

But apparently that talk of China wasn’t exactly explicit enough to
yield any concrete answers.

“They’re pretty opaque. They don’t give a lot of information,”
said (Benjamin Segal of Winchester Capital Group?**).

But it does appear to most that a portion of the proceeds from the
sale of over $4 billion in stock will be spent establishing a
stronger presence in the potential money well that is China.

David Schiller, a portfolio manager at JP Morgan Chase & Co., who
also attended the meeting but appears to have little to say,
reveals his guess for Google’s next move.

“Best-case scenario is they want to buy a bunch of search companies
or online gaming companies in China,” he said.

Equally as speculative about Google’s next move in China, is
Google’s next move in the United States, which involves lofty
notions of a free nation-wide ad-supported wireless network. One
wonders sometimes if Google’s imagination is as good as those who
talk about them.

Google opened up a second offering of over 14 million Google shares
at $295 a share earlier this week-a price TheStreet.com’s Jim
Cramer thinks is a steal as he expects stock prices to reach
$350.

“I believe Google can be bought here. There is a scarcity of
companies with high, organic growth in this market, and that is
why I expect Google to go up. Google is one of the few companies
out there with accelerating revenue growth, and at about 40 times
expected 2006 earnings, it is fairly priced given its strong
30%-plus growth rate,” said Cramer.

**Much of the information contained in this article comes from this
article out of BusinessTimes.Asia, out of Singapore,indirectly
perhaps from Bloomberg, which was vague, cryptic, and quotes only
“Winchester’s Mr. Segal.”

The Fight For Gmail

Written by Jason Lee Miller for WebProBusiness

Who owns Gmail? According to Benjamin Cohen, nobody yet-well, one guy in Germany, but he doesn’t count for much-and a British company is claiming the intellectual property rights to the Gmail trademark, even if the patent office hasn’t awarded anyone that credit.

The first battle for the claim to Gmail was brought by Daniel Giersch, a German entrepreneur, who actually does own Gmail, but only in Germany. Giersch recently blocked Google’s web mail service in the Land of Eternal Oktoberfest. But in the rest of the world, Gmail is still in dispute.

Enter Independent International Investment Research (IIR), a London-based research firm who set up Gmailâ„¢ web based email in 2002 with the domain gmail.co.uk, two years before Google launched its own Gmail.

Though the WHOIS registry lists Google as the owner of gmail.com since 1995, the company bought the domain from Garfield.com, the online home of the cartoon character, in 2004.

IIR has recently renewed its threat of legal action, according to Times Online. The British company has offered to settle for the 0.5% royalties generated from gmail.com, “conservatively” valued between $45 million and $60 million.

Shane Smith, founder of IIR, told Times Online that after 15 months of talking the matter over with Google, the two have not come to any satisfactory agreement, leading Smith and his company to knuckle up, no matter how much it hurts them financially.

“I feel it is up to me as the founder and the major shareholder. We’re not going to sit on the sidelines while a company uses our intellectual property rights,” he said. “We’re confident that we have the funding available to us and we’re girding our loins.”

But as Cohen, presumably the same Benjamin Cohen who became the youngest dotcom millionaire in Europe at 15 years-old, noted in his article, three companies have applied for an EC-wide trademark and have yet to receive it from the patent office. The German Gmail progenitor Giersch, Karen Griffith (trustee of IIR), and Google have all applied for the patent, and IIR beat Google to the European office by just a few days. In the US, there are six trademark applications pending.

In the US, as illustrated by the recent Apple iPod snafu where Microsoft actually won certain patents, application timing is crucial, as well as establishing a case of prior use. But Cohen says that in the UK, it doesn’t quite work that way.

“Although their use predates Google’s by more than two years, the dispute would be handled by Nominet, the UK’s internet name authority which tends to side with the larger party. They also seem not to recognise prior use, at least that was my experience when they handed iTunes.co.uk to Apple from my company, despite us launching three years prior to Apple’s product.”

If anybody other than Google is awarded the Gmail trademark, it could prove costly for the folks in Mountain View.

——————————————————————————–
About the Author:
Jason L. Miller is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business.

Identity Protection is Up to You

by Trevor Bauknight from SiteProNews

Some time ago, Atlanta-based Choicepoint, a giant consumer information clearinghouse revealed that some of the massive amounts of personal data the company stores on virtually every American citizen was compromised. We found out about this because some 30,000 Californians received mail warning them that the personal information in question may have belonged to them. That was the tip of the iceberg.

Since the initial story broke, we have found out that the compromised information was not restricted to Californians. Only the notification was. Why? California is the only state where the law requires such notification. The company says it sent out an additional 110,000 letters when investigators told them that people outside California may have been affected; but the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s office investigating the incident suspects that the number of people affected may reach half a million nationwide.

What is ChoicePoint?

ChoicePoint is a data broker holding some 19 billion records obtained from government, insurance and business sources. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) describes the company this way: “According to a recent quarterly statement filed at the Security and Exchange Commission, ChoicePoint sells: ‘claims history data, motor vehicle records, police records, credït information and modeling services… employment background screenings and drug testing administration services, public record searches, vital record services, credential verification, due diligence information, Uniform Commercial Code searches and filings, DNA identification services, authentication services and people and shareholder locator information searches…print fulfillment, teleservices, database and campaign management services…’”.

Since its spinoff from Equifax in 1997, the company has built its massive databases through the strategic acquisition of some 60 companies, among them: Pinkerton, Inc., a pre-employment screening company; Bridger Systems, a USA Patriot Act compliance company and Bode Technology Group, a DNA identification company. According to EPIC: “At Privacy International’s Big Brother Award ceremony held in Cambridge, MA on March 7, 2001, ChoicePoint received the ‘Greatest Corporate Invader’ award ‘for massive selling of records, accurate and inaccurate to cops, direct marketers and election officials.’” Powerful stuff.

What Happened?

The ChoicePoint website points out (in boldface): “This incident was not a breach of ChoicePoint´s network or a ‘hacking’ incident, and did not involve any of ChoicePoint´s customer information.” They’re right. The data wasn’t stolen. It was sold. And we can safely say that with a 22% growth on net salës of $918 million and 4% year-over-year growth in net profït, the company came out pretty well on the transactions.

Sometime last year, about 50 companies were set up for the specific purpose of accessing ChoicePoint data and defrauding private individuals, and these businesses became ChoicePoint customers in their own right with working logins and passwords. They proceeded to guzzle and exploit ChoicePoint data; and in only a few months, at least 750 cases of actual identity theft originated in the abuse of this data. Organized crime has taken on new dimensions in the age of the Internet, and to say that this was “not a breach of ChoicePoint’s network”, while technically true, leaves the most important things unsaid.

As the infamous computer hacker Kevin Mitnick points out in his book on “social engineering” _The Art of Deception: Controlling the Human Element of Security_, a determined criminal need not be technologically-inclined to help herself to the data she wants. ChoicePoint’s failure was in doing the very thing it claims to enable its customers to do — verify that their customers are who they say they are.

What Should You Do?

Everyone is potentially impacted by this incident. As private individuals, you must be ever more vigilant of your personal identity. Some of the best ways to do that are outlined at the EPIC site above. Your credït report is usually the first indicator that something has gone wrong, and checking it rigorously and regularly for unusual queries, account activity, etc. should be your first order of business. Mechanisms are finally being put in place to allow you to do so frëe of charge, and details are available at http://www.ftc.gov

When using the Internet, always be wary of phishing schemes designed to lure you into supplying your personal information to illegitimate businesses masquerading as banks, eBay or even the IRS and FBI. Protecting your computer against spyware and viruses is getting easier now that Microsoft is supplying frëe software for doing so. But the key to computer security is keeping yourself educated and paying attention to security warnings, certifïcate verifications and unrequested changes to your system configuration and preferences. At Cafe ID, a portion of our website and our time is dedicated to keeping our customers up-to-date on the latest information regarding these threats.

As business owners, you must be able to verify that the account you’re opening is really for Mrs. Elder and not for a 41-year old Nigerïan man. This is apparently so difficult that not even ChoicePoint can manage it, and it has billions of records and powerful databases at its disposal. Business owners must demand more accountability from these private, profit-driven data brokers, and that, too, is a tall order given that ChoicePoint claims as customers at least 35 Federal government agencies and numerous state and local agencies. The SBA and the FTC are excellent resources to help you find out what you need to know and who you need to contact with your concerns.

Establish policies governing interactions with potential customers, and don’t waver from them. Be suspicious of requests to do things differently for people, even if they sound like they know the jargon or things that maybe only the right people should know. Such manipulation is at the heart of social engineering. Do everything you can to establish your business identity and secure it with digital certificates and strong passwords. Your company website may be the most visible and the most vulnerable aspect of your Online Identity, so make sure you’re dealing with reputable hostïng companies. And don’t attempt to conduct official transactions via e-mail. Addresses are easy to spoof, as the myriad phishing schemes illustrate.

If you think you already may be a victim of identity theft, there are several steps you should take immediately. Write to your creditors and inform them of what’s going on, and use registered mail. Keep paper records of everything. Law enforcement is keenly aware of and interested in this problem, and they should be among the first people to know if you feel your identity has been stolen.

Those are great starting points, but the road is long and winding. Failure to walk it, however, can be disastrous to you, your family and your business.

About The Author
Trevor Bauknight is a web designer and writer with over 15 years of experience on the Internet. He specializes in the creation and maintenance of business and personal identity online and can be reached at trevor@tryid.com. Stop by CafeID.com for a frëe tryout of the revolutionary SiteBuildingSystem and check-out our Flash-based website and IMAP e-mail hostïng solutions, complete with live support.

Yahoo, the DMCA, and Blackhat Techniques

Yahoo, the DMCA, and Blackhat Techniques by Chris Richardson

Apparently, through the use of a DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) complaint, you can have sites thrown out of Yahoo’s search index. If you file a DMCA report against a site, Yahoo will remove the “offending” site from Yahoo Search altogether, leaving no trace of the site in its index.

In fact, Yahoo’s system is set-up in a way that site owners with complaints filed against them are not allowed to defend themselves. Once Yahoo receives a DMCA complaint against a site, they act. Brian Turner brought this information to light over at Platinax.co.uk in a revealing report that also indicated the Platinax web site was made a victim of Yahoo’s practice.

Before we proceed, it is important to understand that these DMCA measures are in place to combat the growing pest of stolen content. Many unscrupulous site owners will not hesitate to take content from other people if it will give them a search engine boost. The DMCA option was introduced to combat these users. It is also important to remember that Yahoo is not the only search engine that takes action when DMCA issues are brought to light. As pointed out by Jenstar on the SEW Forums, each of the big 3 have DMCA measures in place in case someone files a complaint:

Google
Yahoo
MSN

However, the thread also states that people who have complaints filed against them can counter the claim, which brings us back to Brian’s article. While it may be true Google and MSN will allow you to defend yourself against DMCA claims, Brian’s article indicates that Yahoo does not, at least in Platinax’s case (in fact, Google makes the claims known to the accused, whereas Yahoo does not).

Because of Platinax’s removal from Yahoo’s index due to a DMCA filing against the site, Brian believes DMCA complaints can be used as an effective blackhat search optimization technique. He also believes it’s a system that’s open to abuse, and if Yahoo treats all DMCA complaints like they did Platinax’s, perhaps he’s right.

Let’s say a heated competitor is garnering better search rankings in Yahoo than you are. A DMCA complaint of copyright infringement to Yahoo will most likely have them removed from Yahoo’s index altogether, whether they actually committed any copyright violations or not.

This is puts too much power in the hands of a complaint system. If Yahoo does not make known the reason a complaint was filed against someone and does not allow the accused an opportunity to defend themselves, then Turner is quite correct: Yahoo’s DMCA solution is very much open for abuse. Unfortunately, representatives from Yahoo apparently don’t really see it that way.

During Turner’s investigation as to why Platinax was removed from Yahoo’s index, he spoke with Tomi Poutanen, the International Search Business Development Director for Yahoo who told Turner that Yahoo does not feel any obligation to report DMCA complaints and that their current system was not in a position to be abused.

Turner also reveals that no DMCA complaint was filed against the site in either MSN or Google. Just Yahoo. Perhaps that shouldn’t make a difference because a complaint is a complaint. At the very least, however, Yahoo should’ve given Turner and Platinax an opportunity to defend themselves, something Google and presumably MSN Search allows.

With Yahoo’s current method of handling these complaints, their system is ripe for abuse under the guise of false complaints that could result in innocent site owners removed from Yahoo’s index for no reason, other than what motivated the filing to begin with.

Like Turner indicates, if this is how Yahoo handles these complaints, it certainly appears as if Yahoo is lacking fundamental protection against false accusations and bogus DMCA filings, making DMCA complaints an ideal blackhat tool to use against more successful competitors.

Of course, one would like to think that Yahoo would investigate such a claim before they acted, but that certainly didn’t appear to be the case with Platinax.

Thanks to Michael Nguyen for pointing Brian’s article out.

About the Author:
Chris Richardson is a search engine writer and editor for WebProNews. Visit WebProNews for the latest search news.