Port Authority NY/NJ, Higher Bridge, Tunnel and PATH Rates Approved

A steep toll increase on the bridges and tunnels that cross the Hudson River was approved on Friday by the board of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the culmination of a two-week dance between the agency, politicians, and the public.

The approved increase, which takes effect next month, will immediately raise peak EZPass tolls to $9.50 from $8. By 2015, that toll will be $12.50. The cash toll will go up 50 percent in September to $12 a ride; by 2015, the cash toll will be $15.

The increases, although sure to be criticized by drivers, are significantly less steep than an initial proposal floated by the Port Authority earlier this month, and few municipal observers were surprised by the change.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey expressed surprise at the initial plan — a stance that raised some eyebrows as the governors jointly control the agency, whose every public action, particularly one as significant as a toll increase, is rarely announced without some form of prior approval from the two executives.

The governors pledged to review the proposal with the agency, and a round of public hearings was held. (Few, if any, authority board members attended those sessions.)

Late Thursday, as predicted, the governors issued a joint statement that took credit for the lower increases. “We are pleased that our work together” led to the lower tolls, the governors wrote.

The proposal will also raise the single-fare ride on the PATH train by 25 cents each of the next four years.

Mr. Cuomo and Mr. Christie have called for a significant audit of the Port Authority and blamed the toll increases on “fiscal mismanagement.” The governors promised to reduce the agency’s budget for maintenance and expansion.

The authority, like many sprawling bureaucracies, has its share of waste and inefficiencies, such as spiraling overtime. But the agency has trimmed its operating budget in the past few years and reduced staffing to the lowest level in decades. Its bonds recently received an upgrade from a rating agency.

The need for higher tolls is based more on the declining economy, which reduced the number of commuters (and thus, toll revenue) on the agency’s crossings. And the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site has siphoned billions away from the agency’s budget for improving and expanding its bridges, tunnels, airports, shipping ports and the PATH system.

Mr. Christie, who has pledged to not raise taxes on his constituents, called for the agency to use part of its budget for New Jersey road and highway repairs, which are traditionally paid for by the state. Some of Mr. Christie’s political opponents say the higher tolls are a de facto tax increase on commuters.

At Friday’s board hearing, representatives of several civic groups expressed support for the higher tolls, saying the revenue was necessary to help pay for the region’s transportation infrastructure to stay in good repair.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, on his Friday morning radio show, also endorsed the plan, warning that without additional revenue, the region’s economy would be at risk.

“The bridges would eventually fall down, we wouldn’t fix anything, we wouldn’t make the commute better,” the mayor said. “If you want services, you’ve got to pay for them.”

The proposals were approved 9-0 by the agency’s board of commissioners, all of whom are appointed by the two states’ governors.

A handful of commuters and civic activists spoke at Friday’s meeting against the higher tolls, saying that the working public was being asked to subsidize the agency’s foul-ups.

None of the agency’s nine commissioners would speak to reporters at the hearing’s conclusion. “I speak to the public, but not under these circumstances,” said one commissioner, David S. Steiner, as he walked past reporters into a private side room.

Mr. Steiner, an appointee of former Gov. James E. McGreevey of New Jersey, did not appear to be listening to the public, either. He could be seen resting, with his eyes shut, during significant portions of Friday’s board meeting.
Read More >>

Read More

Behind Google’s Huge Breakup Fee in Motorola Deal

It is certainly big. But is there any chance that it will be paid? I’m talking about the $2.5 billion reverse termination fee that Google agreed to pay Motorola Mobility if its proposed takeover fails to obtain antitrust clearance. This fee is about 20 percent of the $12.5 billion deal value and is significantly higher than the $375 million Motorola Mobility must pay Google if it accepts another bid.

Motorola filed a copy of the acquisition agreement between it and Google on Wednesday that spells out the exact terms when this fee is required to be paid. There are two circumstances:

1. The agreement is terminated because a government authority (e.g., a federal court or European Union antitrust authorities) issues a final, non-appealable order blocking the transaction on antitrust grounds.

2. If by Feb. 15, 2013, the transaction has not closed because it is being blocked by the authorities or has not cleared antitrust review, either party can terminate the agreement and transaction. The fee is then payable if two more conditions are met:

a) The transaction could otherwise close but for the failure to obtain antitrust clearance or the government blocking the deal.

b) Google willfully failed to use its reasonable best efforts to complete the deal or otherwise willfully breached the requirements in the agreement to obtain antitrust approval.

Basically, these provisions can be boiled down to an agreement that if the transaction is blocked on antitrust grounds, then Google is on the hook for $2.5 billion. But as long as Google complies with the agreement, it will have to fight such a government action in court, and a final disposition of the action has to occur by Feb. 15, 2013.

People close to Google have said they do not believe there are antitrust problems. So why is the fee so big?

The fee’s driver is that Google has become what Microsoft was a few years ago, a natural target for European and American antitrust regulators. For the foreseeable future, any significant transaction Google engages in will really be all about antitrust in terms of getting it done.

Absent this factor, the antitrust risk on this deal seems low. There is not substantial overlap between the company’s businesses. Google, the Internet search engine giant, also produces Android phone software, while Motorola Mobility manufactures cellphones and other wireless devices. Since there is virtually no horizontal overlap, the deal is known as a case of vertical integration. This is where two companies combine whose products are usually made separately but can be used in each others’. An example might be if General Motors bought a steel maker.

In the case of vertical integration, the antitrust authorities would have to show that competition would be reduced to challenge the transaction. This is a hard thing to do in the case of vertical integration because the impact on competition is much harder to measure.

This big fee, however, may not be a signal that there is an antitrust risk that the deal will be blocked, but a statement to the market of the opposite: that there is no such risk. By agreeing (or perhaps even proposing) such a large fee, Google is saying this is not a problem. And antitrust authorities are now put on notice that if they decide to give Google a hard time, the company is not only going to fight this but will be willing to pay for the fight to the tune of $2.5 billion.

This fee may therefore be a statement by Google that the antitrust authorities should tread carefully in examining and challenging this deal.

There is precedent for this. When Microsoft agreed to buy aQuantive in 2007 for $6 billion, it agreed, likely for similar reasons, to a $500 million reverse termination fee, or just over 8 percent of the deal value.

Typically, merger agreements have provisions that also spell out the procedures and steps the parties will take to obtain antitrust clearance. If you look at these provisions in the Google-Motorola Mobility acquisition agreement, they support the theory that this is all about Google making a statement to the antitrust authorities.

The provisions provide Google complete control over the antitrust process. In addition, the agreement does not obtain any species of a “hell or high water” provision. This provision, commonly seen in deals with antitrust risk, requires the buyer to take steps like asset divestitures or licensing of technology to satisfy antitrust regulators and obtain antitrust clearance. But there is no such provision in the Google-Motorola Mobility transaction agreement. This is a boon for Google, because regulators will look at such a provision as an easy way to force concessions. Google does not want to provide antitrust regulators any low-hanging fruit.

To some extent, the high reverse termination fee functions as a form of hell-or-high-water provision, though it is different in an important way. Without this provision, Google can arguably refuse to take any steps to satisfy regulators and simply pay the fee. If there were a hell-or-high-water provision, Google would first have to offer up concessions.

Again, making the fee higher benefits Google. If it were smaller, say only a couple of hundred million dollars, regulators might strong-arm the company into simple concessions, thinking this was chump change to Google. By setting it higher, Google has sent a warning: If you come after us, you better be serious and we are not going to give.

Here, the actual terms specifying when Google has to pay the fee also benefit it. Because so much is at stake, Google will fight any antitrust action and is unlikely to breach the agreement. This would only leave a final order blocking the merger as the way such a fee is payable, meaning a long fight for regulators.

Of course, I am sure Motorola Mobility asked for a high fee and was happy to take it. But the acquisition dynamics play to both parties agreeing to this fee. This $2.5 billion fee is therefore different than the $3 billion fee that AT&T agreed to pay T-Mobile if that deal does not obtain regulatory clearance. In the case of the AT&T-T-Mobile deal, the fee is all about compensating T-Mobile if the deal collapses and assuring it on the risks involved, as well as incentivizing AT&T to do what is needed to obtain this clearance in terms of regulatory concessions.

And for those wondering, the Microsoft-aQuantive deal closed without any significant antitrust scrutiny.
Read More >>

Read More

Windows 8 will have an app store, but will it be called App Store?

Microsoft has offered up a few more details on what to expect in Windows 8, its highly anticipated operating system that will run on both PCs and tablet computers.

But one addition, if Microsoft can do it right, could be hugely important for Windows 8 -- its app store.

Steve Sinofsky, who is in charge of Windows 8 development for Microsoft, broke down in a blog post the different teams working on specific aspects of the new OS and an "App Store" team was on the list.

An app store is, obviously, a store that sells applications, software to run on Windows 8 machines.

The inclusion of an app store in Windows 8 is a natural one, and not much of a surprise given Apple's huge success with selling mobile apps through iTunes and desktop apps through the Mac App Store.

Apple's iTunes has seen more than 15 billion apps downloaded and purchased -- a huge boon for Apple and huge attraction for developers.

A June screen shot of Windows 8 also featured, prominently, a "shop" icon with a Windows-logo adorned bag sitting beside it, too. And Microsoft has embraced the app store idea with Windows Phone 7's app Marketplace.

Even the much-maligned Windows Vista had an app store called the Windows Marketplace, though it (or Windows Vista) never found much popularity.

Among the questions, however, that remain is just what Microsoft will call its app store.

If the ongoing lawsuit between Apple and Amazon is any indication, Apple would be terribly unhappy if Microsoft just stuck with that App Store team name for the name of its new store. That's because Apple says the term App Store is a label it owns and that nobody else can use.

Apple sued Amazon in March after the online retail giant revealed its Amazon Appstore for Android, arguing that the similarity in names would confuse consumers looking for Apple's iTunes or Mac App Stores.

Amazon has disputed Apple's claims, arguing itself that "app store" and "appstore" are generic terms that shouldn't be owned by any one person or company.

What do you think? What will it take for Microsoft's Windows 8 app store to take off? If Microsoft doesn't call their store for apps an app store, what should they call it?
Read More >>

Read More

HP looks to get out of PC hardware business to focus on software solutions

The bombshells from HP continue to fall from the sky. Earlier today, it was confirmed that HP is abandoning the webOS platform which it acquired from Palm for $1.2 billion USD just over a year ago. Now, were hearing reports that HP plans to announce that it will sell off its Personal Systems Group (PSG) which is responsible for consumer and business PCs.

The company stated in a press release:

HP also reported that it plans to announce that its board of directors has authorized the exploration of strategic alternatives for its Personal Systems Group (PSG). HP will consider a broad range of options that may include, among others, a full or partial separation of PSG from HP through a spin-off or other transaction.

To many, this may seem like a strange move considering that HP is the number one seller of computers in the world (we sorry Apple, but we're not going to count the iPad). According to Garner, HP shipped over 14.8 million PCs during the second quarter of 2011 to secure 17.5% of the market. Dell was the next closest with 10.6 million/12.5%.

IDC produced similar figures and reported that HP shipped 15.2 million PCs/18.1% compared to 10.9 million/12.9% for Dell.

Despite HP's beastly PC shipments, the never-ending race to the bottom when it comes to final transaction prices for consumers means that there's little room for profit in this cutthroat business. While Apple can get away with charging customers $999 for an 11" notebook or $2,499 for a 17" desktop replacement notebook, PC users tend to be more price sensitive.

A June report from The Loop suggests that Apple makes more money from selling just one computer than HP does from selling seven.

Bloomberg reports that HP, which is helmed by Leo Apotheker, wants to leave the hardware business behind and focus on its more lucrative software and cloud services offerings. “This is the direction we want him to take,” stated ISI Group analyst Abhey Lamba. “Get out of a low- margin business and focus more on his core competency, which is software.”

More specifically, HP has laid out these three keys for its new "company transformation":

Move HP into higher value, higher margin growth categories
Sharpen HP's focus on its strategic priorities of cloud, solutions and software with an emphasis on enterprise, commercial and government markets
Increase investment in innovation to drive differentiation

HP also announced its earnings today, and revenue for the third fiscal quarter was up slightly to $31.2 billion USD compared to $30.7 billion USD during the same quarter last year.
Read More >>

Read More

Report: China Mobile, Steve Jobs Have Discussed iPhone Deal

The world's biggest carrier, China Mobile, could be getting the iPhone. In a news conference following its quarterly earnings report, the company said it has met with Apple CEO Steve Jobs several times about the possibility of creating an iPhone for its network, Reuters reports.

China Mobile devices run on its own homegrown TD-SCDMA standard, a network not supported by the iPhone. However, even though the phone isn't available on this network, there are still 7.44 million iPhone users on China Mobile, the company said. They just don't get 3G speeds.

But if the talks are any indication, that could soon change. The news from Reuters corroborates a previous rumor from CapitalVue, a Chinese financial news site, that claimed Apple had already signed a deal with China Mobile to launch the iPhone 4 on the carrier by the end of October. CapitalVue claimed that iPhone negotiations between China Mobile and Apple began back in 2007.

Currently, the iPhone is only officially supported on China's second-biggest carrier, China Unicom. Earlier this month, however, Ticonderoga Securities analyst Brian White said a deal between Apple and China Telecom is "imminent ... paving the way for the carrier to participate in the iPhone 5 launch in the fall."

In its earnings report last month, COO Tim Cook called China "very key" to its quarterly revenue and said that sales in the country have increased by more than six times in the past year. China generated $3.8 billion in revenue in the last quarter and $8.8 billion in the last year.

Apple products have become a status symbol in China, and their popularity has reportedly caused a spike in smuggling to satisfy the huge demand for these products. These smugglers are apparently taking extreme measures to sneak iPhones and iPads into China, too. Earlier this month, authorities discovered a group of people trying to smuggle iPhones across the river from Hong Kong to Shenzen on a 1,000-foot wire with a bag and pulley attached.
Read More >>

Read More

Ad Groups Oppose New Domains, ICANN Chief to Step Down

The online advertising industry this week encouraged the Internet's governing body to withdraw its plan for issuing new domain names, arguing that it could hurt brand owners financially.

The objection comes as the current chief at the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), Rob Beckstrom, announced that he will step down in 2012.

According to the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), major corporations will be forced to buy domain names that cover their brands—like .verizon or .facebook—in order to prevent cyber squatters from grabbing them first. Given that applications include a $185,000 fee, that could be an expensive undertaking.

"ICANN's potentially momentous change seems to have been made in a top-down star chamber. There appears to have been no economic impact research, no full and open stakeholder discussions, and little concern for the delicate balance of the Internet ecosystem," Randall Rothenberg, CEO and president of IAB, said in a statement. "This could be disastrous for the media brand owners we represent and the brand owners with which they work."

In June, ICANN approved a plan to increase the number of generic top-level domains (gTLDs), which could significantly increase peoples' options when it comes to domain names. At this point, there are 22 gTLDs, including .com, .org, and .net. ICANN, however, approved a plan that would allow people to apply for new gTLDs, like .pcmag, for example.

But that includes the $185,000 evaluation fee, with $5,000 upfront. One might argue that the steep fees will deter cyber squatters in the first place, but the IAB is not entirely convinced. "We hope that ICANN will reconsider both this ill-considered decision and the process by which it was reached," Rothenberg said.

Beckstrom, meanwhile, announced on Twitter earlier this week that "I have decided to wrap up my service at ICANN July 2012." He assumed the role of president and CEO on July 1, 2009.

"I am incredibly proud of ICANN’s achievements throughout my tenure," Beckstrom said in a later statement. "In two short years we have advanced this organization to a new level of professionalism and productivity, and turned it into a genuinely multinational organization that will serve the world community long after my time here."

In terms of accomplishments during his tenure, Beckstrom pointed to the 2009 agreement that saw Department of Commerce relinquish some of its control over ICANN in order to allow more international participation in the process.

One issue with which ICANN has been contending is the .XXX top-level domain, which was approved in March. Earlier this week, GoDaddy.com rolled out prices for the first .XXX domain names, with adult content providers charged as much as 17 times the cost of a standard .com domain name.
Read More >>

Read More

Could you pass a Facebook background check?

The next time you apply for a job, don’t be surprised if you have to agree to a social-media background check. Many U.S. companies and recruiters are now looking at your Facebook, Twitter, Flickr and other accounts and blogs — even YouTube — to paint a clearer picture of who you are.

“Almost all employers do some form of background screening because they have to avoid negligent hiring,” said Max Drucker, chief executive of Social Intelligence, a consumer-reporting agency. “An employer has an obligation to make the best effort to protect their employees and customers when they hire.” Listen to audio: Your Facebook page is part of your resume.

And now the Federal Trade Commission has decided that companies that research how you spend your personal time and what your passions and hobbies are do not violate your privacy. The agency recently investigated Social Intelligence, which scours the Internet for the information, pictures and comments you freely share with the world and sells that data to your potential employers. The FTC found the company compliant with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In other words, the Internet is fair game.

“When someone puts their public life out there publicly, it’s there to be evaluated,” said Kim Harmer, a partner at Harmer Associates, a Chicago-based recruiting firm. “You find out lots of things about people just by Googling them.”
It’s not the party photos

You can breathe a sigh of relief about those party pictures plastered all over your Facebook — most employers and consumer-reporting agencies will look past them, unless, of course, you’re underage.

“I look at their Facebook and see how they approach what they put on it,” Harmer said. “Is it immature? Appropriate or inappropriate? I’m not judging their activity but looking at how they communicate what they do and their thoughts and their judgments to the public as a reflection of what they will do with clients and team members.”

Drucker said he only searches for what the companies direct him to find and stays away from giving employers information that might be considered discriminatory to the hiring process. Employers, for example, cannot legally make hiring decisions based on race, religion, marital status or disability. But they can make decisions based on whether or not they like your attitude or your ethics.

A Social Intelligence report to a company would include racist remarks, sexually explicit photos or videos, or flagrant displays of weapons or illegal activity, Drucker said. And your decision to post a naked picture of yourself might not go over well with a potential employer.

“That might not be relevant to the job, but an employer gets to determine if that’s the kind of person he wants representing his company,” Drucker said.”We don’t make the decisions. We just generate the reports.”

He said he has been surprised by how many racist comments and flagrant displays of drug use people post online. “It’s not just smoking marijuana. It’s snorting cocaine, talking about doing Ecstasy on Twitter or a forum or message board, showing it in photos or video-sharing sites,” he said.

Some companies are mining photo- and video-gathering sites using facial-recognition software. If you were among those rioting in the streets of Vancouver after the National Hockey League championship, for example, a potential boss could find you the same way the police tracked down those responsible for some of the bedlam — in the pictures.

“We are going from the Web being a place of extraordinary anonymity to a place where your every movement could be traced if someone’s taking pictures of you and posting them,” said John Challenger, chief executive of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, an outplacement-consulting firm. “Job seekers need to be careful because of that,” so they don’t make a mistake and lose a job as a result, he said.

They also need to know that not all companies use reporting agencies like Social Intelligence. Some take a hodgepodge approach to mining your data.

“People are slowly becoming aware of the consequences of posting too much information on the Web,” Challenger said. “But they shouldn’t wait until they make a mistake and lose a job because of it.”
Read More >>

Read More

Google Buys Motorola for ‘Superpower’ Status

Google Inc. (GOOG) is relying on its planned $12.5 billion purchase of Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. to forestall patent litigation and force settlements with Apple Inc. (AAPL) and Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) over smartphone technology.

Google cited patent disputes as key to its agreement to buy Motorola Mobility, announced yesterday. Apple, maker of the iPhone, and Microsoft, developer of Windows Phone software, have targeted phones that run on Google’s best-selling Android system, including handsets built by Motorola Mobility, Samsung Electronics Co. and HTC Corp. (2498), in lawsuits worldwide.

Lacking its own trove of patents to vie with Apple, Microsoft and other companies, Google and its hardware partners were targeted by suits aimed at slowing the adoption of Android smartphones. Adding the 17,000 patents of Motorola Mobility, which has been inventing mobile-phone technology since the industry began, may help Google stanch the onslaught.

“The analogy to a nuclear arms race and mutually assured destruction is compelling,” said Ron Laurie, managing director of Inflexion Point Strategy LLC, which counsels companies on purchasing intellectual property. Google and its rivals “look pretty evenly matched at the moment. Google may have become a patent superpower.”

The goal of Google’s new patent clout is also to act as protection for the handset makers that have been bearing the brunt of the litigation, the company said yesterday.
Patent Weaponry

Competition for dominance in the smartphone market has heated up since Google introduced Android in 2008. Patents, which grant exclusive rights to use a specific invention, have become a way to fight for market share and inhibit rivals from introducing new features.

Apple stepped up the patent feud by suing Android manufacturers, claiming Google-powered devices copy the iPhone and iPad. Microsoft has sued Motorola Mobility and Barnes & Noble Inc., whose Nook reader runs Android software.

Apple and Microsoft have focused on the devices that run on Android, while Oracle Corp. (ORCL), which has sued Mountain View, California-based Google directly, contends Android was developed using its Java programming language. Oracle is seeking billions of dollars in damages for patent- and copyright-infringement, and Google’s response has been limited to challenging the validity of Oracle’s patents.

Heightening the dispute, a group led by Apple and Microsoft won an auction of patents owned by Nortel Networks Corp. in June after bidding up the price to $4.5 billion, beating out Google in the largest-ever patent auction.
Google Shops Around

Before agreeing to buy Motorola Mobility, Google had few patents on mobile-phone technology. The company’s research had focused largely on its main search-engine business.

Google, seeking to tilt the balance, has actively sought patents that it said could be used as a deterrent to litigation, culminating in the purchase of Motorola Mobility. Google bought more than 1,000 patents in July from International Business Machines Corp.

“Yesterday you could sue Google and you weren’t taking any risks because they didn’t have any patents,” said Pierre Ferragu, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein in London. “Today it’s the same as suing Motorola.”

The purchase of Motorola Mobility lessens the likelihood of future bidding wars, Ferragu said.

“You have very, very few transactions that would make sense today,” he said. “You possibly have some smaller transactions as Google continues to shop around for quality.”
‘Level Playing Ground’

Motorola Mobility traces its roots to the 1928 founding of Galvin Manufacturing Corp. in Chicago. The company, renamed Motorola, was a pioneer of early televisions and two-way radio in World War II. It helped lay the foundation for the mobile- phone industry, demonstrating its first handset in 1973.

“Motorola was a pioneer in this business,” said Will Strauss, an analyst at Tempe, Arizona-based Forward Concepts Co. “They certainly have a lot of intellectual property. It will certainly level the playing ground quite a bit. It’s going to give them an awful lot to defend Android with.”

The purchase would directly embroil Google in litigation, where its partners have until now been the main targets. Motorola Mobility has its own pending lawsuits against Apple and Microsoft. A case Microsoft brought against Motorola Mobility is due to begin trial Aug. 22 at the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington, and a victory may mean a ban on imports of Motorola phones. Motorola Mobility retaliated with a bid to ban U.S. imports of Microsoft’s Xbox video-game systems, with a trial scheduled for October.
Protecting the Ecosystem

Motorola Mobility’s case against Cupertino, California- based Apple also was scheduled to begin Aug. 22, though it’s been postponed. Apple’s case against Motorola begins in September at the ITC. Samsung and HTC also have each filed separate suits against Apple.

“We believe we’ll be in a very good position to protect the Android ecosystem for all of the partners,” Google Chief Executive Officer Larry Page said in a conference call with analysts yesterday. Motorola will manage the litigation until the acquisition is completed, expected by the end of this year or early next year, he said.

Kevin Kutz, a spokesman for Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft, declined to comment on what Google’s purchase of Motorola Mobility might mean for the litigation. Kristin Huguet, an Apple spokeswoman, also declined to comment.
Nokia Agreement

Apple has been winning so far, with an ITC judge’s finding that, if upheld, could lead to a ban on imports of HTC phones into the U.S. and a court order that prevents Samsung from introducing its new Galaxy Tablet in most of the European Union. As yet, nothing has stopped sales of Motorola’s phones or Xoom tablet.

Google may be hoping that an agreement can be reached with Apple that mirrors one the computer maker struck with another phone pioneer, Nokia Oyj (NOK1V), said Bernstein’s Ferragu.

The Finnish phone maker in June said it won an almost two- year patent dispute with Apple in a settlement that provided it with a one-time payment plus royalties.

“From that, you could infer that in the end it’s going to be Apple paying Motorola, paying Google,” Ferragu said.

While there will continue to be patent purchases in the mobile-phone market, litigation may slow if Google is successful in its strategy of using patents as leverage to strike settlements and keep further lawsuits at bay.

“It may not be the end, but you can see it from here,” said Inflexion Point Strategy’s Laurie. Google “was such an obvious target, and now they’re not,” he said.

To contact the reporters on this story: Susan Decker in Washington at sdecker1@bloomberg.net; Ian King in San Francisco at ianking@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Allan Holmes at aholmes25@bloomberg.net; Tom Giles at tgiles5@bloomberg.net
Read More >>

Read More

Did Apple doctor evidence in Samsung patent suit?

Apple allegedly provided incorrect evidence in its patent case against Samsung to make the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet appear closer in size and shape to the iPad 2.

At least, those are the findings from Dutch IDG publication Webwereld.nl (English translation).

Examining pictures found in a document that Apple recently submitted to a German court, Webwereld.nl found one of the photos of the Tab to be inaccurate. Photos on page 28 of the document show the Tab and iPad 2 as "practically identical" in appearance.

But according to the Dutch publication, the Tab image in the document does not match the real Galaxy Tab, which is "longer and more oblong than the iPad 2." Specifically, the actual Tab has an aspect ratio of 1.46. The image of the Tab created by Apple shows an aspect ratio of 1.36, closer to the iPad's ratio of 1.30.

Whether the alleged inaccuracy on the part of Apple is intentional or accidental, it throws into question at least some of the evidence on which a German court based a recent decision.

Apple has been embroiled in a patent suit against Samsung for several months now, alleging that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 has illegally taken technology from the iPad. As part of the suit, Apple succeeded last week in convincing a German court to issue a temporary injunction banning the sale of the Tab in virtually all nations of the European Union.

Arnout Groen, an intellectual property rights attorney at Klos Morel Vos & Schaap, was quoted by Webwereld.nl as saying that the inaccurate Tab photo is a "blunder" and a mistake that "can hardly be a concidence." He added that it's up to the court's discretion on how to deal with this "faux," but a reprimand or swipe by the court seems in order.

Florian Muller, a consultant in intellectual property cases and owner of the Foss Patents blog site doesn't believe the intent was malicious on the part of Apple and its lawyers and thinks the Tab image may have come from a pre-release prototype of the tablet used in a prior lawsuit, according to Webwereld.nl. However, Muller does feel the inaccurate image could have serious implications for the case moving forward.

Samsung and Apple are headed back to court in Germany on August 25 to present their own respective arguments over whether the ban against the Tab should remain in place.

Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment, while Samsung said it declined to comment at this time.
Read More >>

Read More

Anonymous Hacks BART Over Shooting Protest Shutoff

When the Bay Area Rapid Transit agency turned off cell phone service to disrupt peaceful protests, many were outraged -- including hacker collective Anonymous, who breached BART's Web site and released personal information in protest.

In "OpBART," Anonymous published more than 2,000 user names, passwords, and e-mail addresses that the hacker group had harvested from the "myBARTway" Web site. Among the released information were some telephone numbers and physical addresses of employees and customers.

Anonymous said in a statement "We are releasing the User Info Database of MyBart.gov, to show that BART doesn't give a [expletive] about it's customers and riders and to show that the people will not allow you to kill us and censor us. This is but the one of many actions to come. We apologize to any citizen that has his information published, but you should go to BART and ask them why your information wasn't secure with them."

The disrupted protests concerned the recent slaying of a transient man by BART police in unclear circumstances. BART has claimed that protestors were coordinating movements via mobile devices, and that cutting off wireless service was necessary to ensure the safety of customers during rush hour.

On Jan. 1, 2009, a BART police officer Johannes Mehserle shot Oscar Grant in the back while the unarmed man was lying face-down on the Fruitvale station platform. Mehserle was eventually found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to two years. After serving much of his time in a private cell at the Los Angeles County Jail, Mehserle was released on June 13, 2011.

Most recently, BART police officers shot 45-year old Charles Hill in the chest during a confrontation at the Civic Center station, killing him. Unlike the Grant shooting, there exist no clear video records of the shooting; BART police claim that Hill was threatening them with a knife (or two knives, and/ or a bottle) -- while witnesses have stated that "Hill was not running or lunging toward the officers," according to SFWeekly.

BART's actions come soon after UK Prime Minister David Cameron's calls to censor wireless communications following the "BlackBerry Riots" in London, which were also initiated by what some consider to be an unnecessary shooting of a man by police officers.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, among others, made the connection to the Arab Spring uprisings, stating, "BART officials are showing themselves to be of a mind with the former president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, who ordered the shutdown of cell phone service in Tahrir Square in response to peaceful, democratic protests earlier this year...once BART made the service available, cutting it off in order to prevent the organization of a protest constitutes prior restrain on the free speech rights of every person in the station, whether they’re a protestor or a commuter."

James Lee Phillips is a Senior Writer & Research Analyst for IBG.com. With offices in Dallas, Las Vegas, and New York, & London, IBG is quickly becoming the leading expert in Internet Marketing, Local Search, SEO, Website Development and Reputation Management. More information can be found at www.ibg.com. Christina Domecq is a motiva
Read More >>

Read More

North Korea denies South Korean hacking claims

SEOUL, South Korea -- North Korea has denied allegations by South Korea that it engaged in a hacking scheme to steal millions of dollars from online gaming sites.

The North's Committee for Peaceful Unification of the Fatherland said in a statement carried Sunday by the official Korean Central News Agency that the allegations were an unacceptable provocation and were meant to sully North Korea's image overseas.

Last week, South Korean police said they arrested five people who had collaborated with elite North Korean hackers in a ring that pocketed about $6 million over the past year and a half.

South Korean authorities have also accused North Korea of mounting cyberattacks in the past few years. The North has also denied those charges.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/15/3838996/north-korea-denies-south-korean.html#ixzz1VCS7qV6v

Read More >>

Read More