Microsoft takes off gloves against Google | Relevant Results – CNET News

Microsoft left little doubt Friday that it was one of the companies leading the charge against Google worldwide.

In a blog post entitled “Competition Authorities and Search,” Microsoft Vice President and Deputy General Counsel Dave Heiner said part of the motivation for Microsoft and Yahoo's search deal was “we are concerned about Google business practices that tend to lock in publishers and advertisers and make it harder for Microsoft to gain search volume.” The post comes at the end of a week in which European authorities asked Google to explain its search algorithms after complaints from competitors–one of which is owned by Microsoft.

“Microsoft would obviously be among the first to say that leading firms should not be punished for their success,” Heiner wrote in one of Microsoft's strongest public statements regarding Google to date. “Our concerns relate only to Google practices that tend to lock in business partners and content (like Google Books) and exclude competitors, thereby undermining competition more broadly.”

A Google representative declined to comment on Microsoft's post.

For all the obsession about Google's supposedly deteriorating relationship with Apple, make no mistake: the two most diametrically opposed companies in the tech industry are Microsoft and Google. The two titans are increasingly locked in a struggle to define the next generation of computing.

Microsoft, of course, has two franchises to defend against Google's moves into operating system and office productivity software, as well as the broader philosophy that the Web–rather than the desktop–is the platform of the future. And for all Google's financial might, it remains mostly a one-trick pony with the vast majority of its resources financed by its search dominance: exactly where Microsoft is aiming with Bing and the Yahoo partnership.

via Microsoft takes off gloves against Google | Relevant Results – CNET News.

Whistleblower Site Back After Microsoft Withdraws Complaint | Threat Level | Wired.com

Cryptome, the secret-document-spilling site, is back online Thursday, after Microsoft withdrew a copyright complaint that shuttered the site the day before.

Microsoft’s efforts to suppress a document about how to subpoena online user data backfired, leading instead to widespread attention to (and republication of) the document it tried to suppress.

Microsoft did not apologize in its Thursday statement, and defended its use of copyright law to keep its law enforcement manual private.

Like all service providers, Microsoft must respond to lawful requests from law enforcement agencies to provide information related to criminal investigations. We take our responsibility to protect our customers privacy very seriously, so have specific guidelines that we use when responding to law enforcement requests. In this case, we did not ask that this site be taken down, only that Microsoft copyrighted content be removed. We are requesting to have the site restored and are no longer seeking the document’s removal.

Cryptome’s proprietor John Young published the 22-page document earlier this week. leading Microsoft to take legal action Tuesday. The document, which contains no trade secrets, advises law enforcement how to file subpoenas (.pdf), outlines what data Microsoft keeps on users of its online services such as Xbox Live and Hotmail, and explains how to parse the resulting user data.

Cryptome’s hosting provider, Network Solutions, chose to shutter the entire site and lock down the domain name, even before the Thursday deadline for Young to remove the document. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a U.S.-based host is immune to liability if it makes sure the allegedly offending content is taken down during the time that a counter-claim is being considered in court.

via Whistleblower Site Back After Microsoft Withdraws Complaint | Threat Level | Wired.com.

Swiss Government Asks UBS to Pay Legal Costs in Tax Dispute With U.S.

The U.S. may have trumped Switzerland in Olympic men’s hockey on Wednesday, but its tax battle with Switzerland continues.

Swiss news agencies reported on Wednesday that the government would ask Zurich-based banking giant UBS to reimburse it for outside legal costs stemming from the bank’s long-running legal dispute with U.S. authorities over allegations of tax evasion by U.S. citizens holding UBS accounts.

A deal to resolve that dispute by releasing the names of 4,450 U.S. citizens with UBS accounts was tentatively struck last August. UBS relied on lawyers from Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Cravath, Swaine & Moore and Florida’s Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson in those negotiations, while the Swiss government retained Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman international trade practice chair Stephan Becker and Palm Beach, Fla.-based attorney John Dotterrer on the matter. (UBS also paid a $780 million fine and agreed to turn over nearly 300 client names as part of a deferred prosecution agreement it struck with U.S. prosecutors in February 2009.)

According to Swiss news reports, the dispute between U.S. regulators and UBS has so far cost the Swiss government $2.3 million. UBS has agreed to reimburse the government, which hired Becker and Dotterrer to file briefs in federal court in Florida defending the bank, more than $931,000 of that $2.3 million. The Swiss could eventually incur another $34.4 million in costs as a result of helping U.S. authorities track down American tax evaders. (It's unclear at this point how much of those costs relate to legal fees paid to outside lawyers; Becker and Dotterrer did not respond to requests for comment.)

via Swiss Government Asks UBS to Pay Legal Costs in Tax Dispute With U.S..

Global Integrity Drops China From Corruption-Watch List – WSJ.com

China was one of three countries dropped from a corruption-watch list created by non-profit anti-corruption group Global Integrity, which released its annual report earlier this week.

The other countries removed from the watch list were Georgia and Serbia. The Washington, D.C.-based group warned that being dropped from the list doesn’t mean corruption stopped in the countries, but rather that they made progress by establishing minimum anti-corruption safeguards.

via Global Integrity Drops China From Corruption-Watch List – WSJ.com.

Law.com – Verizon Patent Case Marks a First for Intellectual Ventures

Large patent hoarder Intellectual Ventures says it’s taking a new customer-friendly approach.

The Bellevue, Wash., company that owns around 30,000 patents for the first time assigned one of its members a patent to use as ammunition in a lawsuit. Verizon Communications, which agreed to pay IV as much as $350 million in a 2008 deal, is using one of IV's patents to strike back at TiVo in a patent fight.

Don Merino, vice president of licensing at IV, said it’s an example of IV taking “a much more customer-centric approach.”

“We want to figure out how to get out of the, ‘I win, you lose’ to a much more collaborative,’We both win,’” said Merino.

This is new talk from IV, whose secrecy and vague business plans caused big tech companies to worry in the past about what exactly IV was going to do with all of its intellectual property.

The shift comes as IV has faced competition from San Francisco’s RPX Corp., a patent aggregator that is more upfront about its business model and that has played a more active role in getting rid of patent troll lawsuits against its members. RPX has signed up some of IV’s members, including Cisco Systems Inc. and Microsoft Corp.

In the past year, IV has started to give signals about what it would do with its stockpile of patents. It has struck deals with patent trolls that are now using the IP in lawsuits. Assigning a patent to Verizon is another use of its IP. IV wouldn’t say whether it sold or simply loaned the patent to Verizon for its TiVo fight.

The original lawsuit was filed by TiVo against Verizon in August. IV then looked through its portfolio and found a patent that Verizon could use to hit back at TiVo, Merino said. Verizon asserted the patent on an “Apparatus and Method of Selecting Video Programs Based on Viewers’ Preferences” in a counterclaim (PDF) against TiVo on Wednesday in the Eastern District of Texas.

The $350 million Verizon deal was first reported by The Wall Street Journal in 2008. Merino confirmed on Thursday that Verizon is a member of IV.

via Law.com – Verizon Patent Case Marks a First for Intellectual Ventures.

Step 3 for Legal Holds: Define the Scope | Law.com

This is the third installment in a series of articles aimed at helping organizations implement an effective written litigation hold. This article covers step 3: define the scope of the legal hold.

The universe of documents and records to preserve by a litigation hold is commonly referred to as the “scope” of a litigation hold. The scope of a litigation hold should include documents and records, including ESI, that are relevant to the facts and circumstances giving rise to the need for a legal hold. In other words, the scope of a litigation hold is directly related to the trigger event. For example, in a commercial landlord-tenant dispute the scope of a litigation hold may include the lease, written modification of the lease, rent bills, correspondence related to the lease, and e-mails about the lease. The scope of materials related to a trigger event is guided by past litigation involving similar trigger events or court cases on point with the trigger event that analyzed the scope of documents relevant to the trigger event. The scope can also be guided by the specific preservation demands of a potential claimant, if the preservation demands could be deemed reasonably related to the trigger event by a court.

An organization has a duty to preserve documents and records that it “knows, or reasonably should know, will likely be requested [by an opponent] in reasonably foreseeable litigation.” Mosaid v. Samsung, 348 F.Supp.2d 332, 333 (D.N.J. 2004). The duty to preserve evidence “does not extend beyond evidence that is relevant and material to the claims at issue in the litigation.” Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 2006 WL 565893, *27 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 5, 2006).

What is “relevant” is a legal term. A definition is contained in the Federal Rules of Evidence:

“Relevant evidence” means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. “Federal Rules of Evidence,” Rule 401.

The standard for discovery in civil litigation requires the parties to exchange information that is “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” In other words, the parties are to exchange relevant information. Guided by these legal principles an organization implementing a litigation hold needs to determine what is relevant to the facts and circumstances that gave rise to the legal duty to preserve evidence. This topic was recently examined in Goodman v. Praxair Services, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58263 (Jul. 7, 2009).

via Law.com – Step 3 for Legal Holds: Define the Scope.

US top cop says Justice Department using new tools | Reuters

The head of the U.S. Department of Justices criminal division told a gathering of criminal defense lawyers on Thursday that the division was using tools “not often seen in white collar cases” to combat financial fraud.

In a speech at a white collar crime conference, Lanny Breuer cited the use of wiretaps in the Galleon hedge fund insider trading case and the use of undercover agents in a recent prosecution of 22 people under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act FCPA.

“Taken together, these two cases reflect a new chapter in white collar criminal enforcement, one that Im confident has not gone unnoticed by you, or by your clients,” he said.

“Out are the days of resting easy in the belief that only self-reporting or tipsters will bring criminality to light. In are the days of proactive and innovative white collar enforcement.”

Breuer called the FCPA case the largest single prosecution of individuals in the history of the Justice Departments enforcement of the statute, which makes it illegal to pay bribes to secure business abroad.”

Put simply,” he said, “the prospect of significant prison sentences for individuals should make it clear to every corporate executive, every board member, and every sales agent that we will seek to hold you personally accountable for FCPA violations.”

Breuer said the Justice Department would continue to pursue criminal charges against corporations “when the criminal conduct is egregious, pervasive and systemic, or when the corporation fails to implement compliance reforms, changes to its corporate culture, and undertake other measures designed to prevent a recurrence of the criminal conduct.”

via US top cop says Justice Department using new tools | Reuters.

Outsourced Project Management & Consulting

With the recent turmoil in the financial markets, the legal industry has become very sensitive to cost and overall value for services, with questions like “what makes good business sense?” and “is there a more efficient solution?” being asked in conference rooms throughout the country.  Many organizations are running extremely lean and simply do not have the resources to support the hiring of experienced legal technology professionals to their staff.  Fortunately, there is an efficient solution that does not sacrifice quality – outsourced project management and consulting.

Global EDD Group provides consulting services to law firms, corporations and vendors in need of flexible expertise for a specific project or case.  Our consultants average over 15 years of proven experience in litigation support, data preservation, electronic discovery and document review that can be leveraged at a fraction of the cost associated with the hiring of a full time employee.

Big case?  Staff stretched to thin?  Tight deadline?  International project?  Contact Joseph Turner at Global EDD Group for a flexible solution to your immediate needs.


Step 2 for Legal Holds: Analyze the Trigger Event | Law.com

Once the first step in implementing an effective written litigation hold is taken and a trigger event is identified, the organization needs to analyze the implications of the event. If the event, in fact, triggered the company's need to preserve evidence then a litigation hold must be issued.

The standard for when the duty to preserve evidence arises is not clearly delineated. The standard used to determine when the duty arises is a “knew or should have known” standard, as determined by a reasonably prudent person. Failure to plan ahead can have adverse effects in court. Judges may not respond favorably to a company losing or destroying a key piece of evidence in a case where a seriously injured party would lose the opportunity to recover millions in actual damages.

via Law.com – Step 2 for Legal Holds: Analyze the Trigger Event.

Step 2 for Legal Holds: Analyze the Trigger Event | Law.com

Once the first step in implementing an effective written litigation hold is taken and a trigger event is identified, the organization needs to analyze the implications of the event. If the event, in fact, triggered the company's need to preserve evidence then a litigation hold must be issued.

The standard for when the duty to preserve evidence arises is not clearly delineated. The standard used to determine when the duty arises is a “knew or should have known” standard, as determined by a reasonably prudent person. Failure to plan ahead can have adverse effects in court. Judges may not respond favorably to a company losing or destroying a key piece of evidence in a case where a seriously injured party would lose the opportunity to recover millions in actual damages.

via Law.com – Step 2 for Legal Holds: Analyze the Trigger Event.