Microsoft trekt handschoenen tegen Google | Relevante resultaten – CNET News

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

In a blog post entitledCompetition Authorities and Search,” Microsoft Vice President and Deputy General Counsel Dave Heiner said part of the motivation for Microsoft and Yahoo&na;s search deal waswe 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 competitorsone 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&na;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&na;s post.

For all the obsession about Google&na;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, natuurlijk, has two franchises to defend against Google's moves into operating system and office productivity softna, as well as the broader philosophy that the Webrather than the desktopis 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 trekt handschoenen tegen Google | Relevante resultaten – CNET News.

Klokkenluidersregeling Site Back Nadat Microsoft Zich Klacht | 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 dit geval, 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. Het 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 Klokkenluidersregeling Site Back Nadat Microsoft Zich Klacht | Threat Level | Wired.com.

Zwitserse regering vraagt ​​UBS aan de juridische kosten in fiscaal geschil met de VS.

De VS. kan hebben verzonnen Zwitserland in het Olympisch mannen hockey op woensdag, maar de fiscale strijd met Zwitserland blijft.

Zwitserse persbureaus meldde woensdag dat de regering zou Zurich gevestigde bank-gigant UBS vragen om het te vergoeden voor externe juridische kosten die voortvloeien uit langlopende van de bank juridisch geschil met de Amerikaanse. autoriteiten over beschuldigingen van belastingontduiking door Amerikaanse. burgers met een UBS-accounts.

Een deal om dat geschil op te lossen door het vrijgeven van de namen van de 4,450 US. burgers met UBS rekeningen is voorlopig getroffen vorig jaar augustus. UBS beroep op advocaten van Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Cravath, Swaine & Moore en Florida's Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson in deze onderhandelingen, terwijl de Zwitserse regering behield Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman internationale handel stoel Stephan Becker en Palm Beach, Fla-based advocaat John Dotterrer over dit onderwerp. (UBS betaalde ook een $780 miljoen euro boete en overeengekomen bijna omdraaien 300 namen van klanten, als onderdeel van een DPA viel met de VS. officieren van justitie in februari 2009.)

Volgens de Zwitserse nieuwsberichten, het geschil tussen U.S. toezichthouders en UBS heeft tot nu toe kostte de Zwitserse regering $2.3 million. UBS heeft ingestemd met de overheid terug te betalen, which hired Becker and Dotterrer to file briefs in federal court in Florida defending the bank, meer dan $931,000 van dat $2.3 million. De Zwitserse zou uiteindelijk kunnen oplopen andere $34.4 miljoen aan kosten als gevolg van het helpen van U.S. autoriteiten sporen Amerikaanse belastingontduikers. (Het&na;is onduidelijk op dit punt hoeveel van deze kosten hebben betrekking op juridische kosten betaald aan externe advocaten; Becker en Dotterrer reageerde niet op verzoeken om commentaar.)

via Zwitserse regering vraagt ​​UBS aan de juridische kosten in fiscaal geschil met de VS..

Global Integrity Drops China Van corruptie-Watch List – WSJ.com

China was een van de drie landen is gedaald van een corruptie-watch list die door non-profit anti-corruptie groep Global Integrity, die vrijgegeven zijn jaarverslag eerder deze week.

De andere landen uit de watch list waren Georgië en Servië. De Washington, DC gevestigde groep gewaarschuwd dat een val van de lijst niet gestopt corruptie in de landen betekenen, maar dat ze vooruitgang geboekt door de oprichting van minimum anti-corruptie waarborgen.

via Global Integrity Drops China Van corruptie-Watch List – WSJ.com.

Law.com – Verizon Patent Case is een eerste voor de Intellectuele 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&na;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 takinga much more customer-centric approach.

We want to figure out how to get out of the, ‘I win, you loseto 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 anApparatus and Method of Selecting Video Programs Based on ViewersPreferencesin a counterclaim (PDF) against TiVo on Wednesday in the Eastern District of Texas.

Het $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 is een eerste voor de Intellectuele Ventures.

Stap 3 voor Juridische Ruimte: Definitie van het toepassingsgebied | 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 “omvang” 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. Met andere woorden:, the scope of a litigation hold is directly related to the trigger event. Bijvoorbeeld, 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 “weet, 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 evidencedoes not extend beyond evidence that is relevant and material to the claims at issue in the litigation.Hynix Semiconductor Inc. in. Rambus Inc, 2006 WL 565893, *27 (N.D.Cal. John. 5, 2006).

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

Relevant evidencemeans 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,” Regel 401.

The standard for discovery in civil litigation requires the parties to exchange information that isreasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Met andere woorden:, 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 US. Dist. LEXIS 58263 (Juli. 7, 2009).

via Law.com – Stap 3 voor Juridische Ruimte: Definitie van het toepassingsgebied.

VS-top cop zegt het ministerie van Justitie gebruikmaking van nieuwe instrumenten | 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 toolsnot often seen in white collar casesto 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.

“Samen genomen, 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,” zei hij.

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.

Simpel gezegd:,” zei hij, “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 corporationswhen 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 VS-top cop zegt het ministerie van Justitie gebruikmaking van nieuwe instrumenten | Reuters.

Uitbestede 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 likewhat makes good business sense?” en “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 qualityoutsourced 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-fractie for a flexible solution to your immediate needs.


Stap 2 voor Juridische Ruimte: Analyseer de Trigger Event | Law.com

Zodra de eerste stap in de uitvoering van een doeltreffend schriftelijke geschillen te houden wordt genomen en een trigger event is geïdentificeerd, de organisatie moet een analyse van de gevolgen van het evenement. Als het evenement, in feite, leverde het bedrijf&na;s nodig ter bescherming van bewijsmateriaal dan een rechtszaak te houden moet worden afgegeven.

De norm voor wanneer de plicht om bewijsmateriaal te bewaren ontstaat is niet duidelijk afgebakend. De gebruikte standaard om te bepalen wanneer het recht ontstaat is een “wist of had moeten weten” standaard, zoals bepaald door een redelijk prudent person. Niet vooruit te plannen kan nadelige gevolgen hebben voor de rechter. Rechters mogen geen positief te reageren op een bedrijf verlies of vernietiging van een belangrijk stuk van bewijs in een zaak waar een ernstig gewonde partij zou de mogelijkheid om miljoenen terug te vorderen van de werkelijke schade te verliezen.

via Law.com – Stap 2 voor Juridische Ruimte: Analyseer de Trigger Event.

Stap 2 voor Juridische Ruimte: Analyseer de Trigger Event | Law.com

Zodra de eerste stap in de uitvoering van een doeltreffend schriftelijke geschillen te houden wordt genomen en een trigger event is geïdentificeerd, de organisatie moet een analyse van de gevolgen van het evenement. Als het evenement, in feite, leverde het bedrijf&na;s nodig ter bescherming van bewijsmateriaal dan een rechtszaak te houden moet worden afgegeven.

De norm voor wanneer de plicht om bewijsmateriaal te bewaren ontstaat is niet duidelijk afgebakend. De gebruikte standaard om te bepalen wanneer het recht ontstaat is een “wist of had moeten weten” standaard, zoals bepaald door een redelijk prudent person. Niet vooruit te plannen kan nadelige gevolgen hebben voor de rechter. Rechters mogen geen positief te reageren op een bedrijf verlies of vernietiging van een belangrijk stuk van bewijs in een zaak waar een ernstig gewonde partij zou de mogelijkheid om miljoenen terug te vorderen van de werkelijke schade te verliezen.

via Law.com – Stap 2 voor Juridische Ruimte: Analyseer de Trigger Event.