Google vows to support Android vendors in lawsuits | The Digital Home – CNET News

Android vendors have been hit hard by lawsuit after lawsuit from competitors. But in a show of strength, Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt said today in Taiwan that his company will stand by those firms in any lawsuit.

“We tell our partners, including the ones here in Taiwan, we will support them,” Schmidt told reporters today, according to Reuters. “For example, we have been supporting HTC in its dispute with Apple because we think that the Apple thing is not correct.”

HTC’s troubles with Apple started last year when the iPhone maker filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission, arguing HTC’s device violates 20 of its patents.

“We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it,” Apple co-founder Steve Jobs said in a statement at the time. “We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.”

In response, HTC fired back with several lawsuits of its own against Apple, arguing that the iPhone violated patents it held. In September, HTC upped the ante a bit by suing Apple using patents it received from Google.

Although Schmidt argues that his company has stood by Android vendors, HTC’s lawsuit using Google patents was arguably the first major step the search giant took to help its partners. Previously, Google had taken a backseat to the lawsuits, possibly for fear of getting embroiled in a head-to-head court battle with Apple. That fear was stripped away earlier this year, however, after Google announced plans to acquire Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion. The deal is designed to provide Google with the patent protection the compa

via Google vows to support Android vendors in lawsuits | The Digital Home – CNET News.

Airline E-mails Could Play a Big Part in Buffalo, NY Plane Crash Lawsuit « Above the Law

I’ve been writing about electronic discovery for almost three years now. I’ve learned that most of the time, it’s not worth trying to interest non-attorneys in the subject. My friends’, family’s, and girlfriend’s eyes glaze over pretty quickly when I started mentioning the EDRM model or document review.

So when I saw the story early this morning about big e-discovery news in the litigation following a tragic plane crash, at first I thought I had misread something.

On February 12, 2009, Colgan Air Flight 3407 crashed near Buffalo Niagara International Airport in New York, killing 50 people. Later that year, authorities blamed pilot error for the crash. Unsurprisingly, families of the victims have sued the airline for failing to provide trained, capable, and rested pilots. This week, attorneys for the families released internal company e-mails that appear to show Colgan knew the pilot of the doomed flight was having serious problems.

What do the e-mails have to say?

The pilot, Marvin Renslow, was officially blamed for the crash. In late 2009, authorities said neither he nor his first officer realized the plane was slowing down too quickly, and that he also reacted improperly to warning signs that the plane was entering a stall.

Before starting work at the airline, Renslow failed a check flight, the flying equivalent to a driving test in a car. He failed two more while he worked at Colgan.

Despite that, in August 2009, Philip Trenary, president and CEO of Pinnacle Airlines, the parent company of Colgan Air, testified at a Senate hearing that they didn’t know enough to prevent Renslow from flying.

“Had we known what we know now, no, he would not have been in that (pilot’s) seat,” Trenary said.

via Airline E-mails Could Play a Big Part in Buffalo, NY Plane Crash Lawsuit « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law School, Law Suits, Judges and Courts.

SaaS And E-Discovery Dangers — InformationWeek

Litigation may be the last thing on IT’s mind as it evaluates software-as-a-service options for the enterprise. Unfortunately, litigation and e-discovery–the act of finding, preserving, and analyzing electronic information–are facts of life. If your company gets dragged into a lawsuit and relevant information is stored inside a provider’s cloud, you need to know that information is available on demand.

That’s why IT should add e-discovery criteria to its list of considerations when evaluating SaaS providers, particularly when looking at services such as hosted e-mail and e-mail archiving, PC and file-share backups, and other information sources that create a legal data trail. No company wants to find that a SaaS application it purchased to streamline operations suddenly has become a major hurdle to its e-discovery obligations.

Fortunately, many of the criteria, including storage and performance, that IT already uses to evaluate SaaS providers can be applied to e-discovery. However, there also are e-discovery-specific requirements that must be considered, such as fine-grained control over retention and disposition of data, and the ability to quickly retrieve information from the service provider’s system.

via SaaS And E-Discovery Dangers — InformationWeek.

Privacy and Security Fanatic: Lawsuit Claims Microsoft, McDonald’s, Mazda & CBS Used Ads as Cover for Data Mining | Network World

Microsoft, along with McDonald’s, Mazda and CBS have been named in a class action suit filed in Federal Court for working in concert with behavioral advertising specialist Interclick. The companies allegedly used their ads as a “cover for data-mining, to identify the websites people visit, invading people’s privacy, misappropriating their personal information and interfering with the operations of their computers.”

Courthouse News Service reported, “Interclick augmented its profile database with individual-level information it acquired from defendants in the process of optimizing and measuring the success of advertising campaigns. For example, defendants and Interclick cooperated to identify [which] consumers are ‘hand raisers’ who clicked on an advertisement to visit the advertiser’s website, register to enter the advertisers’ sweepstakes or play online games, or make purchases. Interclick’s profiles are stored and analyzed in a data warehouse designed to allow Interclick to mine and correlate the large volumes of highly granular consumers data it acquires.”

0

digg

According to the complaint, Microsoft committed violations of computer privacy laws during a 7-month ad campaign for its Windows Smartphone. McDonald’s allegedly committed its offenses during its online World Cup-theme game in the summer of 2010. The complaint accuses CBS of doing it in an online ad campaign for its “online fantasy sports platform” before the 2010 Major League Baseball season began. Mazda is claimed to have run the privacy violating ads for its summer sales and 2010 models. “All of them worked with Interclick, which is not listed as a defendant.”

The suit claims these companies “used browser history sniffing to identify defendants’ competitors with whom consumers communicated” and that “all the consumer information Interclick acquired while executing an ad campaign for any one defendant was merged into Interclick’s consumer profile database and subsequently used for behavioral targeting on behalf of all defendants.”

via Privacy and Security Fanatic: Lawsuit Claims Microsoft, McDonald’s, Mazda & CBS Used Ads as Cover for Data Mining | Network World.

Jewel Thomas Suing American Airlines Over Botched O’Hare Landing

A Washington state woman has filed a federal lawsuit claiming negligence against American Airlines stemming from a rocky emergency landing at O’Hare Airport two years ago.

Jewel Thomas of King County Washington, filed the suit Tuesday in U.S. District Court Western District of Washington against American Airlines claiming the emergency landing on Sept. 22, 2008 had her fearing for her life and calling family members to tell them she loved them just in case the landing wound end in disaster.

The suit alleges American Airlines was negligent in failing to exercise the “practical operation” of the plane and failed to provide the passengers with an airplane what was in good mechanical condition.

The suit also claims that a logbook maintained by the airline showed several problems relating to the plane’s power supply.

via Jewel Thomas Suing American Airlines Over Botched O’Hare Landing.

I.R.S. to Drop Suit Against UBS Over Tax Havens – NYTimes.com

The Internal Revenue Service said Thursday that it would drop a closely watched civil lawsuit against the Swiss bank giant UBS after the Swiss government said it was on course to hand over details on thousands of American clients suspected of using their accounts to evade taxes.

The I.R.S. said it had received details on 2,000 clients so far and expected to receive information on the remaining 2,450 this fall.

While that is past the Tuesday deadline set in an August 2009 deal between Switzerland and the I.R.S. for the 4,450 names, the agency said it was confident of the country’s intentions to comply with the agreement announced by Swiss officials on Thursday.

The statement by the I.R.S. puts to rest a serious headache for UBS, the world’s largest private bank, and for Switzerland over offshore private banking services that enabled wealthy Americans to evade taxes.

via I.R.S. to Drop Suit Against UBS Over Tax Havens – NYTimes.com.

Oracle`s Google Lawsuit: All About ‘Ego, Money and Power` – Application Development from eWeek

Oracle’s patent infringement lawsuit versus Google is all about ego, money and power, so says the creator of the key technology in question. Rather than being about developer freedom or Java fragmentation, this suit is more about what drives the software industry and most every other.

Oracle’s patent infringement lawsuit versus Google is all about ego, money and power, so says the creator of the key technology in question.

In an August 15 blog post, James Gosling, known as the father of Java, said:

“There are no guiltless parties with white hats in this little drama. This skirmish isn’t much about patents or principles or programming languages. The suit is far more about ego, money and power.”

That has been a common sentiment among both observers and participants in the software industry since Oracle announced its lawsuit on August 12. Mostly, folks seem to view Oracle’s move as a money grab, not a stake in the ground nor a true move to protect the sanctity of Java. Whatever it is, Oracle has made its move and Google has responded saying it will defend its actions with Android.

via Oracle`s Google Lawsuit: All About ‘Ego, Money and Power` – Application Development from eWeek.

Suit Alleges Oracle Bilked Feds Out Of Millions — Oracle — InformationWeek

The federal government has joined a lawsuit against Oracle that had been filed on its behalf, claiming that the software company bilked it out of “tens of millions of dollars.”

The lawsuit, initially filed by former Oracle contract specialist Paul Frascella in May 2007, was under seal until recently, when the United States moved to intervene in the case.

The suit accuses Oracle of using a “scheme to defraud the United States by failing to disclose deep discounts” that it offered to its most favored commercial customers, which, the suit says, ultimately lead to tens of millions of dollars worth of overcharges. Oracle didn’t immediately return a call and e-mail requesting comment.

Frascella brought the suit under the False Claims Act, which allows private citizens to sue a company on behalf of the federal government, and he’s seeking 25% of all damages.

According to the complaint, federal regulations require that General Services Administration contractors negotiating Multiple Award Schedule contracts, which allow agencies to buy products from the GSA schedule without having to jump through some of the typical government procurement hoops, “obtain the best price given to the most favored customer” in order to decide whether to accept solicitations.

However, according to Frascella, Oracle knowingly skirted these rules in order to give greater discounts to commercial customers. For example, Frascella alleges, Oracle improperly told employees that the discount requirement applied only to database and computer tools, not to enterprise software, and that the restrictions didn’t apply to transactions with net licensing fees of $200,000 or less.

After Oracle employees expressed concern about the distinction between database and other enterprise software, Frascella claims, Oracle VP of global practices Ellen Eder, the highest-ranking official named in the complaint, told contracts managers to stop asking whether Oracle was violating GSA regulations and said that her office wouldn’t respond in writing to questions because it would create a paper trail.

via Suit Alleges Oracle Bilked Feds Out Of Millions — Oracle — InformationWeek.

Litigation Alert: Recent E-Discovery Decision Impacts All Companies, Including Hedge Funds | FINalternatives

Judge Scheindlin’s Latest Ruling

E-discovery rules first coalesced during 2003 and 2004 in a series of rulings by Judge Scheindlin known as the Zubulake decisions (named after Laura Zubulake, a plaintiff in a gender-discrimination case).  Judge Scheindlin’s newest decision, Pension Comm. of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, No. 05 Civ. 9016, 2010 WL 184312 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010), significantly alters the ground rules for preserving and storing electronically stored information relevant to an anticipated federal lawsuit.

In Montreal Pension Plan, aggrieved investors sued for $550 million after two British Virgin Island-based hedge funds in which they purchased shares entered receivership and were subsequently liquidated.  Several defendants discovered gaps in the plaintiffs’ document production, and upon that discovery seized the opportunity to go on the offensive against their accusers.  Depositions were taken as to plaintiffs’ information-retention efforts, sworn statements as to information preservation were procured, yet the court imposed sanctions even though intentional wrongdoing was absent.  The court, specifically noting that this was not a case of “egregious examples of … destroying evidence,” sternly warned that companies must preserve, collect, and review potentially-relevant information in a meaningfully-diligent way whenever litigation reasonably is anticipated.

Hindsight Reigns Supreme – Anything Lost, Even Innocently, May Result in Sanctions

What makes Judge Scheindlin’s decision relevant is that you now have an obligation to preserve electronic information as soon as litigation reasonably is anticipated, meaning that your preservation obligations can be triggered before the lawsuit is even started.  The court’s decision makes clear that your best efforts may not satisfy the court and that lost or destroyed information potentially relevant to a litigation could result in a finding of negligence.  Even unintentional negligence can result in a material sanction against your company.  To paraphrase the court, “a pure heart and an empty head” is no defense.

via Litigation Alert: Recent E-Discovery Decision Impacts All Companies, Including Hedge Funds | FINalternatives.

Wal-Mart in $86 million settlement of wage lawsuit | Reuters

OAKLAND, CA - JANUARY 08:  The Wal-Mart logo i...
Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Wal-Mart Stores Inc agreed to pay as much as $86 million to settle a class-action lawsuit accusing it of failing to pay vacation, overtime and other wages to thousands of former workers in California.

About 232,000 people will share in the settlement, which was disclosed on Tuesday in a federal court filing.

It requires a minimum payout of $43 million, and “far exceeds other recent settlements” involving Wal-Mart, the filing shows. The accord requires court approval.

Wal-Mart spokesman Greg Rossiter declined to comment.

The world’s largest retailer was accused in the original 2006 complaint of failing to pay a variety of wages to former workers as required under California law.

In agreeing to settle, the Bentonville, Arkansas-based company did not concede that any wages remained unpaid, according to Tuesday’s filing.

via Wal-Mart in $86 million settlement of wage lawsuit | Reuters.