Google: Microsoft uses patents when products “stop succeeding” | Ars Technica

A Google patent lawyer says that the patent system is broken, and he accuses Microsoft of abusing the system. Speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle on Sunday, Google’s Tim Porter pointed to Microsoft’s attacks on Linux as an example of its broader corporate strategy.

“When their products stop succeeding in the marketplace, when they get marginalized, as is happening now with Android, they use the large patent portfolio they’ve built up to get revenue from the success of other companies’ products,” he said.

Microsoft has argued that the patent royalties it seeks from Android vendors are part of the natural evolution of a new industry. Porter disagrees.

“Microsoft was our age when it got its first software patent,” he said. “I don’t think they experienced this kind of litigation in a period when they were disrupting the established order. So I don’t think it’s historically inevitable.”

Of course, the reason Microsoft didn’t have to worry about patents during its first dozen years was because the courts and the patent office didn’t allow patents on software until the 1980s. Indeed, the idea of patents on software alarmed Bill Gates, who wrote in 1991 (when Microsoft was already older than Google is now) that “the industry would be at a complete standstill” if software had been eligible for patent protection in the early days of the industry. He worried that “some large company will patent some obvious thing,” enabling the company to “take as much of our profits as they want.”

Today, Google finds itself in exactly the predicament Gates warned about 20 years ago. The Chronicle asked Porter the obvious question: should software be patentable? Porter refused to give a straight answer “There are certainly arguments” that copyright protection is “more appropriate” for the software industry, he said. But he would only say that “the current system is broken,” and that there has been “a 10- or 15-year period when the issuance of software patents was too lax.”

via Google: Microsoft uses patents when products “stop succeeding”.

GSA moves all 17,000 employee email accounts to the cloud – Nextgov

Contractors say all 17,000 General Services Administration employees have successfully signed on to a professional version of Gmail. The milestone makes GSA the first of roughly 15 agencies to move to cloud-based email.

GSA completed its conversion from IBM’s Lotus Notes software to Google Apps for Government, an online tool that employees can access anywhere on any device. Previously, employees needed to log on to the agency network to read email, share documents and chat.

In announcing the $6.7 million project last December, GSA officials said the shift would cut costs in half over a five-year contract period, partly by reducing equipment and staffing needs. With Web-based services, or “cloud computing,” third parties manage information technology hardware and software on behalf of multiple clients at their own server farms.

Officials at Unisys, which led the project, said the Google deployment exceeds data protection requirements instituted by the 2002 Federal Information Security Management Act by providing two-factor authentication, a sign-on process that typically requires a password and a second piece of identifying information. The verification technology is from SecureAuth, a rival of the widely-used RSA SecurID system that suffered brand damage when hackers earlier this year stole sensitive information related to the product.

During the six-month transition period at GSA, Unisys officials came to realize that the size of an agency’s userbase is not necessarily indicative of the amount of work required to complete a job.

“Just because you might have 17,000 users, it doesn’t tell you how much data there is to migrate,” said Steve Kousen, a Unisys vice president and partner who leads the firm’s cloud services group. At GSA, contractors were dealing with 60 terabytes of data, or the equivalent of 30,000 million typewritten pages, that they had to transfer without disrupting productivity at the agency.

via GSA moves all 17,000 employee email accounts to the cloud – Nextgov.

2010: A Scammer’s Delight

In 2010 alone, the Department of Justice (DoJ) imposed the highest criminal penalties in FCPA-related cases ‘in any single 12-month period: well over $1 billion,’ according to Lanny Breuer, the assistant attorney general. Those targeted include foreign companies doing business in the US, which are also liable under US laws.

Breuer notes that in 2009 and 2010, ‘we have charged more than 50 individuals with FCPA-related offenses – compared with, for example, two individuals in 2004, and five in 2005.’

Those individuals include Charles Jumet, who was sentenced last April to 87 months in prison for his role in a conspiracy to bribe former Panamanian government officials to award Ports Engineering Consultants Corporation a contract to maintain lighthouses and buoys along Panama’s waterways. It was the longest prison sentence in FCPA history, and it’s perhaps those individual prosecutions that are sending the largest shivers down the spines of corporate leaders.

‘In my consulting with various companies around the world, I find the biggest deterrent is having some of these top officials investigated and hauled into court,’ notes Errol Mendes, a University of Ottawa law professor and ethics consultant. ‘This is hugely damaging to brand equity, and most head offices don’t want something like that to happen.’ Individual prosecutions are, Mendes believes, part of a deliberate DoJ strategy.

via 2010: A Scammer’s Delight.

Court Compels Production of ESI for a Period of 18 Years, Shifts Majority of Costs to Requesting Party : Electronic Discovery Law

Takeda Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 2010 WL 2640492 (D. Del. June 21, 2010)

Defendants sought production of electronically stored information for a period of 18 years – a significant departure from the default period of five years previously imposed.  Upon plaintiffs’ showing that retrieval of the additional data by a vendor would cost approximately $1 million to $1.5 million (not including the cost of review), the court found the information was “not reasonably accessible”.  However, the court also found that defendants had shown good cause to compel the requested production.

via Court Compels Production of ESI for a Period of 18 Years, Shifts Majority of Costs to Requesting Party : Electronic Discovery Law.