Microsoft cracks down on ad click fraud | Seattle PI

Image representing Microsoft adCenter as depic...
Image via CrunchBase

In anticipation of a planned announcement Wednesday regarding click fraud, Microsoft has filed at least two lawsuits against companies it believes are mixed up in the illegal manipulation of online-advertising commerce.

Microsoft on Monday implicated two established websites, RedOrbit and HelloMetro, in two fraud complaints filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle. Microsoft alleges the defendants used malicious means to artificially increase the number of times that advertisements on those sites were clicked.

The defendants, Microsoft claims, used the software company’ adCenter and pubCenter platforms to surface advertisements on their websites. When a Web user clicks one of those ads, money is automatically transferred from the advertiser’s account to the ad publisher’s account.

Click-fraud perpetrators can use automated computer scripts, deploy malware, e-mail spam links or hire people to generate an inflated number of clicks on online advertisements. Such practices bring extra money to the ad publisher, and fraud is suspected when the action is hidden.

In an interestingly timed move, Microsoft filed the lawsuits two days before it announces “some significant news,” as the company has said, about click fraud trends. Seattlepi.com has learned that the announcement will provide better context for the lawsuits, though it is unclear exactly what the news will be.

A spokesperson said the announcement will also relate to a third legal filing, but Microsoft would not elaborate. Stay tuned to The Microsoft Blog on Wednesday for more information.

In the RedOrbit case (PDF), Microsoft names the company, founder Eric Ralls and 10 “John Does” as defendants. RedOrbit.com is a Tyler, Texas-based online news site that publishes articles, photos and videos about science, space, technology and health.

via Microsoft cracks down on ad click fraud.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

LifeLock CEO said to be victim of identity theft 13 times – Computerworld

A CEO who publicly posted his Social Security number on billboards and TV commercials as part of a campaign to promote his company’s credit monitoring services was the victim of identity theft at least 13 times, a news report says.

The Phoenix New Times reported that Todd Davis, CEO of LifeLock Inc., which is based in Tempe, Ariz., was victimized numerous times by identity thieves who apparently used his Social Security number to commit various types of fraud.

Davis has previously admitted that he was the victim of an identity theft once in 2007, when a man in Texas used his Social Security number to take out a $500 loan which wasn’t repaid and ended up being handled by a collection agency.

The New Times reported that Davis has been a victim of similar ID theft at least a dozen more times.

Among the examples cited in the report was one involving an ID thief in Albany, Georgia who opened an AT&T wireless account in Davis’ name and used it to rack up more than $2,300 in charges.

In another instance, an individual used Davis’ identity to open an account with Centerpoint Energy, a Texas utility, and leave behind $122 in unpaid bills, the report said.

It also cited examples where individuals with Davis’ identity owed more than $573 to a bank and $312 to a gif-basket company.

The numerous incidents belie LifeLock’s claims that the services it offers protects consumers against ID theft and fraud, the report noted.

Davis said by e-mail that there had been “hundreds” of attempts to use his personal information in a fraudulent manner since 2005. All but 13 of those attempts were successful, Davis said.

via LifeLock CEO said to be victim of identity theft 13 times – Computerworld.

Lockheed Withheld Discovery Documents in Trade Secrets Case, Court Records Show | Fulton County Daily Report

Hundreds of pages of court documents unsealed by U.S. District Judge Charles A. Pannell after he vacated a $37 million trade secrets verdict won by Lockheed Martin last year reveal that the company withheld internal corporate e-mails from the court that may have contradicted testimony of its witnesses. Pannell issued an order unsealing the documents on April 13 after an inquiry by the Fulton County Daily Report, which had sought access to a dozen court pleadings and more than 100 exhibits that Lockheed and Greenville, Texas-based defendant L-3 Communications Integrated Systems had filed under seal. In sealing the pleadings, the parties had cited a broad joint confidentiality order Pannell had signed at their request in 2006 and a separate confidentiality order in place in ongoing litigation between the parties in federal court in Texas.

The push to seal court pleadings under broad protective orders and, thus, evade public scrutiny is a growing phenomenon in Georgia’s Northern District that has resulted in lawyers designating pleadings as confidential when they file them with the court clerk without an individual review by the trial judge.

The previously sealed pleadings and exhibits all pertain to allegations by L-3 lawyers that Lockheed intentionally withheld evidence critical to L-3′s defense and, in doing so, “undoubtedly changed the outcome of the trial.”

Prior to the Fulton County Daily Report inquiry, the only public information about the claims — which eventually prompted Pannell to toss out both the verdict and Lockheed’s motion for more than $16 million in legal fees — was the judge’s eight-page order for a new trial. In that order, Pannell said it was “undisputed” that Lockheed had failed during the trial to turn over documents showing that long before it sued L-3, it had knowingly allowed a competitor to utilize its proprietary data without a license. However, the judge said he was “hesitant” to say that Lockheed withheld the information intentionally, given the voluminous number of documents involved.

That information was crucial to the case because, according to the unsealed documents, Pannell had instructed the jury that “once trade secret status is lost, it is lost forever.”

Neither L-3 nor Lockheed objected to unsealing the pleadings on which Pannell had based his new trial order.

via Law.com – Lockheed Withheld Discovery Documents in Trade Secrets Case, Court Records Show.

BP, Transocean Lawsuits Surge as Oil Spill Spreads in Gulf – BusinessWeek

BP plc
Image via Wikipedia

BP Plc and Transocean Ltd. face at least 36 lawsuits, including group cases with potentially thousands of plaintiffs, over environmental damage and personal injuries caused by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

At least 31 proposed class-action suits have been filed in courthouses from Texas to Florida. Commercial fishermen, shrimpers, charter-boat operators and beachfront-property owners asked to represent anyone whose livelihood depends on coastal waters imperiled by the drifting oil. At least 24 cases were filed yesterday.

BP has the primary liability for damage caused by the spill, said Keith Hall, an attorney in New Orleans, who isn’t involved in the litigation. He cited a U.S. law passed after the Exxon Valdez oil spill at Alaska in 1989.

“Under the Oil Pollution Act, the fact that it was BP’s oil is enough,” said Hall, of Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann LLC. Plaintiffs “don’t have to show they were negligent or grossly negligent,” he said.

Transocean’s spokesman Guy Cantwell and BP’s Daren Beaudo didn’t respond to requests for comment on the rapid rise in lawsuits. Both men said previously it was against company policy to comment on pending litigation.

Lawsuits also name Cameron International Corp., which provided blowout-prevention equipment, and Halliburton Energy Services Inc., which was involved in cementing the well.

via BP, Transocean Lawsuits Surge as Oil Spill Spreads in Gulf – BusinessWeek.

Lawsuits Over Oil Rig Disaster Spill Into Court in Louisiana, Mississippi | National Law Journal

More litigation is gushing out of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

In Mississippi, two commercial shrimpers on Monday filed a $5 million class action in federal court in Gulfport, alleging the oil spill could destroy their livelihoods. The plaintiffs are represented by Sheehan & Johnson in Biloxi, Miss., and Gambrell & Associates in Oxford, Miss.

In Louisiana, Houston‘s Lanier Law Firm filed a proposed class action on Monday in federal court in New Orleans on behalf of a fishing company claiming financial injuries from the spill.

In the same court, Wigington Rumley & Dunn of Corpus Christi, Texas, plans to file two similar lawsuits today on behalf of two other charter fishing companies alleging their business has come to a halt because of the spill.

There’s also Cooper v. BP PLC, the first oil spill lawsuit filed last Friday, also in the Eastern District of Louisiana, where shrimpers, commercial fisherman and commercial boaters are suing over lost business. The lead lawyer in that case is Daniel Becnel Jr. of Becnel Law Firm in Reserve, La.

And Joseph Ritch of Wigington Rumley said there's no telling where the litigation will end. “We know that the amount of the oil spilling is going to affect all walks of life….Condo associations, casinos along the gulf, hotels — if there’s oil on the beach when people are going on vacation, you figure people aren’t going to go there,” he said.

via Law.com – Lawsuits Over Oil Rig Disaster Spill Into Court in Louisiana, Mississippi.

Podcast: Law School Students on E-Discovery With Judge Grimm  || ESIBytes

This was a special ESIBytes program with Judge Paul Grimm, Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court of Maryland co-hosting this show with Karl Schieneman, Director of Analytics and Review at JurInnov. We interviewed 8 law students who have been taking electronic discovery courses at three different law schools: The University of Florida, The University of Texas and The University of Alabama. On a number of podcasts we have heard from E-Discovery analysts and participants, such as Judge Scheindlin and Ralph Losey, that law students perhaps represent the future saviors of the Electronic Discovery field. Well now we give a group of students who have been studying this topic in their law schools a chance to weigh in on the topic.

How practical is it for the profession to count on this next generation of lawyer to help the profession deal with ESI is one of the topics we will discuss. Also, how valuable is Electronic Discovery as a course offering at a law school will be discussed. You be the judge as we finally give law students a chance to weigh in on a special edition of ESIBytes. If you are interested in getting in touch with the law students or talking to them about employment opportunities, their contact information is below:

University of Florida Jared Beckerman – jbeckerman@ufl.edu Rob Davis – robert.davis.jr@gmail.com Andrew Roy – aroy@gmail.com University of Alabama Ryan Tyler – rltyler@gmail.com Justin Ladner – justin.ladner@law.ua.edu University of Texas Joshua Normand – joshuanormand@yahoo.com Lora Beth Turner – lora@mail.utexas.edu.    Also, a special thanks to Ralph Losey, Julie Grantham and Allison Skinner who recruited law students from their E-Discovery classes to make this show possible.

via Law School Students on E-Discovery With Judge Grimm  || ESIBytes.

Stop and Take a Look Under the EDD Hood | Law.com

There are more than 600 companies offering e-discovery software and services, according to the most recent Socha Gelbmann survey of the electronic discovery market. If you spend any time trying to differentiate the hundreds of products and services being offered, you will find a wide variety of marketing claims being made about every product. But one fact about the e-discovery industry that most vendors probably prefer you didn’t know is that many of the software products being offered are not very different once you start poking around inside.

Despite the proliferation of tools for reviewing large collections of electronic evidence, most vendors are simply licensing the same computer source code to build their products. These common components find, index, extract, and search digital documents, the core function of any e-discovery product. “What the industry doesn’t want you to know is that, like the desktop PC industry, the same guts are inside the box,” says Austin, Texas-based e-discovery consultant Craig Ball. “The rest is mostly branding and some bells and whistles. How much faster can one product really be over another when they use the same code?”

This does not necessarily mean that the e-discovery industry is populated with hundreds of identical products differentiated only by advertising. Some observers maintain that despite this common use and reuse of the same computer code, it is still possible to offer unique products. “Everyone needs to have building materials to work with. If I’m building a house, I need wood or bricks. If I’m building software, I need certain basic components,” says George Socha, an attorney and e-discovery consultant in St. Paul, Minnesota. He also helps conduct the Socha Gelbmann survey. “Just because you use the same components doesn’t mean they’re all the same. There are different settings and different ways to implement these tools.”

Licensing off-the-shelf software components is common practice in the software industry; there’s no sense in building from scratch when someone else has already invested the time and money in building a useful tool. There are a number of options software makers can use in acquiring components, either by paying another software company to use their code, or to use open source software. Open source software is created and maintained by a community of software developers, allowing software makers to use and adapt the source code to their products for free or for a minimal cost.

Adopting open source software allows programmers to enhance products to their specifications, but that route offers little in the way of service and support. Licensing proprietary software offers advantages, but vendors are reliant on the software owner to make major changes and updates. There are many free and licensed products e-discovery vendors use including open source tools like database PostgreSQL and indexing tool Lucene, — although in talking to e-discovery vendors and consultants, document review software tends to rely on a handful of licensed technologies. These tools allows vendors to quickly build software platforms that can take a large collection of documents and extract files, index the data and text inside, and search those files.

via Law.com – Stop and Take a Look Under the EDD Hood.

Federal court upholds border search of laptop in Texas – Computerworld

Logo of ICE
Image via Wikipedia

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has become the latest federal court to uphold the right of U.S. customs agents to conduct warrantless searches of laptop computers at U.S. borders.

In a ruling last week, the court denied a motion to suppress evidence gathered from a border search that was filed by a man who is accused of possessing, transporting and distributing child pornography.

Sandeep Verma of Sugarland, Texas, was arrested in February 2008 at a Houston airport on his return from a visit to Bogota, Colombia. The charges against him stem from evidence gathered from a search of his computer and external drives at the airport and a subsequent search of other computers and storage devices from his car, which yielded more than 100,000 illegal images.

In his motion to suppress the evidence from the border search, Verma claimed that the search of his computer and external drives at the airport violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Verma contended that the warrantless search of his computer by a cyber specialist from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unit amounted to an unreasonable forensic analysis of his computer without a reason.

He argued that the “comprehensive forensic search and analysis” of his computer by a cyber specialist at the airport went well beyond a routine search of his computer. Federal agents acted “in a manner in which its intent was to circumvent the protections of the Fourth Amendment,” he claimed.

The government maintained that the search stemmed from an ongoing investigation of Verma for child pornography. Well before Verma was searched at the airport, the FBI had already linked his home IP address to an Internet Relay Chat server containing images of child pornography. Prosecutors said the airport search of Verma’s computers stemmed from that investigation and from the fact that he was reentering the U.S. from a country that the U.S. considers to be at “high-risk’ for child pornography.

via Federal court upholds border search of laptop in Texas – Computerworld.

Predictability in EDD Rules Remain Elusive | NY Law Journal

Last time, we reviewed Judge Shira Scheindlin’s must-read decision in Pension Committee,[FOOTNOTE 1] in which she suggests that her series of Zubulake decisions (the last of which was issued in 2004) imposed a range of categorical e-discovery duties in the Southern District of New York and quite possibly beyond. Her Pension Committee decision warns that the breach of these post-Zubulake duties will almost invariably constitute “gross negligence” and subject litigants to the most severe of discovery sanctions.

But a recent decision by Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the Southern District of Texas — another luminary in the constellation of judges shaping the law of e-discovery — highlights that e-discovery standards remain unsettled and defy application of immutable and inflexible rules. Indeed, Rosenthal’s opinion in Rimkus Consulting v. Cammarata[FOOTNOTE 2] notes that circuit splits have emerged on some fundamental e-discovery concepts.

Rimkus Consulting involved allegations of intentional destruction of evidence, but, much like Scheindlin’s opinion in Pension Committee, Rosenthal engages in a wide-ranging discussion of the duty to preserve evidence, conduct that breaches that duty, the level of culpability necessary to impose sanctions, and the standard that must be satisfied to justify a spoliation instruction.

Unlike Scheindlin, however, Rosenthal does not seek to establish bright-line rules. Instead, she invokes the traditional negligence language of reasonableness and proportionality that arguably was absent from Pension Committee. The opinion also cautions against viewing the e-discovery efforts of litigants through the distorting lens of hindsight, through which flaws in even the most vigilant e-discovery efforts can be brought into stark relief.

Moreover, as had Scheindlin in Pension Committee, Rosenthal expresses “grave concerns”[FOOTNOTE 3] about the ascendancy of spoliation litigation, particularly as related to electronic documents. It is obvious to most jurists who have had occasion to focus on e-discovery issues that the cost and delay inherent in “discovery about discovery” are all too often needless and avoidable.

via Predictability in EDD Rules Remain Elusive.

Law.com – Discovery Failure Sinks Lockheed’s $37 Million Win

A federal judge has tossed out a $37.3 million trade secrets verdict for Lockheed Martin Corp. and ordered a new trial after finding that the aircraft company failed to turn over to a defendant competitor documents critical to the case.

U.S. District Judge Charles A. Pannell Jr. on March 31 ordered the new trial at the request of Texas military contractor L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, the defendant in the five-year-old case. Pannell said it was “probable” that the outcome of the trial would have been different if the jury had been given access to the information that Lockheed withheld.

In his order, Pannell also tossed out Lockheed’s motion for more than $16 million in legal fees.

Five years ago, in a race to the courthouse, Lockheed sued L-3 in U.S. District Court in Atlanta over what it claimed was a misappropriation of trade secrets associated with the design and construction of Lockheed’s anti-submarine bomber, which is used by navies around the world. Lockheed has large aircraft plants in Marietta and Warner Robins.

L-3, in turn, filed a separate antitrust suit against Lockheed in U.S. District Court in Dallas, claiming that Lockheed had filed the Atlanta suit to stifle competition. That case is pending.

The dueling cases are the result of a high-stakes feud between the two international defense contractors over a growing international market: the refurbishment of military aircraft, many of them originally designed and built by Lockheed, that are owned by governments around the world.

via Law.com – Discovery Failure Sinks Lockheed’s $37 Million Win.