Bigmouthmedia Search Engine News: /legal/

Clegg criticises Draft Communications Data Bill

Tue, 11 Dec 2012 07:24:00 GMT

Nick Clegg has announced that the Draft Communications Data Bill needs a "fundamental rethink" following pans to give intelligence services access to all internet user activity in the UK.

The Deputy Prime Minister has said he would block the Draft Communications Data Bill which he says cannot proceed, with plans to ensure a balance between freedom of information and security.

The news comes following an MP committee meeting whereby the bill was criticised after the Home Office suggested the move must be taken to prevent terrorism.

Under these plans, internet providers can store all online communication details in the UK, giving external sources access to data such as time, duration, originator and recipient of communication. Police would not have to seek any further access to gain this information but would need a warrant to see the content of any personal messages.

"It is for those reasons that I believe the coalition government needs to have a fundamental rethink about this legislation. We cannot proceed with this bill and we have to go back to the drawing board," Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg told the BBC.

"The committee did not, however, suggest that nothing needs to be done. They were very clear that there is a problem that must be addressed to give law enforcement agencies the powers they need to fight crime. I agree.

"But that must be done in a proportionate way that gets the balance between security and liberty right."

Home Secretary Theresa May has argued that the bill is vital for keeping watch over paedophiles, frauds and extremists, but ministers have warned that this could lead to "potentially limitless categories of data" unless the bill is amended.

MP's argued that the bill is "insufficient attention to the duty to respect the right to privacy" and went "much further than it need or should for the purpose of providing necessary and justifiable official access to communications data."

Theresa May would like the bill in place by next year.

"This legislation is vital to help catch paedophiles, terrorists and other serious criminals and we are pleased both scrutiny committees have recognised the need for new laws," a Home Office Spokesperson told the BBC.

"We have now considered the committees' recommendations carefully and we will accept the substance of them all. But there can be no delay to this legislation. It is needed by law enforcement agencies now."

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

Nokia seek Blackberry retail ban

Thu, 29 Nov 2012 05:01:00 GMT

Mobile phone giant Nokia have sought a legal ban on sales of Blackberry smartphones and tablets in America, Britain and Canada.

The two companies are currently locked in a patent dispute over a widely-used kind of wi-fi connectivity, with the Swedish Chamber of Commerce having previously upheld Nokia's claims in a patent tribunal.

The Finnish multinational corporation have claimed that this ruling means all Research In Motion products, Blackberry's parent company, that use this technology should be prohibited.

Andrew Alton, a British based patent lawyer, believes the legal moves come at a critical time for Blackberry, telling the BBC that, "RIM has had a tough time losing market segment to other smartphones. And the future of the business is now going to be based on the success of its new operating system, which itself has been delayed.

"Anything else that diverts attention from getting that out there and products shipped and bought is going to be detrimental for the business."

Blackberry has claimed it should not have to pay to use Nokia's technology due to a previous licensing deal. Nokia currently licenses its innovations and intellectual property to over 40 companies, with this revenue stream crucial to the company's £7.4 billion valuation.

News of Nokia's legal action caused RIM's shares to fall by around 10 per cent although they later rallied. The Canadian company is currently preparing to launch the Blackberry 10 in less than three months and is already facing a series of legal challenges across the globe.

They are currently involved in court disputes with SoftVault Systems over anti-piracy technology and Lochner due to its online video streaming system.

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

YouView sued over naming dispute

Tue, 27 Nov 2012 04:48:00 GMT

UK internet TV provider YouView has been sued for trademark infringement in a dispute over its name.

Gloucestershire based TV Company total, registered the name YourView in 2009 and has accused YouView of infringement on the grounds that the name is too similar. The High Court ruled in favour of YourView, stating that the name is "confusingly similar."

YouView, in conjunction with the BBC, ITV, BT and others, has stated that it has no intention of changing its name, with a spokeswoman claiming: "This matter is complex and subject to a number of ongoing legal actions and will be settled in the courts."

YouView's name was registered with the Intellectual Property Office nine months after Total registered the name YourView.

"Despite the recent vindication of our position in the appeal proceedings we believe that YouView has continued to act without regard to our registered mark and business interests," Managing Director of Total, Stuart Baikie told the BBC.

"We have had no choice but to issue infringement proceedings and we are confident of success."
Total is seeking financial settlement, as well as the agreement that YouView won't use its name in future but it has not yet been confirmed what kind of settlement the company expected to receive.

YouView offers its users access to 70 Freeview channels and a seven day catch up facility. Originally planned to launch in 2012, it suffered numerous setbacks. It has been criticised by analysts who say the technology has come too late and is too expensive.

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

Facebook shifts privacy policy goalposts

Fri, 23 Nov 2012 04:12:00 GMT

Facebook has rocked the boat with the most recent updates to its governing documents, which sees users losing their ability to vote on changes to the website's privacy policies.

The social media giant announced the changes in an email to members on Wednesday, stating that the public voting component of the site governance process "incentivised the quantity of comments over their quality."

Facebook is now proposing to "end the voting component of the process in favour of a system that leads to more meaningful feedback and engagement."

Campaigners are opposed to the changes and are urging disgruntled users to comment on the announcement.

Under Facebook's current rules, 7,000 opposing votes on the issue will result in a vote before the changes go through. However, the votes will only be taken into consideration if 30 per cent of the site's user base takes part.

Resultantly, given that Facebook recently reached its one-billionth sign-up, over 300 million users would have to take part in the vote for its results to take effect.

The new proposal also outlines plans to combine user data across various services owned by Facebook, such as popular photo-sharing app Instagram.

This move has caused speculation that the company intent to merge data profiles in a similar way to Google, making it easier to hit users with targeted advertising.

Those opposed also criticise Facebook's statement as being too vague.

A spokesperson from the Our Policy group told the BBC: "We want Facebook to use clear and understandable language.

"We oppose that Facebook is using 'like', 'may' or 'could' instead of clear statements. This makes it impossible to clearly know what we consent to."

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

Samsung wins court ruling to access detail of Apple-HTC patent deal

Thu, 22 Nov 2012 04:00:00 GMT

An American court has ordered that Apple must disclose details of a recent patent agreement with HTC to their bitter rivals Samsung.

The ruling by the judge means Apple will have to share the specifics of their 10 year license agreement, although the information will not be publicly available.

Samsung's lawyers were able to convince the court that the Apple-HTC deal related to at least some of their own patent disputes, that they are currently locked in worldwide litigation with the Californian company over.

Andrew Milroy, vice president of ICT research at Frost & Sullivan, commented to the BBC about Samsung's actions, saying, "It is clearly a very smart move from Samsung - because the general feeling is that a lot of its patent disputes with Apple are very likely to be similar to those between HTC and Apple.

"And if there are similarities, it gives Samsung an advantage in any future legal issues and negotiations with Apple. Apple has been having a really bad time of late in its legal battles. They are going to have to re-examine the legal approach they take from here on."

Apple's deal with HTC is thought to have ended legal disputes in around 20 countries that dated from March 2010. Samsung is currently fighting 10 patent battles with Apple, with the two companies suing and counter-suing each other over alleged design infringements.

This latest loss comes amid a string of other recent legal defeats for Apple. The South Korean company has appealed Apple's award of £662 million compensation for patent infringement in the US whilst also winning a case in the UK and defeating an attempted American sales ban.

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

Google criticises potential changes to the UN's internet treaty

Thu, 22 Nov 2012 03:37:00 GMT

Changes made at an upcoming UN conference could threaten the independence of the internet, according to Google.

Government officials are attending the meeting in December to decide upon a new information and communications treaty which will govern how the internet operates.

Opponents of the changes believe that some countries will attempt to use the agreement as a way of suppressing free speech and restricting access material critical of them.

In a statement on their Take Action website Google voiced their concerns, saying, "The [UN agency] International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is bringing together regulators from around the world to renegotiate a decades-old communications treaty.

"Some proposals could permit governments to censor legitimate speech - or even allow them to cut off internet access. Other proposals would require services like YouTube, Facebook, and Skype to pay new tolls in order to reach people across borders. This could limit access to information - particularly in emerging markets."

Google is encouraging internet users to sign their online position to support their objections, with the company also critical of the fact that only nation states have been invited to the conference. The search engine giant is particularly fearful control over domain names and technical aspects of the internet could end up being transferred from the US to the international body.

The ITU has refuted Google's criticisms, stating that a new treaty is essential for allowing increased access to the internet and continuing its open and informative character. They also believe that the previous 1998 communications treaty needs drastically overhauled to encompass online advances and the development of smartphones.

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

Web users unsure if online content is legal

Tue, 20 Nov 2012 03:13:00 GMT

Half of all web users admit that they aren't sure if the content they view online is legal and one in six say they have breached online copyright, according to a new study.

Media regulation body Ofcom has found 47 per cent of web users do not know the source of their downloads or if they are even legal.

When asked if they were confident in knowing what is legal or illegal in terms of streaming, downloading and viewing online content, 28 per cent of those asked reported that they were not particularly confident and 17 per cent answered "not at all."

Of the one in six users who said they knowingly accessed illegal content, half of them were consuming music and two per cent games and software, with 54 per cent saying the most common reason for doing so is because it is free.

Internet Service Providers are soon to be made responsible for informing users the content they are about to view or use could be illegal and used for copyright infringement cases. They will also be encouraged to promote legal places for users to download content.

"Consumer research is only one perspective on levels of online copyright infringement. For a more complete picture, it should be considered alongside direct measurement of behaviour on file-sharing websites and wider industry data. Ofcom expects to consider all these data sources as part of its statutory reporting duties in the near future," Ofcom stated in a press release.

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

Rise in attempts by governments to monitor Google

Thu, 15 Nov 2012 02:13:00 GMT

Almost 21,000 requests for information were made to Google by governments in the first half of 2012.

The figure emerged as part of Google's recent Transparency Report, with the American government again the most zealous in pursuing data with 7,969 requests.

British appeals doubled to 1,425 during the first six months of 2012, with the search engine giant complying with 64 per cent of these requests.

Dorothy Chou, Google's Senior Policy Analyst, told the BBC that, "This is the sixth time we've released this data, and one trend has become clear: government surveillance is on the rise.

"It reflects laws on the ground. For example in Turkey there are specific laws about defaming public figures whereas in Germany we get requests to remove neo-Nazi content. And in Brazil we get a lot of requests to remove content during elections because there is a law banning parodies of candidates.

"We hope that the report will shed light on how governments interact with online services and how laws are reflected in online behaviour."

In total requests for user data affected 34, 614 people, with governments seeking to gain access to their search history, Gmail accounts or YouTube videos.

The Turkish government made 501 requests for content to be taken down, with the US making 273 whilst Germany was third with 247 demands. The most common reasons for removing information or online content are defamation, privacy breaches or security issues.

The report also disclosed the fact that a British law enforcement agency made 14 requests to have information criticising the police removed but Google rejected their appeals. The company also turned down a demand to remove a YouTube video that accused the police of racism.

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

Apple and HTC reach licensing agreement

Mon, 12 Nov 2012 01:25:00 GMT

Tech giant Apple has signed a 10- year licensing agreement with mobile company HTC.

Industry sources suggest that HTC may have agreed to pay between £3.15 and £12.60 per handset produced with Google's Android operating system.

Legal wrangling between the two firms has been ongoing for 32 months, which resulted in Apple's temporary blocking US imports of HTC and Android phones at the International Trade Commission on grounds of violating its patents. The majority of these were about software and user interface, with Apple accusing the Taiwanese company of imitating its flick scrolling and swipe to answer features among others.

HTC have suffered a sales decline since then, despite collaborating with Google's Android platform.

"HTC wasn't making phones that looked like the iPhone so a licensing deal was always on the cards, unlike the case against Samsung," analyst at Enders Analysis, Benedict Evans told the Guardian.

"Most of the growth in Android sales is coming from cheap $75 to $100 handsets which are replacing feature phones. If you're paying $20 in licensing on those, you've got no margin."

Apple has been involved in a series of patent wars with tech companies like Samsung and Google in recent months, having filed legal cases against each other in more than 10 countries, each accusing the other of copying ideas and stealing market space.

A court in California awarded Apple £652m in damages against Samsung, but the Korean firm has filed for retrial.

"HTC is pleased to have resolved its dispute with Apple, so HTC can focus on innovation instead of litigation," head of HTC, Peter Chou, told the BBC.

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia

Apple publishes statement after Samsung patent ruling

Fri, 26 Oct 2012 08:13:00 GMT

Apple has published a controversy-laden statement on its website to say that Samsung did not infringe on its iPad design, in line with a ruling by a UK court.

In the latest instalment of drama in the tech giants' on-going patent dispute, the post went live on Apple's website this morning, after the company lost a High Court appeal to have July's ruling overturned.

However, it would appear the gloves are well and truly off as the battle rages on, with the Cupertino company showing no intention of being magnanimous in defeat towards the South Koreans.

The statement, nestled in the page footers of Apple's UK homepage, briefly skims over the legalities of the ruling, acknowledging: "On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 0000181607-0001."

With the technicalities out the way, Apple go on to take the opportunity to point out that, although officially a victory for Samsung, the court did arrive at the decision using less than complimentary reasoning.

Quoting Judge Colin Birss, the statement continues: "The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking...the design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design.

"[The Samsung Galaxy tablets] do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."

After mentioning positive rulings from U.S and German courts, Apple concluded: "So while the U.K court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognised that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung wilfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad."

Although it is unsurprising that Samsung did not receive the gallant response it may have hoped for, tech fansacross the web are speculating today that Apple's reluctant response may have bent the boundaries of the court ruling a little too far.

Either way, for Samsung, far from being fruitful, the statement is more of a rotten Apple.

Digg | delicious | Reddit | Google | Twitter | Sphinn | StumbleUpon | YahooBuzz | Facebook | Mixx | Contact bigmouthmedia