Payroll debit cards can be a cheap alternative to issuing paper checks to employees who don't have bank accounts. But there can be downsides for recipients.
Scott Leighton, controller at Helpmates Staffing Services in Irvine, says the firm started using the paycard program about four months ago, with about 17% of its workforce choosing that payment method.
By Cyndia Zwahlen
November 28, 2010|7:50 p.m.
Paper or plastic - it's not a question just for the grocery store checkout line anymore. Now some employers are facing it when figuring out the most efficient way to pay workers.
These companies are trying to eliminate paper paychecks for employees who don't do direct deposit, and instead issue them payroll debit cards, also called paycards.
The cards, which are loaded electronically with workers' pay, are designed for employees who don't have bank accounts. About 8% of U.S. households don't have accounts in financial institutions, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
Distributing wages on paycards is often cheaper for a company than buying, processing and distributing paychecks. Employees who get the cards, which come with personal identification numbers, can use them at many bank ATMs.
In Irvine, Helpmates Staffing Services - which has 60 employees but can have more than 1,000 temporary workers on its payroll depending on the contracts it gets - initiated a paycard program four months ago. The larger the number of potential paycard users, the lower the cost can be for an employer.
About 17% of Helpmates' temporary workers chose the paycards for payment, which is more than the company expected, Controller Scott Leighton said. An additional 63% use direct deposit, leaving only 20% who get paid by check.
"Moving paperless is going to save costs and make us more productive,"
Leighton said. For example, it cuts back on staffers having to make special trips to worksites with paychecks.
New hires at Helpmates are offered direct deposit and paycard options. But California employers must still issue paper checks to workers who want them, Department of Industrial Relations spokeswoman Erika Monterroza said.
Paycard vendors tout the advantages of the cards for employees who don't have bank accounts. They enable workers to avoid excessive fees charged by check-cashing companies. And in addition to being accepted at ATMs, paycards in most cases can be used like bank debit cards to make purchases from retailers and even pay bills online.
But users can be hit with a variety of fees.
In California there are no laws that specifically regulate paycards, but according to an opinion issued in 2008 by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, a card user must be allowed to make one free withdrawal of his or her pay per pay period.
That's because there are laws preventing employers from requiring workers to pay a fee just to receive wages.
But there's nothing to prevent the assessment of fees by paycard companies for uses, such as ATM withdrawals after the initial free withdrawal or paying bills online. There can also be monthly fees and other charges.
Also, there can be inconveniences. If a paycard is used at a gas pump, a $50 or $75 temporary hold on could be placed on the funds. (Using the card inside the station to pay for gas usually eliminates that problem.)
Checking the amount of money left on a card usually requires a phone call.
And using the card along with another form of payment - such as cash or a credit card - to buy something for more money than is left on the card can be tricky too.
Angie Wei, legislative director of the California Labor Federation, said employers should be upfront with workers about the fees that might be assessed.
"We don't want to stand in the way of modernity for workers, but we want people to be 'eyes wide open,'" she said.
Some states already have laws that specifically regulate paycards. Wei said her organization was pushing for California to join them.
The cost to employers can vary. Some card providers charge $1 each for the cards plus monthly fees, although they can be discounted. Generally, the more cards an employer issues, the lower the fees.
"You try to keep it so it's a definite cost advantage to the employer so they can easily see 'Wow - this is a lot cheaper than checks, and I don't have to worry about replacing lost checks,' " said Don Ault, a vice president at Brentwood, Tenn.-based card provider Comdata Corp.
A study showed that only 40% of employers have heard of payroll cards, but the card industry expects that to change. Last year, the dollar value loaded on to major brand name paycards was $18.9 billion, or 24% of all types of prepaid cards that carried names such as Visa, MasterCard or Discover, according to a May report by Aite Group of Boston.
The compounded annual growth rate for payroll cards is expected to be 29% from 2010 to 2014, the report said.
Because the costs to employers can vary, doing some research can go a long way toward saving money. The American Payroll Assn. has a website that can be a good starting point.
smallbiz@latimes.com
Copyright C 2010, Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-smalbiz-paycards-20101127,0,580686.story
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Web delivery firm says Comcast taking toll on data
By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology Writer
- Mon Nov 29, 8:15 pm ET
WASHINGTON - Level 3 Communications Inc., an Internet backbone company that supports Netflix Inc.'s increasingly popular movie streaming service, complained Monday that cable giant Comcast Corp. is charging it an unfair fee for the right to send data to its subscribers.
Comcast replied it is being swamped by a flood of data and needs to be paid.
Level 3 said it agreed to pay under protest, but that the fee violates the principles of an "open Internet." It also goes against the Federal Communications Commission's proposed rules preventing broadband Internet providers from favoring certain types of traffic, it said.
"Comcast is effectively putting up a toll booth at the borders of its broadband Internet access network, enabling it to unilaterally decide how much to charge for content," said Level 3's chief legal officer, Thomas Stortz, in a statement.
Comcast called Level 3's position "duplicitous" and said a previous deal for the companies to handle traffic for each other had become unbalanced in Level 3's favor.
The spat reflects the complicated commercial relationships of the Internet, where it's not always clear who should be paying whom.
Level 3's main business is carrying Internet traffic across the country, charging Internet service providers like Comcast fees to connect to Web sites and other ISPs.
However, it is moving into the business of distributing Internet content such as movies for companies including Netflix. Under that business model, it is acting like a content-delivery network, which usually pays ISPs for fast access to their networks.
Level 3, which is based in Broomfield, Colo., is now pushing to Comcast five times the traffic that goes the other way.
"When one provider exploits this type of relationship by pushing the burden of massive traffic growth onto the other provider and its customers, we believe this is not fair," Comcast's senior vice president Joe Waz said in a statement.
The dispute comes at a sensitive time for Comcast Corp., which is trying to get regulatory clearance to buy majority control of NBC Universal from General Electric Co. for cash and assets worth $13.75 billion.
The government is examining the deal, especially around concerns that the nation's largest cable TV provider could wield undue power in the distribution of online video once it takes control.
Level 3 said Comcast made a take-it-or-leave-it demand last week and it only agreed to the terms under protest to prevent consumer disruptions. Comcast said it is meeting with Level 3 later this week to discuss a new solution.
The fight is related to a heated policy dispute in Washington over proposed rules governing Internet traffic.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has been pushing to adopt so-called "network neutrality" rules for more than a year, arguing that they are necessary to prevent phone and cable giants from using their broadband monopolies to become online gatekeepers.
Public interest groups were quick to jump on Level 3's complaint Monday to argue that premium services should not be allowed.
"Comcast's request of payment in exchange for content transmission is yet another example of why citizens need strong, effective network neutrality rules that include a ban on such 'paid prioritization' practices," Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president of Media Access Project, said in a statement.
The FCC had no comment.
It's not the first time Comcast, which is based in Philadelphia, has been accused of unfairly regulating Web traffic.
In 2008, the FCC ordered the cable giant to stop slowing and blocking its subscribers from accessing an online file-sharing service called BitTorrent, which lets people swap movies and other big files over the Internet.
For Netflix, the dustup could affect its popular video-streaming offering, to which it is pushing customers to save on the cost of sending rental DVDs in the mail.
Netflix declined to comment.
Starting next year, Level 3 will become Netflix's primary network for piping Internet video, although Netflix also will continue to rely on systems run by Limelight Networks Inc. and Akamai Technologies Inc.
If Level 3 is forced to pay more to send movies to homes that rely on Comcast for Internet service, it eventually could try to pass on the costs to Netflix and its subscribers.
As more of its 17 million subscribers embrace Internet streaming, Netflix's service has emerged as the biggest source of Internet traffic in the U.S.
during peak evening periods, according to a recent study by Sandvine Inc.
AP Business Writers Michael Liedtke in San Francisco and Peter Svensson in New York contributed to this report.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101130/ap_on_hi_te/us_level3_comcast
- Mon Nov 29, 8:15 pm ET
WASHINGTON - Level 3 Communications Inc., an Internet backbone company that supports Netflix Inc.'s increasingly popular movie streaming service, complained Monday that cable giant Comcast Corp. is charging it an unfair fee for the right to send data to its subscribers.
Comcast replied it is being swamped by a flood of data and needs to be paid.
Level 3 said it agreed to pay under protest, but that the fee violates the principles of an "open Internet." It also goes against the Federal Communications Commission's proposed rules preventing broadband Internet providers from favoring certain types of traffic, it said.
"Comcast is effectively putting up a toll booth at the borders of its broadband Internet access network, enabling it to unilaterally decide how much to charge for content," said Level 3's chief legal officer, Thomas Stortz, in a statement.
Comcast called Level 3's position "duplicitous" and said a previous deal for the companies to handle traffic for each other had become unbalanced in Level 3's favor.
The spat reflects the complicated commercial relationships of the Internet, where it's not always clear who should be paying whom.
Level 3's main business is carrying Internet traffic across the country, charging Internet service providers like Comcast fees to connect to Web sites and other ISPs.
However, it is moving into the business of distributing Internet content such as movies for companies including Netflix. Under that business model, it is acting like a content-delivery network, which usually pays ISPs for fast access to their networks.
Level 3, which is based in Broomfield, Colo., is now pushing to Comcast five times the traffic that goes the other way.
"When one provider exploits this type of relationship by pushing the burden of massive traffic growth onto the other provider and its customers, we believe this is not fair," Comcast's senior vice president Joe Waz said in a statement.
The dispute comes at a sensitive time for Comcast Corp., which is trying to get regulatory clearance to buy majority control of NBC Universal from General Electric Co. for cash and assets worth $13.75 billion.
The government is examining the deal, especially around concerns that the nation's largest cable TV provider could wield undue power in the distribution of online video once it takes control.
Level 3 said Comcast made a take-it-or-leave-it demand last week and it only agreed to the terms under protest to prevent consumer disruptions. Comcast said it is meeting with Level 3 later this week to discuss a new solution.
The fight is related to a heated policy dispute in Washington over proposed rules governing Internet traffic.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has been pushing to adopt so-called "network neutrality" rules for more than a year, arguing that they are necessary to prevent phone and cable giants from using their broadband monopolies to become online gatekeepers.
Public interest groups were quick to jump on Level 3's complaint Monday to argue that premium services should not be allowed.
"Comcast's request of payment in exchange for content transmission is yet another example of why citizens need strong, effective network neutrality rules that include a ban on such 'paid prioritization' practices," Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president of Media Access Project, said in a statement.
The FCC had no comment.
It's not the first time Comcast, which is based in Philadelphia, has been accused of unfairly regulating Web traffic.
In 2008, the FCC ordered the cable giant to stop slowing and blocking its subscribers from accessing an online file-sharing service called BitTorrent, which lets people swap movies and other big files over the Internet.
For Netflix, the dustup could affect its popular video-streaming offering, to which it is pushing customers to save on the cost of sending rental DVDs in the mail.
Netflix declined to comment.
Starting next year, Level 3 will become Netflix's primary network for piping Internet video, although Netflix also will continue to rely on systems run by Limelight Networks Inc. and Akamai Technologies Inc.
If Level 3 is forced to pay more to send movies to homes that rely on Comcast for Internet service, it eventually could try to pass on the costs to Netflix and its subscribers.
As more of its 17 million subscribers embrace Internet streaming, Netflix's service has emerged as the biggest source of Internet traffic in the U.S.
during peak evening periods, according to a recent study by Sandvine Inc.
AP Business Writers Michael Liedtke in San Francisco and Peter Svensson in New York contributed to this report.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101130/ap_on_hi_te/us_level3_comcast
Saturday, November 27, 2010
'Fourth generation' Internet arrives in Hong Kong
Nov 26 02:50 AM US/Eastern
The latest generation of wireless Internet that will allow people to watch a crystal clear movie or live sporting event on the street or atop a hill is being deployed throughout Hong Kong.
The Long Term Evolution (LTE) network will give super high speeds across the city and could mean the end of computers ever needing to be plugged into a wall for a connection to the net.
The so-called "fourth generation" system is being rolled out by Hong Kong mobile network operator CSL in partnership with telecoms equipment maker ZTE Corporation.
"The first launch of an LTE network any place in Asia is truly historic,"
Joseph O'Konek, CSL's chief executive, told AFP.
"For a lot of people, this will be their first experience of the Internet.
They are at a huge advantage to previous Internet generations because they are leapfrogging all those fixed line technologies.
"It is truly going to unleash the power of human networks as this kind of system rolls out more and more across the world."
LTE enables faster data downloads and uploads on mobile devices compared with a third-generation network.
The system will give speeds of up to 100 megabits per second (Mbps) and should make the high quality viewing of full length movies or realtime live sporting events possible anywhere in the city.
LTE networks are already operating in Europe, Scandinavia and North America.
Japan will have an LTE system before the end of the year and huge growth in LTE connections is expected over the next five years, especially in China.
Meanwhile CSL's owner, the Australian telecoms giant Telstra, said it is looking to make acquisitions to strengthen its position in the Asia-Pacific region.
"Organic growth is always the best growth. But you do need to acquire new technology that's going to allow you to fuel the growth in the future,"
David Thodey, the company's CEO, told the Wall Street Journal.
"Sometimes you expand geographically... or sometimes you want to expand your market share. We will be doing all three because it's critically important for a company to keep pushing the limits as you go forward."
Copyright AFP 2010
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.cf1bf79b97d3702c06a7ecf0304f8c22.4e1&show_article=1
The latest generation of wireless Internet that will allow people to watch a crystal clear movie or live sporting event on the street or atop a hill is being deployed throughout Hong Kong.
The Long Term Evolution (LTE) network will give super high speeds across the city and could mean the end of computers ever needing to be plugged into a wall for a connection to the net.
The so-called "fourth generation" system is being rolled out by Hong Kong mobile network operator CSL in partnership with telecoms equipment maker ZTE Corporation.
"The first launch of an LTE network any place in Asia is truly historic,"
Joseph O'Konek, CSL's chief executive, told AFP.
"For a lot of people, this will be their first experience of the Internet.
They are at a huge advantage to previous Internet generations because they are leapfrogging all those fixed line technologies.
"It is truly going to unleash the power of human networks as this kind of system rolls out more and more across the world."
LTE enables faster data downloads and uploads on mobile devices compared with a third-generation network.
The system will give speeds of up to 100 megabits per second (Mbps) and should make the high quality viewing of full length movies or realtime live sporting events possible anywhere in the city.
LTE networks are already operating in Europe, Scandinavia and North America.
Japan will have an LTE system before the end of the year and huge growth in LTE connections is expected over the next five years, especially in China.
Meanwhile CSL's owner, the Australian telecoms giant Telstra, said it is looking to make acquisitions to strengthen its position in the Asia-Pacific region.
"Organic growth is always the best growth. But you do need to acquire new technology that's going to allow you to fuel the growth in the future,"
David Thodey, the company's CEO, told the Wall Street Journal.
"Sometimes you expand geographically... or sometimes you want to expand your market share. We will be doing all three because it's critically important for a company to keep pushing the limits as you go forward."
Copyright AFP 2010
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.cf1bf79b97d3702c06a7ecf0304f8c22.4e1&show_article=1
US shut down 75+ web sites that facilitate copyright infringement....
U.S. Government Seizes BitTorrent Search Engine Domain and More
Written by enigmax on November 26, 2010
Following on the heels of this week's domain seizure of a large hiphop file-sharing links forum, it's clear today that the U.S. Government has been very busy. Without any need for COICA, ICE has just seized the domain of a BitTorrent meta-search engine along with those belonging to other music linking sites and several others which appear to be connected to physical counterfeit goods.
While complex, it's still possible for U.S. authorities and copyright groups to point at a fully-fledged BitTorrent site with a tracker and say "that's an infringing site." When one looks at a site which hosts torrents but operates no tracker, the finger pointing becomes quite a bit more difficult.
When a site has no tracker, carries no torrents, lists no copyright works unless someone searches for them and responds just like Google, accusing it of infringement becomes somewhat of a minefield - unless you're ICE Homeland Security Investigations that is.
This morning, visitors to the Torrent-Finder.com site are greeted with an ominous graphic which indicates that ICE have seized the site's domain.
"My domain has been seized without any previous complaint or notice from any court!" the exasperated owner of Torrent-Finder told TorrentFreak this morning.
"I firstly had DNS downtime. While I was contacting GoDaddy I noticed the DNS had changed. Godaddy had no idea what was going on and until now they do not understand the situation and they say it was totally from ICANN," he explained.
Aside from the fact that domains are being seized seemingly at will, there is a very serious problem with the action against Torrent-Finder. Not only does the site not host or even link to any torrents whatsoever, it actually only returns searches through embedded iframes which display other sites that are not under the control of the Torrent-Finder owner.
Torrent-Finder remains operational through another URL, Torrent-Finder.info, so feel free to check it out for yourself. The layouts of the sites it searches are clearly visible in the results shown.
Yesterday we reported that the domain of hiphop site RapGodFathers had been seized and today we can reveal that they are not on their own. Two other music sites in the same field - OnSmash.com and DaJaz1.com - have fallen to the same fate. But ICE activities don't end there.
Several other domains also appear to have been seized including 2009jerseys.com, nfljerseysupply.com, throwbackguy.com, cartoon77.com, lifetimereplicas.com, handbag9.com, handbagcom.com and dvdprostore.com.
All seized sites point to the same message.
Domain seizures coming under the much debated 'censorship bill' COICA? Who needs it?
Update: Below is an longer list of domains that were apparently seized. Most of the sites relate to counterfeit goods. We assume that the authorities had a proper warrant for these sites (as they had for RapGodFathers yesterday), but were unable to confirm this.
Update: A spokeswoman for ICE confirmed the seizures in the following statement. "ICE office of Homeland Security Investigations executed court-ordered seizure warrants against a number of domain names. As this is an ongoing investigation, there are no additional details available at this time."
2009jerseys.com
51607.com
amoyhy.com
b2corder.com
bishoe.com
borntrade.com
borntrade.net
boxedtvseries.com
boxset4less.com
boxsetseries.com
burberryoutletshop.com
cartoon77.com
cheapscarfshop.com
coachoutletfactory.com
dajaz1.com
discountscarvesonsale.com
dvdcollectionsale.com
dvdcollects.com
dvdorderonline.com
dvdprostore.com
dvdscollection.com
dvdsetcollection.com
dvdsetsonline.com
dvdsuperdeal.com
eluxury-outlet.com
getdvdset.com
gofactoryoutlet.com
golfstaring.com
golfwholesale18.com
handbag9.com
handbagcom.com
handbagspop.com
icqshoes.com
ipodnanouk.com
jersey-china.com
jerseyclubhouse.com
jordansbox.com
lifetimereplicas.com
louis-vuitton-outlet-store.com
lv-outlets.com
lv-outlets.net
lv-outletstore.com
massnike.com
merrytimberland.com
mycollects.com
mydreamwatches.com
mygolfwholesale.com
newstylerolex.com
nfljerseysupply.com
nibdvd.com
odvdo.com
oebags.com
onsmash.com
overbestmall.com
rapgodfathers.com
realtimberland.com
rmx4u.com
scarfonlineshop.com
scarfviponsale.com
shawls-store.com
silkscarf-shop.com
silkscarfonsale.com
skyergolf.com
sohob2b.com
sohob2c.com
storeofeast.com
stuff-trade.com
sunglasses-mall.com
sunogolf.com
tbl-sports.com
throwbackguy.com
tiesonsale.com
timberlandlike.com
topabuy.com
torrent-finder.com
usaburberryscarf.com
usaoutlets.net
http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-search-engine-domain-and-more-101126/
Written by enigmax on November 26, 2010
Following on the heels of this week's domain seizure of a large hiphop file-sharing links forum, it's clear today that the U.S. Government has been very busy. Without any need for COICA, ICE has just seized the domain of a BitTorrent meta-search engine along with those belonging to other music linking sites and several others which appear to be connected to physical counterfeit goods.
While complex, it's still possible for U.S. authorities and copyright groups to point at a fully-fledged BitTorrent site with a tracker and say "that's an infringing site." When one looks at a site which hosts torrents but operates no tracker, the finger pointing becomes quite a bit more difficult.
When a site has no tracker, carries no torrents, lists no copyright works unless someone searches for them and responds just like Google, accusing it of infringement becomes somewhat of a minefield - unless you're ICE Homeland Security Investigations that is.
This morning, visitors to the Torrent-Finder.com site are greeted with an ominous graphic which indicates that ICE have seized the site's domain.
"My domain has been seized without any previous complaint or notice from any court!" the exasperated owner of Torrent-Finder told TorrentFreak this morning.
"I firstly had DNS downtime. While I was contacting GoDaddy I noticed the DNS had changed. Godaddy had no idea what was going on and until now they do not understand the situation and they say it was totally from ICANN," he explained.
Aside from the fact that domains are being seized seemingly at will, there is a very serious problem with the action against Torrent-Finder. Not only does the site not host or even link to any torrents whatsoever, it actually only returns searches through embedded iframes which display other sites that are not under the control of the Torrent-Finder owner.
Torrent-Finder remains operational through another URL, Torrent-Finder.info, so feel free to check it out for yourself. The layouts of the sites it searches are clearly visible in the results shown.
Yesterday we reported that the domain of hiphop site RapGodFathers had been seized and today we can reveal that they are not on their own. Two other music sites in the same field - OnSmash.com and DaJaz1.com - have fallen to the same fate. But ICE activities don't end there.
Several other domains also appear to have been seized including 2009jerseys.com, nfljerseysupply.com, throwbackguy.com, cartoon77.com, lifetimereplicas.com, handbag9.com, handbagcom.com and dvdprostore.com.
All seized sites point to the same message.
Domain seizures coming under the much debated 'censorship bill' COICA? Who needs it?
Update: Below is an longer list of domains that were apparently seized. Most of the sites relate to counterfeit goods. We assume that the authorities had a proper warrant for these sites (as they had for RapGodFathers yesterday), but were unable to confirm this.
Update: A spokeswoman for ICE confirmed the seizures in the following statement. "ICE office of Homeland Security Investigations executed court-ordered seizure warrants against a number of domain names. As this is an ongoing investigation, there are no additional details available at this time."
2009jerseys.com
51607.com
amoyhy.com
b2corder.com
bishoe.com
borntrade.com
borntrade.net
boxedtvseries.com
boxset4less.com
boxsetseries.com
burberryoutletshop.com
cartoon77.com
cheapscarfshop.com
coachoutletfactory.com
dajaz1.com
discountscarvesonsale.com
dvdcollectionsale.com
dvdcollects.com
dvdorderonline.com
dvdprostore.com
dvdscollection.com
dvdsetcollection.com
dvdsetsonline.com
dvdsuperdeal.com
eluxury-outlet.com
getdvdset.com
gofactoryoutlet.com
golfstaring.com
golfwholesale18.com
handbag9.com
handbagcom.com
handbagspop.com
icqshoes.com
ipodnanouk.com
jersey-china.com
jerseyclubhouse.com
jordansbox.com
lifetimereplicas.com
louis-vuitton-outlet-store.com
lv-outlets.com
lv-outlets.net
lv-outletstore.com
massnike.com
merrytimberland.com
mycollects.com
mydreamwatches.com
mygolfwholesale.com
newstylerolex.com
nfljerseysupply.com
nibdvd.com
odvdo.com
oebags.com
onsmash.com
overbestmall.com
rapgodfathers.com
realtimberland.com
rmx4u.com
scarfonlineshop.com
scarfviponsale.com
shawls-store.com
silkscarf-shop.com
silkscarfonsale.com
skyergolf.com
sohob2b.com
sohob2c.com
storeofeast.com
stuff-trade.com
sunglasses-mall.com
sunogolf.com
tbl-sports.com
throwbackguy.com
tiesonsale.com
timberlandlike.com
topabuy.com
torrent-finder.com
usaburberryscarf.com
usaoutlets.net
http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-search-engine-domain-and-more-101126/
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Oracle awarded $1.3 billion in SAP lawsuit
Update: Oracle awarded $1.3 billion in SAP lawsuit SAP vows to 'pursue all its options,' including post-trial motions and an appeal, to reduce award to Oracle By James Niccolai November 24, 2010 06:45 AM ET
IDG News Service - A jury has awarded Oracle $1.3 billion in damages in its corporate theft lawsuit against SAP.
The award is a blow to the German applications vendor, which had argued it should pay just $40 million for the software stolen by its TomorrowNow subsidiary.
Oracle called it "the largest amount ever awarded for software piracy."
Members of Oracle's legal team embraced each other as the verdict was read in the U.S. District Court in Oakland, California, according to a person in the courtroom.
Closing arguments had been presented Monday afternoon, so the jury took less than a full day of deliberations to reach its decision.
It was not the full amount Oracle had asked for, but still considerably more than SAP had said it should pay.
Oracle CEO Larry Ellison testified two weeks ago that SAP should have to pay as much as $4 billion to cover the cost of the stolen software.
In the end, the amount awarded was closer to the sum suggested by Oracle's damages expert, who put the figure at $1.7 billion.
SAP's damages expert had told the jury that SAP should have to pay $40 million in damages, to cover Oracle's lost profits.
"We are, of course, disappointed by this verdict and will pursue all available options, including post-trial motions and appeal if necessary," SAP said in a statement.
The verdict follows an 11-day trial that captivated Silicon Valley with the drama of the two biggest business-software-applications vendors battling in court. Top executives including Ellison, Oracle co-President Safra Catz and SAP co-CEO Bill McDermott appeared in the witness box.
The legal battle appears not to be entirely over, however, and SAP suggested its appeal could take a long time to play out. "This will unfortunately be a prolonged process and we continue to hope that the matter can be resolved appropriately without more years of litigation," it said.
SAP never denied TomorrowNow had illegally downloaded software and support materials from an Oracle website, although it did initially deny knowing about the illegal downloading. The trial was to determine how much SAP should pay.
TomorrowNow provided low-cost support services to customers of JD Edwards and PeopleSoft, which Oracle had just acquired when SAP bought TomorrowNow in 2005. Oracle's lawyers argued that SAP felt threatened by the acquisitions and bought TomorrowNow as a way to undercut Oracle's maintenance revenue from those applications, and to try to lure customers to SAP's own software.
The jury was given wide latitude in deciding how much damages to award. It apparently bought Oracle's argument that SAP should have to cover the cost of a "hypothetical license" -- or whatever it would have had to pay Oracle to license the stolen software at fair market value.
SAP had argued that it should have to pay only for the profits that Oracle lost from customers who switched to TomorrowNow's services. According to SAP, that amounted to only tens of millions of dollars for a handful of customers.
SAP filed a few post-trial motions before the verdict was delivered. One of those asked the judge, in the event of a high jury award, to consider whether the damages are fair and appropriate. It wasn't immediately clear Tuesday if Judge Phyllis Hamilton planned to consider those motions.
One observer said the verdict is more than a financial setback for SAP.
"The bigger damage will likely be in the competitive marketplace, where Oracle will be pushing its new generation of Fusion apps and application updates, and SAP has little to offer but a further tarnished reputation," said analyst Rebecca Wettemann, a vice president with Nucleus Research.
SAP initially denied knowing about the illegal software downloading at TomorrowNow, which started before it bought the company. But shortly before the trial, it said it would not contest "contributory infringement" in the case. That means it acknowledged that its executives knew, or should have known, about the illegal downloads.
"SAP learned the hard way today that stealing is wrong and even big software companies -- especially big software companies -- will be punished for it," Wettemann said.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9197887/Update_Oracle_awarded_1.3_billion_in_SAP_lawsuit?source=CTWNLE_nlt_dailyam_2010-11-24
IDG News Service - A jury has awarded Oracle $1.3 billion in damages in its corporate theft lawsuit against SAP.
The award is a blow to the German applications vendor, which had argued it should pay just $40 million for the software stolen by its TomorrowNow subsidiary.
Oracle called it "the largest amount ever awarded for software piracy."
Members of Oracle's legal team embraced each other as the verdict was read in the U.S. District Court in Oakland, California, according to a person in the courtroom.
Closing arguments had been presented Monday afternoon, so the jury took less than a full day of deliberations to reach its decision.
It was not the full amount Oracle had asked for, but still considerably more than SAP had said it should pay.
Oracle CEO Larry Ellison testified two weeks ago that SAP should have to pay as much as $4 billion to cover the cost of the stolen software.
In the end, the amount awarded was closer to the sum suggested by Oracle's damages expert, who put the figure at $1.7 billion.
SAP's damages expert had told the jury that SAP should have to pay $40 million in damages, to cover Oracle's lost profits.
"We are, of course, disappointed by this verdict and will pursue all available options, including post-trial motions and appeal if necessary," SAP said in a statement.
The verdict follows an 11-day trial that captivated Silicon Valley with the drama of the two biggest business-software-applications vendors battling in court. Top executives including Ellison, Oracle co-President Safra Catz and SAP co-CEO Bill McDermott appeared in the witness box.
The legal battle appears not to be entirely over, however, and SAP suggested its appeal could take a long time to play out. "This will unfortunately be a prolonged process and we continue to hope that the matter can be resolved appropriately without more years of litigation," it said.
SAP never denied TomorrowNow had illegally downloaded software and support materials from an Oracle website, although it did initially deny knowing about the illegal downloading. The trial was to determine how much SAP should pay.
TomorrowNow provided low-cost support services to customers of JD Edwards and PeopleSoft, which Oracle had just acquired when SAP bought TomorrowNow in 2005. Oracle's lawyers argued that SAP felt threatened by the acquisitions and bought TomorrowNow as a way to undercut Oracle's maintenance revenue from those applications, and to try to lure customers to SAP's own software.
The jury was given wide latitude in deciding how much damages to award. It apparently bought Oracle's argument that SAP should have to cover the cost of a "hypothetical license" -- or whatever it would have had to pay Oracle to license the stolen software at fair market value.
SAP had argued that it should have to pay only for the profits that Oracle lost from customers who switched to TomorrowNow's services. According to SAP, that amounted to only tens of millions of dollars for a handful of customers.
SAP filed a few post-trial motions before the verdict was delivered. One of those asked the judge, in the event of a high jury award, to consider whether the damages are fair and appropriate. It wasn't immediately clear Tuesday if Judge Phyllis Hamilton planned to consider those motions.
One observer said the verdict is more than a financial setback for SAP.
"The bigger damage will likely be in the competitive marketplace, where Oracle will be pushing its new generation of Fusion apps and application updates, and SAP has little to offer but a further tarnished reputation," said analyst Rebecca Wettemann, a vice president with Nucleus Research.
SAP initially denied knowing about the illegal software downloading at TomorrowNow, which started before it bought the company. But shortly before the trial, it said it would not contest "contributory infringement" in the case. That means it acknowledged that its executives knew, or should have known, about the illegal downloads.
"SAP learned the hard way today that stealing is wrong and even big software companies -- especially big software companies -- will be punished for it," Wettemann said.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9197887/Update_Oracle_awarded_1.3_billion_in_SAP_lawsuit?source=CTWNLE_nlt_dailyam_2010-11-24
Monday, November 22, 2010
Attachmate buying Novell for $2.2 billion
Attachmate buying Novell for $2.2 billion Novell also selling certain intellectual property assets to Microsoft-led CPTN Holdings By Chris Kanaracus, IDG News Service November 22, 2010 09:01 AM ET
Novell announced Monday it has agreed to be acquired by Attachmate for $2.2 billion, ending months of speculation over its future. The deal is expected to close in the first quarter of next year.
The company has also agreed to sell certain intellectual property assets to CPTN Holdings, a technology consortium led by Microsoft, for $450 million in cash, a payment "reflected in the merger consideration to be paid by Attachmate."
Attachmate is backed by private equity firms Francisco Partners, Golden Gate Capital and Thoma Bravo. It sells software for terminal emulation, fraud detection and other purposes. The company shares many customers with Novell and its product portfolios are complementary, according to a statement.
Novell is known for SUSE Linux, data center management and virtualization software. Attachmate plans to run Novell as two separate business units, Novell and SUSE.
It was not immediately clear which of Novell's assets will be sold to the Microsoft group.
Novell's board decided to make the agreements after "a thorough review of a broad range of alternatives to enhance stockholder value," CEO Ron Hovsepian said in a statement.
Attachmate's offer of $6.10 per share follows the $5.75 a share offer made in March by investment firm Elliott Management Corporation, one of Novell's largest shareholders. Novell rejected that offer. But as part of the deal announced Monday, Elliott is to become an equity shareholder in Attachmate, according to a statement.
Chris Kanaracus covers enterprise software and general technology breaking news for The IDG News Service. Chris's e-mail address is Chris_Kanaracus@idg.com
The IDG News Service is a Network World affiliate.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/112210-attachmate-buying-novell-for-22.html?source=NWWNLE_nlt_daily_am_2010-11-22
Novell announced Monday it has agreed to be acquired by Attachmate for $2.2 billion, ending months of speculation over its future. The deal is expected to close in the first quarter of next year.
The company has also agreed to sell certain intellectual property assets to CPTN Holdings, a technology consortium led by Microsoft, for $450 million in cash, a payment "reflected in the merger consideration to be paid by Attachmate."
Attachmate is backed by private equity firms Francisco Partners, Golden Gate Capital and Thoma Bravo. It sells software for terminal emulation, fraud detection and other purposes. The company shares many customers with Novell and its product portfolios are complementary, according to a statement.
Novell is known for SUSE Linux, data center management and virtualization software. Attachmate plans to run Novell as two separate business units, Novell and SUSE.
It was not immediately clear which of Novell's assets will be sold to the Microsoft group.
Novell's board decided to make the agreements after "a thorough review of a broad range of alternatives to enhance stockholder value," CEO Ron Hovsepian said in a statement.
Attachmate's offer of $6.10 per share follows the $5.75 a share offer made in March by investment firm Elliott Management Corporation, one of Novell's largest shareholders. Novell rejected that offer. But as part of the deal announced Monday, Elliott is to become an equity shareholder in Attachmate, according to a statement.
Chris Kanaracus covers enterprise software and general technology breaking news for The IDG News Service. Chris's e-mail address is Chris_Kanaracus@idg.com
The IDG News Service is a Network World affiliate.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/112210-attachmate-buying-novell-for-22.html?source=NWWNLE_nlt_daily_am_2010-11-22
Friday, November 19, 2010
China Hijacked Internet Traffic From Federal Sites
For 18 minutes in April China Telecom re-routed traffic from .gov, .mil and other sites through Chinese servers, according to a Congressional commission.
By Elizabeth Montalbano , InformationWeek November 18, 2010 07:00 AM
A state-owned Chinese telecommunications firm "hijacked" Internet traffic in April, affecting traffic from U.S. government domains and raising serious implications for Internet safety, according to a report by a Congressional commission.
For about 18 minutes on April 8, 2010, China Telecom diverted U.S. and other foreign Internet traffic through servers in China, according to an annual report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission released Wednesday.
Affected was traffic going to and from U.S. .gov and .mil sites, including sites for the Senate, the four main armed services branches, the office of the Secretary of Defense, NASA, the Department of Commerce, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and others, according to the report.
Commercial websites for large technology companies -- including Dell, Yahoo, Microsoft and IBM -- also were re-routed during the diversion period.
Other servers around the world adopted the path opened up by China Telecom as well; during the 18 minutes, traffic to about 15 percent of Internet destinations was routed through servers located in China.
The commission said it could not determine what China Telecom did to the data that was diverted; however, such an incident and others like it could have a "number of serious implications" and enable "severe malicious activities."
Arbor Networks chief security officer Danny McPherson, who explained the implications of the incident to the panel, said that China Telecom could have intended the diversion to conceal a targeted attack, according to the report.
The level of access afforded by such a diversion also could have enabled the firm to conduct surveillance on specific users or sites, disrupt a data transaction, prevent a user from connecting to a site or send data somewhere a user did not intend, according to the report.
Indeed, the idea of China Telecom engaging in such activity is certainly troublesome, as a report prepared by Northrop Grumman last year for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission concluded that China is probably spying on the U.S. government to gain advantage for any potential cyber conflicts.
Moreover, some of the most sophisticated hacker attacks -- including one on Google in January that caused the vendor to withdraw from China -- also originated in that country.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/healthcare/leadership/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=228300097&cid=nl_IW_daily_2010-11-19_html
By Elizabeth Montalbano , InformationWeek November 18, 2010 07:00 AM
A state-owned Chinese telecommunications firm "hijacked" Internet traffic in April, affecting traffic from U.S. government domains and raising serious implications for Internet safety, according to a report by a Congressional commission.
For about 18 minutes on April 8, 2010, China Telecom diverted U.S. and other foreign Internet traffic through servers in China, according to an annual report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission released Wednesday.
Affected was traffic going to and from U.S. .gov and .mil sites, including sites for the Senate, the four main armed services branches, the office of the Secretary of Defense, NASA, the Department of Commerce, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and others, according to the report.
Commercial websites for large technology companies -- including Dell, Yahoo, Microsoft and IBM -- also were re-routed during the diversion period.
Other servers around the world adopted the path opened up by China Telecom as well; during the 18 minutes, traffic to about 15 percent of Internet destinations was routed through servers located in China.
The commission said it could not determine what China Telecom did to the data that was diverted; however, such an incident and others like it could have a "number of serious implications" and enable "severe malicious activities."
Arbor Networks chief security officer Danny McPherson, who explained the implications of the incident to the panel, said that China Telecom could have intended the diversion to conceal a targeted attack, according to the report.
The level of access afforded by such a diversion also could have enabled the firm to conduct surveillance on specific users or sites, disrupt a data transaction, prevent a user from connecting to a site or send data somewhere a user did not intend, according to the report.
Indeed, the idea of China Telecom engaging in such activity is certainly troublesome, as a report prepared by Northrop Grumman last year for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission concluded that China is probably spying on the U.S. government to gain advantage for any potential cyber conflicts.
Moreover, some of the most sophisticated hacker attacks -- including one on Google in January that caused the vendor to withdraw from China -- also originated in that country.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/healthcare/leadership/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=228300097&cid=nl_IW_daily_2010-11-19_html
Apple Co-founder Wozniak: Android Eclipses iPhone
By: Nicholas Kolakowski
2010-11-18
Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak told a Dutch newspaper that Google Android devices will beat the iPhone in market share over a longer time horizon.
Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak had some kind words for the iPhone in a recent interview with a Dutch newspaper, while also suggesting that Google Android smartphones would eventually eclipse it in market share.
"When it comes to quality, iPhone is leading," De Telegraaf quotes Wozniak as saying in its Nov. 18 article. However, he added, "Android phones have more features." (Take into account that all Woz quotations here come courtesy of Google Translate.)
Wozniak claims that Apple developed a smartphone in conjunction with a Japanese company in 2004, but canceled it due to quality concerns. "If Apple comes with a new product, it must have a real breakthrough," he said. "Companies need to wait to capture a market until they have something extremely strong." Chronologically speaking, that canned smartphone would have beat the iPhone to market by three years.
The newspaper then paraphrases Wozniak as saying Android will overcome its early issues with software consistency, eventually achieving a polish comparable to Apple's iOS.
Wozniak later seemed to retract some of his statements, telling tech blog Engadget: "I'm not trying to put Android down, but I'm not suggesting it's better than iOS by any stretch of the imagination. But it can get greater market share and still be crappy."
Research firm Gartner plugged Android's global market share for the third quarter at 25.5 percent, lagging behind Symbian at 36.6 percent but ahead of Apple at 16.7 percent. Research In Motion and its BlackBerry franchise came in fourth at 14.8 percent of the market.
"This quarter saw Apple and Android drive record smartphone sales," Gartner Research Vice President Carolina Milanesi wrote in a Nov. 10 statement accompanying those numbers. "Apple's share of the smartphone market surpassed Research In Motion (RIM) in North America to put it second behind Android, while Android volumes also grew rapidly making it the No. 2 operating system worldwide."
Apple and Google also compete in the tablet arena, where the iPad currently holds the lion's share of the market. However, IMS Research predicts that Google's share of that market will increase to 15 percent by the end of next year and 28 percent by 2015, buoyed by products such as the Samsung Galaxy Tab. Even with that rise, the firm suggests the iPad will continue to hold 75 percent of the market by the end of 2011.
Other analysts suspect the tablet PC picture won't be the rosiest in coming months. In a November research note, Rodman & Renshaw analyst Ashok Kumar predicted that actual iPad sales for the holiday season would miss analysts' previous estimates of 6 million units, even as the Dell Streak and Samsung Galaxy Tab experienced low sales. "We do not see Tablets go the way of netbooks," he wrote. "But if current trends continue, the Tablet market may not end as much more than iPads or a tweener product between smartphones and next-generation thin-and-light notebooks a la Macbook Air."
However Apple and Android devices sell in the short term, though, the rivalry will almost certainly continue for years.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Apple-CoFounder-Wozniak-Android-Eclipses-iPhone-436190/?kc=EWKNLNAV11192010STR2
2010-11-18
Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak told a Dutch newspaper that Google Android devices will beat the iPhone in market share over a longer time horizon.
Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak had some kind words for the iPhone in a recent interview with a Dutch newspaper, while also suggesting that Google Android smartphones would eventually eclipse it in market share.
"When it comes to quality, iPhone is leading," De Telegraaf quotes Wozniak as saying in its Nov. 18 article. However, he added, "Android phones have more features." (Take into account that all Woz quotations here come courtesy of Google Translate.)
Wozniak claims that Apple developed a smartphone in conjunction with a Japanese company in 2004, but canceled it due to quality concerns. "If Apple comes with a new product, it must have a real breakthrough," he said. "Companies need to wait to capture a market until they have something extremely strong." Chronologically speaking, that canned smartphone would have beat the iPhone to market by three years.
The newspaper then paraphrases Wozniak as saying Android will overcome its early issues with software consistency, eventually achieving a polish comparable to Apple's iOS.
Wozniak later seemed to retract some of his statements, telling tech blog Engadget: "I'm not trying to put Android down, but I'm not suggesting it's better than iOS by any stretch of the imagination. But it can get greater market share and still be crappy."
Research firm Gartner plugged Android's global market share for the third quarter at 25.5 percent, lagging behind Symbian at 36.6 percent but ahead of Apple at 16.7 percent. Research In Motion and its BlackBerry franchise came in fourth at 14.8 percent of the market.
"This quarter saw Apple and Android drive record smartphone sales," Gartner Research Vice President Carolina Milanesi wrote in a Nov. 10 statement accompanying those numbers. "Apple's share of the smartphone market surpassed Research In Motion (RIM) in North America to put it second behind Android, while Android volumes also grew rapidly making it the No. 2 operating system worldwide."
Apple and Google also compete in the tablet arena, where the iPad currently holds the lion's share of the market. However, IMS Research predicts that Google's share of that market will increase to 15 percent by the end of next year and 28 percent by 2015, buoyed by products such as the Samsung Galaxy Tab. Even with that rise, the firm suggests the iPad will continue to hold 75 percent of the market by the end of 2011.
Other analysts suspect the tablet PC picture won't be the rosiest in coming months. In a November research note, Rodman & Renshaw analyst Ashok Kumar predicted that actual iPad sales for the holiday season would miss analysts' previous estimates of 6 million units, even as the Dell Streak and Samsung Galaxy Tab experienced low sales. "We do not see Tablets go the way of netbooks," he wrote. "But if current trends continue, the Tablet market may not end as much more than iPads or a tweener product between smartphones and next-generation thin-and-light notebooks a la Macbook Air."
However Apple and Android devices sell in the short term, though, the rivalry will almost certainly continue for years.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Apple-CoFounder-Wozniak-Android-Eclipses-iPhone-436190/?kc=EWKNLNAV11192010STR2
FCC chief working on net neutrality proposal
By: Kim Hart
November 18, 2010 04:54 PM EST
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski is putting together a net neutrality proposal and plans to take action on the controversial issue as early as next month, according to several sources with knowledge of the situation.
Details of the proposal being developed by Genachowski's office are unclear, but sources say it could be similar to the deal stakeholders tried to reach with Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) earlier this fall.
The long-running net neutrality debate centers around rules that would require Internet service providers to treat all web traffic equally. Internet companies like Google and Skype want net neutrality rules applied to both wireline and wireless networks, but network operators including AT&T, Verizon and Comcast say they need flexibility to manage web traffic on their lines.
President Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to implement net neutrality rules. Genachowski's plans to carry out that promise were hampered when a federal court ruled the FCC did not have legal authority to adopt the regulations.
Internet and telecom companies have been in trying to reach a compromise on the hot-button issue, first at the FCC over the summer and most recently with Congress. Under the arrangement shepherded b y Waxman, wireline networks would have been subject to net neutrality rules, meaning the biggest telecom companies would not be able to discriminate against any web traffic or content on their traditional wireline networks.
Wireless networks, however, would not have been subject to all of those non-discrimination requirements. The major telecom and Internet stakeholders, as well as several public interest groups, signed onto the deal, but Republicans on Capitol Hill refused to support the draft proposal, especially so close to the mid-term elections.
It now appears Genachowski, after receiving significant pressure from net neutrality advocates and public interest groups to take action after congressional efforts failed, is picking up where Waxman left off.
"We haven't circulated the December agenda," said Jen Howard, spokeswoman for the FCC chairman's office. "These rumors from outside, uniformed sources are pure speculation at best."
Sources say Genachowski and his staff are exploring adding a wireless component to the Waxman proposal, though it is unclear how much farther beyond Waxman's bill the chairman's office will go.
The chairman's proposal may go so far as to prohibit wireless companies from blocking any application, service or device. That would be a big win for public interest groups, who have been pushing for strong net neutrality rules on wireless networks as well as traditional Internet networks.
But the wireless industry is vehemently against a blanket nondiscrimination requirement for their networks, which they say will be overwhelmed by a slew of bandwidth-hogging mobile applications.
The timing of Genachowski's plan is also unclear, although it appears his office is trying to release an outline of the proposal by next Wednesday, which is the deadline to circulate an order to the FCC's other four commissioners before putting it on the agenda for the agency's Dec. 15 meeting.
There are also political reasons for releasing a proposal early next week. Lawmakers will already be gone for the Thanksgiving holiday, giving the FCC a small window to release a controversial order without immediate harsh reactions from Capitol Hill Republicans.
Speaking in San Francisco Wednesday, Genachowski hinted that he had not let net neutrality fall from his priority list.
"That'll happen," Genachowski said of developing net-neutrality rules.
He also said a private deal reached by Google and Verizon in August hindered the FCC's attempts at reaching an agreement on net neutrality, which has dominated telecom policy debates for more than six years.
The Google-Verizon deal "slowed down some processes that were leading to a resolution," he said.
While any net neutrality proposal will cause waves in the telecom world, sources say December is an ideal time for Genachowski to act on the issue because Republicans will not yet have officially assumed control of the House.
Waxman, current chairman of the of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, was interested in reaching a compromise, but the leading Republican contenders for the committee's gavel - Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), John Shimkus (R-Ill.) and Joe Barton (R-Texas) - have all voiced strong concern with the FCC's net neutrality plans.
"The FCC's regulatory compass is broken as it continues in its unrelenting pursuit to impose so-called network neutrality regulations, regardless of whether the agency has the legal authority for such a blind power grab," Upton said in a policy memo this month.
C 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45371.html
November 18, 2010 04:54 PM EST
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski is putting together a net neutrality proposal and plans to take action on the controversial issue as early as next month, according to several sources with knowledge of the situation.
Details of the proposal being developed by Genachowski's office are unclear, but sources say it could be similar to the deal stakeholders tried to reach with Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) earlier this fall.
The long-running net neutrality debate centers around rules that would require Internet service providers to treat all web traffic equally. Internet companies like Google and Skype want net neutrality rules applied to both wireline and wireless networks, but network operators including AT&T, Verizon and Comcast say they need flexibility to manage web traffic on their lines.
President Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to implement net neutrality rules. Genachowski's plans to carry out that promise were hampered when a federal court ruled the FCC did not have legal authority to adopt the regulations.
Internet and telecom companies have been in trying to reach a compromise on the hot-button issue, first at the FCC over the summer and most recently with Congress. Under the arrangement shepherded b y Waxman, wireline networks would have been subject to net neutrality rules, meaning the biggest telecom companies would not be able to discriminate against any web traffic or content on their traditional wireline networks.
Wireless networks, however, would not have been subject to all of those non-discrimination requirements. The major telecom and Internet stakeholders, as well as several public interest groups, signed onto the deal, but Republicans on Capitol Hill refused to support the draft proposal, especially so close to the mid-term elections.
It now appears Genachowski, after receiving significant pressure from net neutrality advocates and public interest groups to take action after congressional efforts failed, is picking up where Waxman left off.
"We haven't circulated the December agenda," said Jen Howard, spokeswoman for the FCC chairman's office. "These rumors from outside, uniformed sources are pure speculation at best."
Sources say Genachowski and his staff are exploring adding a wireless component to the Waxman proposal, though it is unclear how much farther beyond Waxman's bill the chairman's office will go.
The chairman's proposal may go so far as to prohibit wireless companies from blocking any application, service or device. That would be a big win for public interest groups, who have been pushing for strong net neutrality rules on wireless networks as well as traditional Internet networks.
But the wireless industry is vehemently against a blanket nondiscrimination requirement for their networks, which they say will be overwhelmed by a slew of bandwidth-hogging mobile applications.
The timing of Genachowski's plan is also unclear, although it appears his office is trying to release an outline of the proposal by next Wednesday, which is the deadline to circulate an order to the FCC's other four commissioners before putting it on the agenda for the agency's Dec. 15 meeting.
There are also political reasons for releasing a proposal early next week. Lawmakers will already be gone for the Thanksgiving holiday, giving the FCC a small window to release a controversial order without immediate harsh reactions from Capitol Hill Republicans.
Speaking in San Francisco Wednesday, Genachowski hinted that he had not let net neutrality fall from his priority list.
"That'll happen," Genachowski said of developing net-neutrality rules.
He also said a private deal reached by Google and Verizon in August hindered the FCC's attempts at reaching an agreement on net neutrality, which has dominated telecom policy debates for more than six years.
The Google-Verizon deal "slowed down some processes that were leading to a resolution," he said.
While any net neutrality proposal will cause waves in the telecom world, sources say December is an ideal time for Genachowski to act on the issue because Republicans will not yet have officially assumed control of the House.
Waxman, current chairman of the of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, was interested in reaching a compromise, but the leading Republican contenders for the committee's gavel - Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), John Shimkus (R-Ill.) and Joe Barton (R-Texas) - have all voiced strong concern with the FCC's net neutrality plans.
"The FCC's regulatory compass is broken as it continues in its unrelenting pursuit to impose so-called network neutrality regulations, regardless of whether the agency has the legal authority for such a blind power grab," Upton said in a policy memo this month.
C 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45371.html
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
How China may spur U.S. supercomputing
Global race picks up speed, just in time for a conservative cost-cutting Congress By Patrick Thibodeau November 16, 2010 07:03 AM ET
Computerworld - NEW ORLEANS -- U.S. supercomputing dominance is being challenged in ways not seen before, and that may be the best thing to ever happen to this field, particularly in Washington's climate of cost-cutting.
Of the top four systems on the semi-annual Top500 list of the world's leading supercomputers, which was released this week, two are in China: the top-ranked Tianhe-1A, at 2.5 petaflops, and the No. 3 Nebulae system. Japan has the No. 4 system. The U.S. is in second place with the Cray XT5 Jaguar system at 1.75 petaflops. The announcement came as experts in supercomputing were gathering in New Orleans for the SC10 conference.
Addison Snell, CEO of InterSect360, a high-performance computing research group, said Asia's showing in supercomputers will get the attention of political leaders.
"When it's all over the popular press that three of the top four supercomputers in the world, according to how they measure it, are in Asia, there is no way there is not a response in Congress to that," Snell said.
Earl Joseph, a high-performance computing analyst at IDC, said "global competitiveness" will drive HPC but it isn't about building the most powerful system in the world.
"The Chinese are not doing the old traditional supercomputing war," Joseph said. Instead, China's government is building 14 different petascale computing centers "because they recognize the competitive value of that."
Even Russia has realized that its products won't be as competitive without high-performance computing, Joseph said, a reference to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's scalding criticism last year of his country's progress in supercomputing.
"I don't know what the budget situation will turn out to be in Congress," said Andy Keane, the general manager of Tesla business at Nvidia Corp., but supercomputing technology "is directly related to the progress we make on the economy."
Supercomputing allows research to simulate environments; the more powerful the computer, the larger and more detailed the simulation. For example, with the right capacity, a computer could simulate the working of a human cell at the atomic level. Supercomputers can also help manufacturers speed product development by allowing engineers to design, change and test products in virtual environments before producing physical prototypes. The largest systems are typically built by governments.
Nvidia's work on high-performance computing is supported by the U.S. government through a research contract with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Keane said.
DARPA, in a request for proposals from vendors earlier this year, said that current processing systems are "grossly power-inefficient" and that technology trends "have reached a performance wall."
One of the means for solving this has been to turn to graphics processing units, which are roughly about 10 times more efficient than CPUs, said Keane. The DARPA contract is helping Nvidia to devote more research to such problems, he said.
Keane said it is possible to improve GPU efficiency by "another factor of about 100" to deliver exascale performance, which would make it possible to build a system that is roughly 1,000 times more powerful than a petaflop system.
"The computer that will be the fastest will be the computer that has the lowest energy per operation," he said.
Keane said the goal of developing an exascale system will be achieved by 2018, if not before, and he predicted that by 2014 or 2015 there will be systems that are one-third to halfway there, meaning in the range of 500 petaflops.
Nivida's GPU technology was used in the top-ranked Chinese and Japanese systems. The U.S. system, Jaguar, built entirely of CPUs, uses about 7 megawatts. In comparison, the GPU-based Chinese Tianhe-1A system uses about
4 megawatts.
Systems that incorporate accelerator technology are spreading rapidly. Silicon Graphics International this week announced a new system that was built from the ground up with "optimized accelerator architecture," according to Bill Mannel, vice president of product marketing at SGI.
Mannel said the approach used to build that system, along with its relatively small size, puts it in range of an exaflop.
The SGI Prism XL, code-named Mojo, can deliver approximately 1 petaflop from a cabinet that is about the size of three standard 19-inch racks. It can support accelerator cards from Nvidia, Advanced Micro Devices and Tilera. The price range isn't being disclosed.
Despite the change in the top supercomputing rankings, the U.S. maintains a sizable lead in supercomputing. Of the 500 top supercomputers in the world, 274 are in the U.S.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9196698/How_China_may_spur_U.S._supercomputing_?source=CTWNLE_nlt_dailyam_2010-11-16
Computerworld - NEW ORLEANS -- U.S. supercomputing dominance is being challenged in ways not seen before, and that may be the best thing to ever happen to this field, particularly in Washington's climate of cost-cutting.
Of the top four systems on the semi-annual Top500 list of the world's leading supercomputers, which was released this week, two are in China: the top-ranked Tianhe-1A, at 2.5 petaflops, and the No. 3 Nebulae system. Japan has the No. 4 system. The U.S. is in second place with the Cray XT5 Jaguar system at 1.75 petaflops. The announcement came as experts in supercomputing were gathering in New Orleans for the SC10 conference.
Addison Snell, CEO of InterSect360, a high-performance computing research group, said Asia's showing in supercomputers will get the attention of political leaders.
"When it's all over the popular press that three of the top four supercomputers in the world, according to how they measure it, are in Asia, there is no way there is not a response in Congress to that," Snell said.
Earl Joseph, a high-performance computing analyst at IDC, said "global competitiveness" will drive HPC but it isn't about building the most powerful system in the world.
"The Chinese are not doing the old traditional supercomputing war," Joseph said. Instead, China's government is building 14 different petascale computing centers "because they recognize the competitive value of that."
Even Russia has realized that its products won't be as competitive without high-performance computing, Joseph said, a reference to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's scalding criticism last year of his country's progress in supercomputing.
"I don't know what the budget situation will turn out to be in Congress," said Andy Keane, the general manager of Tesla business at Nvidia Corp., but supercomputing technology "is directly related to the progress we make on the economy."
Supercomputing allows research to simulate environments; the more powerful the computer, the larger and more detailed the simulation. For example, with the right capacity, a computer could simulate the working of a human cell at the atomic level. Supercomputers can also help manufacturers speed product development by allowing engineers to design, change and test products in virtual environments before producing physical prototypes. The largest systems are typically built by governments.
Nvidia's work on high-performance computing is supported by the U.S. government through a research contract with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Keane said.
DARPA, in a request for proposals from vendors earlier this year, said that current processing systems are "grossly power-inefficient" and that technology trends "have reached a performance wall."
One of the means for solving this has been to turn to graphics processing units, which are roughly about 10 times more efficient than CPUs, said Keane. The DARPA contract is helping Nvidia to devote more research to such problems, he said.
Keane said it is possible to improve GPU efficiency by "another factor of about 100" to deliver exascale performance, which would make it possible to build a system that is roughly 1,000 times more powerful than a petaflop system.
"The computer that will be the fastest will be the computer that has the lowest energy per operation," he said.
Keane said the goal of developing an exascale system will be achieved by 2018, if not before, and he predicted that by 2014 or 2015 there will be systems that are one-third to halfway there, meaning in the range of 500 petaflops.
Nivida's GPU technology was used in the top-ranked Chinese and Japanese systems. The U.S. system, Jaguar, built entirely of CPUs, uses about 7 megawatts. In comparison, the GPU-based Chinese Tianhe-1A system uses about
4 megawatts.
Systems that incorporate accelerator technology are spreading rapidly. Silicon Graphics International this week announced a new system that was built from the ground up with "optimized accelerator architecture," according to Bill Mannel, vice president of product marketing at SGI.
Mannel said the approach used to build that system, along with its relatively small size, puts it in range of an exaflop.
The SGI Prism XL, code-named Mojo, can deliver approximately 1 petaflop from a cabinet that is about the size of three standard 19-inch racks. It can support accelerator cards from Nvidia, Advanced Micro Devices and Tilera. The price range isn't being disclosed.
Despite the change in the top supercomputing rankings, the U.S. maintains a sizable lead in supercomputing. Of the 500 top supercomputers in the world, 274 are in the U.S.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9196698/How_China_may_spur_U.S._supercomputing_?source=CTWNLE_nlt_dailyam_2010-11-16
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Exclusive: Microsoft Altered Windows Sales Numbers
Internal bookkeeping change handed $259 million in additional revenue to Redmond's OS unit.
By Paul McDougall, InformationWeek
Nov. 12, 2010
Microsoft's most recent Windows sales totals got a boost from the fact the company quietly added revenues previously assigned to other groups to its operating systems unit, a bit of accounting legerdemain that, along with other bookkeeping moves, helped the Windows group post big gains in the past quarter, according to an InformationWeek analysis of the software maker's SEC filings.
Microsoft's latest quarterly report shows the company bolstered revenues in its Windows, Server & Tools, and Office units in part by shifting money from other internal organizations--mostly the Entertainment and Devices Division, which sells the Xbox.
A Microsoft spokesperson denied any financial shenanigans, but would provide few other details.
Windows group sales alone may have benefited by as much as $259 million or more, just from the bookkeeping changes. Indeed, the Windows group, which includes the flagship Windows 7 OS, was the main beneficiary of the revisions, while the EDD unit was the biggest loser.
Microsoft's internal wealth redistribution is evident when the Q1 fiscal year 2011 report (which covers the calendar period from July 1 through Sept. 30, 2010) Microsoft filed with the SEC on Oct. 28, is compared to Microsoft's Q1 report for fiscal year 2010, which it filed Oct. 23, 2009.
The comparison shows that, in the more recent document, Microsoft added $259 million to its original tabulation of Windows group revenues for Q1 FY 2010-increasing the total by 6.5%, to $4.24 billion as opposed to the originally stated $3.98 billion.
Microsoft also added $114 million to the Q1 FY 2010 numbers originally stated for its Server & Tools unit, and it added $111 million to its Business Division, which is responsible for Office sales. EDD revenues for
Q1 FY 2010, as revised, were $1.41 billion, down 25% compared to the $1.89 billion Microsoft first reported.
Microsoft did not restate total revenues for Q1 of fiscal 2010, which came in at $12.92 billion, nor is there anything to suggest the company's revisions violate any accounting rules.
A Microsoft spokesperson said the adjustments, also reflected in the most recent quarterly results, were related to an organizational shakeup, announced earlier this year, that saw the departure of longtime EDD chief Robbie Bach. The spokesperson said some of the changes were the result of embedded systems products being moved from EDD to Server & Tools and Mac Office's move from EDD to the Business unit after Bach left.
But the spokesperson declined to reveal how Microsoft's Windows unit gained
$259 million in Q1 FY 2010 revenues from the shakeup. Microsoft's Windows group revenues for the past quarter would have been closer to $4.4 billion under its old system of tabulating sales, not the $4.7 billion actually reported, assuming sales from products added to the Windows group at least held steady year-over-year. There's one clue as to where at least some of the Windows unit's gains came from. Microsoft previously allocated revenues from sales of its Surface interactive display kiosks to the EDD group.
But in the most recent 10Q, Surface is absent from the list of contributors to EDD revenues. In fact, Surface has vanished from Microsoft's quarterly earnings statement altogether.
Whether Surface sales were enough to account for $259 million in extra revenues had they been added to Windows is hard to say, since Microsoft never broke them out. When asked specifically, Microsoft's spokesperson declined to say which unit, if any, has absorbed Surface.
The revenues added to the Windows group are more noteworthy when seen in concert with one other significant accounting move Microsoft undertook in the past year.
The company deferred $1.5 billion in Windows sales revenue in Q1 FY 2010 as a result of an upgrade program. The program let consumers who purchased a Vista PC during that quarter move to Windows 7 for free when Windows 7 became available in October of calendar 2009.
Eliminating the effects of the deferral plan and Microsoft's internal reorganization shows that the Windows group's year-over-year sales increase in the most recent quarter was nowhere near the 66% Microsoft reported last month.
By Microsoft's own admission in its 10Q filing of Oct. 28, Windows sales from the OEM channel, which account for 75% of all Windows sales, increased just 11% year-over-year when the deferral program is considered. Not bad, but it's pretty much in line with most estimates for overall PC market growth during the period, including Microsoft's own.
To boot, data from market watcher Net Applications shows Windows has actually lost more than 1% of market share since last December, though it still commands more than 91% of the PC OS market.
The bottom line: Microsoft's Windows business remains healthy, but it's not the high double-digit growth engine the company's numbers-barring a deeper examination--would seem to indicate at first glance.
And what happened to Surface?
Copyright C 2009 United Business Media LLC, All rights reserved.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/storage/reviews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=228200850&cid=nl_IW_daily_2010-11-13_html
By Paul McDougall, InformationWeek
Nov. 12, 2010
Microsoft's most recent Windows sales totals got a boost from the fact the company quietly added revenues previously assigned to other groups to its operating systems unit, a bit of accounting legerdemain that, along with other bookkeeping moves, helped the Windows group post big gains in the past quarter, according to an InformationWeek analysis of the software maker's SEC filings.
Microsoft's latest quarterly report shows the company bolstered revenues in its Windows, Server & Tools, and Office units in part by shifting money from other internal organizations--mostly the Entertainment and Devices Division, which sells the Xbox.
A Microsoft spokesperson denied any financial shenanigans, but would provide few other details.
Windows group sales alone may have benefited by as much as $259 million or more, just from the bookkeeping changes. Indeed, the Windows group, which includes the flagship Windows 7 OS, was the main beneficiary of the revisions, while the EDD unit was the biggest loser.
Microsoft's internal wealth redistribution is evident when the Q1 fiscal year 2011 report (which covers the calendar period from July 1 through Sept. 30, 2010) Microsoft filed with the SEC on Oct. 28, is compared to Microsoft's Q1 report for fiscal year 2010, which it filed Oct. 23, 2009.
The comparison shows that, in the more recent document, Microsoft added $259 million to its original tabulation of Windows group revenues for Q1 FY 2010-increasing the total by 6.5%, to $4.24 billion as opposed to the originally stated $3.98 billion.
Microsoft also added $114 million to the Q1 FY 2010 numbers originally stated for its Server & Tools unit, and it added $111 million to its Business Division, which is responsible for Office sales. EDD revenues for
Q1 FY 2010, as revised, were $1.41 billion, down 25% compared to the $1.89 billion Microsoft first reported.
Microsoft did not restate total revenues for Q1 of fiscal 2010, which came in at $12.92 billion, nor is there anything to suggest the company's revisions violate any accounting rules.
A Microsoft spokesperson said the adjustments, also reflected in the most recent quarterly results, were related to an organizational shakeup, announced earlier this year, that saw the departure of longtime EDD chief Robbie Bach. The spokesperson said some of the changes were the result of embedded systems products being moved from EDD to Server & Tools and Mac Office's move from EDD to the Business unit after Bach left.
But the spokesperson declined to reveal how Microsoft's Windows unit gained
$259 million in Q1 FY 2010 revenues from the shakeup. Microsoft's Windows group revenues for the past quarter would have been closer to $4.4 billion under its old system of tabulating sales, not the $4.7 billion actually reported, assuming sales from products added to the Windows group at least held steady year-over-year. There's one clue as to where at least some of the Windows unit's gains came from. Microsoft previously allocated revenues from sales of its Surface interactive display kiosks to the EDD group.
But in the most recent 10Q, Surface is absent from the list of contributors to EDD revenues. In fact, Surface has vanished from Microsoft's quarterly earnings statement altogether.
Whether Surface sales were enough to account for $259 million in extra revenues had they been added to Windows is hard to say, since Microsoft never broke them out. When asked specifically, Microsoft's spokesperson declined to say which unit, if any, has absorbed Surface.
The revenues added to the Windows group are more noteworthy when seen in concert with one other significant accounting move Microsoft undertook in the past year.
The company deferred $1.5 billion in Windows sales revenue in Q1 FY 2010 as a result of an upgrade program. The program let consumers who purchased a Vista PC during that quarter move to Windows 7 for free when Windows 7 became available in October of calendar 2009.
Eliminating the effects of the deferral plan and Microsoft's internal reorganization shows that the Windows group's year-over-year sales increase in the most recent quarter was nowhere near the 66% Microsoft reported last month.
By Microsoft's own admission in its 10Q filing of Oct. 28, Windows sales from the OEM channel, which account for 75% of all Windows sales, increased just 11% year-over-year when the deferral program is considered. Not bad, but it's pretty much in line with most estimates for overall PC market growth during the period, including Microsoft's own.
To boot, data from market watcher Net Applications shows Windows has actually lost more than 1% of market share since last December, though it still commands more than 91% of the PC OS market.
The bottom line: Microsoft's Windows business remains healthy, but it's not the high double-digit growth engine the company's numbers-barring a deeper examination--would seem to indicate at first glance.
And what happened to Surface?
Copyright C 2009 United Business Media LLC, All rights reserved.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/storage/reviews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=228200850&cid=nl_IW_daily_2010-11-13_html
Monday, November 15, 2010
Swedes' emails to be stored for six months
Published: 11 Nov 10 11:12 CET | Double click on a word to get a translation
Emails and mobile phone text messages would be stored for six months by internet service providers (ISPs), according to a bill presented by the Swedish government on Thursday to bring the country in line with EU data retention rules.
Critics have come down hard on the proposal, which would compel telephone and broadband providers to retain electronic data for six months, the shortest possible time in accordance with EU directives.
Justice Minister Beatrice Ask explained that the bill is concerned about privacy when she presented the legislative proposal on Thursday.
"The proposal means that the information can only be disclosed for crime-fighting purposes," Ask said a news conference.
The government has proposed that the law come into force on July 1st, 2011. It is part of the introduction of the disputed EU Data Retention Directive.
The directive would force member states to legislate the storage of telephone calls, text messages, email and other internet traffic. The aim is to prevent and solve crimes.
The Data Retention Directive has been severely criticised by those who believe that such rules restrict privacy protection and create a surveillance society.
Both organisations for civil rights and telephone operators have pointed out the problems with keeping an eye on individual human communication.
The goal of data storage was to acquire new weapons in the fight against terrorism, but over time, the emphasis has fallen more on serious crime on the whole.
In October, a leaked draft of recommendations on the proposed law emerged. It proposed that police and prosecutors could request information from broadband operators for IP addresses even for crimes that do not require jail time.
If it became reality, it would mean that an estimated 1 million people engaged in filesharing would no longer feel safe.
"East German society is inching closer," said Jon Karlung, chairman of broadband provider Bahnhof.
Sweden was convicted in the EU Court of Justice for not having implemented the directive in February.
The EU adopted the Data Retention Directive in March 2006. The terror attacks in Madrid in 2004 became a lever for EU governments to enforce the requirement.
The laws would force telephone and internet service providers (ISPs) to store large amounts of data for at least six months and up to two years. The data would be available if the police needed them to solve crimes.
The directive has led to violent debate at times across the EU. Many countries believe the act violates free speech.
TT/The Local/vt (news@thelocal.se)
http://www.thelocal.se/30150/20101111/
Emails and mobile phone text messages would be stored for six months by internet service providers (ISPs), according to a bill presented by the Swedish government on Thursday to bring the country in line with EU data retention rules.
Critics have come down hard on the proposal, which would compel telephone and broadband providers to retain electronic data for six months, the shortest possible time in accordance with EU directives.
Justice Minister Beatrice Ask explained that the bill is concerned about privacy when she presented the legislative proposal on Thursday.
"The proposal means that the information can only be disclosed for crime-fighting purposes," Ask said a news conference.
The government has proposed that the law come into force on July 1st, 2011. It is part of the introduction of the disputed EU Data Retention Directive.
The directive would force member states to legislate the storage of telephone calls, text messages, email and other internet traffic. The aim is to prevent and solve crimes.
The Data Retention Directive has been severely criticised by those who believe that such rules restrict privacy protection and create a surveillance society.
Both organisations for civil rights and telephone operators have pointed out the problems with keeping an eye on individual human communication.
The goal of data storage was to acquire new weapons in the fight against terrorism, but over time, the emphasis has fallen more on serious crime on the whole.
In October, a leaked draft of recommendations on the proposed law emerged. It proposed that police and prosecutors could request information from broadband operators for IP addresses even for crimes that do not require jail time.
If it became reality, it would mean that an estimated 1 million people engaged in filesharing would no longer feel safe.
"East German society is inching closer," said Jon Karlung, chairman of broadband provider Bahnhof.
Sweden was convicted in the EU Court of Justice for not having implemented the directive in February.
The EU adopted the Data Retention Directive in March 2006. The terror attacks in Madrid in 2004 became a lever for EU governments to enforce the requirement.
The laws would force telephone and internet service providers (ISPs) to store large amounts of data for at least six months and up to two years. The data would be available if the police needed them to solve crimes.
The directive has led to violent debate at times across the EU. Many countries believe the act violates free speech.
TT/The Local/vt (news@thelocal.se)
http://www.thelocal.se/30150/20101111/
Losses double for U.S. Postal Service
By Aaron Smith, staff writer November 12, 2010: 12:46 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The U.S. Postal Service more than doubled its losses in fiscal year 2010, despite cutting billions of dollars in expenses and trimming its staff.
The Postal Service said its net loss totaled $8.5 billion in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. That compares to a loss of $3.8 billion the prior year.
The Postal Service blamed the deeper losses on the recession and on the continuing growth of e-mail. A change in the interest rates affecting the Postal Service's workers' compensation liability also played a role, the organization said.
Chief Financial Officer Joe Corbett said the losses were worsening despite cuts that generated cost savings of $9 billion over the past two years. Those savings came primarily from the elimination of 105,000 full-time positions -- "more than any other organization, anywhere," Corbett said.
As more communications go electronic, mail volume keeps dropping. The Postal Service delivered 170.6 billion pieces in its 2010 fiscal year, compared to 176.7 billion pieces the prior year. That decline cost the service around $1 billion in lost revenue.
"We will continue our relentless efforts to innovate and improve efficiency," Corbett said. "However, the need for changes to legislation, regulations and labor contracts has never been more obvious."
Postal Service spokeswoman Joanne Veto said her organization has asked Congress to allow it to scale back to five-day delivery, cutting Saturdays, and to discontinue its "unique" requirement to pre-fund its retirement fund -- something no other federal agency is required to do.
Congress has taken no action on these requests, she said.
Auditor Ernst & Young is expected to issue an audit opinion saying that "questions remain" about the Postal Service's ability to make its $5.5 billion pre-funding payment for retiree health benefits, due at the end of fiscal year 2011.
Despite that, Veto said the Postal Service is "fully funded for existing retirement benefits."
Veto also said that mail volume is expected to pick up in fiscal year 2011, although first-class mail -- the service's most lucrative product -- is forecast to continue its decline.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/12/news/economy/postal_service/index.htm?section=money_topstories
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The U.S. Postal Service more than doubled its losses in fiscal year 2010, despite cutting billions of dollars in expenses and trimming its staff.
The Postal Service said its net loss totaled $8.5 billion in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. That compares to a loss of $3.8 billion the prior year.
The Postal Service blamed the deeper losses on the recession and on the continuing growth of e-mail. A change in the interest rates affecting the Postal Service's workers' compensation liability also played a role, the organization said.
Chief Financial Officer Joe Corbett said the losses were worsening despite cuts that generated cost savings of $9 billion over the past two years. Those savings came primarily from the elimination of 105,000 full-time positions -- "more than any other organization, anywhere," Corbett said.
As more communications go electronic, mail volume keeps dropping. The Postal Service delivered 170.6 billion pieces in its 2010 fiscal year, compared to 176.7 billion pieces the prior year. That decline cost the service around $1 billion in lost revenue.
"We will continue our relentless efforts to innovate and improve efficiency," Corbett said. "However, the need for changes to legislation, regulations and labor contracts has never been more obvious."
Postal Service spokeswoman Joanne Veto said her organization has asked Congress to allow it to scale back to five-day delivery, cutting Saturdays, and to discontinue its "unique" requirement to pre-fund its retirement fund -- something no other federal agency is required to do.
Congress has taken no action on these requests, she said.
Auditor Ernst & Young is expected to issue an audit opinion saying that "questions remain" about the Postal Service's ability to make its $5.5 billion pre-funding payment for retiree health benefits, due at the end of fiscal year 2011.
Despite that, Veto said the Postal Service is "fully funded for existing retirement benefits."
Veto also said that mail volume is expected to pick up in fiscal year 2011, although first-class mail -- the service's most lucrative product -- is forecast to continue its decline.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/12/news/economy/postal_service/index.htm?section=money_topstories
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Five password-security myths dispelled
By Roger A. Grimes
Created 2010-11-09 03:00AM
Over the past few years, companies have increasingly adopted considerably stronger password policies. Unfortunately, there's still ample confusion in how to strengthen password policies and to mitigate password-focused attacks. I found dozens of mistakes in various security portals'
password-hacking whitepapers, seen respected security vendors recommending incorrect mitigations to conflated attacks, and took note of highly knowledgeable security teams operating on mistaken assumptions.
I understand the confusion: There are many different types of password attacks (and defenses) and so much incorrect information on the Internet.
The following are a few myths about password security that often surprise even the most seasoned security admins.
[ Master your security with InfoWorld's interactive Security iGuide [1]. | Stay up to date on the latest security developments with InfoWorld's Security Central newsletter [2]. ]
For starters, many admins think that password information retrieved from locally stored Windows profiles can be used in pass-the-hash attacks [3]. In reality, the password verifiers stored in local profiles are extremely resilient against cracking -- up to tens of thousands of times harder to crack than a normal password hashes. What's more, they can't be used in pass-the-hash attacks at all.
Another common misconception: Any Windows password up to 14 characters in length can be quickly cracked using rainbow tables and clouds of GPU-equipped, superfast computers. In fact, if the LAN Manager hash is disabled, even 10- to 12-character passwords are extremely tough to crack.
Most password enforcers think that complexity beats length when strengthening password policies [4]. It only works that way in the classroom. In the real world, length will give you far more protection than complexity; though you may give users 64,000 different symbols to choose among for their password, most people use the same 40 or so characters.
Yet another common misconception is that password hashes or passwords can be retrieved from server memory for users accessing files on password-protected drive shares. This is not true, at least for Windows file sharing, although relevant password information can be retrieved for interactively logged-on users.
Contrary to popular belief among many admins, smart cards and Kerberos can't prevent all forms of password hacking [5]. Organizations should certainly strive to embrace both types of improved authentication, as they defeat many attack classes. But you should know exactly what you are and aren't defeating as you expend resources and efforts in your new authentication projects.
The aforementioned myths are but a sampling of the misinformation out there.
Fortunately, there are plenty of defenses you can add to your list of security policies to keep your systems and data safe. For example:
* Increase the minimum length for end-user passwords to 12 characters -- and 15 characters for admins.
* Don't enter your password on untrusted computers, and never use the same password for different systems.
* Disable weak password hashes and authentication protocols, such as LAN Manager and NTLM Version 1.0.
* Consider two-factor authentication [6].
* Sniff out and remove plaintext passwords on your network.
* Improve end-user education -- including a lesson on phishing [7] -- to prevent password attacks.
* Keep your software current and patched to ensure the programs contain the latest security fixes and defenses.
The myths I've dispelled here and tips I've offered are just the tip of the iceberg when it come to understanding and preventing password-oriented attacks. Still, they should help in the ongoing fight to keep the bad guys out of your systems.
This story, "Five password-security myths dispelled [8]," was originally published at InfoWorld.com [9]. Follow the latest developments in network security [10] and read more of Roger Grimes' Security Adviser blog [11] at InfoWorld.com.
http://www.infoworld.com/print/143593
Created 2010-11-09 03:00AM
Over the past few years, companies have increasingly adopted considerably stronger password policies. Unfortunately, there's still ample confusion in how to strengthen password policies and to mitigate password-focused attacks. I found dozens of mistakes in various security portals'
password-hacking whitepapers, seen respected security vendors recommending incorrect mitigations to conflated attacks, and took note of highly knowledgeable security teams operating on mistaken assumptions.
I understand the confusion: There are many different types of password attacks (and defenses) and so much incorrect information on the Internet.
The following are a few myths about password security that often surprise even the most seasoned security admins.
[ Master your security with InfoWorld's interactive Security iGuide [1]. | Stay up to date on the latest security developments with InfoWorld's Security Central newsletter [2]. ]
For starters, many admins think that password information retrieved from locally stored Windows profiles can be used in pass-the-hash attacks [3]. In reality, the password verifiers stored in local profiles are extremely resilient against cracking -- up to tens of thousands of times harder to crack than a normal password hashes. What's more, they can't be used in pass-the-hash attacks at all.
Another common misconception: Any Windows password up to 14 characters in length can be quickly cracked using rainbow tables and clouds of GPU-equipped, superfast computers. In fact, if the LAN Manager hash is disabled, even 10- to 12-character passwords are extremely tough to crack.
Most password enforcers think that complexity beats length when strengthening password policies [4]. It only works that way in the classroom. In the real world, length will give you far more protection than complexity; though you may give users 64,000 different symbols to choose among for their password, most people use the same 40 or so characters.
Yet another common misconception is that password hashes or passwords can be retrieved from server memory for users accessing files on password-protected drive shares. This is not true, at least for Windows file sharing, although relevant password information can be retrieved for interactively logged-on users.
Contrary to popular belief among many admins, smart cards and Kerberos can't prevent all forms of password hacking [5]. Organizations should certainly strive to embrace both types of improved authentication, as they defeat many attack classes. But you should know exactly what you are and aren't defeating as you expend resources and efforts in your new authentication projects.
The aforementioned myths are but a sampling of the misinformation out there.
Fortunately, there are plenty of defenses you can add to your list of security policies to keep your systems and data safe. For example:
* Increase the minimum length for end-user passwords to 12 characters -- and 15 characters for admins.
* Don't enter your password on untrusted computers, and never use the same password for different systems.
* Disable weak password hashes and authentication protocols, such as LAN Manager and NTLM Version 1.0.
* Consider two-factor authentication [6].
* Sniff out and remove plaintext passwords on your network.
* Improve end-user education -- including a lesson on phishing [7] -- to prevent password attacks.
* Keep your software current and patched to ensure the programs contain the latest security fixes and defenses.
The myths I've dispelled here and tips I've offered are just the tip of the iceberg when it come to understanding and preventing password-oriented attacks. Still, they should help in the ongoing fight to keep the bad guys out of your systems.
This story, "Five password-security myths dispelled [8]," was originally published at InfoWorld.com [9]. Follow the latest developments in network security [10] and read more of Roger Grimes' Security Adviser blog [11] at InfoWorld.com.
http://www.infoworld.com/print/143593
Friday, November 5, 2010
Rival calls foul over Microsoft's delivering Security Essentials via Windows Update
Rival calls foul over Microsoft's delivering Security Essentials via Windows Update Trend Micro says Microsoft's offer of free antivirus software in update service may be unfair competition By Gregg Keizer November 5, 2010 06:49 AM ET
Computerworld - Microsoft this week began offering U.S. customers its free antivirus program via Windows' built-in update service, a move one major security firm said may be anticompetitive.
Last Monday, Microsoft started adding Security Essentials to the optional download list seen by U.S. users running Windows XP, Vista or Windows 7 when they fired up the operating system's update service. The move followed an Oct. 19 kickoff of a similar program in the U.K.
"Commercializing Windows Update to distribute other software applications raises significant questions about unfair competition," said Carol Carpenter, the general manager of the consumer and small business group at Trend Micro, on Thursday.
"Windows Update is a de facto extension of Windows, so to begin delivering software tied to updates has us concerned," she added. "Windows Update is not a choice for users, and we believe it should not be used this way."
If Windows doesn't detect working security software on the PC, Microsoft adds Security Essentials to the Optional section of Microsoft Update, a superset of the better-known Windows Update, or to Windows Update if it has been configured to also draw downloads from Microsoft Update.
Microsoft made a point to say that it was not offering Security Essentials via Window Update, but only through the Microsoft Update service, which also offers patches for new versions of non-operating system software, notably Office and Windows Media Player.
But most users won't understand the distinction because of the way that Microsoft has intermingled the two services.
In Vista and Windows 7, for example, Windows Update is configured out of the box to also poll Microsoft Update. And although Microsoft Update was once optional in Windows XP, new PCs with new installations of the OS now use Microsoft Update as the default update service.
"We welcome competition on a level playing field," said Carpenter of Trend Micro. "What concerns us is a vendor using market leverage to drive its solution in some unfair way."
Microsoft defended the practice, saying it was giving customers a convenient way to acquire antivirus software.
"We are always looking for the most effective and efficient ways to ensure our customers are protected against viruses, spyware and other malicious threats," said Jeff Smith, director of marketing for Security Essentials, in an e-mail reply to questions. "By offering Security Essentials as an optional download for PCs that are unprotected, we make it easy for those who want and know they need protection, but for whatever reason have not gotten around to installing it."
When asked to respond to rivals' anticompetitive concerns, Smith reiterated that Microsoft was not forcing users to download its product. "[It's] an optional download that customers with no antivirus solution can elect to download and install," he said. "[This is] just one of many options available to customers to get security software."
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9195079/Rival_calls_foul_over_Microsoft_s_delivering_Security_Essentials_via_Windows_Update?source=CTWNLE_nlt_dailyam_2010-11-05
Computerworld - Microsoft this week began offering U.S. customers its free antivirus program via Windows' built-in update service, a move one major security firm said may be anticompetitive.
Last Monday, Microsoft started adding Security Essentials to the optional download list seen by U.S. users running Windows XP, Vista or Windows 7 when they fired up the operating system's update service. The move followed an Oct. 19 kickoff of a similar program in the U.K.
"Commercializing Windows Update to distribute other software applications raises significant questions about unfair competition," said Carol Carpenter, the general manager of the consumer and small business group at Trend Micro, on Thursday.
"Windows Update is a de facto extension of Windows, so to begin delivering software tied to updates has us concerned," she added. "Windows Update is not a choice for users, and we believe it should not be used this way."
If Windows doesn't detect working security software on the PC, Microsoft adds Security Essentials to the Optional section of Microsoft Update, a superset of the better-known Windows Update, or to Windows Update if it has been configured to also draw downloads from Microsoft Update.
Microsoft made a point to say that it was not offering Security Essentials via Window Update, but only through the Microsoft Update service, which also offers patches for new versions of non-operating system software, notably Office and Windows Media Player.
But most users won't understand the distinction because of the way that Microsoft has intermingled the two services.
In Vista and Windows 7, for example, Windows Update is configured out of the box to also poll Microsoft Update. And although Microsoft Update was once optional in Windows XP, new PCs with new installations of the OS now use Microsoft Update as the default update service.
"We welcome competition on a level playing field," said Carpenter of Trend Micro. "What concerns us is a vendor using market leverage to drive its solution in some unfair way."
Microsoft defended the practice, saying it was giving customers a convenient way to acquire antivirus software.
"We are always looking for the most effective and efficient ways to ensure our customers are protected against viruses, spyware and other malicious threats," said Jeff Smith, director of marketing for Security Essentials, in an e-mail reply to questions. "By offering Security Essentials as an optional download for PCs that are unprotected, we make it easy for those who want and know they need protection, but for whatever reason have not gotten around to installing it."
When asked to respond to rivals' anticompetitive concerns, Smith reiterated that Microsoft was not forcing users to download its product. "[It's] an optional download that customers with no antivirus solution can elect to download and install," he said. "[This is] just one of many options available to customers to get security software."
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9195079/Rival_calls_foul_over_Microsoft_s_delivering_Security_Essentials_via_Windows_Update?source=CTWNLE_nlt_dailyam_2010-11-05
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Google Apps Gets the Government Shaft to Microsoft's Benefit
By: Clint Boulton
2010-11-02
When Google sued the Department of the Interior for allegedly choosing Microsoft's Business Productivity Online Suite with nary a glance at Google Apps, it revealed an onion layered with irony.
Google, often the target of scrutiny by the U.S. Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission for collecting too much data or growing too large, is suing the DOI for preventing it from securing a major government contract.
This deal would help Google's relatively small Google Apps business as it seeks to challenge Microsoft in collaboration software.
Google's gripe is that the DOI unfairly limited its consideration of a $59 million contract to serve 88,000 workers' e-mail and other collaboration software tools for the next five years.
The company claimed in this suit that the DOI showed no interest in looking at Google Apps, the cloud collaboration suite the company hosts on its servers and offers for $50 per user, per year.
When Google tried to meet with the DOI, the DOI said it was moving forward with Microsoft because Google Apps did not meet the agency's stringent security requirements.
This is interesting when one considers the General Services Administration awarded Google Apps with FISMA (Federal Information Security Management Act) certification. The GSA IS considering Google Apps as a replacement for IBM Lotus Notes.
Unfortunately for Google, FISMA certification is satisfied in different ways across the dozens of government agencies. There is no unilateral agreement on what it takes to secure FISMA. So what is good for the GSA is clearly not good for the DOI.
Google wants the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to prohibit DOI from picking BPOS without conducting a competitive bidding process in accordance with the law.
Some experts believe Google is really just trying to cut off Microsoft at the knees with this suit. Microsoft is the entrenched incumbent in collaboration with hundreds of millions of seats worldwide.
Many of those seats are occupied by U.S. government employees. New York City last month picked Microsoft to give 100,000 municipal employees Web-based Microsoft applications.
Eric Goldman, a cyber-law professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law, told eWEEK:
"I think the more interesting angle is how Google is contesting the software business against Microsoft. Google is trying to expand beyond its search business, and it's willing to invest in litigation to buttress its Apps business."
Google refused to give Microsoft's might the credit for its litigation, telling eWEEK Nov. 1:
"Google is a proponent of open competition on the Internet and in the technology sector in general. Here, a fair and open process could save US taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and result in better services. We're asking the Department of Interior to allow for a true competition when selecting its technology providers."
Sources familiar with the company's plans told eWEEK Google simply feels as though it didn't get a fair shake by the DOI after the GSA accorded Google FISMA that neither Microsoft nor IBM have attained.
Google believes the DOI set itself up for litigation when it specified the new e-mail system had to be part of Microsoft BPOS.
The challenge is that Google must prove the DOI's intent to shut out fair competition as protected by the Competition in Contracting Act.
Google is accusing the government of anticompetitive practices. This comes as Microsoft and other companies try to convince the DOJ and FTC Google is guilty of thwarting competition by prioritizing its own Web services in search results.
Told you this was quite the irony onion. Does Google have a good case? Goldman isn't sure: "I don't know very much about the government contracting process, so it's a little hard to handicap winners here."
What is clear is that Google's battle with Microsoft in collaboration software has moved from contract tables in the boardroom to the court.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Messaging-and-Collaboration/Google-Apps-Gets-the-Government-Shaft-to-Microsofts-Benefit-239317/?kc=EWKNLNAV11032010STR1
2010-11-02
When Google sued the Department of the Interior for allegedly choosing Microsoft's Business Productivity Online Suite with nary a glance at Google Apps, it revealed an onion layered with irony.
Google, often the target of scrutiny by the U.S. Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission for collecting too much data or growing too large, is suing the DOI for preventing it from securing a major government contract.
This deal would help Google's relatively small Google Apps business as it seeks to challenge Microsoft in collaboration software.
Google's gripe is that the DOI unfairly limited its consideration of a $59 million contract to serve 88,000 workers' e-mail and other collaboration software tools for the next five years.
The company claimed in this suit that the DOI showed no interest in looking at Google Apps, the cloud collaboration suite the company hosts on its servers and offers for $50 per user, per year.
When Google tried to meet with the DOI, the DOI said it was moving forward with Microsoft because Google Apps did not meet the agency's stringent security requirements.
This is interesting when one considers the General Services Administration awarded Google Apps with FISMA (Federal Information Security Management Act) certification. The GSA IS considering Google Apps as a replacement for IBM Lotus Notes.
Unfortunately for Google, FISMA certification is satisfied in different ways across the dozens of government agencies. There is no unilateral agreement on what it takes to secure FISMA. So what is good for the GSA is clearly not good for the DOI.
Google wants the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to prohibit DOI from picking BPOS without conducting a competitive bidding process in accordance with the law.
Some experts believe Google is really just trying to cut off Microsoft at the knees with this suit. Microsoft is the entrenched incumbent in collaboration with hundreds of millions of seats worldwide.
Many of those seats are occupied by U.S. government employees. New York City last month picked Microsoft to give 100,000 municipal employees Web-based Microsoft applications.
Eric Goldman, a cyber-law professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law, told eWEEK:
"I think the more interesting angle is how Google is contesting the software business against Microsoft. Google is trying to expand beyond its search business, and it's willing to invest in litigation to buttress its Apps business."
Google refused to give Microsoft's might the credit for its litigation, telling eWEEK Nov. 1:
"Google is a proponent of open competition on the Internet and in the technology sector in general. Here, a fair and open process could save US taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and result in better services. We're asking the Department of Interior to allow for a true competition when selecting its technology providers."
Sources familiar with the company's plans told eWEEK Google simply feels as though it didn't get a fair shake by the DOI after the GSA accorded Google FISMA that neither Microsoft nor IBM have attained.
Google believes the DOI set itself up for litigation when it specified the new e-mail system had to be part of Microsoft BPOS.
The challenge is that Google must prove the DOI's intent to shut out fair competition as protected by the Competition in Contracting Act.
Google is accusing the government of anticompetitive practices. This comes as Microsoft and other companies try to convince the DOJ and FTC Google is guilty of thwarting competition by prioritizing its own Web services in search results.
Told you this was quite the irony onion. Does Google have a good case? Goldman isn't sure: "I don't know very much about the government contracting process, so it's a little hard to handicap winners here."
What is clear is that Google's battle with Microsoft in collaboration software has moved from contract tables in the boardroom to the court.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Messaging-and-Collaboration/Google-Apps-Gets-the-Government-Shaft-to-Microsofts-Benefit-239317/?kc=EWKNLNAV11032010STR1
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Blekko: The Newest Search Engine
By: John C. Dvorak
Yes, Google is great, but Blekko, which relies on human input, may be better.
Blekko.com, a new search engine that uses human input to help it sort out the world, is getting a lot of press today, including a lot of "Another search engine, who needs it? Google is better." send-offs. Yes, Google is the greatest search engine as of now, but that doesn't mean it cannot be beaten by some new algorithm or a better idea. Blekko is going for a better idea.
Blekko, in fact, adds so much weird dimensionality that out of all the recently hyped search engine ideas, such as www.cuil.com, I find it the most interesting. I do not say this often.
The first thing I do, of course, with a new engine is search for myself. I do not do this because I'm vain, but because I know exactly what should appear and in what order. Most writers, like myself, with a high-profile on the Internet use this same trick to see if a search engine is any good.
Blekko nails the search. When I search for myself, one of the following items should appear at the top of the search: my blog at dvorak.org/blog and channeldvorak.com. After that, I expect to see links to my short bio, my wiki entry, PCMag, Mevio, Marketwatch, NoAgendashow, or other newer sites where I'm active. Google nails this every time. Yahoo always used to screw it up completely. Bing mostly nails it except for adding oddball links that have nothing to do with me. Most low-budget wannabees just make a mess with old links that have lingered for a decade.
Anyway, after it passed the initial screening, I tried to put it to work. Unlike other search engines, Blekko has added these odd little sublinks right under the link title to tag, seo, links, cache, ip, chatter, and spam.
Breakdown:
Tag - While this is nothing that Google cannot copy, it would be interesting to see if it actually does copy the idea. The tag link allows registered users of the system to add important tags that may apply to the site. This would be useful for future site users, but has the potential to be abused by both users and site owners. We'll see how far it gets.
SEO - This is fabulous information for site owners. It's essentially search-engine optimization information like ranking, inbound links, crawl stats, and more. You can compare sites and have a lot of time-wasting fun.
Fantastic.
Links - This is a listing of the main sites that link to the page. Amusing.
Cache - This is a cache of the site which is useful if the site goes down. Google has already made this an important feature. It takes boatloads of computers to do this right.
IP - This shows the IP address under which the site is operating. When you click on it, you see other sites which use the same IP. This is a real eye-opener, to say the least.
Chatter - This seems to be a Twitter-like feature that allows you to tell others what you are up to regarding the site you are visiting.
Spam - This allows logged-in users to tag a site as spam. This would help eliminate many of the commercial sites that clog up search results. But it could also be abused. We'll see how this works out.
And tools hidden from view, which I expect to appear as additional features, are: dup, which shows duplicate content on the site; rss, which takes you directly to the RSS feed; site, which gives a site search; and similar, which shows similar sites. All of these seem to be useful and direct tools.
I recommend Blekko. It's the best out-of-the-chute new engine I've seen in the last 10 years, seriously.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2371864,00.asp
Yes, Google is great, but Blekko, which relies on human input, may be better.
Blekko.com, a new search engine that uses human input to help it sort out the world, is getting a lot of press today, including a lot of "Another search engine, who needs it? Google is better." send-offs. Yes, Google is the greatest search engine as of now, but that doesn't mean it cannot be beaten by some new algorithm or a better idea. Blekko is going for a better idea.
Blekko, in fact, adds so much weird dimensionality that out of all the recently hyped search engine ideas, such as www.cuil.com, I find it the most interesting. I do not say this often.
The first thing I do, of course, with a new engine is search for myself. I do not do this because I'm vain, but because I know exactly what should appear and in what order. Most writers, like myself, with a high-profile on the Internet use this same trick to see if a search engine is any good.
Blekko nails the search. When I search for myself, one of the following items should appear at the top of the search: my blog at dvorak.org/blog and channeldvorak.com. After that, I expect to see links to my short bio, my wiki entry, PCMag, Mevio, Marketwatch, NoAgendashow, or other newer sites where I'm active. Google nails this every time. Yahoo always used to screw it up completely. Bing mostly nails it except for adding oddball links that have nothing to do with me. Most low-budget wannabees just make a mess with old links that have lingered for a decade.
Anyway, after it passed the initial screening, I tried to put it to work. Unlike other search engines, Blekko has added these odd little sublinks right under the link title to tag, seo, links, cache, ip, chatter, and spam.
Breakdown:
Tag - While this is nothing that Google cannot copy, it would be interesting to see if it actually does copy the idea. The tag link allows registered users of the system to add important tags that may apply to the site. This would be useful for future site users, but has the potential to be abused by both users and site owners. We'll see how far it gets.
SEO - This is fabulous information for site owners. It's essentially search-engine optimization information like ranking, inbound links, crawl stats, and more. You can compare sites and have a lot of time-wasting fun.
Fantastic.
Links - This is a listing of the main sites that link to the page. Amusing.
Cache - This is a cache of the site which is useful if the site goes down. Google has already made this an important feature. It takes boatloads of computers to do this right.
IP - This shows the IP address under which the site is operating. When you click on it, you see other sites which use the same IP. This is a real eye-opener, to say the least.
Chatter - This seems to be a Twitter-like feature that allows you to tell others what you are up to regarding the site you are visiting.
Spam - This allows logged-in users to tag a site as spam. This would help eliminate many of the commercial sites that clog up search results. But it could also be abused. We'll see how this works out.
And tools hidden from view, which I expect to appear as additional features, are: dup, which shows duplicate content on the site; rss, which takes you directly to the RSS feed; site, which gives a site search; and similar, which shows similar sites. All of these seem to be useful and direct tools.
I recommend Blekko. It's the best out-of-the-chute new engine I've seen in the last 10 years, seriously.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2371864,00.asp
Android phones outsell iPhone 2-to-1, says research firm
Android phones outsell iPhone 2-to-1, says research firm Google's OS powers 44% of smartphones sold in U.S. last quarter; Apple's iOS far behind By Gregg Keizer November 1, 2010 04:15 PM ET
Computerworld - Android-powered smartphones outsold iPhones in the U.S. by almost 2-to-1 in the third quarter, a research firm said today.
Analysts explained the Android boom by pointing out the plethora of manufacturers that equip their smartphones with Google's mobile operating system, and highlighting their availability on all the major U.S. carriers.
"We started to see Android take off in 2009 when Verizon added the [Motorola] Droid," said Ross Rubin, the executive director of industry analysis for the NPD Group. "A big part of Android success is its carrier distribution. Once it got to the Verizon and Sprint customer bases, with their mature 3G networks, that's when we started to see it take off."
According to NPD's surveys of U.S. retailers, Android phones accounted for 44% of all consumer smartphone sales in the third quarter, an increase of 11 percentage points over 2010's second quarter. Meanwhile, Apple's iOS, which powers the iPhone, was up one point to 23%.
Research in Motion's (RIM) portion of the smartphone pie was 22% for the third quarter, down six percentage points from 2010's second quarter.
RIM's decline is easy to explain, said Rubin. "That's also related to the carrier distribution, which is difficult to underestimate," he said, noting that the carriers that now sell loads of Android phones are the same ones that have traditionally been major suppliers of RIM's BlackBerry.
RIM introduced its newest smartphone, the BlackBerry Torch 9800, in August.
The handset is available only through AT&T, the U.S. carrier that also has an exclusive deal with Apple to sell the iPhone.
"That's why the Torch at AT&T isn't doing much to hold back the Android onslaught," Rubin said. "It's only on AT&T."
Kevin Restivo, an analyst with IDC, echoed Rubin's reasoning for Android's surge. "It's the collective growth in sales of HTC and Motorola," he said.
The trend has been building throughout the first half of the year, both Restivo and Rubin said.
In the first six months of 2010, Android accounted for 30.8% of all smartphone sales in the U.S., up from just 4.6% in the first half of the year before, said Restivo, citing IDC data. Apple's iOS, on the other hand, slipped from 21.1% in the first half of 2009 to 19.8% in the first six months of 2010.
RIM's sales share plummeted during the same period, falling from 51.4% in
2009 to 35.5% this year.
"Android has made its mark on the smartphone market, irrespective of what quarter we're talking about in 2010," said Restivo. IDC has not yet compiled its third-quarter sales estimates by operating system.
Apple will have a tough time matching Android smartphone sales until it breaks free of the exclusive partnership with AT&T, Rubin argued. "It's difficult for them to compete in market share leadership with just one carrier," he said.
Rumors that Apple will soon offer the iPhone to other U.S. carriers, primarily Verizon, pop up on a regular basis. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that Apple would add Verizon to its U.S. carrier stable early next year, a timeline that Brian Marshall of Gleacher & Co. said his sources confirmed.
Rubin offered another reason for Android's strong sales.
"The story for Android in 2010 is that, for most manufacturers and carriers, there really hasn't been any alternative," Rubin said. Microsoft's Windows Mobile faded badly this year, and its Windows Phone 7 has yet to appear on handsets in the U.S. And AT&T has Apple's iOS locked up for now. That left Android as the default OS for what Rubin called "modern" smartphones.
"Multiple manufacturers [with Android phones] provide more consumer choice in the marketplace," said Rubin.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9194278/Android_phones_outsell_iPhone_2_to_1_says_research_firm
Computerworld - Android-powered smartphones outsold iPhones in the U.S. by almost 2-to-1 in the third quarter, a research firm said today.
Analysts explained the Android boom by pointing out the plethora of manufacturers that equip their smartphones with Google's mobile operating system, and highlighting their availability on all the major U.S. carriers.
"We started to see Android take off in 2009 when Verizon added the [Motorola] Droid," said Ross Rubin, the executive director of industry analysis for the NPD Group. "A big part of Android success is its carrier distribution. Once it got to the Verizon and Sprint customer bases, with their mature 3G networks, that's when we started to see it take off."
According to NPD's surveys of U.S. retailers, Android phones accounted for 44% of all consumer smartphone sales in the third quarter, an increase of 11 percentage points over 2010's second quarter. Meanwhile, Apple's iOS, which powers the iPhone, was up one point to 23%.
Research in Motion's (RIM) portion of the smartphone pie was 22% for the third quarter, down six percentage points from 2010's second quarter.
RIM's decline is easy to explain, said Rubin. "That's also related to the carrier distribution, which is difficult to underestimate," he said, noting that the carriers that now sell loads of Android phones are the same ones that have traditionally been major suppliers of RIM's BlackBerry.
RIM introduced its newest smartphone, the BlackBerry Torch 9800, in August.
The handset is available only through AT&T, the U.S. carrier that also has an exclusive deal with Apple to sell the iPhone.
"That's why the Torch at AT&T isn't doing much to hold back the Android onslaught," Rubin said. "It's only on AT&T."
Kevin Restivo, an analyst with IDC, echoed Rubin's reasoning for Android's surge. "It's the collective growth in sales of HTC and Motorola," he said.
The trend has been building throughout the first half of the year, both Restivo and Rubin said.
In the first six months of 2010, Android accounted for 30.8% of all smartphone sales in the U.S., up from just 4.6% in the first half of the year before, said Restivo, citing IDC data. Apple's iOS, on the other hand, slipped from 21.1% in the first half of 2009 to 19.8% in the first six months of 2010.
RIM's sales share plummeted during the same period, falling from 51.4% in
2009 to 35.5% this year.
"Android has made its mark on the smartphone market, irrespective of what quarter we're talking about in 2010," said Restivo. IDC has not yet compiled its third-quarter sales estimates by operating system.
Apple will have a tough time matching Android smartphone sales until it breaks free of the exclusive partnership with AT&T, Rubin argued. "It's difficult for them to compete in market share leadership with just one carrier," he said.
Rumors that Apple will soon offer the iPhone to other U.S. carriers, primarily Verizon, pop up on a regular basis. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that Apple would add Verizon to its U.S. carrier stable early next year, a timeline that Brian Marshall of Gleacher & Co. said his sources confirmed.
Rubin offered another reason for Android's strong sales.
"The story for Android in 2010 is that, for most manufacturers and carriers, there really hasn't been any alternative," Rubin said. Microsoft's Windows Mobile faded badly this year, and its Windows Phone 7 has yet to appear on handsets in the U.S. And AT&T has Apple's iOS locked up for now. That left Android as the default OS for what Rubin called "modern" smartphones.
"Multiple manufacturers [with Android phones] provide more consumer choice in the marketplace," said Rubin.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9194278/Android_phones_outsell_iPhone_2_to_1_says_research_firm
Apple Sues Motorola Over Multi-touch Phone Infringement
By: Leslie Horn 10.31.2010
Apple has filed infringement suits against Motorola, saying that Multi-Touch smartphone uses Apple-owned intellectual property.
Patently Apple was the first to report that Apple two separate suits against Motorola that include six different patents. The suits mostly pertain to Motorola's next generation smartphones, specifically the Droid, Droid 2, Droid X, Cliq, Cliq XT, BakFlip Devour A555, Devour i1, and Charm.
We like competition as long as they don't rip off our IP," Tim Cook, chief operations officer for Apple said last year at a financial conference.
"Obviously Apple thinks that Motorola has crossed that line."
What Apple is saying is that Motorola basically copied the iPhone. Court documents said Apple has a problem with "smartphones and associated software, including operating systems, user interfaces, and other application software designed for use on, and loaded onto such devices."
It's likely Motorola saw this countersuit coming. This isn't the first smartphone maker that Apple has sued. The company has taken similar action against HTC for its Android phones. Earlier this month, Motorola filed its own suit against Apple and NeXT in order to protect its product in suits that cover more than 18 different products,
Apple is seeking maximum damages including all royalties earned from the sale of the phone.
It's important that Apple safeguard its technology. iPhone sales comprise 39 percent of Apple's earnings, and the iPhone 4 was introduced to 17 more countries this year, which helped to expand Apple's revenue base.
When the iPhone 4 was launched in China, the device flew off the shelves, almost immediately. Due to problems with scalpers, the flagship store in Beijing was forced to shut down briefly.
Apple recently jumped into the list of top five, leapfrogging RIM for the number four position.
Microsoft has also sued Motorola, alleging patent infringement on its Android-based devices.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2371822,00.asp
Apple has filed infringement suits against Motorola, saying that Multi-Touch smartphone uses Apple-owned intellectual property.
Patently Apple was the first to report that Apple two separate suits against Motorola that include six different patents. The suits mostly pertain to Motorola's next generation smartphones, specifically the Droid, Droid 2, Droid X, Cliq, Cliq XT, BakFlip Devour A555, Devour i1, and Charm.
We like competition as long as they don't rip off our IP," Tim Cook, chief operations officer for Apple said last year at a financial conference.
"Obviously Apple thinks that Motorola has crossed that line."
What Apple is saying is that Motorola basically copied the iPhone. Court documents said Apple has a problem with "smartphones and associated software, including operating systems, user interfaces, and other application software designed for use on, and loaded onto such devices."
It's likely Motorola saw this countersuit coming. This isn't the first smartphone maker that Apple has sued. The company has taken similar action against HTC for its Android phones. Earlier this month, Motorola filed its own suit against Apple and NeXT in order to protect its product in suits that cover more than 18 different products,
Apple is seeking maximum damages including all royalties earned from the sale of the phone.
It's important that Apple safeguard its technology. iPhone sales comprise 39 percent of Apple's earnings, and the iPhone 4 was introduced to 17 more countries this year, which helped to expand Apple's revenue base.
When the iPhone 4 was launched in China, the device flew off the shelves, almost immediately. Due to problems with scalpers, the flagship store in Beijing was forced to shut down briefly.
Apple recently jumped into the list of top five, leapfrogging RIM for the number four position.
Microsoft has also sued Motorola, alleging patent infringement on its Android-based devices.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2371822,00.asp
Monday, November 1, 2010
Microsoft Looking Like An End-Stage Company
Our columnist argues that Steve Ballmer needs to pull out all the stops now and instill radical change, because Microsoft remains stuck in the PC era.
By Paul McDougall , InformationWeek
October 30, 2010 04:00 AM
I believe that Microsoft as we know it may not be around in another decade--maybe not even in five years. There's hardly a single tech industry trend line pointing in Redmond's favor right now, and some of those curves are about to get a lot steeper, real fast.
So it's hardly surprising recent Microsoft-related news has been pretty much on par with where things stand for the company these days-mostly all bad.
Explorer's market share has fallen below 60% for the first time in recent memory, the software maker has largely conceded the only way it can compete in smartphones is through the courts, and so it sued Motorola (and, by proxy, Android developer Google), and Microsoft's board deemed CEO Steve Ballmer's performance over the past fiscal year so mediocre that it slashed his bonus.
Most significantly, Microsoft waived the white flag on social media when it pulled the plug on Windows Live Journal, dumping the blogging platform's users onto the open source WordPress system. Think about it: Microsoft, still the world's largest software company by revenue, is so clueless on Web 2.0 it can't make a simple blogging platform people will actually use.
There's probably thousands of middle-schoolers creating blogging software in their spare time between Social Studies and Gym class, but Microsoft can't compete in the space?
What's that say about its chances in mobile, or search, or tablets, or any of the other growth markets that are driven by younger professionals' demands for tools that are social, collaborative, instant, and always on?
Microsoft's defenders, and Microsoft itself, point to the company's lock on the PC operating system market (more than 90%) as proof it's still a dominant player that controls a bunker from which it can generate piles of cash and withstand reversals in other segments.
But that's just whistling past the graveyard, spouting a tune written from backward-looking data not particularly useful for gauging the impact that hugely disruptive new products like tablets and smartphones and even tablet-smartphone hybrids are about to have on Microsoft's place in IT.
Market research group NPD recently found that 13% of iPad users bought the Apple OS-based device instead of a Windows PC. That's a hugely significant number for a product that didn't even exist a year ago. Just wait until it gets more features, and comes down in price. And do you know anyone under 30 who uses anything but a phone for the bulk their personal computing and communications needs these days?
Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 will hit stores in November, but most analysts believe the offering, though slick in many respects, is too little, too late to meaningful bolster the company's meager 5% share of the mobile OS market.
Where does all this leave Microsoft? Out in the cold within just the next few years unless big changes are made-and those changes need to start at the top. The best thing Ballmer can do to preserve his legacy and ensure he's not Microsoft's last CEO is to start assembling a new management team that can build a foundation for real change--and rid the company of its PC-centric focus.
Ballmer has said he wants to stick around until about 2018. But realistically he's only got a couple of years to make Microsoft a leader in the categories that matter going forward-cloud, social media, mobile, and tablets. If he fails, he'll be out the door, possibly within months if Windows Phone 7 turns out to be as big a bomb as the KIN phone. If that happens, Microsoft's status as a tech industry leader won't be too far behind him.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/trends/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=227600138&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_All
By Paul McDougall , InformationWeek
October 30, 2010 04:00 AM
I believe that Microsoft as we know it may not be around in another decade--maybe not even in five years. There's hardly a single tech industry trend line pointing in Redmond's favor right now, and some of those curves are about to get a lot steeper, real fast.
So it's hardly surprising recent Microsoft-related news has been pretty much on par with where things stand for the company these days-mostly all bad.
Explorer's market share has fallen below 60% for the first time in recent memory, the software maker has largely conceded the only way it can compete in smartphones is through the courts, and so it sued Motorola (and, by proxy, Android developer Google), and Microsoft's board deemed CEO Steve Ballmer's performance over the past fiscal year so mediocre that it slashed his bonus.
Most significantly, Microsoft waived the white flag on social media when it pulled the plug on Windows Live Journal, dumping the blogging platform's users onto the open source WordPress system. Think about it: Microsoft, still the world's largest software company by revenue, is so clueless on Web 2.0 it can't make a simple blogging platform people will actually use.
There's probably thousands of middle-schoolers creating blogging software in their spare time between Social Studies and Gym class, but Microsoft can't compete in the space?
What's that say about its chances in mobile, or search, or tablets, or any of the other growth markets that are driven by younger professionals' demands for tools that are social, collaborative, instant, and always on?
Microsoft's defenders, and Microsoft itself, point to the company's lock on the PC operating system market (more than 90%) as proof it's still a dominant player that controls a bunker from which it can generate piles of cash and withstand reversals in other segments.
But that's just whistling past the graveyard, spouting a tune written from backward-looking data not particularly useful for gauging the impact that hugely disruptive new products like tablets and smartphones and even tablet-smartphone hybrids are about to have on Microsoft's place in IT.
Market research group NPD recently found that 13% of iPad users bought the Apple OS-based device instead of a Windows PC. That's a hugely significant number for a product that didn't even exist a year ago. Just wait until it gets more features, and comes down in price. And do you know anyone under 30 who uses anything but a phone for the bulk their personal computing and communications needs these days?
Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 will hit stores in November, but most analysts believe the offering, though slick in many respects, is too little, too late to meaningful bolster the company's meager 5% share of the mobile OS market.
Where does all this leave Microsoft? Out in the cold within just the next few years unless big changes are made-and those changes need to start at the top. The best thing Ballmer can do to preserve his legacy and ensure he's not Microsoft's last CEO is to start assembling a new management team that can build a foundation for real change--and rid the company of its PC-centric focus.
Ballmer has said he wants to stick around until about 2018. But realistically he's only got a couple of years to make Microsoft a leader in the categories that matter going forward-cloud, social media, mobile, and tablets. If he fails, he'll be out the door, possibly within months if Windows Phone 7 turns out to be as big a bomb as the KIN phone. If that happens, Microsoft's status as a tech industry leader won't be too far behind him.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/trends/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=227600138&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_All
SAP Admitting Infringement In Oracle Case
The admission means SAP will likely be liable for big damages--and possible further investigation--in the suit filed against it by Oracle, which alleged that the SAP-acquired TomorrowNow operation improperly accessed Oracle code.
By Fritz Nelson , InformationWeek
October 28, 2010 07:03 PM
In a shocking last-minute move, SAP has admitted contributory liability in a court filing posted Thursday in the case Oracle has brought against it for copyright infringement involving its now-defunct TomorrowNow acquisition.
Earlier this year, SAP admitted only vicarious liability, meaning it admitted wrongdoing on TomorrowNow's part, but not its own, claiming TomorrowNow's illegal practices didn't occur with SAP's knowledge or involvement, as Oracle had claimed and upon which it had based hefty damage requests.
This new information could delay the Oracle vs. SAP trial, which has been scheduled to start Monday, Nov. 1, as late as Thursday, November 4 at the behest of Oracle. The venue for the trial is an Oakland courthouse of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The SAP admission is also likely to increase the scope of damages a jury will award Oracle. Observers believe those damages could potentially be closer to the billions Oracle is seeking, rather than the roughly $40 million, which SAP has been hoping for.
It could spur action by the U.S. Justice Dept, which some industry observers have said is closely watching the case. In fact, the DOJ could act beyond potentially prosecuting TomorrowNow employees involved in the scheme, possibly touching SAP executives, including incoming HP CEO Leo Apotheker.
Earlier Thursday afternoon, Oracle released the following statement: "SAP management has insisted for three and a half years of litigation that it knew nothing about SAP's own massive theft of Oracle's intellectual property. Today, SAP has finally confessed it knew about the theft all along. The evidence at trial will show that the SAP Board of Directors valued Oracle's copyrighted software so highly, they were willing to steal it rather than compete fairly."
SAP Court Letter
The official word from SAP's attorneys came in a letter written to the court: "It makes good sense to eliminate the issue now, because whether SAP is contributory liable or not does not affect damages at trial at all, and keeping the issue in the case would only satisfy Plaintiffs' desire to turn the upcoming trial into a sideshow, focused on people and companies who are not even parties to this dispute."
In other words, SAP is seeking to keep the personal attack drama to minimum, if not altogether eliminating it.
The letter also states that eliminating this issue should shorten the length of the trial. Oracle has asked for a delay in the trial because it says that this new acquiescence changes both its strategy and the contents of its opening statement. No word yet from the court on whether a delay will be granted. SAP is pushing to keep the trial's start date.
SAP acquired TomorrowNow, a company providing third-party support for PeopleSoft (hence, Oracle) applications, in 2005, almost immediately after Oracle acquired PeopleSoft. Oracle's lawsuit alleges that TomorrowNow infringed on Oracle copyrights through a vast scheme of downloading millions of files (some software, some support material) from Oracle servers, and that the practice continued even after the acquisition despite SAP knowledge of these acts.
SAP acquired TomorrowNow in hopes of providing a doorway for wary PeopleSoft customers to come to SAP. SAP shut down TomorrowNow in 2008, and earlier this year admitted to the illegal practices.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/legal/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=228000313&cid=nl_IW_daily_2010-10-29_html
By Fritz Nelson , InformationWeek
October 28, 2010 07:03 PM
In a shocking last-minute move, SAP has admitted contributory liability in a court filing posted Thursday in the case Oracle has brought against it for copyright infringement involving its now-defunct TomorrowNow acquisition.
Earlier this year, SAP admitted only vicarious liability, meaning it admitted wrongdoing on TomorrowNow's part, but not its own, claiming TomorrowNow's illegal practices didn't occur with SAP's knowledge or involvement, as Oracle had claimed and upon which it had based hefty damage requests.
This new information could delay the Oracle vs. SAP trial, which has been scheduled to start Monday, Nov. 1, as late as Thursday, November 4 at the behest of Oracle. The venue for the trial is an Oakland courthouse of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The SAP admission is also likely to increase the scope of damages a jury will award Oracle. Observers believe those damages could potentially be closer to the billions Oracle is seeking, rather than the roughly $40 million, which SAP has been hoping for.
It could spur action by the U.S. Justice Dept, which some industry observers have said is closely watching the case. In fact, the DOJ could act beyond potentially prosecuting TomorrowNow employees involved in the scheme, possibly touching SAP executives, including incoming HP CEO Leo Apotheker.
Earlier Thursday afternoon, Oracle released the following statement: "SAP management has insisted for three and a half years of litigation that it knew nothing about SAP's own massive theft of Oracle's intellectual property. Today, SAP has finally confessed it knew about the theft all along. The evidence at trial will show that the SAP Board of Directors valued Oracle's copyrighted software so highly, they were willing to steal it rather than compete fairly."
SAP Court Letter
The official word from SAP's attorneys came in a letter written to the court: "It makes good sense to eliminate the issue now, because whether SAP is contributory liable or not does not affect damages at trial at all, and keeping the issue in the case would only satisfy Plaintiffs' desire to turn the upcoming trial into a sideshow, focused on people and companies who are not even parties to this dispute."
In other words, SAP is seeking to keep the personal attack drama to minimum, if not altogether eliminating it.
The letter also states that eliminating this issue should shorten the length of the trial. Oracle has asked for a delay in the trial because it says that this new acquiescence changes both its strategy and the contents of its opening statement. No word yet from the court on whether a delay will be granted. SAP is pushing to keep the trial's start date.
SAP acquired TomorrowNow, a company providing third-party support for PeopleSoft (hence, Oracle) applications, in 2005, almost immediately after Oracle acquired PeopleSoft. Oracle's lawsuit alleges that TomorrowNow infringed on Oracle copyrights through a vast scheme of downloading millions of files (some software, some support material) from Oracle servers, and that the practice continued even after the acquisition despite SAP knowledge of these acts.
SAP acquired TomorrowNow in hopes of providing a doorway for wary PeopleSoft customers to come to SAP. SAP shut down TomorrowNow in 2008, and earlier this year admitted to the illegal practices.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/legal/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=228000313&cid=nl_IW_daily_2010-10-29_html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
