Story first appeared in the Wall Street Journal.
Major websites such as MSN.com and Hulu.com have been tracking people's online activities using powerful new methods that are almost impossible for computer users to detect, new research shows. Unfortunately, security solutions may not be effective against these so called "supercookies".
What 'History Stealing' Is
The new techniques, which are legal, reach beyond the traditional "cookie," a small file that websites routinely install on users' computers to help track their activities online. Hulu and MSN were installing files known as "supercookies," which are capable of re-creating users' profiles after people deleted regular cookies, according to researchers at Stanford University and University of California at Berkeley.
Websites and advertisers have faced strong criticism for collecting and selling personal data about computer users without their knowledge, and a half-dozen privacy bills have been introduced on Capitol Hill this year.
Many of the companies found to be using the new techniques say the tracking was inadvertent and they stopped it after being contacted by the researchers.
The associate general counsel at MSN parent company Microsoft Corp., said that when the supercookie was brought to their attention, and they were alarmed by it. It was inconsistent with their intent and their policy. He said the company removed the computer code, which had been created by Microsoft.
WSJ reports so-called 'supercookies' reside in web sites that are tracking web users' activities and can continue to track users after they click a box to remove cookies from their computer.
Hulu posted a statement online saying it acted immediately to investigate and address the issues identified by researchers. It declined to comment further.
The spread of advanced tracking techniques shows how quickly data-tracking companies are adapting their techniques. When The Wall Street Journal examined tracking tools on major websites last year, most of these more aggressive techniques were not in wide use.
But as consumers become savvier about protecting their privacy online, the new techniques appear to be gaining ground.
A Stanford researcher identified what is known as a "history stealing" tracking service on Flixster.com, a social-networking service for movie fans recently acquired by Time Warner Inc., and on Charter Communications Inc.'s Charter.net.
Such tracking peers into people's Web-browsing histories to see if they previously had visited any of more than 1,500 websites, including ones dealing with fertility problems, menopause and credit repair, the researchers said. History stealing has been identified on other sites in recent years, but rarely at that scale.
The researchers determined that the history stealing on those two sites was being done by Epic Media Group, a New York digital-marketing company. Charter and Flixster said they didn't have a direct relationship with Epic, but as is common in online advertising, Epic's tracking service was installed by advertisers.
The chief executive of Epic, says his company was inadvertently using the technology and no longer uses it. He said the information was used only to verify the accuracy of data that it had bought from other vendors.
Both Flixster and Charter say they were unaware of Epic's activities and have since removed all Epic technology from their sites. Charter did the same last year with a different vendor doing history stealing on a smaller scale.
Gathering information about Web-browsing history can offer valuable clues about people's interests, concerns or household finances. Someone researching a disease online, for example, might be thought to have the illness, or at least to be worried about it.
The potential for privacy legislation in Washington has driven the online-ad industry to establish its own rules, which it says are designed to alert computer users of tracking and offer them ways to limit the use of such data by advertisers.
Under the self-imposed guidelines, collecting health and financial data about individuals is permissible as long as the data don't contain financial-account numbers, Social Security numbers, pharmaceutical prescriptions or medical records. But using techniques such as history stealing and supercookies "to negate consumer choices" about privacy violates the guidelines.
Until now, the council has been trying to push companies into the program, not kick them out.
Last year, the online-ad industry launched a program to label ads that are sent to computer users based on tracking data. The goal is to provide users a place to click in the ad itself that would let them opt out of receiving such targeted ads. (It doesn't turn off tracking altogether.) The program has been slow to catch on, new findings indicate.
The industry has estimated that nearly 80% of online display ads are based on tracking data. Only 9% of the ads they examined on the 500 most popular websites—62 out of 627 ads—contained the label. They looked at standard-size display ads placed by third parties between Aug. 4 and 11.
The industry says self-regulation is working. The labeling program has made tremendous progress.
Several Microsoft-owned websites, including MSN.com and Microsoft.com, were using supercookies.
Supercookies are stored in different places than regular cookies, such as within the Web browser's "cache" of previously visited websites, which is where the Microsoft ones were located. Privacy-conscious users who know how to find and delete regular cookies might have trouble locating supercookies.
Supercookies have also been found on Microsoft's advertising network, which places ads for other companies across the Internet. As a result, people could have had the supercookie installed on their machines without visiting Microsoft websites directly. Even if they deleted regular cookies, information about their Web-browsing could have been retained by Microsoft.
Microsoft's representative said that the company removed the code after being contacted, and that Microsoft is still trying to figure out why the code was created. A spokeswoman said the data gathered by the supercookie were used only by Microsoft and weren't shared with outside companies.
Separately last month, researchers at the University of California at Berkeley, found supercookie techniques used by dozens of sites. One of them, Hulu, was storing tracking coding in files related to Adobe Systems Inc.'s widely used Flash software, which enables many of the videos found online, the researchers said in a report. Hulu is owned by NBC Universal, Walt Disney Co. and News Corp., owner of The Wall Street Journal.
Hulu was one of several companies that entered into a $2.4 million class-action settlement last year related to the use of Flash cookies to circumvent users who tried to delete their regular cookies.
The Berkeley researchers also found that Hulu's website contained code from Kissmetrics, a company that analyzes website-traffic data. Kissmetrics was inserting supercookies into users' browser caches and into files associated with the latest version of the standard programming language used to build Web pages, known as HTML5.
In a blog post after the report was released, Kissmetrics said it would use only regular cookies for future tracking. The company didn't return calls seeking comment.
For technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical
blog.
For law related news, visit the Nation
of Law blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the Commercial and
Residential Real Estate blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
IT Security Breaches a Major Concern
Story first appeared in the Wall Street Journal
A recent wave of information-security breaches at high-profile companies has many executives on heightened alert. They're trying to figure out everything they can do to prevent breaches, limit the damage if one occurs, and be prepared to rebound quickly from whatever harm is done.
As they consider their options, two questions loom large: How much should they spend to protect their companies' information? And how can they get the most for their money?
Our research suggests they should spend substantially less than the expected loss from a breach, and perhaps spend it differently than many might think. Investing in a managed IT service is a good way to go, as they typically offer security solutions, backup solutions, and disaster recovery solutions in the case of a breach.
The One-Third Mark
We developed a model to help executives determine the optimal level of investment to protect a given set of information—whether it's customers' personal information, company financial data, strategic-planning documents or something else. The model weighs the potential loss from a security breach, the probability that a loss will occur, and the effectiveness of additional investments in security.
One key finding from the model: The amount a firm should spend to protect information is generally no more than one-third or so of the projected loss from a breach. Above that level, in most cases, each dollar spent will reduce the anticipated loss by less than a dollar.
A second key finding: It doesn't always pay to spend the biggest share of the security budget to protect the information that is most vulnerable to attack, as many companies do. For some highly vulnerable information, reducing the likelihood of breaches by even a modest amount is just too costly. In that case, companies may well get more bang for their buck by focusing their spending on protection for information that is less vulnerable.
Working It Out
The following four-step approach has proved useful in helping executives sort all this out:
Step 1. Estimate the potential loss from a security breach for each of the company's various sets of information. For starters, it's useful to simply categorize information sets as having either Low Value, Medium Value or High Value.
Step 2. For each set of information, estimate the likelihood that it will be stolen, by examining the probability of an attempt to steal the information and the vulnerability of the information to attack. Again, broad categories are useful: Designate each set of information as either Low Threat/Vulnerability, Medium Threat/Vulnerability or High Threat/Vulnerability.
To combine the two factors, assign each a numerical rating—say, on a scale from 1 to 10—and multiply the two numbers by each other.
Using that scale, you might consider any combined ranking below 30 to be Low Threat/Vulnerability, and any ranking above 70 to be High Threat/Vulnerability; different people will draw those lines in different places.
A key point: Information that is highly vulnerable to attack but unlikely to interest a hacker (think of a banged-up old subcompact parked with the keys in the ignition, in a high-crime neighborhood), or that is very attractive to a thief but is very well protected (a brand-new luxury car on the White House grounds), would fall into the Low Threat/Vulnerability category.
Step 3. Create a grid with all the possible combinations of the first two steps, from Low Value, Low Threat/Vulnerability up to High Value, High Threat/Vulnerability. Then plot each set of information on the grid. This gives a clear view of where the greatest potential losses lie—not just in terms of the cost of a breach, but also in terms of its likelihood.
Step 4. Focus spending where it can reap the largest net benefits—where a given amount of money will produce the biggest reduction in potential loss.
Security investments should continue to be made as long as the incremental benefits are greater than the incremental costs—which usually stops being the case where the costs are roughly one-third of the total expected loss from a security breach.
Security breaches can have a substantial negative effect on corporations. However, contrary to conventional wisdom, the overwhelming majority of security breaches have little economic impact on corporations—all the more reason to use this kind of cost-benefit analysis to allocate finite information-security resources.
However, this approach is best thought of as a framework, not a panacea, for making sound information-security investments. It is not a magical formula that can be used to churn out exact answers. Rather, it should be used as a complement to, and not as a substitute for, sound business judgment.
For more technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.
A recent wave of information-security breaches at high-profile companies has many executives on heightened alert. They're trying to figure out everything they can do to prevent breaches, limit the damage if one occurs, and be prepared to rebound quickly from whatever harm is done.
As they consider their options, two questions loom large: How much should they spend to protect their companies' information? And how can they get the most for their money?
Our research suggests they should spend substantially less than the expected loss from a breach, and perhaps spend it differently than many might think. Investing in a managed IT service is a good way to go, as they typically offer security solutions, backup solutions, and disaster recovery solutions in the case of a breach.
The One-Third Mark
We developed a model to help executives determine the optimal level of investment to protect a given set of information—whether it's customers' personal information, company financial data, strategic-planning documents or something else. The model weighs the potential loss from a security breach, the probability that a loss will occur, and the effectiveness of additional investments in security.
One key finding from the model: The amount a firm should spend to protect information is generally no more than one-third or so of the projected loss from a breach. Above that level, in most cases, each dollar spent will reduce the anticipated loss by less than a dollar.
A second key finding: It doesn't always pay to spend the biggest share of the security budget to protect the information that is most vulnerable to attack, as many companies do. For some highly vulnerable information, reducing the likelihood of breaches by even a modest amount is just too costly. In that case, companies may well get more bang for their buck by focusing their spending on protection for information that is less vulnerable.
Working It Out
The following four-step approach has proved useful in helping executives sort all this out:
Step 1. Estimate the potential loss from a security breach for each of the company's various sets of information. For starters, it's useful to simply categorize information sets as having either Low Value, Medium Value or High Value.
Step 2. For each set of information, estimate the likelihood that it will be stolen, by examining the probability of an attempt to steal the information and the vulnerability of the information to attack. Again, broad categories are useful: Designate each set of information as either Low Threat/Vulnerability, Medium Threat/Vulnerability or High Threat/Vulnerability.
To combine the two factors, assign each a numerical rating—say, on a scale from 1 to 10—and multiply the two numbers by each other.
Using that scale, you might consider any combined ranking below 30 to be Low Threat/Vulnerability, and any ranking above 70 to be High Threat/Vulnerability; different people will draw those lines in different places.
A key point: Information that is highly vulnerable to attack but unlikely to interest a hacker (think of a banged-up old subcompact parked with the keys in the ignition, in a high-crime neighborhood), or that is very attractive to a thief but is very well protected (a brand-new luxury car on the White House grounds), would fall into the Low Threat/Vulnerability category.
Step 3. Create a grid with all the possible combinations of the first two steps, from Low Value, Low Threat/Vulnerability up to High Value, High Threat/Vulnerability. Then plot each set of information on the grid. This gives a clear view of where the greatest potential losses lie—not just in terms of the cost of a breach, but also in terms of its likelihood.
Step 4. Focus spending where it can reap the largest net benefits—where a given amount of money will produce the biggest reduction in potential loss.
Security investments should continue to be made as long as the incremental benefits are greater than the incremental costs—which usually stops being the case where the costs are roughly one-third of the total expected loss from a security breach.
Security breaches can have a substantial negative effect on corporations. However, contrary to conventional wisdom, the overwhelming majority of security breaches have little economic impact on corporations—all the more reason to use this kind of cost-benefit analysis to allocate finite information-security resources.
However, this approach is best thought of as a framework, not a panacea, for making sound information-security investments. It is not a magical formula that can be used to churn out exact answers. Rather, it should be used as a complement to, and not as a substitute for, sound business judgment.
For more technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Physical Books Not Outdated Yet
Story first appeared in the Los Angeles Times.
Reading habits may be fundamentally changing, but a new survey shows that the printed word remains fundamental.
Although many Californians who own Kindles, Nooks and other e-readers love their gadgets, they still prefer books the old-fashioned way — on paper — according to a poll by USC Dornsife and the Los Angeles Times.
Even with sales of e-readers surging, only 10% of respondents who have one said they had abandoned traditional books. More than half said most or all of the books they read are in printed form.
The pleasure of reading endures in the digital age, even with its nearly boundless options for entertainment, according to data collected from 1,500 registered state voters. Six in 10 people said they like to read "a lot," and more than 20% reported reading books for more than 10 hours a week.
Young adults — often assumed to be uninterested — read about as much as many of their elders. An overwhelming portion (84%) of those ages 18 to 29 said they like to read some or a lot; that's only a percentage point less than for respondents 50 and older. Sixty-five percent of the younger group said they read books for pleasure three or more hours a week; 69% of those 50 to 64 said the same.
And age is clearly no barrier to new habits. Folks over 50 are embracing some new reading technology at about the same rate as younger people. Twenty-two percent of those ages 18 to 49 own e-readers; 20% of people 50 and older have them.
How much education people have helps determine how much — and how — they read, the poll shows. More than 7 in 10 college-educated respondents said they read "a lot," while only half of those with no college said they did. Those who went to college are also more likely to use an e-reader.
Owners of e-readers are more likely to read books, read more books and spend more hours each week reading. About 4 in 10 said they devoured four or more books a month.
Technology has turned some people away from the printed book however. When you travel for work alot, carrying books is awkward and bulky.
But the sensation of hefting a physical book, opening its thick cover and turning its delicate pages is hard-wired in some people. Words illuminated on screens are a cold substitute.
The poll was conducted for USC's Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences and the Los Angeles Times by two companies: Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and American Viewpoint. The survey took place March 14-19. The margin of error is 2.9%.
For more technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.
Reading habits may be fundamentally changing, but a new survey shows that the printed word remains fundamental.
Although many Californians who own Kindles, Nooks and other e-readers love their gadgets, they still prefer books the old-fashioned way — on paper — according to a poll by USC Dornsife and the Los Angeles Times.
Even with sales of e-readers surging, only 10% of respondents who have one said they had abandoned traditional books. More than half said most or all of the books they read are in printed form.
The pleasure of reading endures in the digital age, even with its nearly boundless options for entertainment, according to data collected from 1,500 registered state voters. Six in 10 people said they like to read "a lot," and more than 20% reported reading books for more than 10 hours a week.
Young adults — often assumed to be uninterested — read about as much as many of their elders. An overwhelming portion (84%) of those ages 18 to 29 said they like to read some or a lot; that's only a percentage point less than for respondents 50 and older. Sixty-five percent of the younger group said they read books for pleasure three or more hours a week; 69% of those 50 to 64 said the same.
And age is clearly no barrier to new habits. Folks over 50 are embracing some new reading technology at about the same rate as younger people. Twenty-two percent of those ages 18 to 49 own e-readers; 20% of people 50 and older have them.
How much education people have helps determine how much — and how — they read, the poll shows. More than 7 in 10 college-educated respondents said they read "a lot," while only half of those with no college said they did. Those who went to college are also more likely to use an e-reader.
Owners of e-readers are more likely to read books, read more books and spend more hours each week reading. About 4 in 10 said they devoured four or more books a month.
Technology has turned some people away from the printed book however. When you travel for work alot, carrying books is awkward and bulky.
But the sensation of hefting a physical book, opening its thick cover and turning its delicate pages is hard-wired in some people. Words illuminated on screens are a cold substitute.
The poll was conducted for USC's Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences and the Los Angeles Times by two companies: Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and American Viewpoint. The survey took place March 14-19. The margin of error is 2.9%.
For more technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Apple Patents Cause A Stir
Story first appeared in the Wall Street Journal.
Customers shopping for Apple Inc.'s iPhone might pay little attention to the gadget's "slide to unlock" feature, but you would never know that from a quick glance at Apple's current roster of patent lawsuits.
The technology giant has secured two key U.S. patents on slide-to-unlock—a technology that lets users wake a dormant phone with a finger-swipe across the screen. And it is wielding those patents like swords against rivals around the world.
In recent months, Apple has sued HTC Corp. in Delaware and Germany over one of those patents and others. It has used the patents to fight back against suits Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. filed against it in Miami and Germany. And it has invoked them in lawsuits against Samsung Electronics Co. in Australia, the Netherlands, and San Jose, Calif.
As competition in the more than $200 billion global smartphone industry becomes more cutthroat, Apple and its competitors argue that even the most minor unique features are crucial to getting an edge.
They are engaged in a lawsuit-filing frenzy, asserting their rights to dozens of patents to block rival products. Their goal: to find a patent that sticks, and to force competitors to work around it or strike a licensing deal. Slide-to-unlock is one of those patents, though it hardly seems central to a smartphone. Its history—and future—show how today's battles are being waged.
About five years ago, the computer and mobile-phone industries collided. Technological advances turned phones into minicomputers, complete with email, Web access and other features.
Companies from different corners of industry saw opportunity—and pounced. Among them: phone makers like Nokia Corp. and Motorola; computer-hardware makers like Apple; software giants such as Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp.; and others, including South Korean electronics giant Samsung.
From the get-go, companies fought fiercely for consumer dollars with huge marketing blitzes.
Behind the scenes, another battle was brewing over intellectual property. Almost overnight, every player had developed a gripe. The traditional phone makers claimed, for instance, that Apple was abusing their long-held rights to data-transmission designs. Apple complained others were ripping off its designs.
In the past two years, legal disputes have erupted over digital-image storage methods, camera designs, Wi-Fi technologies and well-known software applications like email and calendars, as well as secondary features most consumers barely notice.
The stakes are rising for Apple. Despite the iPhone's popularity, its market share has been eclipsed by phones that run Android, Google's mobile operating software.
Fueling the fire at Apple: a sense among executives there that rivals are blatantly stealing its designs. Apple co-founder and CEO, who died in October, said in an authorized biography that he would "spend every penny" to fight copycats.
The current Apple CEO told investors in October that Apple spends a lot of time and money and resource in coming up with incredible innovations. And they don't like it when someone else takes those.
Through litigation—or the threat of it—Apple has prompted companies to install time-consuming and, in some instances, costly "workarounds" to avoid infringing its patents.
But Apple has yet to permanently knock any of its competitors' products out of the market.
Several rivals, meanwhile, have struck back against Apple, accusing the company of using their own patented designs.
At the center of the war is slide-to-unlock. It dates to late 2005, more than a year before Apple announced a product with a touchscreen.
Three diagrams from a patent awarded in 2012 to Swedish company Neonode that surprised both Apple and Samsung. Neonode first made its patent claim in 2002, three years before Apple's application.
The first iPhone was in the works at the time, and Apple's software engineers, including one of its current senior vice presidents, felt the need for a feature that would prevent the phone from accidentally making a call or sending a text message when pulled from a pocket or jostled in a purse.
Apple's engineers regarded slide-to-unlock as important because it flavored a user's first experience with the device, according to a person familiar with the matter. The team tried many iterations, this person said, from different finger-swiping speeds to different-shaped motions.
Two days before Christmas 2005, Apple filed a patent application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office containing a handful of rudimentary drawings with ovals and circles.
The diagrams showed an early version of the design that current iPhone models use: a white rectangle with rounded edges that, when touched and dragged to the right, slides alongside a horizontal channel until the device "unlocks" and opens to the home screen.
The patent office granted Apple the patent four years later, in early 2010. That March, Apple sued HTC in Delaware for allegedly infringing slide-to-unlock and other features.
According to a person familiar with the matter, Apple felt that it would be a good starter case because the company thought it was particularly easy to see that HTC had imitated the iPhone interface—by using similar rows of icons, for example.
A spokesman for HTC declined to comment.
Several months later, Apple asserted claims against Motorola in Florida, where Motorola was already suing Apple, alleging that over a dozen Motorola products violated Apple's slide-to-unlock patent.
The slide-to-unlock used on many Motorola phones resembles Apple's in many ways. Users open the phone by dragging a finger from left to right across the bottom of the phone's screen. But the visual representations of the sliding motion are somewhat different.
Apple users see a white rectangle move across the screen while, with the Motorola phones, the slide of a finger extends a bar across the screen. Partly for this reason, Motorola claims its so-called "stretch to unlock" doesn't infringe Apple's patent.
Samsung, however, posed a unique challenge for Apple on slide-to-unlock. While Apple was waiting for its patent to be issued, Samsung unveiled phones that opened when a user touched the center of a circle on the screen, and dragged a finger to any point outside the circle.
Samsung's design was different, but in the mind of Apple executives, not different enough. So, in 2009 Apple went back to the patent office, according to a person familiar with the matter, and asked for a patent that would cover a wider variety of slide-to-unlock designs.
Apple got such a patent last October, and in February the company filed suit in San Jose against Samsung, alleging Samsung violated an array of patents, including slide-to-unlock.
Earlier this year, the combatants all got a surprise: an obscure Swedish touchscreen maker called Neonode Inc. disclosed that it had received a patent for a version of slide-to-unlock. Its technology let a mobile-device user switch from one application to another by swiping a finger across a screen.
The company, which briefly made a line of phones prior to a 2008 bankruptcy, had used the mechanism in one of its models.
Neonode declined to comment. But in a recent Apple-Samsung battle over slide-to-unlock in the Netherlands, Samsung held up Neonode designs as examples of "prior art," or evidence that Apple's patents on slide-to-unlock should never have been granted in the first place because someone else had actually beaten Apple to the idea.
A person close to Samsung said the company is likely to use Neonode's patent to try to knock out Apple in the San Jose case. Samsung has other arguments as well: Sliding locks have been around since the Middle Ages, and Apple didn't invent touchscreens. The combination of the two fits the definition of obvious.
In Apple's only win so far on slide-to-unlock, a judge in Munich ruled in February that two of Motorola's designs violated a European version of Apple's slide-to-unlock patent.
Motorola, however, quickly "designed around" Apple's patent, and its phones remained on the German market.
Many intellectual-property experts think that the smartphone war will end in a flurry of licensing and cross-licensing agreements, but that it's taking way too much time and money to get there.
When you have companies spending hundreds of millions in litigation, something is seriously wrong with the patent system.
For more technology related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
Customers shopping for Apple Inc.'s iPhone might pay little attention to the gadget's "slide to unlock" feature, but you would never know that from a quick glance at Apple's current roster of patent lawsuits.
The technology giant has secured two key U.S. patents on slide-to-unlock—a technology that lets users wake a dormant phone with a finger-swipe across the screen. And it is wielding those patents like swords against rivals around the world.
In recent months, Apple has sued HTC Corp. in Delaware and Germany over one of those patents and others. It has used the patents to fight back against suits Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. filed against it in Miami and Germany. And it has invoked them in lawsuits against Samsung Electronics Co. in Australia, the Netherlands, and San Jose, Calif.
As competition in the more than $200 billion global smartphone industry becomes more cutthroat, Apple and its competitors argue that even the most minor unique features are crucial to getting an edge.
They are engaged in a lawsuit-filing frenzy, asserting their rights to dozens of patents to block rival products. Their goal: to find a patent that sticks, and to force competitors to work around it or strike a licensing deal. Slide-to-unlock is one of those patents, though it hardly seems central to a smartphone. Its history—and future—show how today's battles are being waged.
About five years ago, the computer and mobile-phone industries collided. Technological advances turned phones into minicomputers, complete with email, Web access and other features.
Companies from different corners of industry saw opportunity—and pounced. Among them: phone makers like Nokia Corp. and Motorola; computer-hardware makers like Apple; software giants such as Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp.; and others, including South Korean electronics giant Samsung.
From the get-go, companies fought fiercely for consumer dollars with huge marketing blitzes.
Behind the scenes, another battle was brewing over intellectual property. Almost overnight, every player had developed a gripe. The traditional phone makers claimed, for instance, that Apple was abusing their long-held rights to data-transmission designs. Apple complained others were ripping off its designs.
In the past two years, legal disputes have erupted over digital-image storage methods, camera designs, Wi-Fi technologies and well-known software applications like email and calendars, as well as secondary features most consumers barely notice.
The stakes are rising for Apple. Despite the iPhone's popularity, its market share has been eclipsed by phones that run Android, Google's mobile operating software.
Fueling the fire at Apple: a sense among executives there that rivals are blatantly stealing its designs. Apple co-founder and CEO, who died in October, said in an authorized biography that he would "spend every penny" to fight copycats.
The current Apple CEO told investors in October that Apple spends a lot of time and money and resource in coming up with incredible innovations. And they don't like it when someone else takes those.
Through litigation—or the threat of it—Apple has prompted companies to install time-consuming and, in some instances, costly "workarounds" to avoid infringing its patents.
But Apple has yet to permanently knock any of its competitors' products out of the market.
Several rivals, meanwhile, have struck back against Apple, accusing the company of using their own patented designs.
At the center of the war is slide-to-unlock. It dates to late 2005, more than a year before Apple announced a product with a touchscreen.
Three diagrams from a patent awarded in 2012 to Swedish company Neonode that surprised both Apple and Samsung. Neonode first made its patent claim in 2002, three years before Apple's application.
The first iPhone was in the works at the time, and Apple's software engineers, including one of its current senior vice presidents, felt the need for a feature that would prevent the phone from accidentally making a call or sending a text message when pulled from a pocket or jostled in a purse.
Apple's engineers regarded slide-to-unlock as important because it flavored a user's first experience with the device, according to a person familiar with the matter. The team tried many iterations, this person said, from different finger-swiping speeds to different-shaped motions.
Two days before Christmas 2005, Apple filed a patent application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office containing a handful of rudimentary drawings with ovals and circles.
The diagrams showed an early version of the design that current iPhone models use: a white rectangle with rounded edges that, when touched and dragged to the right, slides alongside a horizontal channel until the device "unlocks" and opens to the home screen.
The patent office granted Apple the patent four years later, in early 2010. That March, Apple sued HTC in Delaware for allegedly infringing slide-to-unlock and other features.
According to a person familiar with the matter, Apple felt that it would be a good starter case because the company thought it was particularly easy to see that HTC had imitated the iPhone interface—by using similar rows of icons, for example.
A spokesman for HTC declined to comment.
Several months later, Apple asserted claims against Motorola in Florida, where Motorola was already suing Apple, alleging that over a dozen Motorola products violated Apple's slide-to-unlock patent.
The slide-to-unlock used on many Motorola phones resembles Apple's in many ways. Users open the phone by dragging a finger from left to right across the bottom of the phone's screen. But the visual representations of the sliding motion are somewhat different.
Apple users see a white rectangle move across the screen while, with the Motorola phones, the slide of a finger extends a bar across the screen. Partly for this reason, Motorola claims its so-called "stretch to unlock" doesn't infringe Apple's patent.
Samsung, however, posed a unique challenge for Apple on slide-to-unlock. While Apple was waiting for its patent to be issued, Samsung unveiled phones that opened when a user touched the center of a circle on the screen, and dragged a finger to any point outside the circle.
Samsung's design was different, but in the mind of Apple executives, not different enough. So, in 2009 Apple went back to the patent office, according to a person familiar with the matter, and asked for a patent that would cover a wider variety of slide-to-unlock designs.
Apple got such a patent last October, and in February the company filed suit in San Jose against Samsung, alleging Samsung violated an array of patents, including slide-to-unlock.
Earlier this year, the combatants all got a surprise: an obscure Swedish touchscreen maker called Neonode Inc. disclosed that it had received a patent for a version of slide-to-unlock. Its technology let a mobile-device user switch from one application to another by swiping a finger across a screen.
The company, which briefly made a line of phones prior to a 2008 bankruptcy, had used the mechanism in one of its models.
Neonode declined to comment. But in a recent Apple-Samsung battle over slide-to-unlock in the Netherlands, Samsung held up Neonode designs as examples of "prior art," or evidence that Apple's patents on slide-to-unlock should never have been granted in the first place because someone else had actually beaten Apple to the idea.
A person close to Samsung said the company is likely to use Neonode's patent to try to knock out Apple in the San Jose case. Samsung has other arguments as well: Sliding locks have been around since the Middle Ages, and Apple didn't invent touchscreens. The combination of the two fits the definition of obvious.
In Apple's only win so far on slide-to-unlock, a judge in Munich ruled in February that two of Motorola's designs violated a European version of Apple's slide-to-unlock patent.
Motorola, however, quickly "designed around" Apple's patent, and its phones remained on the German market.
Many intellectual-property experts think that the smartphone war will end in a flurry of licensing and cross-licensing agreements, but that it's taking way too much time and money to get there.
When you have companies spending hundreds of millions in litigation, something is seriously wrong with the patent system.
For more technology related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Former Intel Employee Stealing Top Secret Documents
Story first appeared on CIO
A former Intel employee has pleaded guilty to stealing confidential documents from the company, according to court records.
The employee has pleaded guilty to five counts relating to the illegal download of confidential documents from Intel's servers, according to a plea agreement entered last week between the employee and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. An Intellectual Property Lawyer in Boston has been following the case.
An employee of Intel's Massachusetts Microprocessor Development Center, working on the design of Itanium processors, is said to have resigned from Intel on May 29, 2008, and took leave from Intel up to June 11, purportedly to use accrued vacation time.
The employee, however joined Intel's rival Advanced Micro Devices on June 2, while still on Intel's payroll, and continuing to have access to Intel's servers. He returned to Intel on June 11 for an exit interview on what was to be his last day at Intel, according to his indictment in 2008.
From June 8 through June 11, the employee downloaded 13 "top secret" Intel design documents from the company's servers in California, according to the indictment. He copied them from his Intel-issued laptop to an external drive to have access to the documents after he returned the laptop to Intel. He is said to have tried to access the servers again around June 13 after he found that he could not access the documents offline because he had not completed the procedure required for viewing the encrypted documents offline.
AMD neither requested the information that had been downloaded and kept from Intel, nor knew that the employee had taken or would take the information, according to the indictment. The employee is said to have downloaded the documents to further his career at AMD or someplace else when the opportunity arose. A Boston Copyright Lawyer states that this not only falls under Intellectual Property Law but could also be violating Copyright Laws.
In the filing before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts last week, the U.S. Attorney recommended six years of incarceration to the court, instead of the maximum of 20 years on each count, because among other things the government has no evidence that he used, sold, transferred, or offered the proprietary information, or any direct evidence of specifically how he intended to use the information.
For more technology related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
A former Intel employee has pleaded guilty to stealing confidential documents from the company, according to court records.
The employee has pleaded guilty to five counts relating to the illegal download of confidential documents from Intel's servers, according to a plea agreement entered last week between the employee and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. An Intellectual Property Lawyer in Boston has been following the case.
An employee of Intel's Massachusetts Microprocessor Development Center, working on the design of Itanium processors, is said to have resigned from Intel on May 29, 2008, and took leave from Intel up to June 11, purportedly to use accrued vacation time.
The employee, however joined Intel's rival Advanced Micro Devices on June 2, while still on Intel's payroll, and continuing to have access to Intel's servers. He returned to Intel on June 11 for an exit interview on what was to be his last day at Intel, according to his indictment in 2008.
From June 8 through June 11, the employee downloaded 13 "top secret" Intel design documents from the company's servers in California, according to the indictment. He copied them from his Intel-issued laptop to an external drive to have access to the documents after he returned the laptop to Intel. He is said to have tried to access the servers again around June 13 after he found that he could not access the documents offline because he had not completed the procedure required for viewing the encrypted documents offline.
AMD neither requested the information that had been downloaded and kept from Intel, nor knew that the employee had taken or would take the information, according to the indictment. The employee is said to have downloaded the documents to further his career at AMD or someplace else when the opportunity arose. A Boston Copyright Lawyer states that this not only falls under Intellectual Property Law but could also be violating Copyright Laws.
In the filing before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts last week, the U.S. Attorney recommended six years of incarceration to the court, instead of the maximum of 20 years on each count, because among other things the government has no evidence that he used, sold, transferred, or offered the proprietary information, or any direct evidence of specifically how he intended to use the information.
For more technology related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Industrial Milling Makes the Grade
Story first appeared in Singularity Hub
Industrial robots are getting precise enough that they’re less like dumb machines and more like automated sculptors producing artwork.
Case in point: Daishin’s Seki 5-axis mill. The Japanese company celebrated its 50th anniversary last year by using this machine to carve out a full scale motorcycle helmet out of one piece of aluminum. No breaks, no joints, the 5-Axis mill simply pivots and rotates to carve metal at some absurd angles. Every cut is guided by sophisticated 3D design software (Openmind’s HyperMill). While the Daishin helmet made a nice showpiece for a biannual meeting of machining companies (EMO), this level of production is becoming the new standard. Your average industrial company got hi-tech in a hurry and now we have machines that can transform computer designs into the highest quality professional metal objects, seemingly at a push of a button. Human machinists are left in the dust.
Automated production has really progressed to a point where humans can’t keep up. The real challenge is between two different styles of robotic production: printing and machining. In a world with 3D printers that can work in metal, taking a huge block of aluminum and cutting it down may seem practically medieval. Milling, however, is still the best way to produce high-grade metal objects suitable for use in other machines. You can’t build a working diesel engine out of a 3D printer…yet. While we’re waiting for that technology to mature, the machining sector is developing new capabilities that keep it competitive.
Information technology has crept into everything, and where it goes, innovation follows. So it is with the Daishin Seki machine’s 5 axes which are guided by the Hypermill software. These industrial robots can carve exquisite pieces out of materials 3D printers can’t touch. Eventually production may belong to 3D printers, but for now the industrial robots sculptors are showing us that they’ve still got years of unparalleled work ahead of them. As for humans…well, we’ve moved from the machine room floor to the designer’s chair. That’s okay; the coffee’s better in the chair, anyway.
For more technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
Industrial robots are getting precise enough that they’re less like dumb machines and more like automated sculptors producing artwork.
Case in point: Daishin’s Seki 5-axis mill. The Japanese company celebrated its 50th anniversary last year by using this machine to carve out a full scale motorcycle helmet out of one piece of aluminum. No breaks, no joints, the 5-Axis mill simply pivots and rotates to carve metal at some absurd angles. Every cut is guided by sophisticated 3D design software (Openmind’s HyperMill). While the Daishin helmet made a nice showpiece for a biannual meeting of machining companies (EMO), this level of production is becoming the new standard. Your average industrial company got hi-tech in a hurry and now we have machines that can transform computer designs into the highest quality professional metal objects, seemingly at a push of a button. Human machinists are left in the dust.
Automated production has really progressed to a point where humans can’t keep up. The real challenge is between two different styles of robotic production: printing and machining. In a world with 3D printers that can work in metal, taking a huge block of aluminum and cutting it down may seem practically medieval. Milling, however, is still the best way to produce high-grade metal objects suitable for use in other machines. You can’t build a working diesel engine out of a 3D printer…yet. While we’re waiting for that technology to mature, the machining sector is developing new capabilities that keep it competitive.
Information technology has crept into everything, and where it goes, innovation follows. So it is with the Daishin Seki machine’s 5 axes which are guided by the Hypermill software. These industrial robots can carve exquisite pieces out of materials 3D printers can’t touch. Eventually production may belong to 3D printers, but for now the industrial robots sculptors are showing us that they’ve still got years of unparalleled work ahead of them. As for humans…well, we’ve moved from the machine room floor to the designer’s chair. That’s okay; the coffee’s better in the chair, anyway.
For more technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Utah Medicaid Database Hacked
Story first appeared in the Chicago Tribune.
SALT LAKE CITY (Reuters) - A data security breach at the Utah Health Department, believed to be the work of Eastern European hackers, has exposed 24,000 U.S. Medicaid files bearing names, Social Security numbers and other private information, state officials said on Wednesday.
The intrusion initially appeared to have affected claims representing at least 9 percent of the 260,000 clients of Medicaid in Utah. But because each file often contains information on more than one individual, the full extent of the breach is probably wider, officials said.
Medicaid is a federal-state program that helps pay for healthcare for the needy, the aged and disabled. The state determines eligibility and which services are covered, and the federal government reimburses a percentage of the state's expenditures.
Hudachko said the Technology Services Department notified state health officials Monday evening about the cyber attack.
Technology Services had recently moved the claims in question to a new server, allowing the hackers "to circumvent the server's multi-layered security system," according to officials.
He said the cyber attack is believed to have originated in Eastern Europe, based on a suspicious Internet Protocol, or IP, address, but investigators are still trying to pinpoint the precise source. It is possible that an outsourced IT Security Solution could have prevented this issue.
GRAVE CONCERNS
Utah state Senator Allen Christensen, who also is a practicing dentist, said each compromised claim is going to have two parties involved - both the recipient and the provider.
The chairman for the Utah State Health and Human Services Committee, expressed grave concerns over the impact on the Medicaid population in Utah and suggested the database was left vulnerable by human error. An outsourced IT Security Solution would have been a good option to alleviate any possible human error.
State officials said they were examining all servers and reviewing policies and procedures to ensure effective security measures are in place.
The compromised files also contain individuals' names, addresses and other private information.
State Health officials are urging all their Medicaid clients and providers to keep a wary eye on their bank accounts and other personal records. Customers whose Social Security numbers are found to have been compromised will receive free credit monitoring services, officials said.
For more technology related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
SALT LAKE CITY (Reuters) - A data security breach at the Utah Health Department, believed to be the work of Eastern European hackers, has exposed 24,000 U.S. Medicaid files bearing names, Social Security numbers and other private information, state officials said on Wednesday.
The intrusion initially appeared to have affected claims representing at least 9 percent of the 260,000 clients of Medicaid in Utah. But because each file often contains information on more than one individual, the full extent of the breach is probably wider, officials said.
Medicaid is a federal-state program that helps pay for healthcare for the needy, the aged and disabled. The state determines eligibility and which services are covered, and the federal government reimburses a percentage of the state's expenditures.
Hudachko said the Technology Services Department notified state health officials Monday evening about the cyber attack.
Technology Services had recently moved the claims in question to a new server, allowing the hackers "to circumvent the server's multi-layered security system," according to officials.
He said the cyber attack is believed to have originated in Eastern Europe, based on a suspicious Internet Protocol, or IP, address, but investigators are still trying to pinpoint the precise source. It is possible that an outsourced IT Security Solution could have prevented this issue.
GRAVE CONCERNS
Utah state Senator Allen Christensen, who also is a practicing dentist, said each compromised claim is going to have two parties involved - both the recipient and the provider.
The chairman for the Utah State Health and Human Services Committee, expressed grave concerns over the impact on the Medicaid population in Utah and suggested the database was left vulnerable by human error. An outsourced IT Security Solution would have been a good option to alleviate any possible human error.
State officials said they were examining all servers and reviewing policies and procedures to ensure effective security measures are in place.
The compromised files also contain individuals' names, addresses and other private information.
State Health officials are urging all their Medicaid clients and providers to keep a wary eye on their bank accounts and other personal records. Customers whose Social Security numbers are found to have been compromised will receive free credit monitoring services, officials said.
For more technology related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
