February 2012

Apple Tightens Up on Apps

Apple is again frustrating legions of application developers by replicating its regime for mobile devices in the world of desktop software.

The company will soon enforce tighter controls over software built for Mac computers by restricting how some apps can access certain parts of the operating system and hardware, such as the camera, network or photo library. Apple says the rules are necessary for security reasons, as it aims to standardize consumers' experience across all Apple devices. But developers say they may be forced to remove certain features from their apps, and the move could create extra work for Mac owners, who may have to download additional software to access those features. At issue is Apple's decision to introduce a process known as "sandboxing" for apps sold through its Mac App store, a year-old offering that functions much as the online storefront previously established to market software for the iPhone and iPad. More than 100 million apps have been downloaded from the store, Apple says. The requirement means that if developers want an app to perform functions like connecting to the Internet or syncing data with some other apps they will have to request permission from Apple when they submit their apps. Previously they could access these features, and many others, without company approval.

Momentum growing for sales taxes on online purchases

Attention, online shoppers. The days of tax-free online shopping may be coming to an end. More than a dozen states have enacted legislation or rules to force online retailers to collect sales taxes on purchases, according to tax publisher CCH. Similar legislation is pending in 10 states. Reasons for the spread of online sales tax laws: Budget shortfalls, Heavy lobbying from retailers, and Gridlock in Congress.

US to Clear Google's Deal

The Justice Department is poised to clear Google's $12.5 billion acquisition of Motorola Mobility as early as next week, according to people familiar with the matter, giving Google a powerful armory of technology patents to deploy in the smartphone wars. However, antitrust enforcers in the US and Europe remain concerned about Google's commitment to license Motorola patents to competitors on fair terms, those people said, and will closely monitor Google's use of the patents. The European Commission has set a Feb 13 deadline to decide whether to approve the acquisition.

The Justice Department also is set to clear a second tech-patent deal that has raised antitrust concerns in the smartphone industry. It will allow a consortium of tech companies including Apple, Microsoft and Research In Motion to acquire a trove of patents from bankrupt Canadian telecom-equipment maker Nortel Networks for $4.5 billion, people familiar with the matter said. Investigators had been looking at whether those tech companies were planning to use the patents to unfairly hobble competing smartphones using Google's Android software.

Chutzpah: Google also wants 2.25% of every iPhone sale

In a letter to the IEEE -- the nonprofit organization that sets technical standards for everything from AC/DC converters to Wi-Fi networks – Google states that when it is through buying Motorola (MOT) and its 17,000 patents, it is prepared to ask for the same "maximum per-unit royalty of 2.25%" that Motorola is demanding of Apple for every iPhone sale.

Apple has complained in European courts that Motorola's demand is unfair, unreasonable and totally discriminatory. To outsiders, 2.25% may not seem like a lot, but consider this: The online database maintained by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute lists 4,956 standards covering 117,964 patents filed by 175 companies. If each of them demanded 2.25% every time a competitor tried to build a compatible device, the industry would grind to a halt. One can only imagine what Steve Jobs would say to Google's latest gambit. The proprietary technology he felt Google had "stolen" (his word) from Apple to build Android was original work, and not something Apple had asked to be made an industry standard. To try to create an equivalence with so-called essential patents -- at least one of which dates back to the age of the pager -- that Motorola promised at the time to share fairly with all comers may be the modern definition of chutzpah.

Microsoft’s Shift Over Industry-Standard Patents Timed to Undercut Google

Microsoft’s vow to negotiate with competitors over industry-standard patents, instead of trying to block their products, marks a change from the company’s position less than a year ago.

Microsoft, Google and Apple are staking out positions on standard-setting patents amid global litigation over wireless devices and tighter regulatory scrutiny. The Microsoft pledge, and an Apple policy made public Feb. 7, were timed to undermine Google, said Andrew Updegrove, a lawyer with Gesmer Updegrove in Boston. “You already have Google increasingly under the spotlight,” said Updegrove, who advises standard-setting boards on intellectual property policies. “They’re living in a tighter and tighter confinement just because their market power is increasing.” By issuing policies that contrast with Google, Microsoft and Apple “are playing to the marketplace and they’re playing to the regulators,” he said.

Apple Loses Bid to Ban German Samsung Sales

Apple, for the second time, failed to win a ban on sales of Samsung’s Galaxy 10.1N from a German court.

The Dusseldorf Regional Court rejected the bid for an emergency ruling in a case where Apple invoked a European design right. Apple last week lost a similar attempt over a technology patent in a Munich court. A Dusseldorf appeals court last week upheld Apple’s request to ban sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, the predecessor model, which the company had won in the same lower court that rejected today’s bid. Samsung began selling the Galaxy Tab 10.1N, a revised version, in Germany last year to get around that ban. Samsung lost two patent rulings against its rival in a Mannheim court last month.

Tim Berners-Lee Takes the Stand to Keep the Web Free

The inventor of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, testified in a courtroom Feb 7for the first time in his life. The web pioneer flew down from Boston, near where he teaches at MIT, to an eastern Texas federal court to speak to a jury of two men and six women about the early days of the web. His trip is part of an effort by a group of internet companies and retailers trying to defeat two patents — patents that a patent-licensing company called Eolas and the University of California are saying entitle them to royalty payments from just about anyone running a website with “interactive” features, like rotating pictures or streaming video. The defendants -- including Google, Amazon, and Yahoo -- are hoping that Berners-Lee’s testimony -- combined with that of other web pioneers like Netscape co-founder Eric Bina, Viola browser inventor Pei-Yuan Wei, and Dave Raggett (who invented the HTML “embed” tag) -- will convince the jury that the inventions of Eolas and its founder, Michael Doyle, aren’t worth much. The stakes couldn’t be higher — if Berners-Lee and the defendants don’t succeed, Eolas and Doyle could insist on a payout from almost every modern website.

Smaller cell carriers urge Congress to give FCC flexibility in spectrum auctions

A coalition of wireless carriers urged Congress to give the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) flexibility in how it manages proposed auctions of wireless airwave licenses, widely known as spectrum.

The companies signing onto the letter included Sprint and T-Mobile, as well as regional carriers such as Atlantic Tele-Network, Bluegrass Cellular, C Spire Wireless, Cricket Communications and NorthwestCell. The groups warned that tying the FCC's hands would allow "the two largest, best-funded wireless carriers" to buy up all of the available airwaves in the auctions. In their letter to conference committee lawmakers, the smaller companies argued that restricting the FCC would reduce revenue in the long-run by limiting competition and discouraging smaller firms from participating in future auctions.

GigaOM Acquires paidContent

GigaOM, a technology media company, has acquired ContentNext Media, the parent company of paidContent, from Guardian News & Media, for an undisclosed sum.

With the purchase of ContentNext, GigaOM will acquire a collection of online publications, including paidContent, a site that tracks the online media industry, mocoNews.net and contentSutra.com. GigaOM’s acquisition comes as consolidation is increasing in the digital media industry. Over the last year, several technology and business news sites have been folded into larger media organizations. Last fall, AOL purchased TechCrunch, a GigaOM rival, for tens of millions of dollars. In December, SAY Media acquired ReadWriteWeb, another popular technology blog, for an undisclosed sum.

The Guardian, best known for its namesake British publication, acquired ContentNext in 2008 for 4 million pounds, according to a report by the Guardian, citing financials disclosed in 2010. But it has since cooled on its investment, turning instead to focus on building its Guardian brand in the United States. In November, the company announced it was putting ContentNext up for sale. With the acquisition, GigaOM will add 15 additional employees to its staff of 40, and expand its footprint in the New York and European markets. Like GigaOM, ContentNext also hosts conferences, which generate revenue through attendance and sponsors. The Guardian will retain a minority share in ContentNext and will hold an observer seat on the board. ContentNext’s network of sites attracts about 726,000 users and 1.5 million page views per month.

Founded in 2006 by journalist and technology investor Om Malik, GigaOM attracts about 4.5 million visitors per month. It has raised about $15 million from its venture capital investors, including Reed Elsevier Ventures, Alloy Ventures and True Ventures. But it has been fairly conservative with its balance sheet. ContentNext is the company’s largest acquisition to date, it previously acquired two small technology news sites in 2008.

Transportation official: LightSquared 'not compatible' with flight-safety devices

Transportation deputy secretary John Porcari told the House Transportation and Infrastructure's subcommittee on Aviation that LightSquared's planned wireless network is "not compatible" with flight-safety GPS devices used in commercial aircrafts.

He told lawmakers that LightSquared would disrupt GPS systems that pilots use to help them navigate in low altitudes, including devices that warn them when they are getting too close to terrain. Porcari said the Federal Aviation Administration has spent $2 million testing LightSquared's network. He called spending that amount of money to review a private company "quite unusual." Porcari said testing confirmed that LightSquared's signal is not bleeding into the GPS band, but he said GPS receivers are too sensitive too filter out LightSquared's powerful cell towers operating on nearby frequencies.