U.S. Judge Demands Uber Return Downloaded Documents to Waymo; New York Times, May 15, 2017

Reuters via New York Times; 

U.S. Judge Demands Uber Return Downloaded Documents to Waymo

"A U.S. judge ordered Uber Technologies Inc [UBER.UL] to promptly return any files that had been downloaded and taken from Alphabet Inc's Waymo self-driving car unit but said the ride-services company could continue work on its autonomous car technology.

The latest court ruling in a high-profile trade secrets case from U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco, made public on Monday, granted a partial injunction against Uber, which Waymo has accused of using stolen information to accelerate the building of its autonomous cars.

Alsup said in the ruling that Uber "likely knew" or should have known that the former Waymo engineer, Anthony Levandowski, who now works at Uber, took Waymo materials.

The case hinges on more than 14,000 confidential files that Waymo alleges Levandowski stole before he left the company."

Uber Executive Invokes Fifth Amendment, Seeking to Avoid Potential Charges; New York Times, March 30, 2017

Daisuke Wakabayashi and Mike Isaac, New York Times; 

Uber Executive Invokes Fifth Amendment, Seeking to Avoid Potential Charges

"“The more we get into this, it might look like a public relations disaster for Uber,” said Michael Carrier, a law professor at Rutgers University. “The mere fact that you’re pleading the Fifth doesn’t look good.”"

Google accuses a former top engineer of stealing trade secrets and taking them to Uber; Washington Post, February 23, 2017

Brian Fung, Washington Post; Google accuses a former top engineer of stealing trade secrets and taking them to Uber

"Google is suing Uber and alleging that a former employee engaged in a “concerted plan” to steal trade secrets related to the search giant's self-driving car technology.

In a blog post Thursday, Google's self-driving car subsidiary, Waymo, said that a former top executive who later went to work for Uber illegally downloaded troves of proprietary data onto an external hard drive before taking the information to his new employer."

Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle; Ars Technica, 2/11/17

David Kravets, Ars Technica; 

Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle

"Google successfully made its case to a jury last year that its use of Java APIs in Android was "fair use." A San Francisco federal jury rejected Oracle's claim that the mobile system infringed Oracle's copyrights.

But Oracle isn't backing down. Late Friday, the company appealed the high-profile verdict to a federal appeals court."

Conspiracy Theories Run Amok Over Copyright Office Executive Changes; Techdirt, 11/2/16

Mike Masnick, Techdirt; Conspiracy Theories Run Amok Over Copyright Office Executive Changes:

"...[S]ome folks who support ever more draconian copyright immediately jumped on all sorts of conspiracy theories about how this was really Google somehow firing Pallante, including one site that directly had that as a headline.

To anyone who actually had knowledge of what was going on, this made no sense. Hayden is not connected to Google in any way. This is just out and out tinfoil hat conspiracy theory territory from people who see "Google" behind any policy they dislike. It seemed rather obvious that, like just about any new CEO of an organization, Hayden was clearing out some senior staff for a variety of reasons. And there was a pretty obvious big reason why Hayden would like to reassign Pallante: she has been directly and publicly advocating for Congress to move the Copyright Office outside of the Library of Congress. If you came in to run an organization and one of your direct reports was going over your head to try to transfer an entire division somewhere else, it's likely you'd fire that person too. It's kind of a management 101 thing.

Over the past week, in talking to a few people at the Library of Congress, or close to it, this is the basic story that came out. Hayden didn't feel comfortable with Pallante publicly advocating against the Library of Congress, and used her role as the boss to remove her from that position. Others seem to be discovering the same thing. A report at Publisher's Weekly notes that the conspiracy theories are bunk:"

A Copyright Coup in Washington; Wall Street Journal, 11/2/16

Wall Street Journal; A Copyright Coup in Washington:

"Ms. Hayden is now looking for a copyright office successor, and don’t be surprised if she chooses someone whose experience includes time at Google. This is reason enough for Congress to take a look: If the position is open to political influence, then the register should be politically accountable—and report to elected officials, not the nation’s librarian.

Perhaps these are all coincidences and Ms. Hayden merely botched a personnel dispute. But she now has an opening to install a register friendly to Google, and anyone tempted to write off the Pallante dispute as bureaucratic squabbling should remember: The company’s goal is to defenestrate laws that protect property. The guarantee to own what you create is the reason entrepreneurs take the risks that power the economy—a reason guys like Larry Page and Sergey Brin start Google."

Guns N' Roses' Axl Rose is trying to get a 'fat photo' off the Internet; CNet, 6/5/16

Aloysius Low, CNet; Guns N' Roses' Axl Rose is trying to get a 'fat photo' off the Internet:

"What would you do if you were the lead singer of Guns N' Roses and some young punks on the Internet used a photo of you to make fat jokes? Well, Axl Rose thinks the best way to deal is to wipe all traces of the picture off the web, and he's starting with Google...

Interestingly, the copyright for the original image is tricky. While TorrentFreak did hunt down the original photographer to check if Axl Rose has the right to take down the image, Web Sheriff, the company performing the takedown, says that photographers at the singer's show sign an agreement transferring copyright ownership to his company."

IBM has been awarded an average of 24 patents per day so far in 2016; Quartz, 6/2/16

[2,500th post since this blog was started in 2008--Kip Currier]

Mike Murphy, Quartz; IBM has been awarded an average of 24 patents per day so far in 2016:

"The media tends to focus on the crazy things Google, Facebook, and Apple patent, but they’re still dwarfed by more traditional companies like IBM and Samsung when it comes to the number of patents they’re awarded each year. Through the first half of 2016, IBM has, yet again, been the leader in technology patents, averaging roughly 23.6 patents awarded each day..."

The company is in the middle of a painful reinvention, that sees the company shifting further away from hardware sales into cloud computing, analytics, and AI services. It’s also plugging away on a myriad of fundamental scientific research projects—many of which could revolutionize the world if they can come to fruition—which is where many of its patent applications originate."

Why Google's victory in a copyright fight with Oracle is a big deal; Vox, 5/26/16

Timothy B. Lee, Vox; Why Google's victory in a copyright fight with Oracle is a big deal:

"Google's version of Java didn't reuse any code from Oracle's version. But to ensure compatibility, Google's version used functions with the same names and functionality.

This practice was widely viewed as legal within the software world at the time Google did it, but Oracle sued, arguing that this was copyright infringement. Oracle argued that the list of Java function names and features constitutes a creative work, and that Google infringed Oracle's copyright when it included functions with the same names and features.

Google argued that the list of function names, known as an application programming interface (API), was not protected by copyright law.

Google's defenders pointed to a landmark 1995 ruling in which an appeals court held that the software company Borland had not infringed copyright when it created a spreadsheet program whose menus were organized in the same way as the menus in the more popular spreadsheet Lotus 1-2-3.

The court held that the order of Lotus 1-2-3 menu items was an uncopyrightable "method of operation." And it concluded that giving Lotus exclusive ownership over its menu structure would harm the public...

Google believed that its own copying was directly analogous to what Borland had done. There were thousands of programmers with expertise in writing Java programs. By designing its platform to respond to the same set of programming commands as Oracle's Java system, Google allowed Java programmers to become Android programmers with minimal training — just as Borland's decision to copy Lotus's menu structure avoided unnecessary training for seasoned Lotus 1-2-3 users."

Google Prevails as Jury Rebuffs Oracle in Code Copyright Case; New York Times, 5/26/16

Nick Wingfield and Quentin hardy, New York Times; Google Prevails as Jury Rebuffs Oracle in Code Copyright Case:

"Some lawyers cautioned against viewing the verdict as a green light for the type of software development Google performed, saying that the earlier federal appeals court decision validated the idea that A.P.I.s can be copyrighted.

“I don’t think the industry can sit back and rely on this decision and exhale and say these things won’t be protected,” said Christopher Carani, a lawyer at McAndrews, Held & Malloy. “I think what you’re still going to see is a lot more attention paid to securing approval to use other copyrights before the fact.”

John Bergmayer, a senior staff attorney at Public Knowledge, a consumer rights group, cheered the verdict in a statement, but said he remained troubled by the implications of the earlier court decision. “Other courts of appeal should reject the Federal Circuit’s mistaken finding of copyrightability,” he said. “For now, though, the jury’s verdict is a welcome dose of common sense.”"

Google patents 'sticky' layer to protect pedestrians in self-driving car accidents; Guardian, 5/18/16

Nicky Woolf, Guardian; Google patents 'sticky' layer to protect pedestrians in self-driving car accidents:

"Google has patented a new “sticky” technology to protect pedestrians if – or when – they get struck by the company’s self-driving cars.

The patent, which was granted on 17 May, is for a sticky adhesive layer on the front end of a vehicle, which would aim to reduce the damage caused when a pedestrian hit by a car is flung into other vehicles or scenery...

It is not known whether Google has active plans to install the new technology on their self-driving cars in the future. The company did not respond immediately to a request from the Guardian for comment, but a spokesperson told the San Jose Mercury News, who first reported the story, that “we hold patents on a variety of ideas. Some of those ideas later mature into real products and services, some don’t.”"

Google and Oracle's $9.3 Billion Fair Use Fight Starts Today, Here's a Guide; Fortune, 5/9/16

Jeff John Roberts, Fortune; Google and Oracle's $9.3 Billion Fair Use Fight Starts Today, Here's a Guide:

"Why are Google and Oracle in court?

The case is about intellectual property. It began six years ago when Oracle sued Google for using APIs tied to Java (more on this below) without permission. Google won at an initial trial in 2012 when a jury found the company didn’t infringe Oracle’s patents, and a judge concluded the APIs didn’t qualify for copyright protection.

But in a ruling that shocked the tech community, an appeals court found in 2014 that Oracle’s APIs were indeed covered by copyright. The ruling also kicked the case back to the lower court to determine whether Google’s use of the APIs counted as a “fair use.” Now, at this second trial, a jury will look at the fair use question."

Sony patents contact lens that records what you see; CNet, 5/2/16

Michelle Starr, CNet; Sony patents contact lens that records what you see:

"A new patent, awarded to the company in April, describes a contact lens that can be controlled by the user's deliberate blinks, recording video on request.

Sensors embedded in the lens are able to detect the difference between voluntary and involuntary blinks. The image capture and storage technology would all be embedded in the lens around the iris, and piezoelectric sensors would convert the movements of the eye into energy to power the lens.

Of course, at this point, this technology isn't small enough to be comfortably embedded in a contact lens, so it's only theoretical."

Oracle will seek a staggering $9.3 billion in 2nd trial against Google; ArsTechnica.com, 3/29/16

Joe Mullin, ArsTechnica.com; Oracle will seek a staggering $9.3 billion in 2nd trial against Google:

"In a second go-round of its copyright lawsuit against Google, Oracle is hoping to land a knockout blow. A damages report filed last week in federal court reveals that the enterprise software giant will ask for $9.3 billion in damages.

In its lawsuit, Oracle argues that Google infringed copyrights related to Java when it used 37 Java API packages to create its Android mobile operating system.

The damages it's seeking aren't just more than the Java API packages are worth—it's far more than Oracle paid for the entirety of Sun Microsystems, which was purchased in 2009 for $5.6 billion. By way of comparison, Google parent company Alphabet earned $4.9 billion in profits last quarter, according to IDG News, which reported on the Oracle figures yesterday.

Such a result would be far and away the biggest copyright verdict ever."

How Google Stole the Work of Millions of Authors; Wall Street Journal, 2/7/16

Roxana Robinson, Wall Street Journal; How Google Stole the Work of Millions of Authors:

"Last week publishers, copyright experts and other supporters filed amicus briefs petitioning the Supreme Court to hear the copyright-infringement case against Google brought by the Authors Guild."

YouTube Not Liable on Copyright, but Needs to Do More: German Court; Reuters via New York Times, 7/1/15

Reuters via New York Times; YouTube Not Liable on Copyright, but Needs to Do More: German Court:

"A German court reaffirmed on Wednesday that YouTube was only responsible for blocking copyright-infringing videos which had been brought to its attention, but the judicial panel said the Google video unit could do more to stop breaches.

The Hamburg regional court rejected an appeal by German performing rights association GEMA, upholding a lower court ruling that said sites such as YouTube do not actively have to search for illegal activity by their users.

The appeals court rebuffed a Google appeal on a secondary issue in the case, finding that YouTube had failed to act promptly enough to takedown infringing videos in seven of 12 cases brought before the court. For the remaining five video clips at issue YouTube had no duty to remove them, it said."

The DOJ's Copyright Fetish Might Screw Up the Internet's Future; Forbes, 6/9/15

Marvin Ammori, Forbes; The DOJ's Copyright Fetish Might Screw Up the Internet's Future:

"The DOJ asked the Supreme Court not to review a lower court decision that said API interfaces are copyrightable. But that decision threatens new and existing websites and devices that we all rely on. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will ignore the DOJ’s recommendation and eventually reverses the lower court.

“But what’s an API?” you ask. API stands for “application programming interface” and is essentially a way for software developers to interact with information on other sites or on their own sites. When you go to a restaurant’s website and see an embedded map of the location, the restaurant’s developers didn’t create the map from scratch. They merely used an API—perhaps the Google Maps or Mapbox API—to get a map for the location. An API lets one company build on another’s innovation; we don’t all have to create a global mapping company merely to give directions to our restaurants. An API obviously has two parts: the interface and the code behind it. The interface is essentially a shortcut available to others (imagine “1899 M St. NW location” or some other shortcut that probably every map developer already knows) and the code behind it is all the complicated computer lines that create the visual map.

The case at issue involves whether the interfaces—just the shortcuts, not the code behind it—are copyrightable. It arises out of a lawsuit between Oracle and Google concerning the Java programming language. Computer programmers use a variety of “languages” to create websites and apps—they’re called Ruby on Rails, Python, Erlang, C+, Basic, and so on. Some languages are more popular than others, the same way English is more popular than Icelandic or Dutch."

Obama administration asks U.S. top court to decline Google copyright appeal; Reuters, 5/26/15

Lawrence Hurley and Dan Levine, Reuters; Obama administration asks U.S. top court to decline Google copyright appeal:

"The Obama administration on Tuesday sided against Google Inc and said the U.S. Supreme Court should not hear the company's appeal in a case against Oracle Corp with wide implications for the technology industry, according to a court filing.

The case involves how much copyright protection should extend to the Java programing language. Oracle won a federal appeals court ruling last year that allows it to copyright parts of Java, while Google argues it should be free to use Java without paying a licensing fee.

Google, which used Java to design its Android smartphone operating system, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court then asked the Obama administration in January for its opinion on whether it should take the case because the federal government has a strong interest."

Google Wins Copyright And Speech Case Over 'Innocence Of Muslims' Video; NPR, 5/18/15

Bill Chappell, NPR; Google Wins Copyright And Speech Case Over 'Innocence Of Muslims' Video:

"In a complicated legal battle that touches on questions of free speech, copyright law and personal safety, a federal appeals court has overturned an order that had forced the Google-owned YouTube to remove an anti-Muslim video from its website last year.

Both of the recent decisions about the controversial "Innocence Of Muslims" video originated with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Last year, a three-judge panel agreed with actress Cindy Lee Garcia's request to have the film taken down from YouTube on the basis of a copyright claim. But Monday, the full en banc court rejected Garcia's claim.

"The appeal teaches a simple lesson — a weak copyright claim cannot justify censorship in the guise of authorship," Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote in the court's opinion."

Oracle wins copyright ruling against Google over Android; Reuters, 5/9/14

Dan Levine and Diane Bartz, Reuters; Oracle wins copyright ruling against Google over Android:

"Oracle Corp won a legal victory against Google Inc on Friday as a U.S. appeals court decided Oracle could copyright parts of the Java programming language, which Google used to design its Android smartphone operating system.

The case, decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, is being closely watched in Silicon Valley. A high-profile 2012 trial featured testimony from Oracle's chief executive, Larry Ellison, and Google CEO Larry Page, and the legal issues go to the heart of how tech companies protect their most valuable intellectual property.

Google's Android operating system is the world's best-selling smartphone platform."