Facebook Protects User's Data In Civil Case

Privacy advocates who are in the habit of protesting Facebook's policies may owe the social network an apology. When an airline subpoenaed a user's data, and even after fines were later levied, Facebook refused to hand anything over.

For better or for worse, we'll never know whether Facebook would have been willing to send armies of lawyers to the Supreme Court; the matter came to an anticlimactic end when the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission backed down and the woman at the center of things agreed to release the data, anyway.

Still, here's the story. Shana Hensley hurt her back while working for Colgan Airlines and began to collect disability benefits. Then, as Declan McCullagh reports, "After about 18 months . . . Colgan Air claimed that Hensley was not cooperating with its efforts to find her a desk job and appears to have concluded that Hensley's holiday vacation photos posted on her Facebook account would demonstrate that any back problems were not severe."

Hensley's Facebook info was subpoenaed, Facebook stood its ground, the Workers' Compensation Commission enacted a $200-per-day fine, and when Facebook cited the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, everybody backed down.

Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt explained his company's actions to Peter Bacque by stating, "Facebook is built on trust and users rely on us to enforce their privacy settings."
source: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2009/09/15/facebook-protects-users-data-in-civil-case

Google Shares New Privacy Policy for Books

Google has introduced a new privacy policy for Google Books, to try and appease the critics of Google's enormous book indexing project. The company has also been in communication with the Federal Trade Commission, and has discussed both the new policy and a letter to the FTC on the Google Public Policy Blog.


Google is still waiting approval from the court on its settlement agreement with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, so some services discussed in the privacy policy don't even exist yet.

"Our privacy policies are usually based on detailed review of a final product -- and on weeks, months or years of careful work engineering the product itself to protect privacy," says Google Global Privacy Counsel Jane Horvath. "In this case, we've planned in advance for the protections that will later be built, and we've described some of those in the Google Books policy."

The privacy policy can be read here.

Microsoft Granted Motion to stay Word Injunction

XML-Related Patent Issues Cause Trouble for MS, Company Will Appeal

Update: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reportedly granted Microsoft's motion to stay an injunction that would prohibit the software giant from selling Word. The injunction had an effective date of Oct. 10, but the motion to stay blocks the injunction until the appeal process is complete, according to The Microsoft Blog.

Original Article: A Texas judge has reportedly ruled that Microsoft cannot sell any version of Word in the US that can open .XML, .DOCX or DOCM files (XML files) containing custom XML. Seattlepi's Microsoft Blog points to an announcement by the plaintiff, i4i.

In May, i4i in Toronto got $200 million from Microsoft, when a federal jury found that Microsoft infringed on the company's patent. That patent is 11 years old. The abstract reads:

A system and method for the separate manipulation of the architecture and content of a document, particularly for data representation and transformations. The system, for use by computer software developers, removes dependency on document encoding technology. A map of metacodes found in the document is produced and provided and stored separately from the document. The map indicates the location and addresses of metacodes in the document. The system allows of multiple views of the same content, the ability to work solely on structure and solely on content, storage efficiency of multiple versions and efficiency of operation.


The entire thing can be read here.

"We are disappointed by the court's ruling," a Microsoft spokesman is quoted as saying in a statement. "We believe the evidence clearly demonstrated that we do not infringe and that the i4i patent is invalid. We will appeal the verdict."

Google News Italia Probe Expands

Google received a piece of bad news - and perhaps a laugh - today as we prepare to go into the long weekend. Here's the serious part: Italian antitrust regulators have decided to expand the focus of an investigation from the Italian version of Google News to the entire corporation.

Things began to heat up last week when an Italian newspaper federation claimed that Google would exclude papers from its normal search results when they opted out of Google News. Google Italy's offices got searched, and the concept of an $18.5 million fine was mentioned.

Now, according to an AGI article, Italy's antitrust authority has stated, "On the basis of inspections by the authority, it has been found that the management of the Google News Italia service, currently under a preliminary investigation, was handled by Google Inc."

What brilliant detective work, right? Sherlock Holmes has been reincarnated in Rome.

Still, given a choice between chuckling at obvious statements and not facing an inquiry, Google would probably pick the second option. The fact that this investigation's picked up speed in just one week isn't a great sign.

source:http://www.webpronews.com/

Links:

seo-seotips
linkexchnage
raj-seo-tips
raj-sem-tips
shiva-seo-tips
social-bookmarking
blog-seo-tips
key-phrases
seo blog
semantics-for-seo
freelance-graphic-designe
googleseo blog
adsense-earning
seo-sem-tips
seo-benefits
freeonline-healthtip
hamper-basketgift
smallbusiness-itonline
smallbusinessitonline
hamperbasketgift
vacationtravelhotel
freeonlineeducationtip
freeonlinehealthtip
onlinehomerealestate

Google Homepage Patent Gratuitous?

In early 2004, Google's lawyers didn't have nearly enough to do. A patent on the design of Google's homepage (AKA its "[g]raphical user interface for a display screen of a communications terminal") that they applied for at that time was granted Tuesday.

Let us know what you think in the comments section.

What Google's going to do with the patent is, frankly, anybody's guess. No corporation with the ability to approach Google's effectiveness at search would be dumb enough to copy its exact design. And it'd be a rare judge who would let Google take action against Yahoo or other search rivals on the basis of similarities born out of identical functions.

There's a question of prior art, as well, since Google might not have been the first entity to stick a search box in the middle of a mostly-blank page.

Anyway, in case you're curious, part of the patent states, "The single view is a front view of a graphical user interface for a display screen of a communications terminal."

Also, "The broken line of the display screen and the broken line showing of certain words and numbers in the drawing are for illustrative purposes only and form no part of the claimed design."

source: http://www.webpronews.com/