Google abusing its market power in and? I agree with the legal allies

Exhibit a in the spring of 1998, the Federal Government and 20 States: the landmark antitrust lawsuit Microsoft. A few months later, Google was founded.

Now Google is the subject of a major antitrust in the United States and Europe.  The United States, and under what conditions the regulator sued or settled, and within days is expected to announce a decision. European decision will come soon.

For many years, but who built the case against Microsoft, helps two Attorney once again play an important role to play. But this is the first time that Gary L. Reback and Susan A. Creighton, you on the other side.

Two lawyers and they have taken point to some noticeable similarities yet also the important difference between the two high-stakes investigation-why Google's pursuit of antitrust authorities has proved as a challenge.

In 1996, Mr. Reback and Ms. Creighton, the pioneering Web browser company Netscape, partners, the representative said. They are 222-page "white paper," the dominance of personal computer software, using the Internet to stifle competition from Netscape to resist Microsoft's campaign and wrote. After their report was sent to the Justice Department, Netscape process was directed to investigate the Division head.

Mr. Reback is now Silicon Valley, he has complained to the Government about Google represents several companies in the Ka & Ferrell of the lawyer. He said although the company was its rival Google for antitrust action does not represent a born-again champion of Microsoft.

Google, Mr. Reback is accustomed to seeing patterns-competition and a huge company to attack new markets. Google, he said, unfairly's dominant search engine, online shopping, travel to local businesses and therefore Google search for traffic from Web sites that use the company's products compete against oppression you prefer.

"From my perspective it's Microsoft case of instant replay" for this article did not mention that he though Mr. Reback said in a recent interview. "It's the same Playbook."

Ms. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati & Creighton, a partner at the Washington Office, not who is in the corner of Google. She testified in Congress on behalf of Google and the Federal Trade Commission's antitrust investigation of the agency conducting the negotiations and where she was a senior Bush administration official said.

"Google's behavior is a professional competition," Ms. Creighton, in her Senate testimony last year, declared. "The competitive threat, as far as Google continues to increase consumer welfare has enhanced the service offered to the consumer."

Ms. Creighton has two main themes in defense of Google hits. First of all, the consumer benefits of Google's free service. The second is Microsoft's Bing search engine, Expedia travel site or switch to alternative local providers, consumers of the Internet such as Yelp and the cost to "0", she said. Or, repeatedly Google competition "is just a click away."

In the late 1990s, Microsoft's version of the two arguments. Free Web browser for Microsoft Windows operating systems do not necessarily benefit consumers without costing you a bundle-add-ins. Trial testimony showed that Microsoft in the Netscape browser competition on top of the millions of people who have downloaded the window-just two once rival products.

But taken as a whole, the evidence at the trial to crush Netscape by Microsoft describing extensive efforts. The dominant share of the market, expand into other markets, strong company for antitrust violations. Legal issues are dominating the company's Empire expands to use the tactic.

View the original article here

Microsoft And Google Want To Keep Details Of Their Legal Fight A Secreeeet

SEATTLE (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp and Google Inc's Motorola Mobility unit have requested a federal judge in Seattle to keep secret from the public various details from their recent trial concerning the value of technology patents and the two companies' attempts at a settlement.

Microsoft and Motorola, acquired by Google earlier this year, are preparing post-trial briefs to present to a judge as he decides the outcome of a week-long trial last month to establish what rates Microsoft should pay Motorola for use of standard, essential wireless technology used in its Xbox game console and other products.

The case is just one strand of litigation in an industry-wide dispute over ownership of the underlying technology and the design of smartphones, which has drawn in Apple Inc, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, Nokia and others.

In a filing with the Western District of Washington federal court in Seattle on Friday, Microsoft and Motorola asked the judge to allow them to file certain parts of their post-trial submissions under seal and redact those details in the public record.

The details concern terms of Motorola's licenses with third parties and Microsoft's business and marketing plans for future products. During the trial, which ran from November 13-20, U.S. District Judge James Robart cleared the court when such sensitive or trade secret details were discussed.

"For the same compelling reasons that the court sealed this evidence for purposes of trial, it would be consistent and appropriate to take the same approach in connection with the parties' post-trial submissions," the two companies argued in the court filing.

The judge has so far been understanding of the companies' desire to keep private details of their patent royalties and future plans, although that has perplexed some spectators who believe trials in public courts should be fully open to the public.

In addition, Motorola asked the judge to seal some documents relating to settlement negotiations between the two companies, arguing that keeping those details secret would encourage openness in future talks and make a settlement more likely.

Judge Robart is not expected to rule on the case until the new year.

The case in U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington is Microsoft Corp. vs. Motorola Inc., 10-cv-1823.

(Reporting by Bill Rigby; Editing by Richard Chang)

Earlier on HuffPost:

View the original article here

Dale Farm: News media win legal fight over footage

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

The BBC, like other broadcasters, has a well-established process in place for dealing with police requests for untransmitted footage. Put simply - we require requests for such material to be made through the courts.

We have to consider in each case whether an order is justified and occasionally we conclude that it isn't and that it's necessary to challenge it. On Thursday a successful challenge was made which led to a significant ruling from the courts which fundamentally reinforces the independence of news organisations from the police.

BBC, SKY, ITN, Hardcash Productions and freelance journalist Jason Parkinson went to a Judicial Review to overturn a decision by Chelmsford Crown Court to grant a wide-ranging production order to hand over all footage from the Dale Farm evictions to Essex Police.

In this case the order was so wide ranging it amounted to a fishing expedition. We believe journalists must maintain their independence, must not be seen as evidence gatherers and must not have their safety compromised. There is a real concern that our crews would be prevented from doing their job if the subjects they were filming thought the material was inevitably going to be passed onto the police. All of these things would be undermined by the courts agreeing to unfocused and speculative applications for footage.

The broadcasters won the challenge and the footage as requested won't now be released.

But, more importantly that that, today's guidance makes it clear that applications must be supported by proper evidence, must be focused and proportionate and the court has acknowledged that the over-use of production orders may make it harder for the press to do its job.

This won't change the way we deal with such requests in the future - our processes are tried and tested and designed to protect the independence of our journalism and the safety of our staff, whatever the subject of the footage. This remains an important principle and one which we will continue to take very seriously.

But the BBC, and other broadcasters, have been getting an increasing number of such police requests, which most people hear little about as they pass through the courts, and this ruling will significantly benefit both news organisations and our audiences.

Fran Unsworth is head of Newsgathering at BBC News.

View the original article here