Re: "£1bn of Facebook shares"
Even though the shares are not on the open market, they do have a set value based on GAAP.
Or they could set an arbitrary strike price based on the valuation used in the IPO.
Posts by Ian Michael Gumby
4454 publicly visible posts • joined 11 Apr 2006
Page:
Zuckerberg blew $1bn on Instagram 'without telling Facebook board'
'Searching staff emails would be time-consuming'
Friday 20th April 2012 12:21 GMT 
Oh the Irony...
Although a world leader in digital search capability, Google took the position that searching its employees' email 'would be a time-consuming and burdensome task'.
-:-
C'Mon, really?
The company can log and index the entire Internet, but can't log and index their corporate email system?
That alone should warrant an immediate fine w punitive damages...
Just saying!
Lytro light field camera
White House issues privacy warning on CISPA-style laws
Larry vs Larry: Oracle and Google in courtroom smackdown
Wednesday 18th April 2012 16:12 GMT
@AC Re: @alannorthhants Is Java free, though?
"It is irrelevant that Java SE isn't free on mobile devices. Dalvik isn't Java SE, it is a new implementation."
One of the assertions by Oracle is that Dalvik isn't a clean 'clean room' release. Its a derivative product based on Oracle's IP which they acquired from Sun.
To your point that 'only irrelevant test files were found to be copies and subsequently removed...
It doesn't matter. Its all the smoking gun required by Oracle to suggest that the clean room wasn't so clean. And that's the point. A clean room implementation has to be completely clean. You toss the specs over the wall and that's all the clean room team has to work with. If the specs are incomplete, tough.
There's more to this case that is sitting in discovery that neither you nor I will ever see until those details are made public. Based on what has been released, its not a slam dunk in either direction, however there's enough evidence to say that Google isn't safe on this and if it goes to trial there is substantial risk of Oracle winning. And that's not to suggest that Oracle will win at trial.
This smoking gun is very damaging to Google.
Wednesday 18th April 2012 06:00 GMT
@alannorthhants Re: Is Java free, though?
First, Java isn't free when it comes to mobile devices.
Google knows this and e-mails released to the public show this.
Second... the 'clean room' version wasn't so 'clean'.
Also shown in court documents.
The judge wanted these two to come to a settlement through mediation because in the end its a question as to how much Google is going to pay and how much Oracle is willing to settle to accept.
If it goes the distance, Google is going to get a black eye.
Monday 16th April 2012 19:21 GMT
Re: Larry Ellison continues to behave like a billionare version of a bully.
How do you think it will be bad for everyone?
First, it means Google shells out $$$$ money that they owe. If you're a shareholder of Google, it will suck.
Second, it means bad news for the phone manufacturers because they will have to cough up $$ and then go back to Google for re-reimbursement.
For the consumer... no change.
As much as I hate Larry, I have to say that the law is in their favor on this one.
Its actually better for all of us if the courts do agree and uphold IP rights.
Oakley: 'smart' sunglasses ready to shine
Google faces WHOPPING FTC fine for Safari privacy gaffe
Tuesday 17th April 2012 21:17 GMT
Well that would be one way to onshore some of Google's revenues
There's a well known loophole in the US tax code that allows US companies to not pay US taxes on monies earned outside of the US until they repatriate it.
Unlike the War Driving... there is no 'ooops' factor. Clearly a lack of oversight.
Tuesday 17th April 2012 21:13 GMT
@AC its no wonder you're anonymous.
"I don't see what they did wrong? If the browser had a bug that allowed tracking when the user turned it off surely its apples fault?"
The fact that Google took an overt action to bypass the clear intent and wishes of the user. Meaning that regarded of the defect existence the end user had decided not to 'opt-in', Google still violated their privacy rights.
Its an overt act, clear mens rea (guilty mind), and a weak justification.
Since they were already on 'double secret probation', they will face heavy fines.
You care to estimate the number of devices potentially affected, at $16K max per day.
Yeah, millions even if the FTC doesn't give them the max penalty.
Is it 'Do no evil... ' or 'Do Know Evil...'
Google fined for stalling Street View cars' Wi-Fi slurp probe
Monday 16th April 2012 19:21 GMT
@LOL Re: Not illegal?
First the patent along with other things shows Mens Rea. (Guilty Mind)
This covers the intent.
Second. We're not talking about SSIDs we are talking about capturing any and all unencrypted packets from the devices. SSIDs are easy to filter and handle separately.
And unfortunately you're wrong. Even unencrypted there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Want an example? It may be before your time, but 900MHz cordless phones used to be unencrypted. If you and a neighbor lived close enough and used the same channels, it was possible to listen in on their phone conversations. Even that act would be and still is considered illegal. Why? Because there is an expectation of privacy.
Of course, the laws differ from State to state and country to country. YMMV
Monday 16th April 2012 19:21 GMT
@ AC B& E wuz Re: Everyone smells Google money!
Actually whether you leave your door unlocked or not doesn't change the fact that it is still breaking and entering.
If the door is open, then it would probably be a case of criminal trespass.
Of course if you did leave your house unlocked and someone walked in and stole your priceless Monet, good luck in trying to collect the insurance for the painting.... ;-)
Monday 16th April 2012 14:08 GMT
Don't forget the patent application.
First, not to defend Google,
Its possible that they 'inadvertently' collected the data. That is that they developed the tech, but that they didn't approve of the tech being used. Here we are arguing semantics but its what their lawyers will do. They could argue that they were developing the tech, however they inadvertently put the tech in to practice prior to talking with counsel or getting executive/senior management to buy off on it. (Plausible denial )
However, Google did file a patent for such a data slurp. In doing so, counsel would have had to be notified that such a technology existed and that it could be illegal under various countries where they did business. At the same time, said corporate counsel could not claim ignorance of the various local laws because that is precisely part of their job. (You can't be ignorant of the law if you are a member of the courts.)
This kind of puts a major dent in their defense.
As to anyone questioning the value of the data... if you think about it. Having this data is a proverbial gold mine.
Monday 16th April 2012 14:07 GMT
Re: Not illegal?
"It's not illegal in the same way that it's not illegal for me to overhear a conversation you have with your friends in a pub. "
Bzzzt!.
Very bad analogy and wrong on so many levels.
First, overhearing a conversation in a pub doesn't require the use of any technology, except for what God has given you. Also there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. There isn't any overt act on your part. Or rather there doesn't have to be any overt act.
Slurping unencrypted data from a wi-fi takes an overt act. You must have equipment and software set up to sniff and record the data.
Big difference.
Monday 16th April 2012 14:07 GMT
Huh? Google isn't protecting their employees...
First, lets clear the air. Google isn't protecting this employee. He's protecting himself.
Its in Google's own best interest in providing legal counsel to their employees since it will also mean that they get protected at the same time.
And its not the employee driving the car, but the employee who wrote the software that did the actual snooping.
You may be so forgiving, I on the other hand am not. Most homes have encryption turned off because the simple plug n play don't have the instructions set up or the installer from the cable/phone company are too lazy to set it up and then have to explain to the users how to get their machines online.
(Just like the Starbucks coffee shops with their free wi-fi that is unencrypted.)
So there is no excuse for a company who once used the slogan, 'Do no evil' is actually one of the evilest companies on the planet.
If you can forgive Google, do you forgive those who practice 'War Driving'? I mean, heck, you have to enforce the law equally. If you're going to make war driving a criminal offense, then explain how what Google did was different? Keep in mind, while we have no evidence that Google didn't review any of the data, that doesn't mean that they didn't. As to its value... if you think about it. Its very clear what they could do with it....
And to your last point. More accurate GPS... you really mean A-GPS. If you wanted more accurate GPS, then you'd have a better clock, receiver/antenna in your device. And there are other ways of enhancing your GPS accuracy if you install a radio receiver in your handset too.
(But lets not go there... ;-)
'Don't break the internet': How an idiot's slogan stole your privacy...
Thursday 12th April 2012 13:37 GMT
Re: @El Presidente
Really?
So the company that paid for the programmer to do the basic research did this out of altruism?
The developers at universities aka grad students, professors, aren't being paid or are trying to make a name for themselves so that when they matriculate they can garner a better salary?
Bill Gates who is now donating the billions he made off of others wasn't a capitalist when he was making his vast fortune?
Surely you jest.
Monday 9th April 2012 15:20 GMT
What does it mean to 'break the internet?
I agree with El Presidente.
(And I'm sure I will garner down votes just with that comment.)
But I have to wonder what people mean when they say 'don't break the internet' ?
Clearly its not a talk about actually causing the root DNS servers to fail bringing everything down with them.
But I would gather more of the model that if we take a stronger stance on individual's privacy rights along with copyright protection, that we will break the models of companies like FB and Google. That they won't be as profitable.
If we look at all of these start ups, what would happen if they couldn't be profitable would they stll exist?
Is that what is meant?
Google shows off Project Glass augmented reality specs
Hitachi GST lays 4TB Easter egg
Google ads 'misleading and deceptive'
Tuesday 3rd April 2012 11:57 GMT
Re: What is the source?
"Did Google write the copy text of those ads? If not, then who is responsible for the words in the ad?"
It doesn't matter.
The argument is that Google is still responsible for the publication of the ad. There are a lot of history and anecdotal evidence to show that the publisher of the ad has the legal responsibility for the distribution of the ad.
Google can easily access and organize a database of trademarks around the world along with their owners. So Oracle couldn't buy an ad that had embedded links to DB2 (IBM's database product) so that when someone searched on DB2, an Oracle ad would show.
Size is not a defense.
Capita job cuts, offshoring 'driven by expectations', says MD
Monday 2nd April 2012 14:09 GMT
Re: So...
If you want to get paranoid...
We 'accidently' grew too quickly and rather than scale back across the board, we're scaling back in the UK while maintaining staff and possibly growing staff in India.
Like i said, this is taking a paranoid approach and unfortunately, its somewhat justified. Many companies used the excuse of a slow down in work and poor planning to cover the shift in work force.
Quitting your job? Here's how not to do it
Thursday 29th March 2012 14:17 GMT
Re: Good advice as usual
Actually his advice on 'Buy Backs' or what we Yanks call counter offers, among other things... is wrong.
Here's the problem... You and your employer have to ask why you were leaving in the first place? Was it a great dream job offer? Was it just for more money? Was it for more responsibility?
What happens in 3-6 months you get another call? Are you going to jump ship?
You're now officially damaged goods and you can't be trusted.
Sure they may hire you back so that you can train your replacement, especially if they suspect you will leave anyways.
At the same time, it could look like you were holding them hostage over salary.
It would be better to follow the other advice, leave on good terms and if things don't work out, see if you can go back to them. If you're good enough, the answer is usually yes.
Google asked to bin autocomplete results for Japanese man's name
Monday 26th March 2012 15:37 GMT
Re: What chance google.jp being taken down
Ken Hagan is correct.
This is one reason why Spamhaus gave up its .com domain because .com is managed by Verisign (I think) which is a US company and subject to US laws.
Were google.jp impacted, I think Google would consider doing this. However they have incentives not to start filtering. While they do the bare minimum, what do you think will start to happen if/when everyone else wants to get a court order to force Google to censor auto completions?
I guess they could be held in contempt and would have to pay a fine or something...
Or they could stop doing business in Japan all together. I wonder who would get hurt more... Japan or Google?
Google patents mobile ads that sense noise, temp, light
The Facebook job test: Now interviewers want your logins
Thursday 22nd March 2012 11:58 GMT
Re: Who'd want to employ anyone so dim as to think Farce book was a good idea
As someone who doesn't have a Facebook account, I wonder what the interviewer would say...
1) are you serious? Everyone has a Facebook account, you must be lying.
(so then I guess if you are going to accuse me of being a liar, I must not be a suitable candidate.)
2) so you are refusing to give me your Facebook password then? Ok we'll be in touch.
(works for me)
3) you must be joking. How else do you keep in touch w family and friends?
(Hmmm I don't know, I use the phone or email? And of course actual face time at the local brew pub?)
4) you don't have a FB account and you're in high tech? Then you must not be very technical and hip to the new technology.
(No, I am very technical and hip to the new technology. That's why I don't have one.)
US scientists demo hydrogen-powered robo-jellyfish
Former Yahoo! Hadoop honcho uncloaks from stealth
Big Media drags 142,000 through UK's courts in a year
Thursday 22nd March 2012 11:16 GMT
Re: I'm all for the licence fee
This is actually a very true statement.
Come to the US where the networks spent the last 10 years creating really shitty reality TV shows.
Why? Because they are cheap to make and offer great profit margins. Pay for TV is really in the business of selling advertisement space, not providing quality programs.
When you have 500 cable channels to fill, you will see the quality of the shows drop.
And yes, I apologize for the export of Jersey Shore. Be thankful that you don't have toddlers in tierras ?sp?.
Assange bids for Senate seat
Monday 19th March 2012 07:47 GMT
Re: RE: IMG
@Matt,
1) I think that's the big question. Does a felony conviction preclude him from office? In the US there was a Mayor of DC that was convicted on a drug charge yet he was able to run again for Mayor. But being a mayor isn't the same as a Senate seat.
2) I also think that if he were to run, a lot more details about his life will also come out. Things that I don't think he will want the public to know.
Politics is an ugly sport.
Not just in the US, but around the world.
Monday 19th March 2012 07:47 GMT
@ Drew... Re: Yawn..
That would actually be a viable alternative, however...
Based on what happened to Wikileaks... I think that such a party would implode along with the simple fact that Assange is the puppet, not the puppet master. Based on what we know in the public, its safe to say he wants the spotlight all to himself. Those who control power, don't like to be in the spotlight.
Sunday 18th March 2012 20:19 GMT 
"Incarceration concerns aside, Wikileaks claim that he can still run for the Australian senate while detained. But WikiLeaks says despite his legal predicament, Assange is eligible to run for the Upper House"
_=_
So a convicted felon can run for office?
Yes, Assange is a convicted felon from his days as a hacker back in Australia.
Sunday 18th March 2012 20:19 GMT
Re: Speak up man!
There is some irony to this.
It would give him legitimate access to some secrets that by law he would be required to hold... Well secret. If not secret, then confidential information... Oh wait... Assange believes in only the information he doesn't want to be kept secret shouldn't be kept secret. Any information about himself or what he claims to be owned by him should be kept secret...
I would have to say that this ploy is more for his defense against being extradited to the US than for taking a serious run. This way he could claim that his extradition is politically motivated and not for the participation in an espionage crime against an Australian Ally.
Eddie Murphy heading for worst movie ever glory
Vendors smack Thunderbolt punters with massive pricing markup
Friday 16th March 2012 10:42 GMT
Re: Why the surprise?
I guess it depends on what you want to do.,.
I used to build my own PCs along w my own Linux boxes in my SOHO.
But during a critical crunch time, I had an issue w my powersupply and I made a snap decision to go w an iMac.
So where I had set up a raided sub system in my tower, I don't have that ability in the iMac.
Hence the desire for external drives. As another punter pointed out, you can fill these drives quickly. Like TB of raw NEF images, and then the edited jpeg print copies.
Add to this the need to store legal docs on a raid system plus backups o something else?
( including secure thumb drives...) you can start to see why I would want a good fast external raid for my Mac.
Let's also add to this that I promised the wife that I would consolidate my servers and keep.my tech to a minimum...
The alien icon because I want to keep the wife happy and my 'twig and berries' intact, something a normal human male wouldn't do.
(Worry about keeping the wife happy unless she already had the boys sitting in a jar...)
Thursday 15th March 2012 20:19 GMT
Re: How much of that is royalties?
I'd say its both plus the mark up on a new technology until there are more products coming to market.
I like the idea of the Promise Raid box, except for its price.
6 bays for ~$2400 (USD) sorry, way too much money.
Do I really need the speed, or can I stick with FW800?
China ready to slap down US in smartphone wars
Lawyers of Mordor menace Hobbit boozer
Friday 16th March 2012 09:33 GMT
Re: I'm all for...
You do realize that there is a difference between civil and criminal courts, right? That they can't be extradited? I'm not sure if you were trying to be funny, or just don't grok the legal system. Sorry but commentards cross a wide range of intellect.
You are correct that they did have legal options open to them. But they cost money.
Maybe you could find a pro bono lawyer?
Friday 16th March 2012 09:25 GMT
Re: @Lee Dowling
What don't you undestand?
SCZ owns the rights.
They have to fight all infringements in order to protect those rights.
Could the bar have fought and won? Maybe, but they would have paid a fortune in legal fees and would still have to change some of their marketing materials. It's cheaper to change the theme of the bar.
Could SCZ have licensed the right for a nominal fee? An undisclosed amount? Maybe. But lawyers are trained to be A$$holes.
SCZ could care less about publicity.
Tourists follow GPS, drive into sea
EC: Apple claimed Motorola demanded ALL ITS PATENTS
Wednesday 14th March 2012 17:08 GMT
Re: I might be wrong but ...
You're wrong.
If Motorola didn't offer the SEP patents under FRAND terms then Apple did nothing wrong. What? You're going to be held hostage in terms of product development, delivery, etc... while waiting to negotiate FRAND? The point of FRAND is that these essential patents should be reasonably negotiated.
So if HTC is paying X, then Apple should be paying something along the lines of X not give away its IP.
Wednesday 14th March 2012 17:07 GMT
Re: "according to Apple"
"Motorola Mobility said it would only hand over licences for its standards-essential patents to Apple if the fruity firm licensed all of its patent portfolio in return, Apple apparently revealed to the European Commission."
I believe that Apple would be prepared to back that statement up in written documents and affidavits.
If true, it would appear that Motorola didn't offer terms in compliance with FRAND.
Not that I'm an Apple fanboi, but there's a couple smoking guns...
Biting the hand that feeds IT
