According to the New York Times, the European Commission has flexed its antitrust muscles and fined Microsoft $732 million dollars for failing to live up to a settlement it had previously signed with regulators. The fine was based upon a 2009 agreement that required Microsoft to provide European Windows users a choice of web browsers.
Microsoft has previously admitted that it may have violated its agreement with regulators and apologized for non-compliance. Microsoft's fine is not the largest that has been levied against a U.S. based technology company. In 2009, Intel was fined $1.4 billion dollars for allegedly abusing its dominance in the chip market.
European regulators are currently investigating Google regarding its alleged dominant position in the search engine market. While the FTC has ended its antitrust investigation of Google in January, European regulators have not.
The bottom line is that it appears that European regulators have American technology companies in their cross hairs. Therefore, U.S. based companies that create some of the world's most innovative products for use in the digital space should ensure that they adhere to all regulations and laws in the countries they operate in.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Monday, October 15, 2012
European Union May Require Google To Change Its Privacy Policies
According to Reuters, the European Union has sent Google a letter demanding changes to Google's new privacy policy to better protect the personal data of its users. The Guardian is reporting that Google may be told on Tuesday to revisit the controversial changes introduced in March.
On January 24, 2012, Google announced that as of March 1, 2012, it would revamp its privacy policies. At the time of its announcement, Google stated that it had more than 70 privacy policies and that it is "rolling out a new main privacy policy that covers the majority of our products and explains what information we collect, and how we use it, in a much more readable way. While we’ve had to keep a handful of separate privacy notices for legal and other reasons, we’re consolidating more than 60 into our main Privacy Policy." .... "Our new Privacy Policy makes clear that, if you’re signed in, we may combine information you've provided from one service with information from other services."
Streamlining almost 70 privacy policies into 1 policy is much easier for compliance and legal purposes since it means that Google will only have to keep abreast of 1 uniform policy instead of more than 60. In other words, the change may decrease legal and compliance costs by millions of dollars per year. The new Privacy Policy states that Google may combine all of its users' information into one profile that may enhance its data mining capabilities which may increase its advertising revenues by hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Of Google's $37.9 billion in 2011 revenue, 96 percent came from advertising.
Before Google's new privacy policy went into effect, France's data protection authority, the CNIL, told Google in a letter dated February 27, 2012 that it would lead a Europe-wide investigation of the new policy. Soon after Google implemented the changes there was an uproar about the matter.
Since Google refused to heed the EU's prior warnings that changing its privacy policies may violate data protection laws it would not surprise me if the CNIL harshly rebukes Google and "recommends" it change its privacy policies and is "asked" to better inform its users on how it utilizes their personal data. However, until the decison is made public it would be premature to speculate how this may affect Google and its advertising clients.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
On January 24, 2012, Google announced that as of March 1, 2012, it would revamp its privacy policies. At the time of its announcement, Google stated that it had more than 70 privacy policies and that it is "rolling out a new main privacy policy that covers the majority of our products and explains what information we collect, and how we use it, in a much more readable way. While we’ve had to keep a handful of separate privacy notices for legal and other reasons, we’re consolidating more than 60 into our main Privacy Policy." .... "Our new Privacy Policy makes clear that, if you’re signed in, we may combine information you've provided from one service with information from other services."
Streamlining almost 70 privacy policies into 1 policy is much easier for compliance and legal purposes since it means that Google will only have to keep abreast of 1 uniform policy instead of more than 60. In other words, the change may decrease legal and compliance costs by millions of dollars per year. The new Privacy Policy states that Google may combine all of its users' information into one profile that may enhance its data mining capabilities which may increase its advertising revenues by hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Of Google's $37.9 billion in 2011 revenue, 96 percent came from advertising.
Before Google's new privacy policy went into effect, France's data protection authority, the CNIL, told Google in a letter dated February 27, 2012 that it would lead a Europe-wide investigation of the new policy. Soon after Google implemented the changes there was an uproar about the matter.
Since Google refused to heed the EU's prior warnings that changing its privacy policies may violate data protection laws it would not surprise me if the CNIL harshly rebukes Google and "recommends" it change its privacy policies and is "asked" to better inform its users on how it utilizes their personal data. However, until the decison is made public it would be premature to speculate how this may affect Google and its advertising clients.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Does Google agree with my 1 day DMCA safe harbor definition of expeditiously?
According to the Associated Press, Google has stated that it will respond to complaints about pirated material within 24 hours after receiving notification. This announcement also states that Google will better police the sites that utilize its ad network to try to limit copyright violations. This long overdue announcement is great news for content creators.
On June 30, 2010, I stated that even though Viacom lost the initial round of the Viacom v. YouTube case, the case may be a win for copyright holders in the long run. I made my prediction because if YouTube was able to remove more than 100,000 infringing copyrighted clips within 1 business day of being notified more than three years ago, there is no reason why commercial entities shouldn't be held to this standard today.
Google's new 24 hour policy is welcome news because content creators have lost billions of dollars to intentional copyright infringement over the past ten years. Google also needs to enact this policy for trademark infringement. I am waiting for Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc... to agree to the same policy for not just copyright infringement but also for trademark infringement. Only after these companies actively enforce a 24 hour turnaround for intellectual property infringement may they claim they are actively protecting content creators.
I challenge Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and every other social media company to follow Google's lead in protecting intellectual property.
To learn how to protect and monetize your intellectual property you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
On June 30, 2010, I stated that even though Viacom lost the initial round of the Viacom v. YouTube case, the case may be a win for copyright holders in the long run. I made my prediction because if YouTube was able to remove more than 100,000 infringing copyrighted clips within 1 business day of being notified more than three years ago, there is no reason why commercial entities shouldn't be held to this standard today.
Google's new 24 hour policy is welcome news because content creators have lost billions of dollars to intentional copyright infringement over the past ten years. Google also needs to enact this policy for trademark infringement. I am waiting for Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc... to agree to the same policy for not just copyright infringement but also for trademark infringement. Only after these companies actively enforce a 24 hour turnaround for intellectual property infringement may they claim they are actively protecting content creators.
I challenge Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and every other social media company to follow Google's lead in protecting intellectual property.
To learn how to protect and monetize your intellectual property you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Protecting Your Social Media Profile Against Text Spam
On April 29, 2010, I stated why the Social Media Privacy Protection Act is needed. I reiterated my position again on July 25, 2010. I did not wake up thinking about privacy issues. However, when I logged into my Google account this morning, I received the message, "What would happen if you lost access to your Google Account tomorrow?" The screen listed my email address and requested my cell phone number in case I need to reset my password.
In my opinion, password resets via cell phone SMS is a ruse to obtain access to your cell phone number so the number may be used at a later date to perform mobile marketing. Social Media companies are trying to collect as much information about their users as possible because they are building a monetizable data bank. As the Brits may say, "brilliant."
Google may argue that a cell phone number is the easiest and most secure way for a consumer to obtain a password reset. I disagree. The best way to do this is via email and/or a personal security question. Google recently fired an employee for accessing the personal accounts of its users. Just think of all the possibilities when private companies (not the government-whole different conversation) have access to this type of personal information.
Social Media companies are trying to entice their users to turn over as much of their personal information as possible. Unfortunately, too many consumers are freely providing Social Media companies their information without a second thought. For example, there is no reason for any company to ask for or for anyone to list their religion on their social media profile.
When I recently tried assisting a friend of mine with obtaining a personal URL for his Facebook account it requested a cell phone number for confirmation. When I obtained my personal URL soon after consumers were allowed to do so I did not need to provide a cell phone number. Social Media companies want your cell phone number so they can monetize this information.
The bottom line is that people need to be careful about providing any data to third parties. Do you really want to be bombarded at some point in the future with spam text messages that you will have to pay for? Therefore, unless a company needs your cell phone number do not provide it.
To learn how to protect your Social Media Profile you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
In my opinion, password resets via cell phone SMS is a ruse to obtain access to your cell phone number so the number may be used at a later date to perform mobile marketing. Social Media companies are trying to collect as much information about their users as possible because they are building a monetizable data bank. As the Brits may say, "brilliant."
Google may argue that a cell phone number is the easiest and most secure way for a consumer to obtain a password reset. I disagree. The best way to do this is via email and/or a personal security question. Google recently fired an employee for accessing the personal accounts of its users. Just think of all the possibilities when private companies (not the government-whole different conversation) have access to this type of personal information.
Social Media companies are trying to entice their users to turn over as much of their personal information as possible. Unfortunately, too many consumers are freely providing Social Media companies their information without a second thought. For example, there is no reason for any company to ask for or for anyone to list their religion on their social media profile.
When I recently tried assisting a friend of mine with obtaining a personal URL for his Facebook account it requested a cell phone number for confirmation. When I obtained my personal URL soon after consumers were allowed to do so I did not need to provide a cell phone number. Social Media companies want your cell phone number so they can monetize this information.
The bottom line is that people need to be careful about providing any data to third parties. Do you really want to be bombarded at some point in the future with spam text messages that you will have to pay for? Therefore, unless a company needs your cell phone number do not provide it.
To learn how to protect your Social Media Profile you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Tweeters Beware: Google Is Archiving All Tweets
Do you remember the scene from the movie Swingers where Jon Favreau's character Mikey makes multiple phone calls to a Nikki, a woman that he met earlier that night at the Dresden and embarrasses himself so thoroughly that she tells him to never call him again? Whether Mikey was "Drunk Dialing" or not, when the movie was made in 1996 there was not a chance of his actions being disseminated to the entire world.
Fast Forward to 2009. Now imagine if you start "Drunk Tweeting" or "Drunk Facebooking." Instead of only one person knowing about an episode in your life that you may want to forget, all Internet users may now be able to access this information because Google is now archiving all tweets. This may not only lead to future embarrassing situations, it will also drastically increase the cost of E-Discovery. As a take off from a saying that some have attributed to Mark Twain, "It is better to keep your tweets to a minimum and be thought a twit than to tweet all night and remove all doubt."
Copyright 2009 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Fast Forward to 2009. Now imagine if you start "Drunk Tweeting" or "Drunk Facebooking." Instead of only one person knowing about an episode in your life that you may want to forget, all Internet users may now be able to access this information because Google is now archiving all tweets. This may not only lead to future embarrassing situations, it will also drastically increase the cost of E-Discovery. As a take off from a saying that some have attributed to Mark Twain, "It is better to keep your tweets to a minimum and be thought a twit than to tweet all night and remove all doubt."
Copyright 2009 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Google Book Settlement Angers Chinese Authors
I have written extensively on this blog that the biggest beneficiary of the Google Book Settlement as it is currently configured is Google. Surprise. Surprise. Surprise. Did I just say that or was that my Gomer Pyle impression? Fortunately, the U.S. Deparment of Justice and the U.S. Copyright Office has strenuously objected to the settlement and the parties are back at the negotiating table. According to the New York Times, the current settlement may create some international difficulties for the U.S. because the proposed settlement may affect authors whose rights are protected under various international treaties. I am not surprised that international authors are against the proposed settlement. I am just a bit surprised that it has taken so long for the international community to become mobilized.
Copyright 2009 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Copyright 2009 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)