|
Post by dolphie on Sept 22, 2009 12:03:59 GMT -5
For you skype users: 1, 2009 7:08 AM PDT Sold! eBay jettisons Skype in $2 billion deal by Steven Musil and Jonathan Skillings E-commerce giant eBay announced Tuesday that it is selling its Skype unit to an investor group that includes Marc Andreessen's new venture. Under the deal, eBay will receive approximately $1.9 billion in cash and a note from the buyer in the principal amount of $125 million, for a total of $2.025 billion. The participants expect the deal to close in the fourth quarter. The investor group, which will take a roughly 65 percent stake in Skype, is led by Silver Lake and includes Index Ventures, Andreessen Horowitz, and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. The remaining 35 percent of the Internet telephony service will be retained by eBay. The parties said the deal values Skype, which is likely to see an IPO in the coming months, at $2.75 billion. The sale of Skype had been expected for some time. Word of Tuesday's impending sale to the private investor group was first reported late Monday in The New York Times. The Andreessen Horowitz venture capital group was launched in July by Marc Andreessen, the founder of Netscape and co-founder of Opsware, and Ben Horowitz, also co-founder of Opsware. With the sale, eBay acknowledged that things hadn't worked out as planned with Skype, which it acquired for $2.6 billion in 2005 with the plans to offer customers the ability to discuss their transactions in real time. Over the course of the four years since then, eBay found that its acquisition failed to provide what it sought. "Skype is a strong standalone business, but it does not have synergies with our e-commerce and online payments businesses," eBay President and CEO John Donahoe said in a statement Tuesday. "As a separate company, we believe that Skype will have the focus required to compete effectively in online voice and video communications and accelerate its growth momentum." Lead investment firm Silver Lake echoed the forward-looking sentiments. "This transaction benefits...will allow Skype the opportunity to accelerate the growth of its business by harnessing the deep technological and company development expertise that resides within the investor group," Egon Durban, managing director at Silver Lake, said in a statement. In 2007, eBay said it would take a $900 million so-called impairment writedown against the value of Skype, meaning that eBay had been forced to reassess the value of the Internet telephony company relative to its overall business. By recording a charge, the company essentially announced it had taken a loss on its original investment. When eBay announced Donahoe as its new CEO in 2008, he indicated that the company would take a year to evaluate the future of its online phone and video-conferencing service. In April, eBay announced plans to spin off Skype, with an IPO in the first half of next year. Along the way, reports had surfaced that Skype founders Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis were interested in repurchasing the company. Clarification at 7:44 a.m. PDT: This story miscast the value of the deal. eBay gets approximately $1.9 billion in cash and a note from the buyer in the principal amount of $125 million, for a total of about $2.025 billion. The companies say the deal values Skype at about $2.75 billion. news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10322833-94.html?tag=mncol;mlt_related
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Sept 22, 2009 12:06:28 GMT -5
September 18, 2009 10:52 AM PDT Joost sues former CEO Volpi over Skype by Lance Whitney Mike Volpi's battle with his former employer Joost is now headed to court. Joost announced on Friday that it has filed a lawsuit against Volpi, alleging that the former CEO used trade secrets and other confidential information in a bid to acquire a majority share in Skype from eBay. The lawsuit comes just days after Joost relieved Volpi of his duties as chairman and a member of the board, saying that it was investigating his actions while he was chairman. The fracas has its roots in the complicated relationship between online video provider Joost and VoIP provider Skype. Joost was launched in 2006 by Janus Friis and Niklas Zennstrom, who also co-founded Skype. Volpi met and befriended the pair after serving on Skype's board of directors. Once considered a contender for CEO at his former company Cisco, Volpi was tapped by Friis and Zennstrom to become CEO of Joost in June of 2007. After a two-year stint, Volpi left Joost this past July to take a position as a partner at the venture capital firm Index Ventures. This same firm was part of a group that made a deal to buy a 65 percent share of Skype from eBay. The question of Skype ownership between eBay and Friis and Zennstrom has been a dicey one. Though they sold Skype to eBay in 2006, Friis and Zennstrom kept certain rights via a company they formed called Joltid, and claim they still own the core technology and source code behind Skype. A licensing issue between the two companies triggered a suit that's set to hit a U.K. courtroom next summer. And a separate copyright suit was filed by Joltid this week in Northern California alleging Joltid's technology is being infringed on by Skype users "in the United States at least 100,000 times each day." Joost's lawsuit filed against both Volpi and Index Ventures alleges that Volpi accessed and used confidential information while at Joost to help his group's bid for Skype. It alleges breach of fiduciary duty against Volpi and Index Ventures, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Index, interference with prospective business advantage, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract against Index, breach of confidence, and civil conspiracy. Joost is looking for an injunction requiring Volpi and Index Ventures to return all confidential documents and files that were allegedly taken from Joost. The suit also is seeking to prevent both defendants from using the alleged misappropriated trade secrets. Among the specific claims in the suit: "This action arises out of the acts of a faithless fiduciary, who has taken advantage of the trust and confidence placed in him to steal confidential, highly proprietary information relating to an extremely popular Internet-based technology...Using that misappropriated information and in utter disregard for his fiduciary obligations, Volpi, acting in concert with other participants, put together a successful bid for Skype that has shocked the investment community." "Numerous sophisticated strategic bidders (including, among others, Google and Microsoft) who initially expressed an interest in Skype could not get comfortable proceeding with formal bids. The reluctance of these sophisticated parties is hardly surprising given that intellectual property that is essential to Skype's business currently hangs under a cloud of litigation. Yet somehow the successful bidder, led by Volpi, was able to get comfortable with the enormous risks of proceeding with a Skype transaction. That comfort level could have been obtained only with knowledge of and an intent to use confidential information that had been misappropriated by Volpi..." A phone call placed to Index Ventures for comment was not immediately returned. Joost was launched more than two years as another portal for online videos but has struggled to gain a foothold in the market against competitors such as YouTube and Hulu. Note: CBS, which owns CNET News, is investor in Joost. news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10356442-38.html?tag=nl.e703{I find it interesting that now Joost wants to sue relative to skype now that skype has been sold and will be invested in as a standalone company.}
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Sept 30, 2009 2:42:30 GMT -5
Incredible! A Judge who actually KNOWS what they are talking about. www.betanews.com/article/US-court-vacates-another-jurys-huge-patent-verdict-against-Microsoft/1254276921US court vacates another jury's huge patent verdict against MicrosoftBy Scott M. Fulton, III | Published September 29, 2009, 10:15 PM In the second colossal overturning of a jury verdict against Microsoft this month alone, a US District Court judge in Rhode Island has completely tossed out a $388 million patent infringement ruling against Microsoft. But rather than just accept the arguments that the jury's formula was excessive -- an argument that the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with last September 11 -- the district court judge flame-broiled the case of an Australian inventor who claimed to have created keycode-driven software activation, as not only without merit but ludicrous. Judge William Smith shot down most of inventor Uniloc's arguments, except for the one right up front. It concerned whether Microsoft's product activation system used a locally unique identifier (LUID) to represent a software license holder -- the person, not the software. Uniloc's patent described a system whereby a completely unique (or as Microsoft might put it, "globally unique") identifier represents a licensee. The randomizer in this system is supposed to be powerful enough that it would be virtually impossible for any two systems operating independently to generate the same number. (This despite the fact that, years ago, this reporter was able to accomplish this feat during a beta test of GUID.) Microsoft's argument was that "virtually" impossible was not enough, but more importantly still, that its activation system was written in such a way that personally identifying information was excluded from the license -- intentionally, so that no one stealing a computer could reverse-engineer a software license to learn about the licensee. Judge Smith ruled, however, that a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that such a uniquely generated number tended to represent the software installed on the computer belonging to the person whose name could be looked up in the Windows account directory. That fact, however, inevitably played into Microsoft's hands, because Uniloc's own expert witness testified that its patent generated unique values using a hashing algorithm that would utilize multiple inputs using addition. Microsoft's technique uses the MD5 algorithm, which Uniloc's own expert described as not performing the task explained in Uniloc's patent. "A simple comparison of MD5 as a whole to the algorithm Uniloc's patent discloses clearly reveals non-equivalence," Judge Smith ruled. "While the existence of additional components or different steps does not per se preclude a structure from being considered substantially the same as another structure, the various non-additive mathematical operations in MD5 demonstrate significant (and undisputed) differences between MD5 and the summation algorithm in the '216 patent [for Uniloc], which cannot be overstated. For example, the compressive, circular shifting and mixing functions fundamentally create a more secure result compared to an algorithm based in summation as the specification discloses. Indeed, the unchallenged evidence was that MD5's hallmark is the variety of its logical and mathematical steps to obtain a more secure result. This complexity highlights the advantage of an irreversible one-way function with a fixed output, instead of an algorithm that uses a single type of reversible operation (with no fixed output), such as that disclosed in the patent." Uniloc's case pretty much falls apart from there, because the use of a different technique than the one patented pretty much implies that Microsoft could not have acted maliciously to infringe Uniloc's patent; indeed, it could be argued that Microsoft actively worked to avoid infringement by using MD5, which Microsoft's expert explained as a superior algorithm and which Uniloc avoided contesting directly. Instead, Uniloc's attorneys went with the strategy of trying to explain its technology in very simple terms -- perhaps too simple, relying on bits and pieces of spotlighted terms and concepts as evidence that Microsoft's entire scheme violated Uniloc's entire patented concept. The judge called Uniloc on it: "Uniloc's approach, both to the jury and now the Court, is to boil down complex computer software programs to a kind of generic word find puzzle, that ignores how the allegedly infringing system actually works and, most important, the actual disclosure in the '216 patent. Some of these documents no doubt say MD5 and SHA-1 are a type of hash, or checksum. This is undisputed. But the fact that the word 'hash' or the phrase 'hash total' appears in the same sentence as 'addition' (in documents unrelated to PA [program activation) is beside the point in the overall picture of what the evidence showed the complex hashes in this case actually do, and whether that is equivalent to the 'by addition' structure Uniloc disclosed." One of the areas fuzzed over using this tactic, the judge found, was the concept in Uniloc's patent that the software only becomes functional once the software is activated. Microsoft's system has historically given users a grace period, sometimes with limited or diminished functionality, before shutting off access to software; and that very fact suggests that it isn't the activation that makes the software functional in the first place. " This grace period functionality is not trivial. For example, Office XP limits the licensee to 50 boots, and the product functions with all of its features during this time (the evidence was that on the 51st try, if the user does not activate most features become disabled). But if a user were to install the software, agree to the EULA [end user license agreement] and then not close the software for six months, it would function fully for that period of time, and have 49 boots remaining. This is clearly much more than a frisbee. The long and short of it is this: as a matter of law, PA cannot be a registration system with mode switching means as that term has been construed. Uniloc deems this conclusion a hypertechnical trap contrived by Microsoft. But in this writer's view, it is the unavoidable (and correct) result -- one that in hindsight could have, and perhaps should have, been reached when Microsoft first raised it as a summary judgment question of law for the Court, not the jury. It is undisputed that licensing of Microsoft's accused products takes place separate from and before activation."Judge Smith evidently was capable of navigating through the most intricate details of both sides' expert arguments, including a very passable summary of how MD5 works. Perhaps neither side expected him to have such a comprehensive understanding of technology as well as the law. As the remainder of his ruling unraveled, he did take the jury to task after all for succumbing to Uniloc's appeal to the jury, which he said "elevates form over substance," in assessing damages not at $18 million or less but at $388 million. Should this case be retried, Judge Smith wrote, the evidence that led the jury to that higher figure should be deemed "irrelevant."
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Sept 30, 2009 16:23:49 GMT -5
Posted from blackberry 09/30/2009 Test
|
|
raddy
Man On The Street
Posts: 248
|
Post by raddy on Sept 30, 2009 17:15:48 GMT -5
Posted from iphone!!!!
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Oct 1, 2009 2:16:51 GMT -5
Posted from iphone!!!! Hi mr. smarty pants showoff... I saw the same picture on my Blackberry - I just did not have the time to post it. I think it is pretty cool we can post from our PDAs - don't you? It is not as pretty as from the PC - but it works!
|
|
raddy
Man On The Street
Posts: 248
|
Post by raddy on Oct 1, 2009 7:58:16 GMT -5
=D
|
|
|
Post by johng on Oct 6, 2009 13:22:44 GMT -5
So do you guys lay on your side to read and post from those mini evil devices? I miss the day when a pager could be turned off or "there were no working pay phones available"...
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Oct 6, 2009 13:28:22 GMT -5
So do you guys lay on your side to read and post from those mini evil devices? I miss the day when a pager could be turned off or "there were no working pay phones available"... I turn my cell phone off and I refuse to answer the cell phone when I am at a client site. I do not answer my home phone if I do not want to. I refuse to have my life intruded upon 24/7. It took me until 2 years ago to finally get a cell phone - I was so burned out with pagers/cell phones from my previous life in biotech. I had to respond within X minutes even if my head was in a machine that had noxious, cancer causing, fumes and electronics. Or even when I was on the road. I use my blackberry when out in the field - but not here at the home office. And yes... I lay down on my side to view the page sideways which is then the correct way. Great exercise - well sorta.
|
|
raddy
Man On The Street
Posts: 248
|
Post by raddy on Oct 6, 2009 15:06:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Oct 15, 2009 9:29:22 GMT -5
Even hackers are affected by the economy and supply/demand economics. With botnets everywhere, DDoS attacks get cheaper $30 will buy a one-day DDoS attack nowBy Robert McMillan , IDG News Service , 10/15/2009 Cyber-crime just doesn't pay like it used to. Security researchers say the cost of criminal services such as distributed denial of service, or DDoS, attacks has dropped in recent months. The reason? Market economics. "The barriers to entry in that marketplace are so low you have people basically flooding the market," said Jose Nazario, a security researcher with Arbor Networks. "The way you differentiate yourself is on price." Criminals have gotten better at hacking into unsuspecting computers and linking them together into so-called botnet networks, which can then be centrally controlled. Botnets are used to send spam, steal passwords, and sometimes to launch DDoS attacks, which flood victims' servers with unwanted information. Often these networks are rented out as a kind of criminal software-as-a-service to third parties, who are typically recruited in online discussion boards. DDoS attacks have been used to censor critics, take down rivals, wipe out online competitors and even extort money from legitimate businesses. Earlier this year a highly publicized DDoS attack targeted U.S. and South Korean servers, knocking a number of Web sites offline. Are botnet operators having to cut costs like other businesses in these troubled economic times? Security researchers don't know if that's been a factor, but they do say that the supply of infected machines has been growing. In 2008, Symantec's Internet sensors counted an average of 75,158 active bot-infected computers per day, a 31 percent jump from the previous year. DDoS attacks may have cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars per day a few years ago, but in recent months researchers have seen them going for bargain-basement prices. Nazario has seen DDoS attacks offered in the US$100-per-day range, but according to SecureWorks Security Researcher Kevin Stevens, prices have dropped to $30 to $50 on some Russian forums. And DDoS attacks aren't the only thing getting cheaper. Stevens says the cost of stolen credit card numbers and other kinds of identity information has dropped too. "Prices are dropping on almost everything," he said. While $100 per day might cover a garden-variety 100MB/second to 400MB/second attack, it might also procure something much weaker, depending on the seller. " There's a lot of crap out there where you don't really know what you're getting," said Zulfikar Ramzan, a technical director with Symantec Security Response. "Even though we are seeing some lower prices, it doesn't mean that you're going to get the same quality of goods." In general, prices for access to botnet computers have dropped dramatically since 2007, he said. But with the influx of generic and often untrustworthy services, players at the high end can now charge more, Ramzan said. The IDG News Service is a Network World affiliate. www.networkworld.com/news/2009/101509-with-botnets-everywhere-ddos-attacks.html---------------------------------------------------- Hey BO - even hackers comprehend free markets! LOLOL
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Oct 19, 2009 23:33:10 GMT -5
www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3661P55 Extreme Overclockers: Check your sockets! Date: October 15th, 2009 Topic: Motherboard Manufacturer: eVGA Author: Rajinder Gill We start with a picture. [go to the above link for the picture] The picture above is after our Core i7 870 (LGA-1156) processor was overclocked up to 5.19GHz using our cascade with a -102° Celsius evaporator head temperature under full-load. Processor VCC power draw at these frequencies is around 160W (this is possible only due to subzero cooling), as measured with a clamp meter installed at the 12V EPS power lead. Study the pictures closely and you should notice something peculiar. Keep in mind it comes from a CPU installed in the same type of socket from a particular manufacturer. [go to the above link for the picture] What happens after several extreme benchmark runs... If you noticed something weird in the pictures then you understand the title of our article. We have what seems to be a potentially serious issue with proper socket loading on several P55-based motherboards when overclocking to the limit. We are of course not the only ones experiencing the problem as several of our overclocking peers have run into the same problem. Normally we do not worry too much about mishaps during extreme overclocking testing as they are typically caused by factors outside of the supplier’s control. The overriding concern is that we have damaged every motherboard in our possession for the P55 overclocking (extreme) shootout as well as two very expensive i7/870 processors. These problems are the cause of a single component and are repeatable. As such, we thought we would provide details on current problems and will provide an update once all of the motherboard manufacturers affected have had a chance to properly respond. [go to the above link for the picture] We draw your attention to the fact that the processor shown in this pictures exhibits signs of insufficient pin-to-pad contact (little to no contact) in what is a rather reproducible pattern with Foxconn manufactured 1156 sockets. As soon as an end-user mounts a CPU in a socket and latches the clamp mechanism, each pin should leave a notable mark on the associated pad. We've marked locations where this does not seem to have happened, showing what appears to be a significant reduction in the number of VCC/VSS pins for proper power delivery, and certainly not at the right load line resistance. Damage resulting from highly overclocked use in these types of situations is not solely limited to the processor; let’s take a look at what happened to some of the motherboards in which these CPU were seated. [go to the above link for the pictures] The random level of pin/pad contact in the VCC/VSS area is an accident waiting to happen when the processor begins to draw current, especially when highly overclocked. When Intel publishes socket specifications and design tolerances, it's up to component manufacturers to strictly adhere to them when designing, manufacturing, testing and ultimately selling their "compliant" components. Of course, that's not to say Intel could not have goofed when releasing their specification, leaving out a crucial tolerance or such. It could happen, but not likely. For the time being, let's assume that's not the case; seeing as how processors installed in sockets built by other companies have exhibited no such issue in testing to date. At first glance, one might be inclined to think LGA-1156 based processors are intolerant of high-end overclocking, almost as if by design. This is correct to some extent; a quick glance at Intel’s white papers for socket 1156 CPU’s reveals that there are around 175 pads for VCC compared to over 250 for socket 1366 CPU’s. This means socket 1156 has around 66% of the current capacity of socket 1366, the caveat being that when overclocked, processors from both platforms draw similar levels of current. When overclocked above 4GHz, processors from both platforms will draw around 15-16 amps via the EPS 12V rail to VCC, VTT and some of the other sub –system power rails under full 8 thread load from the Intel burn test (Linx). Assuming 85% PWM efficiency, we’re looking at power draw in the region of 130-140w to VCC on both platforms. The facts point toward tighter current handling tolerances for socket 1156 when compared to socket 1366, especially when it comes to non-connection of VCC/VSS power delivery pins. Fortunately, we think we've been able to isolate pin to pad contact issues to one particular brand of parts. Physical inspection and end-user reports all but confirm the issues only affects sockets manufactured by Foxconn at this time. The only known alternative sockets in the wild are made by LOTES or Tyco AMP. We happen to have a couple of boards from EVGA using the LOTES/Tyco AMP sockets and MSI/DFI using the LOTES socket design, and thus far those boards have been issue free given highly similar operating conditions. In fact, we’ve managed to push our LGA-1156 processors further in heavy load tests on boards made using LOTES/Tyco AMP sockets than those made with sockets from Foxconn; something we’re not putting down solely to coincidence. So far, EVGA is the only company we know that uses sockets exclusively from LOTES on their top-tier P55 boards - for example, the EVGA P55 Classified 200, model E659. This by the way may be the onus behind the decision to market the board’s “300% More Gold Content” socket statement as a purchasing option point. If you find yourself shopping for an EVGA P55 FTW, model E657, you've got a 50/50 chance of buying one with a Tyco AMP socket design (using a LOTES backplate), as opposed to one made solely with Foxconn's, the same goes for MSI and DFI who have batches of boards in the retail channel using LOTES sockets (although we're not entirely sure on socket specifics at this point). DFI told us earlier they have dropped usage of the Foxconn sockets completely until further notice. We hear the LOTES and Tyco AMP sockets are in short supply, which is probably why Foxconn's been able to fill the void in the market with what we believe to be a lower quality alternative for the extreme overclocker. We took one of our damaged CPU’s and inserted it into one of the EVGA (LOTES/Tyco AMP) boards and took a few pics to show contact scoring and a side by side compare to the original Foxconn socket indents. [go to the above link for the picture] Tyco AMP / LOTES 1156 Socket Installation Note how from a variety of angles certain pads show no evidence of contact from a Foxconn pin at all. Both the Tyco AMP and LOTES sockets have a larger pin/pad contact surface area leaving a slight scuff mark in the central area of each pad. In light of this, what we will say is that if you’re thinking of doing extreme overclocking on a board built using Foxconn's socket 1156, think again. Or, at least check your CPU for evidence of proper pin-to-pad contact. We have not had any problems with air or water cooling overclocking up to 4.3GHz, although we do have a i5/750 that has developed a few dark pads after a thousand hours or so of constant overclocking. However, none of the boards have developed pin problems so we feel very safe in saying that any problems will probably occur only in extreme overclocking scenarios. We also realize that partial responsibility for some of the less than acceptable CPU installations may be in fact due user installation errors. However, if users are screwing this up by doing nothing different than what they've always done when it comes to handling and installing LGA-type processors, then it's hard for us to find fault with the installer. Be aware of this situation and study the pin imprint on the CPU pads and make sure you have good contact on the VCC/VSS power delivery pads before pushing the system too hard. <snip>
|
|
raddy
Man On The Street
Posts: 248
|
Post by raddy on Nov 16, 2009 22:27:23 GMT -5
Posted from iphone!!!! Hi mr. smarty pants showoff... I saw the same picture on my Blackberry - I just did not have the time to post it. I think it is pretty cool we can post from our PDAs - don't you? It is not as pretty as from the PC - but it works! No longer have the iphone, I switched to the HTC Hero with Android! Found a much better deal and the interwebz are faster! Much faster.... Alot more coverage than ATT...........
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Sept 24, 2011 14:01:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Sept 28, 2011 12:50:20 GMT -5
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2042573/Facebook-privacy-row-Social-network-giant-admits-bugs.html'We didn't mean to track you' says Facebook as social network giant admits to 'bugs' in new privacy rowBy Daniel Bates Last updated at 4:35 PM on 28th September 2011 Facebook has admitted that it has been watching the web pages its members visit – even when they have logged out. In its latest privacy blunder, the social networking site was forced to confirm that it has been constantly tracking its 750million users, even when they are using other sites. ... Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2042573/Facebook-privacy-row-Social-network-giant-admits-bugs.html#ixzz1ZGq5G1Qqwww.seobythesea.com/2011/09/facebook-patent-application-target-ads/Facebook Patent Application Describes Receiving Data from Logged-Out Users to Target Ads By Bill Slawski, on September 27, 2011, at 10:01 am ... blogs.wsj.com/wtk/WSJ Blogs What They Know The Wall Street Journal's What They Know series documents the new, cutting-edge uses of this Internet-tracking technology Twitter Digg + More close StumbleUponMySpacedel.icio.usRedditLinkedInFarkViadeoOrkut Marketers are spying on Internet users -- observing and remembering people's clicks, and building and selling detailed dossiers of their activities and interests. The Wall Street Journal's What They Know series documents the new, cutting-edge uses of this Internet-tracking technology. The Journal analyzed the tracking files installed on people's computers by the 50 most popular U.S. websites, plus WSJ.com. The Journal also built an "exposure index" -- to determine the degree to which each site exposes visitors to monitoring -- by studying the tracking technologies they install and the privacy policies that guide their use. ...
|
|