Some Google Custom Home Pages Pull Vanishing Act
04.27.07
By Chloe Albanesius
Google is working to restore its personalized homepage function a day after users worldwide reported online that their settings had been deleted, and the problem has prompted some users to recommend that Google implement a backup function on its site.
ADVERTISEMENT Early on Thursday morning, users started streaming onto Google's online help desk forum to report that they had lost access to the links and tabs they had selected for their homepage.
"All my collected links, sticky notes, tabs, etc. – gone," the first post said.
"HELP GOOGLE!" another user soon posted.
On Friday, however, a Google representative claimed the problem was an isolated one. "This affected a relatively small group of users, and we believe this to be an isolated incident, though we are always looking for ways to improve users' experience," a Google spokeswoman said in an email. "We know our users depend on their personalized homepages to get the information they want when they want it."
The personalized homepage service allows users to customize the search giant's main page to include favorite links, tabs and news stories of interest, among other things. Some reported having worked for months to craft the perfect homepage, while others said they created more than one homepage for different accounts. One user even had a personalized homepage for a fictional character that was part of an online project.
The confusion occurred just hours after Google decided to ax a previously-scheduled Google Apps maintenance plan that could have taken user functionality offline for most of the day.
Some found that their pages were deleted completely while others were reverted back to versions from months ago. Those who tried to recreate their settings found that they too were deleted within minutes of saving.
A Google employee who identified himself as "Google Guide Cameron" soon posted an apology on the forum and said the company was in "frantic-chase-down-this-bug mode here at the Googleplex."
Cameron suggested at the time that the outage might have happened when users changed their homepage themes, and asked users who still had access to not change their themes until further notice.
Many of those without access, however, reported that they had not changed their themes. "I haven't used any themes, and like a lot of people here, I wasn't even using the homepage when it went down. It was simply open on a tab. One minute it was there, next it was gone," according to a user who identified himself as Paolo.
Cameron re-appeared in the early afternoon. "Thanks for letting us know that this problem isn't related to your theme – it's really helpful to get this info," he wrote. He then asked users for their approximate location, but it did not appear to be a localized event. Responses came from people in England, Estonia, France, Greece and the United States, to name a few.
At 9 PM EST Wednesday night, "Google Guide Jamie" posted a message saying that Google was "making good progress." He requested continued patience and asked that users hold off on re-personalizing their homepages.
By early Friday morning, many users took to the forum to report that their homepages had been restored, though a few said they were still waiting. A "Google Guide" has not yet re-appeared with additional guidance.
Those on the forums who had their service restored were generally grateful to Google for resolving the issue, though some said the snafu was a sign that Google needed an easy-to-use backup function to prevent future loss.
"I think it might be a good idea for Google to make a 'backup homepage' module, which would allow users to save and restore to/from a file saved on the PC (or anywhere) in case this happens again," wrote a user known as Mic.
"You get what you pay for," wrote a member who identified himself as Jason. But Google should allow people to "save your setting [sic] locally, and have the option to upload them, in case something like this happened again."
Editor's Note: This story was updated at 11:23 AM PDT with comments from a Google representative.
I scanned the title of this article expecting some sort of privacy invasion or perhaps a bad case of customer assistance. Nope, it's just a few people whose cookies weren't in full working order on Google. Does this mean I have to type in the whole website name? You mean my Netflix information no longer exists? No, it just means that it won't automatically pop up. I did find part of this article amusing, and that was the very cute nicknames given to Google Guide Jaime and Google Guide Cameron. How about, Google Guide Get A Life?
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Just In Case...
Google draws privacy complaint to FTC
Three public-interest groups are expected to ask for a government investigation into issues posed by Google's DoubleClick acquisition.
By Stefanie Olsen
Three public-interest groups are expected to file a joint complaint on Friday with the Federal Trade Commission calling for an investigation into the potential threat to consumer privacy posed by Google's planned acquisition of DoubleClick.
The Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), along with the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) and the U.S. Public Interest Research Groups (U.S. PIRG), are asking the FTC to stop the $3.1 billion merger until the trade commission investigates Google's data collection and storage practices, orders DoubleClick to sweep out its data storehouse and requires the search giant to offer a public plan for safeguarding consumer privacy.
"Google's proposed acquisition of DoubleClick will give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world," the complaint reads. "Moreover, Google will operate with virtually no legal obligation to ensure the privacy, security and accuracy of the personal data that it collects."
At stake, the complaint says, are the privacy interests of 233 million Internet users in North America, 314 million Internet users in Europe and more than 1.1 billion Internet users around the world.
Nicole Wong, Google's deputy general counsel, said in an e-mail statement that the company has not yet seen a copy of the filing but that she believes that there would be no basis for such a complaint.
"User, advertiser and publisher trust is paramount to the success of our business and to the success of the acquisition. We can't imagine taking any actions that would undermine these relationships or the trust people have in using our products and services," Wong wrote.
Since Google announced plans to buy DoubleClick for $3.1 billion last week, privacy advocates have expressed growing concern over the mountain of data Google's would hold following the deal. The largest search engine in the United States, Google fielded as many as 3.5 billion search queries last month, and it regularly stores that data. (It recently said it would begin to get rid of those records after 18 to 24 months.)
The company also collects and stores data on a range of other services, including user's schedules on Google Calendar, address information from Google Maps and e-mail documents from Gmail. By acquiring DoubleClick--the country's largest ad-technology provider, with a reach of about 80 percent to 85 percent of the Web population--Google would have access to a database of user's surfing habits across hundreds of sites, including DoubleClick customers such as Time Warner's AOL and Viacom's MTV Networks.
The public-interest groups contend that by holding all of that data, Google is vulnerable to security breaches and surveillance by law enforcements in the United States and abroad. They say people's right to privacy could be severely diminished.
Among other requests, the groups ask that the FTC order Google to create a "meaningful data destruction policy" and give users reasonable access to information stored about them.
Privacy concerns in the United States are being matched in Europe, where Google is the dominant player. (It reaches 75 percent of the European search market, according to a November research report from DoubleClick.)
Earlier this week, a European Union data privacy group reportedly said it plans to send a letter to Google warning that the search giant is running afoul of data collection policies in its member countries.
Privacy advocates are particularly worried that Google will merge the data from users' search queries with DoubleClick's records of people's general Web-surfing habits in order to build a centralized database of consumer profiles.
Google executives have said that for now, the company does not plan to merge collections of personally identifiable information such as names and e-mail addresses, with records of search histories and Web-surfing habits.
Rather, it hopes to combine both companies' non-personally identifiable data, such as search histories and Web-surfing habits linked to a computer's IP address, so that it could better target advertisements. For example, it aims to ensure that no individual computer receives repeated banner ads. (The deal is slated to close sometime this year.)
But one of EPIC's arguments is that an IP address--the string of numbers that identifies each individual computer connected to the Internet--can, with a little work, be linked to an individual, even if a name or address isn't associated with the IP number.
The complaint cites a data spill from last year, when AOL published the search records of 658,000 of its American users. Although the search histories were linked only to numbers, The New York Times was able to match some search records to individuals.
"Identity can be inferred," Marc Rotenberg, executive director for EPIC and author of the complaint, said in an interview with CNET News.com. "We believe that this complaint provides an opportunity for (the) FTC to look closely at whether the online-advertising industry provides adequate privacy protection for Internet users and (to) consider the privacy impact of non-personally identifiable information collected through search histories."
Now on News.com:
In some ways, the complaint is an example of history repeating itself. EPIC raised major questions about DoubleClick's online profiling in February 2000, when it filed a similar complaint to the FTC.
At the time, EPIC asked the FTC to investigate the company's plans to merge data from consumers' offline behavior--following the purchase of direct marketer Abacus--with anonymous information it held on users' surfing habits. DoubleClick retreated from its plans to merge systems, and the company eventually got out of the online consumer-profiling business.
The current complaint argues that Google be held to privacy standards from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an international body of 33 countries whose guidelines limit the collection of personal data and give individuals the right "to access, amend, complete or erase information, as appropriate." OECD's guidelines also call for an openness about what information is collected and used.
EPIC's complaint also contends that Google's public privacy policy isn't forthcoming enough, given that it takes four clicks on Google's site for people to read that the record of what they've searched for will be associated to their computer's IP address. Google users also do not have a way to access information held about them or delete that information, the complaint said.
"It's a new obstacle for any potential takeover," said Jeff Chester, founder and executive director of the CDD.
Google assures us that there is no incentive for them to endanger our privacy, and that for now, they have no plans to link our identities with our internet activities. So what are they keeping our information for? They also plan to start throwing away the old usage data after 18-24 months, until they mentioned that though, how long has it been? Do they still know that five years ago I looked at porn online? (I'm being hypothetically sarcastic.) Yes, keeping our internet activities and that data around can have its benefits. For example, the next time I am on Amazon, I may be recommended a book that I may enjoy. Or, instead of re-typing information, I have cookies that do the work for me. But there is certainly something ominous about Google acquiring DoubleClick even if they promise that nothing with change.
Three public-interest groups are expected to ask for a government investigation into issues posed by Google's DoubleClick acquisition.
By Stefanie Olsen
Three public-interest groups are expected to file a joint complaint on Friday with the Federal Trade Commission calling for an investigation into the potential threat to consumer privacy posed by Google's planned acquisition of DoubleClick.
The Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), along with the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) and the U.S. Public Interest Research Groups (U.S. PIRG), are asking the FTC to stop the $3.1 billion merger until the trade commission investigates Google's data collection and storage practices, orders DoubleClick to sweep out its data storehouse and requires the search giant to offer a public plan for safeguarding consumer privacy.
"Google's proposed acquisition of DoubleClick will give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world," the complaint reads. "Moreover, Google will operate with virtually no legal obligation to ensure the privacy, security and accuracy of the personal data that it collects."
At stake, the complaint says, are the privacy interests of 233 million Internet users in North America, 314 million Internet users in Europe and more than 1.1 billion Internet users around the world.
Nicole Wong, Google's deputy general counsel, said in an e-mail statement that the company has not yet seen a copy of the filing but that she believes that there would be no basis for such a complaint.
"User, advertiser and publisher trust is paramount to the success of our business and to the success of the acquisition. We can't imagine taking any actions that would undermine these relationships or the trust people have in using our products and services," Wong wrote.
Since Google announced plans to buy DoubleClick for $3.1 billion last week, privacy advocates have expressed growing concern over the mountain of data Google's would hold following the deal. The largest search engine in the United States, Google fielded as many as 3.5 billion search queries last month, and it regularly stores that data. (It recently said it would begin to get rid of those records after 18 to 24 months.)
The company also collects and stores data on a range of other services, including user's schedules on Google Calendar, address information from Google Maps and e-mail documents from Gmail. By acquiring DoubleClick--the country's largest ad-technology provider, with a reach of about 80 percent to 85 percent of the Web population--Google would have access to a database of user's surfing habits across hundreds of sites, including DoubleClick customers such as Time Warner's AOL and Viacom's MTV Networks.
The public-interest groups contend that by holding all of that data, Google is vulnerable to security breaches and surveillance by law enforcements in the United States and abroad. They say people's right to privacy could be severely diminished.
Among other requests, the groups ask that the FTC order Google to create a "meaningful data destruction policy" and give users reasonable access to information stored about them.
Privacy concerns in the United States are being matched in Europe, where Google is the dominant player. (It reaches 75 percent of the European search market, according to a November research report from DoubleClick.)
Earlier this week, a European Union data privacy group reportedly said it plans to send a letter to Google warning that the search giant is running afoul of data collection policies in its member countries.
Privacy advocates are particularly worried that Google will merge the data from users' search queries with DoubleClick's records of people's general Web-surfing habits in order to build a centralized database of consumer profiles.
Google executives have said that for now, the company does not plan to merge collections of personally identifiable information such as names and e-mail addresses, with records of search histories and Web-surfing habits.
Rather, it hopes to combine both companies' non-personally identifiable data, such as search histories and Web-surfing habits linked to a computer's IP address, so that it could better target advertisements. For example, it aims to ensure that no individual computer receives repeated banner ads. (The deal is slated to close sometime this year.)
But one of EPIC's arguments is that an IP address--the string of numbers that identifies each individual computer connected to the Internet--can, with a little work, be linked to an individual, even if a name or address isn't associated with the IP number.
The complaint cites a data spill from last year, when AOL published the search records of 658,000 of its American users. Although the search histories were linked only to numbers, The New York Times was able to match some search records to individuals.
"Identity can be inferred," Marc Rotenberg, executive director for EPIC and author of the complaint, said in an interview with CNET News.com. "We believe that this complaint provides an opportunity for (the) FTC to look closely at whether the online-advertising industry provides adequate privacy protection for Internet users and (to) consider the privacy impact of non-personally identifiable information collected through search histories."
Now on News.com:
In some ways, the complaint is an example of history repeating itself. EPIC raised major questions about DoubleClick's online profiling in February 2000, when it filed a similar complaint to the FTC.
At the time, EPIC asked the FTC to investigate the company's plans to merge data from consumers' offline behavior--following the purchase of direct marketer Abacus--with anonymous information it held on users' surfing habits. DoubleClick retreated from its plans to merge systems, and the company eventually got out of the online consumer-profiling business.
The current complaint argues that Google be held to privacy standards from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an international body of 33 countries whose guidelines limit the collection of personal data and give individuals the right "to access, amend, complete or erase information, as appropriate." OECD's guidelines also call for an openness about what information is collected and used.
EPIC's complaint also contends that Google's public privacy policy isn't forthcoming enough, given that it takes four clicks on Google's site for people to read that the record of what they've searched for will be associated to their computer's IP address. Google users also do not have a way to access information held about them or delete that information, the complaint said.
"It's a new obstacle for any potential takeover," said Jeff Chester, founder and executive director of the CDD.
Google assures us that there is no incentive for them to endanger our privacy, and that for now, they have no plans to link our identities with our internet activities. So what are they keeping our information for? They also plan to start throwing away the old usage data after 18-24 months, until they mentioned that though, how long has it been? Do they still know that five years ago I looked at porn online? (I'm being hypothetically sarcastic.) Yes, keeping our internet activities and that data around can have its benefits. For example, the next time I am on Amazon, I may be recommended a book that I may enjoy. Or, instead of re-typing information, I have cookies that do the work for me. But there is certainly something ominous about Google acquiring DoubleClick even if they promise that nothing with change.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Patent Infringement? Who Really Cares.
So far, Vonage's patent woes haven't rattled Net phone industry
Associated Press
Article Launched: 04/11/2007 02:57:16 PM PDT
NEW YORK - The legal trouble threatening Vonage Holdings Corp. doesn't yet appear to be rippling across the Internet phone industry, a stark contrast to last year's BlackBerry patent dispute that spooked existing and would-be users of the popular e-mail device.
So far, rivals haven't been aggressively targeting Vonage customers who may be unsettled by a jury's finding last month that the company's service infringes on patents held by Verizon Communications Inc. And other Internet telephone providers don't seem to be worried that Verizon might be emboldened to turn its intellectual property guns on them.
The worst case scenario, seemingly unlikely for now, could mean a disruption in phone service if Vonage loses its court appeal and either fails to reach a settlement with Verizon or deploy an effective substitute technology.
"There hasn't been a flood of Vonage subscribers coming to Packet8," said Huw Rees, vice president for marketing at 8x8 Inc. "People must be hearing little snippets of these issues going on between Vonage and Verizon, but most people not involved in the industry have not heard much about it."
The anecdotal reports have been similar at both SunRocket Inc., another standalone Internet phone company, and Cox Communications, a cable TV company that provides phone service using both Internet-based and traditional technologies.
"I would suggest that average consumers are unaware of the (Vonage) ruling, and that many may not understand the role of VoIP architectures in the delivery of their phone services," said Cox spokesman David Grabert, using the common acronym for the "Voice over Internet Protocol" technology employed in transmitting calls over broadband connections.
This backdrop contrasts sharply with the quandary that faced Research In Motion Ltd. a year ago as a small company sought a court order to shut down the BlackBerry e-mail service due to patent infringement.
RIM struggled mightily to reassure BlackBerry users that they wouldn't be cut off from their beloved e-mail lifelines, yet refused to cave in to the highly public threats and settlement demands of its accuser, NTP Inc.
Amid the standoff, RIM acknowledged that customers had put off placing new orders for the BlackBerry due to the threat of a court-ordered shutdown of the BlackBerry system. Trying to capitalize on those jitters, mobile e-mail rivals such as Good Technology, since acquired by Motorola Inc., struck deals with NTP so they could advertise that their services were not at risk of patent litigation or shutdown.
Verizon, though it has played hardball in court, hasn't taken to arguing its case in the media with the same vigor as NTP, cutting Vonage a break of sorts with its customers. Verizon declined to comment on its legal and public relations strategies.
Vonage has placed updates on its Web site "reassuring customers that the injunction doesn't impact them or their service," said spokeswoman Brooke Schulz, but "we haven't gotten many calls from customers on the litigation."
That's one of the few glimmers of good news for Vonage, which has seen its share price tumble more than 80 percent since its initial public offering of stock almost a year ago.
The past month's developments - from the guilty verdict in the federal trial in Virginia to a pending injunction that could prevent Vonage from signing up new customers while using the disputed patents - have dragged the stock from more than $5 a share to just $3.
The next step in the case, on Thursday, will be a hearing to determine how much bond Vonage will need to put up for potential compensation to Verizon while the case is appealed.
Then the appeals court will decide on Vonage's request for a stay of the trial judge's injunction barring new customer activations during the appeal. If it isn't granted, Vonage would have to deploy a workaround technology or stop signing up new customers.
As it turns out, as a follow up to the previous post, people don't really care about the scandal involving their phoneline carriers. Apparently, patent infringement just isn't something to get worked up about if you are a Vonage customer, but I fail to see why Blackberry customers did seem to have an issue with it. Verizon seems unwilling to smear Vonage in the public press, and that is clearly saving their bottom line. Furthermore, no other markets are taking this news to the goldmine, which is helping Vonage save face.
Associated Press
Article Launched: 04/11/2007 02:57:16 PM PDT
NEW YORK - The legal trouble threatening Vonage Holdings Corp. doesn't yet appear to be rippling across the Internet phone industry, a stark contrast to last year's BlackBerry patent dispute that spooked existing and would-be users of the popular e-mail device.
So far, rivals haven't been aggressively targeting Vonage customers who may be unsettled by a jury's finding last month that the company's service infringes on patents held by Verizon Communications Inc. And other Internet telephone providers don't seem to be worried that Verizon might be emboldened to turn its intellectual property guns on them.
The worst case scenario, seemingly unlikely for now, could mean a disruption in phone service if Vonage loses its court appeal and either fails to reach a settlement with Verizon or deploy an effective substitute technology.
"There hasn't been a flood of Vonage subscribers coming to Packet8," said Huw Rees, vice president for marketing at 8x8 Inc. "People must be hearing little snippets of these issues going on between Vonage and Verizon, but most people not involved in the industry have not heard much about it."
The anecdotal reports have been similar at both SunRocket Inc., another standalone Internet phone company, and Cox Communications, a cable TV company that provides phone service using both Internet-based and traditional technologies.
"I would suggest that average consumers are unaware of the (Vonage) ruling, and that many may not understand the role of VoIP architectures in the delivery of their phone services," said Cox spokesman David Grabert, using the common acronym for the "Voice over Internet Protocol" technology employed in transmitting calls over broadband connections.
This backdrop contrasts sharply with the quandary that faced Research In Motion Ltd. a year ago as a small company sought a court order to shut down the BlackBerry e-mail service due to patent infringement.
RIM struggled mightily to reassure BlackBerry users that they wouldn't be cut off from their beloved e-mail lifelines, yet refused to cave in to the highly public threats and settlement demands of its accuser, NTP Inc.
Amid the standoff, RIM acknowledged that customers had put off placing new orders for the BlackBerry due to the threat of a court-ordered shutdown of the BlackBerry system. Trying to capitalize on those jitters, mobile e-mail rivals such as Good Technology, since acquired by Motorola Inc., struck deals with NTP so they could advertise that their services were not at risk of patent litigation or shutdown.
Verizon, though it has played hardball in court, hasn't taken to arguing its case in the media with the same vigor as NTP, cutting Vonage a break of sorts with its customers. Verizon declined to comment on its legal and public relations strategies.
Vonage has placed updates on its Web site "reassuring customers that the injunction doesn't impact them or their service," said spokeswoman Brooke Schulz, but "we haven't gotten many calls from customers on the litigation."
That's one of the few glimmers of good news for Vonage, which has seen its share price tumble more than 80 percent since its initial public offering of stock almost a year ago.
The past month's developments - from the guilty verdict in the federal trial in Virginia to a pending injunction that could prevent Vonage from signing up new customers while using the disputed patents - have dragged the stock from more than $5 a share to just $3.
The next step in the case, on Thursday, will be a hearing to determine how much bond Vonage will need to put up for potential compensation to Verizon while the case is appealed.
Then the appeals court will decide on Vonage's request for a stay of the trial judge's injunction barring new customer activations during the appeal. If it isn't granted, Vonage would have to deploy a workaround technology or stop signing up new customers.
As it turns out, as a follow up to the previous post, people don't really care about the scandal involving their phoneline carriers. Apparently, patent infringement just isn't something to get worked up about if you are a Vonage customer, but I fail to see why Blackberry customers did seem to have an issue with it. Verizon seems unwilling to smear Vonage in the public press, and that is clearly saving their bottom line. Furthermore, no other markets are taking this news to the goldmine, which is helping Vonage save face.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Patent Infringement Endangers Customers
Vonage's lucky break?
By Marguerite Reardon
Internet telephony provider Vonage, which is facing a possible shutdown of its service this week because of a patent dispute, may have gotten a stay of execution.
According to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company has signed a deal with a wholesaler of voice over Internet Protocol services called Voiceone, owned by a company called VoIP Inc., that could provide it with a work-around for at least two of the three patents owned by Verizon Communications. Voiceone also offers wholesale voice over IP service to several large companies including Broadwing Communications, iBasis and Google.
Even though Vonage may avoid a complete network shutdown this week, it doesn't mean its troubles are solved. The company still may not be able to get around Verizon patents, and it continues to steadily lose customers.
Details of the contract between Vonage and VoIP Inc. have not been released. But according to a form that VoIP Inc. filed with the SEC on March 30, the duration of the Vonage contract is two years. After that time, the companies can continue their relationship on a month-to-month basis.
Vonage did not return phone calls seeking comment on the deal with VoIP Inc.
In March, a federal jury found that Vonage's IP telephony services infringed on three patents owned by Verizon. Two of the patents deal with how VoIP calls connect to the regular public switched telephone network, and the third one is about making VoIP calls via Wi-Fi phones.
While the jury found that Vonage did not willfully infringe on Verizon's patents, it did award Verizon $58 million in damages. On March 23, U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton said he would issue an injunction barring Vonage from using the technology included in the three patents. But he said he would not issue the injunction until April 6, which is this Friday.
Since the judge announced he would issue an injunction, the IP telephony service provider and its more than 2 million subscribers have been living under a cloud of uncertainty. On the one hand, the judge could issue a stay on the injunction that would last a couple of weeks or until Vonage has had time to appeal the court's decision. On the other hand, the judge could also require Vonage to stop service immediately to ensure it is not infringing on the Verizon patents. That would mean a catastrophe for Vonage and its customers, who would be without phone service.
Vonage's recent deal with VoIP Inc. could help convince the judge to give Vonage more time.
"I think it's very unlikely that Vonage's service will be cut off on Friday," said Joel Rosenblatt, a patent and intellectual attorney in private practice in Florida. "The judge will be fair. The court didn't find Vonage willfully abusing the patents, and now that it is looking for a work-around, it shows that Vonage is working in good faith to find a solution."
But even though Vonage avoids a complete network shutdown this week, the company's troubles have hardly evaporated. First, it's still unclear whether the deal with VoIP Inc. will offer an arrangement that does not infringe on the Verizon patents.
A spokesman for Verizon declined to comment on the implications of the VoIP Inc. deal with regard to the case. But legal experts, such as Rosenblatt, said it's likely that Verizon is already evaluating the VoIP Inc. network and technology.
"I'm sure Verizon's legal team is already looking into their own patents to see how they line up with VoIP Inc.'s network and technology," he said. "And if they infringe, Verizon will be ready to sue VoIP Inc. and Vonage for infringing on them."
The threat of a permanent injunction has already taken its toll on Vonage. The company, which has yet to turn a profit, has steadily been losing customers. And the recent uncertainty hasn't helped matters, as customers try to figure out if they will have service next week or even a few months from now.
"Vonage is in crisis mode," said Clayton Moran, a stock analyst with the Stanford Group. "The uncertainty is impacting operations. We expect many existing customers to cancel service. And it will also make it more difficult for Vonage to attract new customers."
Moran said he has lowered his expectations for Vonage for 2007. While he had earlier projected the company would end the year with more than 3 million subscribers, he's now predicting it will fall short of the 3 million mark. Previously he had forecast Vonage reaching profitability by the end of the first quarter of 2008. Now the best-case scenario is that Vonage could reach profitability in the second quarter of 2008, he said. But even that is uncertain, he added.
Meanwhile, Vonage is facing stiff competition from cable operators that are bundling voice services similar in price and functions to its own service. Competition is also increasing from Internet companies like Skype, Google and Yahoo that are offering IP telephony services. While Moran doesn't believe that Vonage is in danger of going out of business anytime soon, he said the continuing legal troubles coupled with the increased competition could make it difficult for the company to compete in the future.
"I don't see the company dissolving completely in the near term," Moran said. "But I can't rule it out for the future either."
Even with the VoIP Inc. deal, Moran said he is unconvinced that Vonage will be able to get around the Verizon patents so easily.
"The agreement with VoIP Inc. is still unclear," he said. "But at this point it doesn't change my view that a work-around will be challenging for Vonage."
I found this article a little unclear on a few things. Primarily, if Vonage has a contract with VoIP, then I do not see why Vonage is being sued by Verizon instead of VoIP. It seems like VoIP is contracting out the patented technology, and should therefore be the main liability. Furthermore, I do not see how a judge could order the company to shut down service when millions of people depend on their phone lines through Vonage. This seems like a health risk in case of emergency. Chances are, at least one person will need to use their phone while it is potentially out of service. Would Vonage compensate their customers by re-routing their service through another carrier, and then incur the costs? It would seem like the only responsible thing to do in order to keep their customers and eventually hope to turn a profit.
By Marguerite Reardon
Internet telephony provider Vonage, which is facing a possible shutdown of its service this week because of a patent dispute, may have gotten a stay of execution.
According to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company has signed a deal with a wholesaler of voice over Internet Protocol services called Voiceone, owned by a company called VoIP Inc., that could provide it with a work-around for at least two of the three patents owned by Verizon Communications. Voiceone also offers wholesale voice over IP service to several large companies including Broadwing Communications, iBasis and Google.
Even though Vonage may avoid a complete network shutdown this week, it doesn't mean its troubles are solved. The company still may not be able to get around Verizon patents, and it continues to steadily lose customers.
Details of the contract between Vonage and VoIP Inc. have not been released. But according to a form that VoIP Inc. filed with the SEC on March 30, the duration of the Vonage contract is two years. After that time, the companies can continue their relationship on a month-to-month basis.
Vonage did not return phone calls seeking comment on the deal with VoIP Inc.
In March, a federal jury found that Vonage's IP telephony services infringed on three patents owned by Verizon. Two of the patents deal with how VoIP calls connect to the regular public switched telephone network, and the third one is about making VoIP calls via Wi-Fi phones.
While the jury found that Vonage did not willfully infringe on Verizon's patents, it did award Verizon $58 million in damages. On March 23, U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton said he would issue an injunction barring Vonage from using the technology included in the three patents. But he said he would not issue the injunction until April 6, which is this Friday.
Since the judge announced he would issue an injunction, the IP telephony service provider and its more than 2 million subscribers have been living under a cloud of uncertainty. On the one hand, the judge could issue a stay on the injunction that would last a couple of weeks or until Vonage has had time to appeal the court's decision. On the other hand, the judge could also require Vonage to stop service immediately to ensure it is not infringing on the Verizon patents. That would mean a catastrophe for Vonage and its customers, who would be without phone service.
Vonage's recent deal with VoIP Inc. could help convince the judge to give Vonage more time.
"I think it's very unlikely that Vonage's service will be cut off on Friday," said Joel Rosenblatt, a patent and intellectual attorney in private practice in Florida. "The judge will be fair. The court didn't find Vonage willfully abusing the patents, and now that it is looking for a work-around, it shows that Vonage is working in good faith to find a solution."
But even though Vonage avoids a complete network shutdown this week, the company's troubles have hardly evaporated. First, it's still unclear whether the deal with VoIP Inc. will offer an arrangement that does not infringe on the Verizon patents.
A spokesman for Verizon declined to comment on the implications of the VoIP Inc. deal with regard to the case. But legal experts, such as Rosenblatt, said it's likely that Verizon is already evaluating the VoIP Inc. network and technology.
"I'm sure Verizon's legal team is already looking into their own patents to see how they line up with VoIP Inc.'s network and technology," he said. "And if they infringe, Verizon will be ready to sue VoIP Inc. and Vonage for infringing on them."
The threat of a permanent injunction has already taken its toll on Vonage. The company, which has yet to turn a profit, has steadily been losing customers. And the recent uncertainty hasn't helped matters, as customers try to figure out if they will have service next week or even a few months from now.
"Vonage is in crisis mode," said Clayton Moran, a stock analyst with the Stanford Group. "The uncertainty is impacting operations. We expect many existing customers to cancel service. And it will also make it more difficult for Vonage to attract new customers."
Moran said he has lowered his expectations for Vonage for 2007. While he had earlier projected the company would end the year with more than 3 million subscribers, he's now predicting it will fall short of the 3 million mark. Previously he had forecast Vonage reaching profitability by the end of the first quarter of 2008. Now the best-case scenario is that Vonage could reach profitability in the second quarter of 2008, he said. But even that is uncertain, he added.
Meanwhile, Vonage is facing stiff competition from cable operators that are bundling voice services similar in price and functions to its own service. Competition is also increasing from Internet companies like Skype, Google and Yahoo that are offering IP telephony services. While Moran doesn't believe that Vonage is in danger of going out of business anytime soon, he said the continuing legal troubles coupled with the increased competition could make it difficult for the company to compete in the future.
"I don't see the company dissolving completely in the near term," Moran said. "But I can't rule it out for the future either."
Even with the VoIP Inc. deal, Moran said he is unconvinced that Vonage will be able to get around the Verizon patents so easily.
"The agreement with VoIP Inc. is still unclear," he said. "But at this point it doesn't change my view that a work-around will be challenging for Vonage."
I found this article a little unclear on a few things. Primarily, if Vonage has a contract with VoIP, then I do not see why Vonage is being sued by Verizon instead of VoIP. It seems like VoIP is contracting out the patented technology, and should therefore be the main liability. Furthermore, I do not see how a judge could order the company to shut down service when millions of people depend on their phone lines through Vonage. This seems like a health risk in case of emergency. Chances are, at least one person will need to use their phone while it is potentially out of service. Would Vonage compensate their customers by re-routing their service through another carrier, and then incur the costs? It would seem like the only responsible thing to do in order to keep their customers and eventually hope to turn a profit.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Should encouragement be illegal?
Police consider charging chatroom users for inciting cyber suicide
* Detectives are investigating whether people in an internet insult chatroom goaded a British man into killing himself. Jon Ungoed-Thomas assesses the evidence
ABOUT 100 internet chatroom users who witnessed a British man kill himself online - including some who allegedly incited him to hang himself - were being traced by detectives this weekend to be questioned over their roles in the cyber suicide.
Kevin Whitrick, 42, from Telford, Shropshire, killed himself after being goaded in an insult chatroom at the Paltalk website.
One of the users is claimed to have told him: "F..king do it. Get on with it."
The death has raised concerns that some internet forums encourage people to take their lives.
According to one charity that works to prevent suicide, there have been 17 deaths in Britain since 2001 involving internet chatrooms or sites that give advice on suicide methods.
The Home Office is reviewing the law over the possible prosecution of internet users who "aid, abet, counsel or procure" others to take their own lives. Campaigners want police to investigate and prosecute those involved in encouraging online suicides.
A West Mercia police spokesman said yesterday that detectives were working with a US internet service provider to identify about 100 people who were in the chatroom when Mr Whitrick killed himself. They will be offered counselling, but police will also want to reconstruct the online dialogue leading up to Mr Whitrick's death.
It has been claimed that many of those online thought Mr Whitrick was play-acting. But detectives will want to establish whether any of those involved were seriously inciting the father of two to kill himself.
Mr Whitrick, who used the online name Shyguy-17-1, was filmed by his computer webcam as he prepared to hang himself. He knocked a hole in his ceiling and attached a rope around an exposed joist.
Tim Bennet, a Paltalk user, said: "We were in an insult chatroom where people trade insults and have a go at each other. A couple of people told me what he was planning to do.
"Then Shyguy-17-1 turned his camera on. You could see him smash through the ceiling, then standing on a chair he hung a rope over an uncovered joist and tied it around his neck.
"People were still having a go at him, telling him to get on with it, shouting abuse over their microphones and writing messages - but he did not respond. And then he did it.
"I initially thought it was a fake, because you couldn't see his feet, but then his face started turning blue. I felt sick. The mood suddenly changed, everyone was concerned for him and started talking about calling the police and trying to help him."
Another Paltalk user, who asked not to be identified, said: "I didn't think it was real. I have known Kevin for over four years - he always went by his user-names of R1 and Shyguy-17-1, but he told his close friends on the sites his real name.
"I couldn't believe he was doing this. He was on the screen shouting, 'I've had it, you think I'm full of shit, not this time'.
"I hoped it was a stunt but I knew it was real. Other people were egging him on, telling him to get on with it, but I was just thinking, 'This is dangerous'. One guy who was chatting on his microphone shouted at Kevin, 'F..king do it, get on with it, get it round your neck. For f..k's sake, he can't even do this properly'.
"Others were talking to him with his old user-name R1 and telling him to stop it. Then all of a sudden it became clear it was not a hoax. I watched what happened and felt sick - others were claiming he was faking it and was still stood on a chair, butI knew he was dead."
As Mr Whitrick died, reports said, those in the chatroom realised the seriousness of the situation. One chatroom user is reported to have said: "His face is turning purple. This guy is dead."
Another contributor asked: "Is this real?"
Computer users alerted police, who traced Mr Whitrick's address and forced their way into his apartment, but they arrived too late to save him.
Mr Whitrick, who worked for an electrical company in Shrewsbury, was divorced from his wife Paula. The couple had twins, a boy and a girl, aged 12.
In a statement, Paula said: "Kevin was a loving father and family man. He was the life and soul of the party and an extremely considerate and kind person. He will be so sadly missed by us all."
The case raises concerns that many internet users are detached from the impact of what they say online. In a similar death in 2003, Brandon Vedas, a 21-year-old man from Phoenix, Arizona, collapsed from a fatal overdose of prescription drugs after he was reportedly encouraged to take the drugs by others online. One of the chatroom users told Vedas: "Eat more ... I wanna see if you survive or you just black out."
Vedas's brother Rich said after the death: "These people treat it like somehow it's not the real world. They forget it's not just words on a screen."
In Japan, which has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, there has been a significant increase in suicide pacts arranged over the internet.
"Youngsters find that on internet chat sites they can talk about the most intimate of issues with total strangers - including vague notions of wanting to die," said a psychology professor at Niigata Seiryo University, Mafumi Usui.
"Most of them aren't serious. But say one chat participant starts suggesting concrete plans ... that's when the internet can encourage suicide."
There has been at least one case in Britain of strangers meeting on the internet and arranging a suicide. Chris Aston, 25, a Manchester University PhD student, and Maria Williams, 42, from southeast London, killed themselves in February 2005 after they met online.
Campaigners want websites giving detailed advice on suicide methods to be shut down. And they want any online users who goad on those considering suicide to be prosecuted.
Paul Kelly, a trustee of Papyrus, the charity which works to prevent suicide in young people, said: "Some of these sites which incite or give advice on suicide are horrifying. They are encouraging vulnerable people to take their own lives."
Mr Kelly's son Simon committed suicide in 2001 after researching methods of death online. Mr Kelly has compiled details of 16 other deaths since 2001 involving the internet.
Campaigners say the law should be updated to make it clear incitement to commit suicide on websites or online is an offence.
The Sunday Times
I thought this was a very intriguing article for a few reasons. Primarily, if incitement or encouragement of suicide is made illegal, how would it be regulated? Where do you draw the line between casual joking and actual intent to incite? It is that much harder to determine what words mean online when you do not have a face or an expression, a tone of voice, a sound to verify what you think may be something else entirely. And how can intent within itself be a crime? Doesn't there have to be an attempt made or some action taken to make it illegal? But regardless, what these chat rooms are doing is clearly dangerous and akin to being an accomplice to suicide, which is in fact a crime. I think it is good that these types of rooms are getting noticed by the police in an effort to shut them down, but on that same token, attention may also make them more popular with the wrong people.
* Detectives are investigating whether people in an internet insult chatroom goaded a British man into killing himself. Jon Ungoed-Thomas assesses the evidence
ABOUT 100 internet chatroom users who witnessed a British man kill himself online - including some who allegedly incited him to hang himself - were being traced by detectives this weekend to be questioned over their roles in the cyber suicide.
Kevin Whitrick, 42, from Telford, Shropshire, killed himself after being goaded in an insult chatroom at the Paltalk website.
One of the users is claimed to have told him: "F..king do it. Get on with it."
The death has raised concerns that some internet forums encourage people to take their lives.
According to one charity that works to prevent suicide, there have been 17 deaths in Britain since 2001 involving internet chatrooms or sites that give advice on suicide methods.
The Home Office is reviewing the law over the possible prosecution of internet users who "aid, abet, counsel or procure" others to take their own lives. Campaigners want police to investigate and prosecute those involved in encouraging online suicides.
A West Mercia police spokesman said yesterday that detectives were working with a US internet service provider to identify about 100 people who were in the chatroom when Mr Whitrick killed himself. They will be offered counselling, but police will also want to reconstruct the online dialogue leading up to Mr Whitrick's death.
It has been claimed that many of those online thought Mr Whitrick was play-acting. But detectives will want to establish whether any of those involved were seriously inciting the father of two to kill himself.
Mr Whitrick, who used the online name Shyguy-17-1, was filmed by his computer webcam as he prepared to hang himself. He knocked a hole in his ceiling and attached a rope around an exposed joist.
Tim Bennet, a Paltalk user, said: "We were in an insult chatroom where people trade insults and have a go at each other. A couple of people told me what he was planning to do.
"Then Shyguy-17-1 turned his camera on. You could see him smash through the ceiling, then standing on a chair he hung a rope over an uncovered joist and tied it around his neck.
"People were still having a go at him, telling him to get on with it, shouting abuse over their microphones and writing messages - but he did not respond. And then he did it.
"I initially thought it was a fake, because you couldn't see his feet, but then his face started turning blue. I felt sick. The mood suddenly changed, everyone was concerned for him and started talking about calling the police and trying to help him."
Another Paltalk user, who asked not to be identified, said: "I didn't think it was real. I have known Kevin for over four years - he always went by his user-names of R1 and Shyguy-17-1, but he told his close friends on the sites his real name.
"I couldn't believe he was doing this. He was on the screen shouting, 'I've had it, you think I'm full of shit, not this time'.
"I hoped it was a stunt but I knew it was real. Other people were egging him on, telling him to get on with it, but I was just thinking, 'This is dangerous'. One guy who was chatting on his microphone shouted at Kevin, 'F..king do it, get on with it, get it round your neck. For f..k's sake, he can't even do this properly'.
"Others were talking to him with his old user-name R1 and telling him to stop it. Then all of a sudden it became clear it was not a hoax. I watched what happened and felt sick - others were claiming he was faking it and was still stood on a chair, butI knew he was dead."
As Mr Whitrick died, reports said, those in the chatroom realised the seriousness of the situation. One chatroom user is reported to have said: "His face is turning purple. This guy is dead."
Another contributor asked: "Is this real?"
Computer users alerted police, who traced Mr Whitrick's address and forced their way into his apartment, but they arrived too late to save him.
Mr Whitrick, who worked for an electrical company in Shrewsbury, was divorced from his wife Paula. The couple had twins, a boy and a girl, aged 12.
In a statement, Paula said: "Kevin was a loving father and family man. He was the life and soul of the party and an extremely considerate and kind person. He will be so sadly missed by us all."
The case raises concerns that many internet users are detached from the impact of what they say online. In a similar death in 2003, Brandon Vedas, a 21-year-old man from Phoenix, Arizona, collapsed from a fatal overdose of prescription drugs after he was reportedly encouraged to take the drugs by others online. One of the chatroom users told Vedas: "Eat more ... I wanna see if you survive or you just black out."
Vedas's brother Rich said after the death: "These people treat it like somehow it's not the real world. They forget it's not just words on a screen."
In Japan, which has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, there has been a significant increase in suicide pacts arranged over the internet.
"Youngsters find that on internet chat sites they can talk about the most intimate of issues with total strangers - including vague notions of wanting to die," said a psychology professor at Niigata Seiryo University, Mafumi Usui.
"Most of them aren't serious. But say one chat participant starts suggesting concrete plans ... that's when the internet can encourage suicide."
There has been at least one case in Britain of strangers meeting on the internet and arranging a suicide. Chris Aston, 25, a Manchester University PhD student, and Maria Williams, 42, from southeast London, killed themselves in February 2005 after they met online.
Campaigners want websites giving detailed advice on suicide methods to be shut down. And they want any online users who goad on those considering suicide to be prosecuted.
Paul Kelly, a trustee of Papyrus, the charity which works to prevent suicide in young people, said: "Some of these sites which incite or give advice on suicide are horrifying. They are encouraging vulnerable people to take their own lives."
Mr Kelly's son Simon committed suicide in 2001 after researching methods of death online. Mr Kelly has compiled details of 16 other deaths since 2001 involving the internet.
Campaigners say the law should be updated to make it clear incitement to commit suicide on websites or online is an offence.
The Sunday Times
I thought this was a very intriguing article for a few reasons. Primarily, if incitement or encouragement of suicide is made illegal, how would it be regulated? Where do you draw the line between casual joking and actual intent to incite? It is that much harder to determine what words mean online when you do not have a face or an expression, a tone of voice, a sound to verify what you think may be something else entirely. And how can intent within itself be a crime? Doesn't there have to be an attempt made or some action taken to make it illegal? But regardless, what these chat rooms are doing is clearly dangerous and akin to being an accomplice to suicide, which is in fact a crime. I think it is good that these types of rooms are getting noticed by the police in an effort to shut them down, but on that same token, attention may also make them more popular with the wrong people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)