SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Groupon Inc, responding to regulators' inquiries into a controversial revision of its fourth-quarter results and handling of refunds, has promised to shore up disclosure but stopped short of agreeing to outline the performance of individual products from travel to concert deals.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission asked Groupon in August to provide a wealth of information and explain its reporting on a plethora of financial metrics. Groupon's response was made public on Friday, underscoring the extent to which the commission continued to probe into its internal accounting months after the Internet deals leader went public.
Many of the SEC's queries revolved around how it estimates customer refunds under the 'Groupon Promise', under which subscribers that change their minds get their money back in full.
An unexpectedly large number of refunds for fast-growing, costlier new services such as Groupon Getaways helped prompt the results revision in April, and is considered by some analysts to be a major risk to the company's cash flow.
'The maximum amount of future or potential refunds, or total unredeemed vouchers, is not a metric that the company currently evaluates,' the company said in its Friday filing, portions of which were redacted.
'The company is able to make reasonable estimates of potential future refunds at the time the vouchers are purchased without tracking the amount of total unredeemed vouchers outstanding.'
The daily deals industry leader has grappled with myriad accounting problems since its highly touted 2011 debut, highlighting a need for more financial sophistication on its board, analysts say.
Once the consumer dotcom darling of Wall Street, Groupon stock has shed over three-quarters of its value since it began trading at $20 and on Friday, it lost another 8 percent to hit an all-time low of $3.68.
In April, it revised its fourth-quarter results, resulting in a bigger net loss and lower revenue than it had previously reported due to higher-than-anticipated refunds on deals. The company admitted at the time that it had a 'material weakness' in internal controls over its financial statements.
Groupon's 'accounting organization and its financial statement close process were not able to adequately keep pace with the rapid growth of the Company,' it said on Friday.
'The year-end financial statement close process was further impacted by a number of operational and organizational changes in the fourth quarter of 2011.'
(Reporting by Edwin Chan; Editing by Richard Chang)
This news article is brought to you by ECONOMY BLOG - where latest news are our top priority.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Over 20 million tweets sent as Sandy struck
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Twitter users flocked to the micro-messaging network this week as Hurricane Sandy swept through the eastern U.S. seaboard, sending more than 20 million tweets about the storm between Saturday and Thursday, the company said.
This far exceeds the 13.7 million tweets sent during the Super Bowl in February, typically the largest media event of the year.
Founded in 2006, Twitter has sought to position itself as a 'second screen' media product that users can pull up on their smartphones while watching events like the Super Bowl or the Olympics on television.
But the service has shone as a communication channel during major disasters, such as in the wake of the 2011 tsunami in Japan.
Twitter, which has been susceptible to occasional outages, stayed up glitch-free this week, serving at times as a vital source of information for afflicted residents.
The number of times that users in New York City loaded their home timeline from a mobile device peaked around 9 p.m. Monday night, around the time an explosion at a Consolidated Edison transformer knocked out power, more than doubling the total from the previous two days, the company said, without providing details.
The 20 million tweets included the terms 'sandy,' 'hurricane,' '#sandy,' and '#hurricane,' the company said.
(Reporting by Gerry Shih; Editing by Richard Chang)
This article is brought to you by BUY A COMPUTER.
This far exceeds the 13.7 million tweets sent during the Super Bowl in February, typically the largest media event of the year.
Founded in 2006, Twitter has sought to position itself as a 'second screen' media product that users can pull up on their smartphones while watching events like the Super Bowl or the Olympics on television.
But the service has shone as a communication channel during major disasters, such as in the wake of the 2011 tsunami in Japan.
Twitter, which has been susceptible to occasional outages, stayed up glitch-free this week, serving at times as a vital source of information for afflicted residents.
The number of times that users in New York City loaded their home timeline from a mobile device peaked around 9 p.m. Monday night, around the time an explosion at a Consolidated Edison transformer knocked out power, more than doubling the total from the previous two days, the company said, without providing details.
The 20 million tweets included the terms 'sandy,' 'hurricane,' '#sandy,' and '#hurricane,' the company said.
(Reporting by Gerry Shih; Editing by Richard Chang)
This article is brought to you by BUY A COMPUTER.
Microsoft vs Google trial raises concerns over secrecy
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Two weeks before a high-stakes trial pitting Google's Motorola Mobility unit against Microsoft, Google made what has become a common request for a technology company fighting for billions of dollars: A public court proceeding, conducted largely in secret.
Google and Microsoft, like rivals embroiled in smartphone patent wars, are eager to keep sensitive business information under wraps - in this case, the royalty deals they cut with other companies on patented technology. Microsoft asked for similar protections in a court filing late on Thursday.
Such royalty rates, though, are the central issue in this trial, which begins November 13 in Seattle.
U.S. District Judge James Robart has granted requests to block many pre-trial legal briefs from public view. Though he warned he may get tougher on the issue, the nature of the case raises the possibility that even his final decision might include redacted, or blacked-out, sections.
Legal experts are increasingly troubled by the level of secrecy that has become commonplace in intellectual property cases where overburdened judges often pay scant attention to the issue.
Widespread sealing of documents infringes on the basic American legal principle that court should be public, says law professor, Dennis Crouch, and encourages companies to use a costly, tax-payer funded resource to resolve their disputes.
'There are plenty of cases that have settled because one party didn't want their information public,' said Crouch, an intellectual property professor at University of Missouri School of Law.
Tech companies counter that they should not be forced to reveal private business information as the price for having their day in court.
The law does permit confidential information to be kept from public view in some circumstances, though companies must show the disclosure would be harmful.
Google argues that revelations about licensing negotiations would give competitors 'additional leverage and bargaining power and would lead to an unfair advantage.'
Robart has not yet ruled on Google and Microsoft's requests, which, in the case of Google includes not only keeping documents under seal, but also clearing the courtroom during crucial testimony.
It is also unclear whether Robart will redact any discussion of royalty rates in his final opinion. The judge, who will decide this part of the case without a jury, did not respond to requests for comment.
NOT PAYING ATTENTION
Apple Inc and Microsoft Corp have been litigating in courts around the world against Google Inc and partners like Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, which use the Android operating system on their mobile devices.
Apple contends that Android is basically a copy of its iOS smartphone software, and Microsoft holds patents that it contends cover a number of Android features.
Google bought Motorola for $12.5 billion, partly to use its large portfolio of communications patents as a bargaining chip against its competitors.
Robart will decide how big a royalty Motorola deserves from Microsoft for a license on some Motorola wireless and video patents.
Apple, for its part, is set to square off against Motorola on Monday in Madison, Wisconsin, in a case that involves many of the same issues.
In Wisconsin, Apple and Motorola have filed most court documents entirely under seal. U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb did not require them to seek advance permission to file them secretly, nor did she mandate that the companies make redacted copies available for the public.
Judges have broad discretion in granting requests to seal documents. The legal standard for such requests can be high, but in cases where both sides want the proceedings to be secret, judges have little incentive to thoroughly review secrecy requests.
In Apple's Northern California litigation against Samsung, both parties also sought to keep many documents under seal. After Reuters challenged those secrecy requests, on grounds it wanted to report financial details, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ordered both companies to disclose a range of information they considered secret - including profit margins on individual products - but not licensing deals. Apple and Samsung are appealing the disclosure order.
In response to questions from Reuters last week, Judge Crabb in Wisconsin, who will also decide the case without a jury, acknowledged she had not been paying attention to how many documents were being filed under seal. Federal judges in Madison will now require that parties file redacted briefs, she said, though as of Wednesday, Apple and Motorola were still filing key briefs entirely under seal.
'Just because there is a seed or kernel of confidential information doesn't mean an entire 25-page brief should be sealed,' said Bernard Chao, an intellectual property professor at University of Denver Sturm College of Law.
Crabb promised that the upcoming trial would be open.
'Whatever opinion I make is not going to be redacted,' she told Reuters in an interview.
CHECKING THE COMPS
Microsoft sued Motorola two years ago, saying Motorola had promised to license its so-called 'standards essential' patents at a fair rate, in exchange for the technology being adopted as a norm industrywide. But by demanding roughly $4 billion a year in revenue, Microsoft says Motorola broke its promise.
Robart will sort out what a reasonable royalty for those standards patents should be, partly by reviewing deals Motorola struck with other companies such as IBM and Research in Motion - much like an appraiser checking comparable properties to figure out whether a home is priced right.
In this case, though, the public may not be able to understand exactly what figures Robart is comparing. Representatives for Microsoft and Google declined to comment.
In its brief, Microsoft said licensing terms could be sealed without the need to clear the courtroom.
'Permitting redaction of this information will minimize the harm to Microsoft and third parties while also giving due consideration to the public policies favoring disclosure,' the company argued.
IBM and RIM have also asked Robart to keep licensing information secret.
Chao doesn't think Robart will ultimately redact his own ruling, even though it may include discussion of the specific royalty rates. 'I can't imagine that,' he said.
Most judges cite lack of resources and overflowing dockets as the reason why they don't scrutinize secrecy requests more closely, especially when both parties support them.
In Wisconsin, Crabb said that even though she will now require litigants to ask permission to file secret documents, it is highly unlikely that she will actually read those arguments - unless someone else flags a problem.
'We're paddling madly to stay afloat,' Crabb said.
The Wisconsin case in U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin is Apple Inc. vs. Motorola Mobility Inc., 11-cv-178. The Seattle case in U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington is Microsoft Corp. vs. Motorola Inc., 10-cv-1823.
(Reporting by Dan Levine in San Francisco; Additional reporting by Bill Rigby in Seattle.; Editing by Jonathan Weber, Andrew Hay and Bernadette Baum)
This news article is brought to you by GOING GREEN NEWS - where latest news are our top priority.
Google and Microsoft, like rivals embroiled in smartphone patent wars, are eager to keep sensitive business information under wraps - in this case, the royalty deals they cut with other companies on patented technology. Microsoft asked for similar protections in a court filing late on Thursday.
Such royalty rates, though, are the central issue in this trial, which begins November 13 in Seattle.
U.S. District Judge James Robart has granted requests to block many pre-trial legal briefs from public view. Though he warned he may get tougher on the issue, the nature of the case raises the possibility that even his final decision might include redacted, or blacked-out, sections.
Legal experts are increasingly troubled by the level of secrecy that has become commonplace in intellectual property cases where overburdened judges often pay scant attention to the issue.
Widespread sealing of documents infringes on the basic American legal principle that court should be public, says law professor, Dennis Crouch, and encourages companies to use a costly, tax-payer funded resource to resolve their disputes.
'There are plenty of cases that have settled because one party didn't want their information public,' said Crouch, an intellectual property professor at University of Missouri School of Law.
Tech companies counter that they should not be forced to reveal private business information as the price for having their day in court.
The law does permit confidential information to be kept from public view in some circumstances, though companies must show the disclosure would be harmful.
Google argues that revelations about licensing negotiations would give competitors 'additional leverage and bargaining power and would lead to an unfair advantage.'
Robart has not yet ruled on Google and Microsoft's requests, which, in the case of Google includes not only keeping documents under seal, but also clearing the courtroom during crucial testimony.
It is also unclear whether Robart will redact any discussion of royalty rates in his final opinion. The judge, who will decide this part of the case without a jury, did not respond to requests for comment.
NOT PAYING ATTENTION
Apple Inc and Microsoft Corp have been litigating in courts around the world against Google Inc and partners like Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, which use the Android operating system on their mobile devices.
Apple contends that Android is basically a copy of its iOS smartphone software, and Microsoft holds patents that it contends cover a number of Android features.
Google bought Motorola for $12.5 billion, partly to use its large portfolio of communications patents as a bargaining chip against its competitors.
Robart will decide how big a royalty Motorola deserves from Microsoft for a license on some Motorola wireless and video patents.
Apple, for its part, is set to square off against Motorola on Monday in Madison, Wisconsin, in a case that involves many of the same issues.
In Wisconsin, Apple and Motorola have filed most court documents entirely under seal. U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb did not require them to seek advance permission to file them secretly, nor did she mandate that the companies make redacted copies available for the public.
Judges have broad discretion in granting requests to seal documents. The legal standard for such requests can be high, but in cases where both sides want the proceedings to be secret, judges have little incentive to thoroughly review secrecy requests.
In Apple's Northern California litigation against Samsung, both parties also sought to keep many documents under seal. After Reuters challenged those secrecy requests, on grounds it wanted to report financial details, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ordered both companies to disclose a range of information they considered secret - including profit margins on individual products - but not licensing deals. Apple and Samsung are appealing the disclosure order.
In response to questions from Reuters last week, Judge Crabb in Wisconsin, who will also decide the case without a jury, acknowledged she had not been paying attention to how many documents were being filed under seal. Federal judges in Madison will now require that parties file redacted briefs, she said, though as of Wednesday, Apple and Motorola were still filing key briefs entirely under seal.
'Just because there is a seed or kernel of confidential information doesn't mean an entire 25-page brief should be sealed,' said Bernard Chao, an intellectual property professor at University of Denver Sturm College of Law.
Crabb promised that the upcoming trial would be open.
'Whatever opinion I make is not going to be redacted,' she told Reuters in an interview.
CHECKING THE COMPS
Microsoft sued Motorola two years ago, saying Motorola had promised to license its so-called 'standards essential' patents at a fair rate, in exchange for the technology being adopted as a norm industrywide. But by demanding roughly $4 billion a year in revenue, Microsoft says Motorola broke its promise.
Robart will sort out what a reasonable royalty for those standards patents should be, partly by reviewing deals Motorola struck with other companies such as IBM and Research in Motion - much like an appraiser checking comparable properties to figure out whether a home is priced right.
In this case, though, the public may not be able to understand exactly what figures Robart is comparing. Representatives for Microsoft and Google declined to comment.
In its brief, Microsoft said licensing terms could be sealed without the need to clear the courtroom.
'Permitting redaction of this information will minimize the harm to Microsoft and third parties while also giving due consideration to the public policies favoring disclosure,' the company argued.
IBM and RIM have also asked Robart to keep licensing information secret.
Chao doesn't think Robart will ultimately redact his own ruling, even though it may include discussion of the specific royalty rates. 'I can't imagine that,' he said.
Most judges cite lack of resources and overflowing dockets as the reason why they don't scrutinize secrecy requests more closely, especially when both parties support them.
In Wisconsin, Crabb said that even though she will now require litigants to ask permission to file secret documents, it is highly unlikely that she will actually read those arguments - unless someone else flags a problem.
'We're paddling madly to stay afloat,' Crabb said.
The Wisconsin case in U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin is Apple Inc. vs. Motorola Mobility Inc., 11-cv-178. The Seattle case in U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington is Microsoft Corp. vs. Motorola Inc., 10-cv-1823.
(Reporting by Dan Levine in San Francisco; Additional reporting by Bill Rigby in Seattle.; Editing by Jonathan Weber, Andrew Hay and Bernadette Baum)
This news article is brought to you by GOING GREEN NEWS - where latest news are our top priority.
Softbank changes eAccess share swap ratio after stock decline
TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan's Softbank Corp said on Friday it will change its share swap ratio with eAccess Ltd, which it acquired in a $1.84 billion deal at the start of last month.
Softbank said it will change the swap ratio to 20.09 from 16.74. The decision follows a decline in Softbank's share price that took place after it announced in October that it would buy a 70 percent stake in Sprint Nextel Corp, the third-largest U.S. carrier.
(Reporting by Shinichi Saoshiro; Editing by Matt Driskill)
This news article is brought to you by GLOBAL WEATHER NEWS - where latest news are our top priority.
Softbank said it will change the swap ratio to 20.09 from 16.74. The decision follows a decline in Softbank's share price that took place after it announced in October that it would buy a 70 percent stake in Sprint Nextel Corp, the third-largest U.S. carrier.
(Reporting by Shinichi Saoshiro; Editing by Matt Driskill)
This news article is brought to you by GLOBAL WEATHER NEWS - where latest news are our top priority.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Microsoft versus Google trial raises concerns over courtroom secrecy
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Two weeks before trial in a high-stakes lawsuit pitting Google's Motorola Mobility unit against Microsoft, Google made what has become a common request for a tech company fighting for billions of dollars: a public court proceeding conducted largely in secret.
Google, like its counterparts in the smartphone patent wars, is eager to keep sensitive business information under wraps -- in this case, the royalty deals that Motorola cuts with other companies on patented technology.
Such royalty rates, though, are the central issue in this trial, which starts November 13 in Seattle. U.S. District Judge James Robart has granted requests to block many pre-trial legal briefs from public view. Though he has warned he may get tougher on the issue, the nature of the case raises the possibility even his final decision might include redacted, or blacked-out, sections.
Legal experts are increasingly troubled by the level of secrecy that has become commonplace in intellectual property cases where overburdened judges often pay scant attention to the issue.
Widespread sealing of documents infringes on the basic American legal principle that court should be public, says law professor Dennis Crouch, and actually encourages companies to use a costly, tax-payer funded resource to resolve their disputes.
'There are plenty of cases that have settled because one party didn't want their information public,' said Crouch, an intellectual property professor at University of Missouri School of Law.
Tech companies counter that they should not be forced to reveal private business information as the price for having their day in court. The law does permit confidential information to be kept from public view in some circumstances--though the companies must compellingly show the disclosure would be harmful. Google argues that revelations about licensing negotiations would give competitors 'additional leverage and bargaining power and would lead to an unfair advantage.'
Robart has not yet ruled on Google's request, which includes not only keeping documents under seal but also clearing the courtroom during crucial testimony. It is also unclear whether he will redact any discussion of royalty rates in his final opinion. The judge, who will decide this part of the case without a jury, did not respond to requests for comment.
NOT PAYING ATTENTION
Apple Inc and Microsoft Corp have been litigating in courts around the world against Google Inc and partners like Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, which use the Android operating system on their mobile devices.
Apple contends that Android is basically a copy of its iOS smartphone software, and Microsoft holds patents that it contends cover a number of Android features. Google bought Motorola for $12.5 billion, partly to use its large portfolio of communications patents as a bargaining chip against its competitors.
Robart will decide how big a royalty Motorola deserves from Microsoft for a license on some Motorola wireless and video patents.
Apple, for its part, is set to square off against Motorola on Monday in Madison, Wisconsin, in a case that that involves many of the same issues.
In Wisconsin, Apple and Motorola have filed the overwhelming majority of court documents entirely under seal. U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb did not require them to seek advance permission to file them secretly, nor did she mandate that the companies make redacted copies available for the public.
Judges have broad discretion in granting requests to seal documents. The legal standard for such requests can be high, but in cases where both sides want the proceedings to be secret, judges have little incentive to thoroughly review secrecy requests.
In Apple's Northern California litigation against Samsung, both parties also sought to keep many documents under seal. After Reuters intervened to challenge the requests, on grounds it wanted to report financial details, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ordered both companies to disclose a range of information that they considered secret -- including profit margins on individual products -- but not licensing deals. Apple and Samsung are appealing the disclosure order.
In response to questions from Reuters last week, Judge Crabb in Wisconsin, who will also decide the case without a jury, acknowledged that she had not been paying attention to how many documents were being filed under seal. Federal judges in Madison will now require that parties file redacted briefs, she said, though as of Wednesday Apple and Motorola were still filing key briefs entirely under seal.
'Just because there is a seed or kernel of confidential information doesn't mean an entire 25-page brief should be sealed,' said Bernard Chao, an IP professor at University of Denver Sturm College of Law.
Crabb promised that the upcoming trial would be open.
'Whatever opinion I make is not going to be redacted,' she told Reuters in an interview.
CHECKING THE COMPS
Microsoft sued Motorola two years ago, saying Motorola had promised to license its so-called 'standards essential' patents at a fair rate, in exchange for the technology being adopted as a norm industrywide. But by demanding roughly $4 billion a year in revenue, Microsoft says Motorola broke its promise.
Robart will sort out what a reasonable royalty for those standards patents should be, partly by reviewing deals Motorola struck with other companies such as IBM and Research in Motion -- much like an appraiser checking comparable properties to figure out whether a home is priced right.
Yet in this case, the public may not be able to understand exactly what figures Robart is comparing. In addition to Google's motion to seal those licensing terms, IBM and RIM have also asked Robart to keep the information secret.
'Competitors and potential counterparties to licensing and settlement agreements would gain an unfair insight into IBM's analyses,' that company wrote.
Microsoft has supported Google's bids to seal documents in the past, and vice versa, though Microsoft has not yet taken a position on Google's latest request. Representatives for Microsoft and Google declined to comment.
Chao doesn't think Robart will ultimately redact his own ruling, even though it may include discussion of the specific royalty rates. 'I can't imagine that,' he said.
Most judges cite lack of resources and overflowing dockets as the reason why they don't scrutinze secrecy requests more closely -- especially when both parties support them.
In Wisconsin, Crabb said that even though she will now require litigants to ask permission to file secret documents, it is highly unlikely that she will actually read those arguments -- unless someone else flags a problem.
'We're paddling madly to stay afloat,' Crabb said.
(Reporting by Dan Levine in San Francisco; Additional reporting by Bill Rigby in Seattle. Editing by Jonathan Weber and Andrew Hay)
This news article is brought to you by TECHNOLOGY NEWS - where latest news are our top priority.
Google, like its counterparts in the smartphone patent wars, is eager to keep sensitive business information under wraps -- in this case, the royalty deals that Motorola cuts with other companies on patented technology.
Such royalty rates, though, are the central issue in this trial, which starts November 13 in Seattle. U.S. District Judge James Robart has granted requests to block many pre-trial legal briefs from public view. Though he has warned he may get tougher on the issue, the nature of the case raises the possibility even his final decision might include redacted, or blacked-out, sections.
Legal experts are increasingly troubled by the level of secrecy that has become commonplace in intellectual property cases where overburdened judges often pay scant attention to the issue.
Widespread sealing of documents infringes on the basic American legal principle that court should be public, says law professor Dennis Crouch, and actually encourages companies to use a costly, tax-payer funded resource to resolve their disputes.
'There are plenty of cases that have settled because one party didn't want their information public,' said Crouch, an intellectual property professor at University of Missouri School of Law.
Tech companies counter that they should not be forced to reveal private business information as the price for having their day in court. The law does permit confidential information to be kept from public view in some circumstances--though the companies must compellingly show the disclosure would be harmful. Google argues that revelations about licensing negotiations would give competitors 'additional leverage and bargaining power and would lead to an unfair advantage.'
Robart has not yet ruled on Google's request, which includes not only keeping documents under seal but also clearing the courtroom during crucial testimony. It is also unclear whether he will redact any discussion of royalty rates in his final opinion. The judge, who will decide this part of the case without a jury, did not respond to requests for comment.
NOT PAYING ATTENTION
Apple Inc and Microsoft Corp have been litigating in courts around the world against Google Inc and partners like Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, which use the Android operating system on their mobile devices.
Apple contends that Android is basically a copy of its iOS smartphone software, and Microsoft holds patents that it contends cover a number of Android features. Google bought Motorola for $12.5 billion, partly to use its large portfolio of communications patents as a bargaining chip against its competitors.
Robart will decide how big a royalty Motorola deserves from Microsoft for a license on some Motorola wireless and video patents.
Apple, for its part, is set to square off against Motorola on Monday in Madison, Wisconsin, in a case that that involves many of the same issues.
In Wisconsin, Apple and Motorola have filed the overwhelming majority of court documents entirely under seal. U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb did not require them to seek advance permission to file them secretly, nor did she mandate that the companies make redacted copies available for the public.
Judges have broad discretion in granting requests to seal documents. The legal standard for such requests can be high, but in cases where both sides want the proceedings to be secret, judges have little incentive to thoroughly review secrecy requests.
In Apple's Northern California litigation against Samsung, both parties also sought to keep many documents under seal. After Reuters intervened to challenge the requests, on grounds it wanted to report financial details, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ordered both companies to disclose a range of information that they considered secret -- including profit margins on individual products -- but not licensing deals. Apple and Samsung are appealing the disclosure order.
In response to questions from Reuters last week, Judge Crabb in Wisconsin, who will also decide the case without a jury, acknowledged that she had not been paying attention to how many documents were being filed under seal. Federal judges in Madison will now require that parties file redacted briefs, she said, though as of Wednesday Apple and Motorola were still filing key briefs entirely under seal.
'Just because there is a seed or kernel of confidential information doesn't mean an entire 25-page brief should be sealed,' said Bernard Chao, an IP professor at University of Denver Sturm College of Law.
Crabb promised that the upcoming trial would be open.
'Whatever opinion I make is not going to be redacted,' she told Reuters in an interview.
CHECKING THE COMPS
Microsoft sued Motorola two years ago, saying Motorola had promised to license its so-called 'standards essential' patents at a fair rate, in exchange for the technology being adopted as a norm industrywide. But by demanding roughly $4 billion a year in revenue, Microsoft says Motorola broke its promise.
Robart will sort out what a reasonable royalty for those standards patents should be, partly by reviewing deals Motorola struck with other companies such as IBM and Research in Motion -- much like an appraiser checking comparable properties to figure out whether a home is priced right.
Yet in this case, the public may not be able to understand exactly what figures Robart is comparing. In addition to Google's motion to seal those licensing terms, IBM and RIM have also asked Robart to keep the information secret.
'Competitors and potential counterparties to licensing and settlement agreements would gain an unfair insight into IBM's analyses,' that company wrote.
Microsoft has supported Google's bids to seal documents in the past, and vice versa, though Microsoft has not yet taken a position on Google's latest request. Representatives for Microsoft and Google declined to comment.
Chao doesn't think Robart will ultimately redact his own ruling, even though it may include discussion of the specific royalty rates. 'I can't imagine that,' he said.
Most judges cite lack of resources and overflowing dockets as the reason why they don't scrutinze secrecy requests more closely -- especially when both parties support them.
In Wisconsin, Crabb said that even though she will now require litigants to ask permission to file secret documents, it is highly unlikely that she will actually read those arguments -- unless someone else flags a problem.
'We're paddling madly to stay afloat,' Crabb said.
(Reporting by Dan Levine in San Francisco; Additional reporting by Bill Rigby in Seattle. Editing by Jonathan Weber and Andrew Hay)
This news article is brought to you by TECHNOLOGY NEWS - where latest news are our top priority.
U.S. Coast Guard suspends search for captain of replica HMS Bounty
Charleston, South Carolina (Reuters) - The U.S. Coast Guard on Thursday suspended a four-day, round-the-clock search for Robin Walbridge, 63, the missing captain of the replica tall ship HMS Bounty, which sank in heavy seas stirred up by Hurricane Sandy.
Fourteen crew members were rescued from life rafts by Coast Guard helicopters on Monday, but Walbridge and another crew member, Claudene Christian, were washed overboard before they could make it to the rafts.
Christian, 42, was pulled from the sea later and flown to hospital, where she was pronounced dead.
'Our thoughts and prayers are with the Walbridge and Christian families,' Captain Doug Cameron, chief of incident response for the Coast Guard 5th District, said in a statement. 'Suspending a search and rescue case is one of the hardest decisions we have to make.'
Crews searched more than 90 hours and covered some 12,000 square nautical miles in the Atlantic Ocean, the Coast Guard said.
The Coast Guard said earlier this week that all members of the crew wore survival suits, which had flotation capability, and that water temperatures were about 77 degrees F (25 C), raising hopes Walbridge might be found.
The three-masted, 180-foot (55-metre) ship, built for the 1962 movie, 'Mutiny on the Bounty,' was on its way from New London, Connecticut, to its winter berth in St. Petersburg, Florida, and was about 160 miles from the eye of the hurricane when it foundered.
The original Bounty, a British transport 'square rigger,' is famed for a mutiny in 1789. Marlon Brando starred as lead mutineer Fletcher Christian in the movie for which the ship was built.
In a short video of Walbridge posted on the Bounty's Facebook page this week, he described being captain of the Bounty as 'probably one of the greatest jobs in the world.'
Walbridge worked on the Bounty for 17 years, said his wife, Claudia McCann, who spoke with Reuters by telephone earlier this week.
'That was his passion,' McCann said.
Growing up in Vermont, his mother 'encouraged us to smell the sea air' on trips to visit relatives in Boston, recalled his sister, Lucille Jansen, 67.
'He always looked after his crew first,' she added. 'That's the last memory we'll have of him because he did exactly what a captain should do. He made sure the crew was safe.'
(Editing by David Adams and Peter Cooney)
This news article is brought to you by GAMING NEWS - where latest news are our top priority.
Fourteen crew members were rescued from life rafts by Coast Guard helicopters on Monday, but Walbridge and another crew member, Claudene Christian, were washed overboard before they could make it to the rafts.
Christian, 42, was pulled from the sea later and flown to hospital, where she was pronounced dead.
'Our thoughts and prayers are with the Walbridge and Christian families,' Captain Doug Cameron, chief of incident response for the Coast Guard 5th District, said in a statement. 'Suspending a search and rescue case is one of the hardest decisions we have to make.'
Crews searched more than 90 hours and covered some 12,000 square nautical miles in the Atlantic Ocean, the Coast Guard said.
The Coast Guard said earlier this week that all members of the crew wore survival suits, which had flotation capability, and that water temperatures were about 77 degrees F (25 C), raising hopes Walbridge might be found.
The three-masted, 180-foot (55-metre) ship, built for the 1962 movie, 'Mutiny on the Bounty,' was on its way from New London, Connecticut, to its winter berth in St. Petersburg, Florida, and was about 160 miles from the eye of the hurricane when it foundered.
The original Bounty, a British transport 'square rigger,' is famed for a mutiny in 1789. Marlon Brando starred as lead mutineer Fletcher Christian in the movie for which the ship was built.
In a short video of Walbridge posted on the Bounty's Facebook page this week, he described being captain of the Bounty as 'probably one of the greatest jobs in the world.'
Walbridge worked on the Bounty for 17 years, said his wife, Claudia McCann, who spoke with Reuters by telephone earlier this week.
'That was his passion,' McCann said.
Growing up in Vermont, his mother 'encouraged us to smell the sea air' on trips to visit relatives in Boston, recalled his sister, Lucille Jansen, 67.
'He always looked after his crew first,' she added. 'That's the last memory we'll have of him because he did exactly what a captain should do. He made sure the crew was safe.'
(Editing by David Adams and Peter Cooney)
This news article is brought to you by GAMING NEWS - where latest news are our top priority.
LinkedIn beats expectations, raises full-year revenue view
(Reuters) - Professional social network LinkedIn Corp beat Wall Street's third-quarter profit and revenue targets on Thursday and raised its full-year revenue forecast.
Shares of LinkedIn were up 6.2 percent at $113.52 in after-hours trading.
LinkedIn said it posted net income of $2.3 million, or 2 cents a share, during the three months ended September 30, compared with a net loss of $1.6 million, or 2 cents a share, in the year-ago period.
Excluding certain items, LinkedIn said it earned 22 cents a share in the third quarter, above the 11 cents expected by analysts polled by Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.
Revenue in the third quarter was $252 million, up 81 percent year-over-year and ahead of the average analyst expectation of $244.2 million.
LinkedIn said it now expects total revenue for 2012 to range between $939 million and $944 million, compared with its prior range of $915 million to $925 million.
LinkedIn, which has 175 million members, connects professionals seeking jobs and companies looking for employees. The company makes money from selling ads and premium subscriptions, as well as from offering specialized services to recruiters, setting it apart from its ad-dependent social networking rivals such as Facebook Inc and Twitter.
The Mountain View, California-based company said that revenue from its job-recruiter services increased 95 percent year-on-year in the third quarter, while advertising revenue increased 60 percent.
LinkedIn also said that traffic to its homepage increased 60 percent since a website redesign that it rolled out during the third quarter.
Shares of LinkedIn, which closed Thursday's regular session at $106.85, have fallen 15 percent since mid-September but are up roughly 70 percent in 2012.
(Reporting by Alexei Oreskovic in San Francisco; editing by Matthew Lewis; editing by Gunna Dickson)
This news article is brought to you by SEXUAL HEALTH NEWS - where latest news are our top priority.
Shares of LinkedIn were up 6.2 percent at $113.52 in after-hours trading.
LinkedIn said it posted net income of $2.3 million, or 2 cents a share, during the three months ended September 30, compared with a net loss of $1.6 million, or 2 cents a share, in the year-ago period.
Excluding certain items, LinkedIn said it earned 22 cents a share in the third quarter, above the 11 cents expected by analysts polled by Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.
Revenue in the third quarter was $252 million, up 81 percent year-over-year and ahead of the average analyst expectation of $244.2 million.
LinkedIn said it now expects total revenue for 2012 to range between $939 million and $944 million, compared with its prior range of $915 million to $925 million.
LinkedIn, which has 175 million members, connects professionals seeking jobs and companies looking for employees. The company makes money from selling ads and premium subscriptions, as well as from offering specialized services to recruiters, setting it apart from its ad-dependent social networking rivals such as Facebook Inc and Twitter.
The Mountain View, California-based company said that revenue from its job-recruiter services increased 95 percent year-on-year in the third quarter, while advertising revenue increased 60 percent.
LinkedIn also said that traffic to its homepage increased 60 percent since a website redesign that it rolled out during the third quarter.
Shares of LinkedIn, which closed Thursday's regular session at $106.85, have fallen 15 percent since mid-September but are up roughly 70 percent in 2012.
(Reporting by Alexei Oreskovic in San Francisco; editing by Matthew Lewis; editing by Gunna Dickson)
This news article is brought to you by SEXUAL HEALTH NEWS - where latest news are our top priority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)