Could Bing search results soon appear in your Google? Maybe — but only if you’re in Europe.

In response to the claims that its abusing its dominant marketshare position, Google has proposed some major changes to how it presents its search results.

In one of these proposed solutions, which were submitted a few weeks ago, Google said it could link directly to rival search engines like Bing and Yandex in its search results. Google said it will also more clearly label which results come from services like YouTube and Google Maps, and which of its search results are promoted ones. 

The European Union is giving interested parties a month to comment on the proposals, though it’s very likely companies like Microsoft are going to want a bit more out of Google.

Other measures would let websites more easily prevent Google from indexing their content, which means that a site like VentureBeat could  prevent Google from using its content in, say,  Google News. (Though who knows how many sites would be nutty enough to do that.)

Perhaps the most interesting proposal, however, is the last one. Google said it will  ”no longer impose obligations that would prevent advertisers from managing search advertising campaigns across competing advertising platforms.” If the European Union was looking for evidence of anti-competition, it’s certainly found it with that particularly tactic.

Of course, all of these measures only affect Google’s operations in Europe, where the company commands roughly 90 percent of the search market. Reaction to Google’s practices in the U.S., where its marketshare is closer to 67 percent, is a tad more subdued.

Europe sure does love its investigations.

When Google streamlined its privacy policy last year, it got the attention of regulators like France’s National Commission for Computing and Civil Liberties (CNIL), which investigated Google over the new policy and recommended some changes. (The biggest problem? Google gives users ”incomplete or approximate information” about what data it collects.)

Now, CNIL has finished its investigation and says that Google has failed to fix anything. As a result, the watchdog has recommended that member states of the EU start their own investigations into Google’s new privacy policy, all of which could result in some hefty fines for the company.

“It is now up to each national data protection authority to carry out further investigations according to the provisions of its national law transposing European legislation,” CNIL said.

The timing of the news is interesting, as Google yesterday confirmed that privacy director Alma Whitten is stepping down after three years on the job. As we pointed out then,Whitten’s tenure has been a tough one, and if the latest EU investigation is any indication, her successor, Lawrence You, won’t have it much easier.

Google, of course, is no stranger to either fines or investigations. As Google continues to grow, so, too does the opposition to how it handles user data. Mr. You has quite a job ahead of him.

Photo background: France/Shutterstock

Microsoft has been fined $731 million (561 million euros) by the European Union for failing to offer consumers a choice of which browser to use and making Internet Explorer the default, the EU announced today.

The EU said Microsoft failed to live up to a commitment it made in 2009 to give European consumers a choice in what browser they wanted to use. Microsoft eventually developed a “browser choice screen” so people could choose between using Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, or Opera. But a “technical error” on Microsoft’s part prevented that screen from being part of Windows 7′s Service Pack 1 and therefore users were still defaulted to Internet Explorer.

There were early reports that Microsoft could be fined up to $7.9 billion by the EU for the “technical error,” but the total ended up being much less. Still, $731 million isn’t just pocket change, so this could act as a warning for other tech companies that might try to skirt EU orders.

“Legally binding commitments reached in antitrust decisions play a very important role in our enforcement policy,” Joaquin Almunia, the EU’s competition commissioner, said in a statement. “Of course, such decisions require strict compliance. A failure to comply is a very serious infringement that must be sanctioned accordingly.”

Google has also attracted scrutiny from the EU over antitrust concerns related to search. In 2010, the EU began investigating Google for its control of 90 percent of the search market in the U.K.

Euro banknotes via vinz89/Shutterstock

Today, Microsoft announced that the Surface tablet is continuing its worldwide expansion, Yammer revealed its plans to add translation capabilities into conversations, and the Bing updated its Maps feature with a new collection of aerial satellite imagery. Also, European Union regulators announced today that it will fine Microsoft for antitrust violation in the coming months. Oh, and let’s not forget about Microsoft’s sale of Atlas Solutions to Facebook and the Bing Fund’s investment into Sonar. Whew.

Let’s start from the top.

Microsoft will roll out the Surface RT to Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore, and Taiwan, and the Surface Pro to Australia, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, New Zealand, and the U.K. in the coming months. VentureBeat’s review found the RT to be a “disappointing compromise,” while the Pro is “full of possibility.” The Pros sold out online within hours of going on sale in early February. Now, these tablets-meet-PCs will be available in markets around the world.

Next is the Yammer news. Yammer is a social network for the enterprise that Microsoft purchased for $1.2 billion in July. The company is working on message translation capabilities that instantly translates Yammer conversations into a user’s native language to “ignite multilingual collaboration.”

“Removing language as a barrier to cross-company collaboration can be a competitive game changer for multinational organizations. It opens a world of possibilities,” said Yammer cofounder Adam Pisoni in a statement.

This feature is courtesy Microsoft’s Translator technology and is an example of Yammer’s “accelerated innovation” following the Microsoft acquisition. The Translator supports 39 languages. This translation is particularly useful for companies that work with international teams. Yammer said that 65 percent of its seven million users are located outside the United States, and this could drive greater international adoption of the service.     

On to lucky number three.

Bing Maps is released over 13 million square kilometers of updated satellite imagery today, which includes “bathymetry” data from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Bathymetry is not the study of taking baths, as I initially thought. Rather, it is the study of underwater depth of lake or ocean floors. Updates also include new base satellite imagery provided by TerraColor, with a resolution of 15 meters per pixel, and “cloud coverage” that makes it easier to see areas such as the Amazon basin and Tierra de Fuego. These updates “change the viewer experience within Bing Maps and the Windows 8 Map App.”

Microsoft was also in the news today for various wheelings, dealings, and run-ins with European regulators.

A report in Reuters this morning said that the European Commission is planning to fine Microsoft $2.1 billion (1.6 billion euros) for not providing data at fair prices to rivals, forcing developers to work with its products, and preventing consumers from choosing between rival web browsers from within the Windows operating system. Microsoft has apparently been embroiled in an antitrust battle in Europe for more than a decade, and the charges just kept racking up.  

On a more positive note, New York City startup Sonar announced today that it received a strategic investment from Microsoft’s Bing Fund, which offers early-stage companies between $50,000 and $100,000 to get off the ground. Sonar’s technology taps into social networks to tell smartphone users how they are connected to people nearby and in locations they’ve check into. It is the fifth company to join the Bing Fund portfolio.

Finally (I hope), Microsoft finally sold its ad server Atlas Solutions to Facebook today. Microsoft acquired Atlas Solutions as part of its 2007 acquisition of aQuantive. Facebook will use Atlas Solutions to build its own independent ad network and data analytics system.

That ought to do it for one day, Microsoft. Save something for March.

Photo Credit: someToast/Flickr

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

What comes after LTE? Europe’s digital chief, Neelie Kroes, is determined to find out.

Aiming to make Europe a wireless leader once again, Kroes (above, scoping out a connected car) announced today at Mobile World Congress that she’s pouring €50 million (around $65.3 million) into the development of next-generation 5G networks, GigaOm reports. She hopes for “delivery” of 5G by 2020 — but that will likely be difficult since it EU countries will have to figure out wireless spectrum issues.

“Europe used to lead the world on wireless… European 5G is an unmissable opportunity to recapture the global technological lead,” Kroes said today.

Kroes is hoping to spur on research for wireless technology that’s that faster, more power efficient, and more efficient with spectrum than 4G LTE. LTE manufacturers and chip makers have made huge strides when it comes to battery consumption, but it remains the single biggest problem for most LTE devices. If we are to rely on our smartphones more in the future, we need them to last more than a work day.

The 5G investment is part of a public and private partnership across the European mobile industry. Major EU carriers like Telefonica, Deutsche Telecom, France Telecom are also involved (no surprise there). The biggest problem for the continent is the harmonization of wireless spectrum (basically, agreeing on the same spectrum to make wireless deployments and roaming simpler). Kroes likens Europe’s current spectrum map to “a bowl of spaghetti.”

Photo: Campus Party Europa/Flickr

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

Samsung may be in hot water with the European Union soon. The EU announced today that it will “issue a statement of objections very soon” in an anti-trust case regarding lawsuits against major competitor Apple, according to Reuters.

The Korean mobile manufacturer recently dropped a number of proposed injunctions, or requests that certain Apple devices be banned from sale, in European countries. These included the U.K., France, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands. Samsung may have dropped the cases because the European Commission is publicly looking into Samsung’s patent lawsuits to see if there are any antitrust concerns.

At the time, Samsung released this statement:

Samsung remains committed to licensing our technologies on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, and we strongly believe it is better when companies compete fairly in the marketplace, rather than in court. In this spirit, Samsung has decided to withdraw our injunction requests against Apple on the basis of our standard essential patents pending in European courts, in the interest of protecting consumer choice.

It seems despite Samsung’s efforts, the EU still has something to say.

Samsung and Apple are now synonymous with patent lawsuit. The two are suing each other all over the world — not just in the United States. Indeed, the two have gone at it in Germany, South Korea, Japan, and Cupertino, Calif. The most recent decision came out of Apple’s California hometown on Tuesday when Judge Lucy Koh made her final ruling in an epic case that took place over the summer. Prior to the ruling, Apple requested that a number of Samsung’s phones infringing on Apple patent be banned from sale in the U.S. Samsung requested that the trial be thrown out as a mistrial due to a juror’s potential conflict of interest. Neither of these requests were granted and Koh sent them on their way.

European Commission image via Shutterstock

After all, Santa knows who’s naughty and who’s nice.

Google, which makes over $100 million each and every day, has added so much advertising and sponsored results in the past year that some have called its actions a “war on free clicks.” Most troubling of all are the prominent positioning of Google’s own services — especially for local search and shopping results — at the top of Google search engine result pages (SERPs).

Now, however, Google is planning to change its business practices in at least two ways, according to a Bloomberg story. The search giant will apparently promise to stop copying data from “rival websites” and will give advertisers the ability to compare data on Google ad campaigns with data on marketing efforts on other sites and search engines.

It’s not clear, however, whether those two actions would address a key issue: Google favoring its own solutions in its search results — such as content featured in Google+, its social network.

For example, Yelp has been one of the most prominent opponents of Google, with Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman saying last year that “Google has acted anti-competitively in at least two key ways: by misusing Yelp review content in their competing Places product and by favoring their own competing Places product in search results.”

That’s also a concern of the European Union, which has investigated similar issues in the travel space, where Expedia and TripAdvisor have complained about anti-competitive behavior by Google in flight and travel search results.

When I contacted Google for a statement, a representative emailed me with this:

“We continue to work cooperatively with the Federal Trade Commission and are happy to answer any questions they may have.”

photo credit: Thomas Hawk via photopin cc

As Bloomberg reports, the search giant routed almost $10 billion in revenues to its Bermuda shell company. And that’s not because Larry and Sergey like to fly their private jets to the island paradise for beach vacations and mai-tais.

It’s because using the Bermuda shell company saved Google $2 billion in taxes, slicing its overseas tax bill in half.

Bermuda is a well-known “tax haven,” making a Forbes list of the world’s best places to avoid paying taxes. Some companies have moved their entire head offices to the island nation because Bermuda requires corporations to pay absolutely no tax. The country began that policy way back in 1935 as an attempt to bring in offshore companies to develop the local economy.

Google and other companies move money to the tax haven via strategies such as the Double Irish, in which one corporation is set up in Ireland but located in Bermuda, thus being tax-exempt by Irish rules. This first company acquires the international intellectual property rights from the U.S. mother corporation and licenses them at an enormous rate to another Irish company, locally resident, which then takes the profits from all the other European subsidiaries.

But because the second company makes very little money (due to the huge IP licensing rates) it pays very few taxes. And the first company, which is incorporated in Ireland but resident in Bermuda, collects the tax-free cash.

The result of Google moving its revenue to Bermuda?

Google payed an effective tax rate of 3.2 percent of its profit earned overseas last year — a ridiculously low number. Most of the revenues moved to Bermuda are from European countries, which, of course, are not entirely satisfied with the arrangement.

This policy is not unique to Google. Apple employs similar strategies, as do Facebook and Microsoft.

While you can hardly blame a company for taking whatever steps it can to minimize tax burdens, it’s clear that the UK, France, and other countries would like to see income earned locally taxed locally.

Expect European Union nations to take steps to try to recapture some of the tax revenue they see as belonging to them.

photo credit: smallscreen via photopin cc

Turns out that domestic and Asian suppliers are fair targets as well, as the EU imposed a total of $1.9 billion in fines on Netherlands-based Philips, Korea-based LG and Samsung, Japan’s Panasonic and Toshiba, and France’s Technicolor for price-fixing and under-the-table market allocation deals.

The anticompetitive behavior that actually prompted the fines is ancient history in the fast-paced consumer electronics industry. Focused on yesterday’s fat TVs — yes, the CRT ones that actually aimed electron guns at viewers — the price-fixing actually ended six years ago. But while the wheels of justice may move slowly, they do move, according to EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia.

“These cartels for cathode-ray tubes are ‘textbook cartels’: they feature all the worst kinds of anti-competitive behavior that are strictly forbidden to companies doing business in Europe,” Almunia said in a statement.

Philips earned the biggest fine, €313 million, as one of the ringleaders, while LG was fined €295 million. Panasonic’s penalty was smaller but still very substantial, at €157 million, and Samsung will be forced to pay €151 million.

Samsung and LG are repeat offenders, having recently been involved in an LCD TV price-fixing cartel.

A very real question for some of the companies is whether they can afford to pay.

While Samsung is flush with cash from the smartphone business, other companies — particularly Japanese ones — have failed to make as successful a transition to newer, higher-margin electronics. Panasonic’s stocks is at a three-year low right now and is fresh off a $10 billion annual loss. Toshiba is also in difficult circumstances, and near a five-year stock low.

photo credit: alles-schlumpf via photopin cc

The European Union could soon show Microsoft how serious it is about web browser choice.

EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said on Thursday that the organization could press formal charges against Microsoft over the company’s alleged anticompetitive behaviors, Reuters reports.

As part of a 2009 settlement with the EU, Microsoft was supposed to give Windows users a clear choice between its own Internet Explorer browser and competing products. Microsoft followed through on the agreement up until the release of Windows 7 service Pack 1, which did not feature the screen.

Microsoft’s defense? It was a “technical error.”

Engineering mishap or not, the broken promise could cost Microsoft up to $7.4 billion, which is roughly 10 percent of its revenues from last year.

All of this comes as the Google’s Chrome browser siphons away at Internet Explorer’s market share. As of August, Internet Explorer commanded 33.85 percent of the browser market, slightly lower than Chrome’s 33.59 percent share, according to StatCounter.

But while Google is winning the browser wars, it could be the next target of the EU, which says that the search giant also engaged in noncompetitive behaviors with its search engine results.

Photo:Shutterstock

But not according to the European Union. And, not according to Mozilla or Google.

At issue, according to an article posted by ComputerWorld, is secret APIs.

APIs, or application programming interfaces, are used by applications to plug in functionalities on a computing device or service. In an operating system, that might mean access to the file system, graphical outputs to a screen, or the ability to create and manage windows in an application.

Secret APIs are APIs that the owner of a system creates but does not share with partners or developers, giving the ecosystem creator potential advantages in application development. That’s exactly what Microsoft stands accused of doing.

“Internet Explorer 10 on Metro has special access to some very powerful APIs from over in Win32 land,” Asa Dotzler, a Mozilla spokesperson, writes in a personal blog post. Those APIs enable Microsoft’s browser to run quickly and efficiently on Javascript-intensive websites.

Unfortunately, however, non-Microsoft browsers on ARM processors are not getting the same treatment, Dotzler alleges. “Microsoft is giving its own Internet Explorer special privileges that no other Metro app, including other Metro browsers, are allowed.”

The upshot, according to Dotzler:

If we built Firefox for Windows ARM Metro, we would not have access to those powerful Win32 APIs and so we would be at an extreme disadvantage when compared to IE 10 for Metro. We could build a beautiful Firefox that looked really nice on Metro, but Firefox would be so crippled in terms of power and speed that it’s probably not worth it to even bother. No sane user would want to surf today’s web and use today’s modern websites with that kind of crippled browser.

Google will, of course, have similar concerns with its Chrome browser.

The EU will be investigating this claim, according to Reuters, and will be adding this new claim to the already-announced investigation into Microsoft’s alleged failure to provide a browser choice screen in a Windows 7 service page issued in 2011.

Image credit: Bjorn Hogland/ShutterStock

Around 28 million PCs were sent the Windows 7 update, Microsoft said. However, 90 percent of Windows users have an earlier version of the operating system, the company said. Hoping to minimize the impact of the error, Microsoft said it issued a fix of the missing browser choice screen within a day after detecting the mistake.

“While we have taken immediate steps to remedy this problem, we deeply regret that this error occurred and we apologise for it,” the company said in a statement. Despite the steps to correct the mistake, the EU has opened a new investigation into the error, saying any penalty could be “severe.”

“Needless to say, we take compliance with our decision very seriously,” the AP quotes EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia.

In 2010, Microsoft  agreed to offer a screen permitting Europeans to choose a browser other than the company’s Internet Explorer. The screen gives Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Apple’s Safari and Opera as IE alternatives. The software company offered EU regulators the browser choice screen as an alternative to entirely stripping IE from Windows.

IE is not as dominant now as in years past. Earlier this year,  Google’s Chrome was ranked in first place worldwide. In Europe, IE and Chrome are fighting for second place to No. 1 Firefox, according to Statcounter. Microsoft’s browser still has plenty of friends, though. The Windows default browser is No. 1 in China, North America and Oceania.

In an effort to avoid hefty fines from the European Union, Google has issued a proposal today to satisfy accusations that the search giant’s business practices are anti-competitive.

The EU first opened up an investigation on Google’s business practices in November 2010 after rival companies like Microsoft accused it of abusing its dominant position in the search market to boost its own advertising services. The EU sent Google a final warning to resolve the matter back in May.

Today Google Chairman Eric Schmidt sent a proposal letter to EU Antitrust commissioner Joaquín Almunia that addresses four main concerns regarding Google’s search business. Specifically, the things that Google is under fire for include: giving preferential treatment to its search engine within results, using reviews/ratings of competitors without explicit attribution, and making it difficult for its AdWords advertising partners to transfer their ads to advertising competitors.

Some of these antitrust claims are rather weak (and others not so much), but Google has a hefty incentive to hammer out an agreement with the EU. If it doesn’t reach a deal that’s favorable with the European body, it could face a fine of up to 10 percent of its global financial turnover.

We’ve reached out to Google for further comment and will update this post with any new information.

via Reuters; Photo via Vepar5 /Shutterstock

Europe’s second-highest court has upheld a massive antitrust fine against Microsoft for hindering competition, but it lowered the fine slightly by €39 million to €860 million ($1.1 billion), according to the Associated Press.

“The General Court essentially upholds the Commission’s decision imposing a periodic penalty payment on Microsoft for failing to allow its competitors access to interoperability information on reasonable terms,” the court said in a statement.

Microsoft initially was ordered in 2004 to share product information and code about its server software with smaller rival companies, but in 2008 the EU said Microsoft had not complied with the order and fined it €899 million. Micosoft appealed the decision and has been fighting since that time to have the fine thrown out or reduced. Apparently, it didn’t convince the court well enough to throw out the case, and the company will now end up spending a total of €1.64 billion on the case.

“Although the General Court slightly reduced the fine, we are disappointed with the Court’s ruling,” Microsoft said in a statement.

With this case coming to a close, Microsoft will now be in the clear (for now) with European regulators. In 2009, Microsoft entered into an agreement with governing bodies that resolved almost all of the EU’s competition concerns, minus this pending case. Notably, the bodies had been concerned about Internet Explorer being bundled with Windows was creating an unfair advantage. Microsoft agreed to give customers a range of browsers to pick from to end the scrutiny.

Steve Ballmer photo: Sean Ludwig/VentureBeat

The European Union’s antitrust chief has given Google a final chance to settle matter related to anti-competitiveness with its main search engine, according to a Reuters report.

The EU first opened up an investigation in November 2010 after rival companies like Microsoft accused Google of abusing its dominant position in the search market to boost up its own advertising services. If Google is found guilty, it could face a fine of up to 10 percent of its global financial turnover.

EU antitrust chief Joaquin Almunia said both regulators and Google are eager to reach a settlement, thus avoiding lengthy proceedings that risk becoming obsolete due to the rapid growth of technology, according to the report.

“I believe that these fast-moving markets would particularly benefit from a quick resolution of the competition issues identified. Restoring competition swiftly to the benefit of users at an early stage is always better than lengthy proceedings,” Almunia said. “Google has repeatedly expressed to me its willingness to discuss any concerns that the Commission might have without having to engage in adversarial proceedings, this is why today I’m giving Google an opportunity to offer remedies to address concerns that we have identified.”

In a letter to Google, Almunia is said to have given the search giant a matter of weeks to come up with a first proposal that would satisfy all the EU’s issues regarding anti-competitiveness.

EU flags photo via jorisvo/ShutterStock

The European air is rife with the stench of death, which means two things: first, that the highly controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is unlikely to gain approval from the 27 members of the European Parliament. And second, the members of Anonymous have further justification for wearing those masks with the iconic smirk from V for Vendetta .

For those who aren’t familiar with the trade agreement, ACTA is an international treaty aimed at giving countries the ability to stop copyright infringement and other forms of intellectual property theft — a standard framework so that all countries around the world can charge and prosecute digital piracy. However, many Europeans (as well as Americans to a lesser extent) are against the trade agreement because it doesn’t directly address or stop piracy in a meaningful way. That’s on top of the fact that most government officials signed (or attempted to) the agreement in secrecy, without input from public discourse.

The EU first began investigating whether ACTA was legal back in February. Earlier this week, the trade agreement’s rapporteur (a.k.a. person in charge of investigating and assessing the agreement) MEP David Martin formally recommended that the European Union reject ACTA.

Despite over 20 EU states already signing the treaty, EU parliament members must vote to ratify it before it can move forward. If Martin’s assessment is accepted, it’s unlikely that ACTA will pass.

“The intended benefits of this international agreement are far outweighed by the potential threats to civil liberties,” wrote Martin in the assessment (PDF). “Given the vagueness of certain aspects of the text and the uncertainty over its interpretation, the European Parliament cannot guarantee adequate protection for citizens’ rights in the future under ACTA.”

Anonymous masks photo via Rob Kints / Shutterstock.com; via ZDnet

Expedia and TripAdvisor have just filed complaints about Google’s travel search features as part of a larger antitrust probe the search giant is facing in the European Union.

Altogether the European Commission has received 13 formal complaints, including the new complaints brought by the online travel companies, EC spokesman Antoine Colombani told press today. The commission’s probe of Google began in November 2010.

Sources for Agence France-Presse said the Expedia and TripAdvisor complaints centered around Google Flight, a new service that launched in September 2011 and didn’t include destinations outside the U.S. until just two weeks ago, when Google Flight opened trips to Europe and other regions.

At the end of 2011, Google chairman Eric Schmidt paid a visit to Brussels to meet with European Commissioner Joaquín Almunia in person. At that time, a Google spokesperson told VentureBeat the company had already turned over thousands of documents as part of the investigation and did not expect any formal censure from the EC.

The probe kicked off when several parties brought complaints against Google for taking unfair advantage of its domination in the world of web search. These parties claimed Google was decreasing the search ranking of unpaid search results. For example, the claims stated that Google might lower the ranking of a shopping and product search website while increasing the ranking of Google Shopping results.

Another allegation is that Google set a lower Quality Score for its competitors’ sponsored links (Quality Scores help the company to set its ad prices; a lower score would mean a lower ad price). Finally, the search company is accused of setting up “exclusivity obligations on advertising partners, preventing them from placing certain types of competing ads on their web sites, as well as on computer and software vendors, with the aim of shutting out competing search tools.”

The EC’s office should be ready to make public its findings as soon as this month. Saying a preliminary report may be completed after Easter, Alumnia told press last week, “We want to advance in our investigation, but we want to advance on a solid basis, not because of a letter or some pressures.”

The European Union’s antitrust Commission has opened up two new investigations that will explore whether Motorola Mobility is unfairly licensing some of its patents, the organization announced today.

The investigations follow complaints from two of the biggest technology companies in the world. Back in February, Apple filed an official complaint against Motorola Mobility for violating agreements to fairly license standards-essential patents. Specifically, Apple focused on the 17,000 patents Google will get its hands on when its purchase of Motorola Mobility is complete. Weeks later, Microsoft  filed an official complaint with the EU against Motorola, focusing on its patents related to web videos.

All the Motorola Mobility patents in question are to be licensed on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. The FRAND classification means the owner of a patent must license it to other companies for a fee because the technology is considered essential to an industry. Both Apple and Microsoft claim Motorola isn’t abiding by these terms.

The antitrust commission explained:

“Following complaints by Apple and Microsoft, the Commission will investigate, in particular, whether by seeking and enforcing injunctions against Apple’s and Microsoft’s flagship products such as iPhone, iPad, Windows and Xbox on the basis of patents it had declared essential to produce standard-compliant products, Motorola has failed to honour its irrevocable commitments made to standard setting organisations.”

It looks sort of like both Microsoft and Apple are taking advantage of Motorola Mobility changing hands to one of their biggest rivals. U.S. and E.U. regulators approved Google’s purchase of the company for $12.5 billion in February.

Euro sign photo via Yurchyks/Shutterstock

Back in November 2010, the European Commission first opened up an investigation about the matter after rival companies like Microsoft accused Google of abusing its dominant position in the search market. If Google is found culpable, it could face a fine of up to 10 percent of its global financial turnover.

“We are concerned that the dominant search engine, Google, may have abused its position in the search market to direct users to its own services and secondly to reduce the visibility of competing websites and services,” wrote head of the BEUC Monique Goyens in a letter to EU antitrust commissioner Joaquín Almunia. “Google continues to expand its areas of activities and develop its own services and products. Given its role as gatekeeper to the internet, Google is in a unique position to restrict access to its competitors and direct traffic to its own services.

The BEUC is one of many groups pressuring the EU to submit its findings sooner rather than later, in order to minimize damages to other European businesses if Google is found guilty.

The findings from the commission will essentially be a list of objections it has to Google’s practices. The search giant will then have a chance to respond to those objections prior to any official ruling.

But despite pressure from outside groups, EU chief Almunia said a decision won’t be reached until after the Easter holiday on April 8.

“Maybe after Easter we will have some more clear consideration,” Almunia said in a statement reported by Reuters. “We want to advance in our investigation but we want to advance on a solid basis, not because of a letter or some pressures.”

EU flags photo via jorisvo/ShutterStock; Via TechCrunch

Google’s controversial new privacy policy went into effect today, but resistance to the sweeping changes still appears strong, with a judge in the EU saying it violates EU law.

In late January, Google announced it would change its privacy policy by combining 60 policies into one. While simplification of hard-to-read policies is nice, Google has attracted criticism because it will now combine user data across all of its services, including search, Gmail, YouTube, Google+, and Google Docs. Critics have included European regulators, U.S. Congress, and many U.S. state attorneys general.

Now we’ve finally hit Google Privacy Policy (GPP) day. Clearly, many organizations are not down with GPP, but now a judge in the EU has taken that criticism a step further by saying it’s a violation of EU law.

EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding told BBC Radio Four that there were serious issues with the privacy changes. She noted that France’s data protection watchdog, the CNIL, had decided necessary “transparency rules have not been applied.”

“Protection of personal data is a basic rule of the European Union. It is inscribed in the treaties. It is not an if, it is a must,” Reding reportedly said.

A Google spokesperson, echoing past statements from Google, told us the company is not worried about the criticism.

“We are confident that our new simple, clear, and transparent privacy policy respects all European data protection laws and principles,” a Google spokesperson told VentureBeat via e-mail. “It provides all the information required in Articles 10 & 11 of the directive, plus much additional information, and it follows the guidelines published by the Article 29 Working Party in 2004.”

Are you down with GPP? Or are you concerned about the changes?

[Angry man: olly/Shutterstock]

The European Union announced today that it will ask the European Court of Justice for a legal opinion on the highly protested Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

For those not familiar with the trade agreement, ACTA is an international treaty aimed at giving countries the ability to stop copyright infringement and other forms of intellectual property theft — a standard framework so that all countries around the world can charge and prosecute digital piracy. However, many Europeans have protested against the trade agreement under the claim that it could stifle free expression on the Internet while not directly addressing the problem of piracy in a meaningful way. ACTA has also come under fire due to the secrecy behind getting EU trade partners to sign the agreement without consulting the public.

The court is being asked to determine if ACTA — as well as its implementation — complies with the EU’s fundamental rights and freedoms, according to EU trade head Karel De Gucht.

“Let me be very clear: I share people’s concern for these fundamental freedoms … especially over the freedom of the Internet,”  De Gucht said in a statement reported by the BBC. “This debate must be based upon facts, and not upon the misinformation and rumour that has dominated social media sites and blogs in recent weeks.”

ACTA has already been signed by 22 EU member states, including the U.S., U.K., Japan, and Canada. More recently, countries like Germany and Denmark have refused to sign the agreement due to the widespread protest across the continent. Since ACTA is intended as a universal framework for stopping digital piracy, having a few key democratic countries that do not comply will likely weaken the overall effectiveness of the trade agreement.

Image via kihupotru

Regulators had put the deal on hold in both the U.S. and EU pending investigation for possible antitrust issues.

“We’re happy that today the European Commission approved our proposed acquisition of Motorola Mobility, which we announced in August,” wrote Google VP and deputy general counsel Don Harrison today on the company blog.

“This is an important milestone in the approval process and it moves us closer to closing the deal. We are now just waiting for decisions from a few other jurisdictions before we can close this transaction.”

The proposed deal put a $12.5 billion price tag on the Motorola property. Motorola also introduced a hefty $2.5 billion breakup fee, showing that company’s concern that the deal might not get through federal regulators.

Officials with the U.S. Department of Justice and other international governing bodies were initially given pause by Google claims that, even after the acquisition was complete, Motorola would not be given unfair advantages, such as early access to the Android codebase, over other Android handset and tablet manufacturers.

EU regulators halted the acquisition process in December 2011 when officials asked for more time to conduct a thorough review of the deal.

However, Google has proven — at least to EU officials — that it is in the company’s best interest to carefully skirt any antitrust activities in order to maintain the peace in the Android ecosystem while gathering the legal stockpile of patents necessary to protect Android manufacturers from the myriad lawsuits in which many are currently embroiled.

“The combination of Google and Motorola Mobility will help supercharge Android,” said Harrison in conclusion. “It will also enhance competition and offer consumers faster innovation, greater choice and wonderful user experiences.”

Rumors are swirling that the Justice Department may approve the acquisition as soon as this week, but for now, those rumors have yet to be confirmed.

Image courtesy of laihui

European regulators have asked Google to delay a new, controversial privacy policy change because they want more time to investigate how well user data will be protected.

Google announced last week that it would change its privacy policy by combining 60 policies into one, with the changes going into effect March 1. While simplification of hard-to-read policies is nice, Google has attracted criticism because it will now combine user data across all of its services, including search, Gmail, YouTube, Google+, and Google Docs. First the U.S. Congress voiced concerns about the changes, and now it looks like Europe wants a go.

The Article 29 Working Party, an independent European body focused on data protection, said it wants Google to halt the new policy to give it more time to examine the changes.

“Given the wide range of services you offer, and the popularity of these services, changes in your privacy policy may affect many citizens in most or all of the EU member states,” the group wrote to Google CEO Larry Page on Feb. 2, according to Reuters. “We wish to check the possible consequences for the protection of the personal data of these citizens in a coordinated way. In light of the above, we call for a pause in the interests of ensuring that there can be no misunderstanding about Google’s commitments to information rights of their users and EU citizens, until we have completed our analysis.”

Google has defended the privacy changes by saying it is an effort to simplify, not take advantage of its users. “We’re making things simpler and we’re trying to be upfront about it. Period,” said Google’s policy manager Betsy Masiello in a recent blog post.

The European Commission and U.S. regulators have also had their eyes on Google due to antitrust concerns since at least June 2011. Then Google exacerbated those concerns by introducing Search Plus Your World, which integrates Google+ social results into basic searches.

Despite regulator concern, Google’s big privacy change will likely take effect on March. You can login to http://www.google.com/dashboard to see most of the data Google has accumulated on you. It does not include everything, however, such as server logs, cookies, and key advertising data.

Google privacy image: Google Privacy Policy Update video screenshot

The EC announced today that it has begun formal antitrust investigations into Apple and five major book publishers —  Hachette Livre, Harper Collins, Simon & Schuster, Penguin, and Macmillan owner Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holzbrinck — to determine how they arranged e-book prices.

“The Commission will in particular investigate whether these publishing groups and Apple have engaged in illegal agreements or practices that would have the object or the effect of restricting competition in the EU or in the EEA,” the EC wrote in a statement today. “The Commission is also examining the character and terms of the agency agreements entered into by the above named five publishers and retailers for the sale of e-books. The Commission has concerns, that these practices may breach EU antitrust rules that prohibit cartels and restrictive business practices.”

The investigation likely sparks from a coordinated effort years ago between Apple and publishers to abolish Amazon’s then-typical $9.99 e-book pricing, Fortune’s Philip Elmer-DeWitt notes. Now, new e-books are often priced between $12 and $15 — with high-demand titles, like the recent Steve Jobs biography, selling for around $17 at launch (very close to its hardcover price).

Apple and the five publishers are already facing a class action lawsuit in California over the pricing change, which claims that they were “terrified” by Amazon’s low e-book pricing. Apple was a particularly useful co-conspirator because it was launching its iBooks store at the time. According to the suit, the publishers agreed to an “agency model” deal with Apple, which let them determine e-book pricing while Apple took a small cut. They also allegedly agreed not to sell e-books at prices lower than what Apple offered.

I’m not a legal expert, but it seems clear that something fishy went down with the launch of the iBooks store and the sudden emergence of more expensive e-books. If the EC’s investigation is successful, there’s hope that further exploration will occur in the U.S. and that someday we may finally see the return of cheap e-books.

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

After a German court granted that Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 could be sold in most of Europe, Apple this week brought the case to the Netherlands to push for the ban of Samsung’s entire Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets.

Apple and Samsung did not immediately provide official comments on the matter.

The complaint against Samsung in The Hague district court, which was first pointed out by Dutch publication Webwereld, is not simply a ban on sales. It also includes a demand for recalling the entire stock of Samsung’s gear. Apple wants Samsung to send a letter to companies that distribute its products to request all stock be returned to Samsung within 14 days.

The ban would immediately stop the sale of Galaxy Ace, Galaxy S, and Galaxy S II smartphones, as well as the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and original Galaxy Tab tablets. A complete EU block of the Galaxy line would be catastrophic for Samsung, which is trying to establish its Android-based smartphones and tablets as some of the best alternatives to Apple’s iPhone and iPad.

Last week, Samsung said it was “disappointed” when a German court blocked the sale of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the EU (except the Netherlands) on the grounds that the Tab imitated the iPad so closely it infringed on Apple’s intellectual property rights. Samsung could have faced fines up to $350,000 per unit sold under the German court ban. But the ban was lifted when the Duesseldorf regional court lifted the injunction, saying it was questionable whether it had the authority to bar the sale of a Korean product outside of Germany.

The news is another continuation of Apple’s legal squabbles with Samsung, which started in April with a lawsuit in the U.S. concerning the company’s Galaxy Android smartphones and Galaxy Tab. Apple argued that Samsung’s devices considerably imitated the iPhone and iPad. Samsung filed a counter-suit against Apple, but the battle also extended to the U.S. International Trade Commission, which can block the importation of devices into the U.S.

Now that battle is being played out in courts all over the world.

What do you think of the ongoing battle between Apple and Samsung?

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

Samsung is now allowed to sell its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet again in most of Europe after a German court lifted an injunction on the device requested by Apple.

Avi Greengart, research director for consumer devices at Current Analysis, thinks Samsung should be pleased with the win but said the company should expect similar legal battles in the coming days and weeks.

“Samsung is certainly breathing a sigh of relief,” Greengart told VentureBeat. “Tune in tomorrow for the next exciting legal development.”

Last week, Samsung said it was “disappointed” when the German court blocked the sale of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the EU (except the Netherlands) on the grounds that the Tab imitated the iPad so closely it infringed on Apple’s intellectual property rights. Samsung could have faced fines up to $350,000 per unit sold under the ban.

The Duesseldorf regional court took this back today by saying it was questionable whether it had the authority to bar the sale of an international product outside of Germany. Since Samsung is based in South Korea, the court said the ban should be lifted for now.

The news is yet another continuation of Apple’s legal squabbles with Samsung, which started in April with a lawsuit in the U.S. concerning the company’s Galaxy Android smartphones and Galaxy Tab. Apple argued that Samsung’s devices considerably imitated the iPhone and iPad. Samsung filed a counter-suit against Apple, but the battle also extended to the U.S. International Trade Commission, which can block the importation of devices into the U.S.

What do you think of the ongoing battle between Apple and Samsung?

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Early Bird Tickets on Sale

Though Samsung told VentureBeat on Tuesday the company had “no notice”  Apple was requesting an injunction to ban the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in Europe, a report today says Samsung knew what Apple was up to.

FOSS Patents‘ Florian Mueller has obtained a revealing press release from the Düsseldorf district court, which blocked the Galaxy Tab 10.1 from sale in the EU. The release shows that about a week before Apple filed its injunction, Samsung filed a “Schutzschrift,” a protective pleading that companies normally file when anticipating a preliminary injunction.

“While it’s true that they weren’t put on notice and that there wasn’t any hearing, Samsung wasn’t forthright enough to admit that it had filed a protective pleading,” Mueller wrote. “Samsung wasn’t blindsided — Samsung knew it had this coming, and the court’s decision was based on both Apple’s motion and Samsung’s preemptive opposition pleading.”

The news comes the same day a date has been set for Samsung to appeal the German court’s decision. Samsung will go to court on Aug. 25 to try to convince it to unblock the sale of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 throughout Europe (excluding the Netherlands). As of now, Samsung can face fines up to $350,000 per unit if it continues to sell the device in the EU.

FOSS’ Mueller thinks Samsung has done itself a considerable disservice by misleading the press on this closely watched story.

“This kind of communication strategy on Samsung’s part is old-school spin doctoring and only serves to strengthen my impression that Samsung is in a legally weak position against Apple,” Mueller wrote. “If Samsung wants to inspire confidence, it has to understand that half the truth is sometimes tantamount to a whole lie.”

Samsung certainly doesn’t look good in this position, but we will see what happens Aug. 25. Samsung did not respond immediately to VentureBeat’s request for an official comment.

Apple and Samsung have been legally sparring since April, when Apple filed a lawsuit in the U.S. concerning the company’s Galaxy Android smartphones and Galaxy Tab. Apple argued Samsung’s devices heavily imitated the iPhone and iPad. Samsung filed a counter-suit against Apple, but the battle also extended to the U.S. International Trade Commission, which can block the importation of devices into the U.S.

“Skype, like any other pragmatic organization, constantly assesses its team structure to deliver its users the best products,” a Skype spokesperson said in a statement. “As part of a recent internal shift Skype has made some management changes.”

The shakeup appears to be a way to trim Skype’s excess in order to get ready for the move under the Microsoft umbrella. Bloomberg says Skype letting senior executives go will reduce their payout. Business Insider, however, talked to an unnamed Skype investor and said the incident was the product of a lengthy company review by CEO Tony Bates.

Specific departures from Skype included David Gurle, vice president and general manager for Skype for Business; Don Albert, vice president and general manager for the Americas and Advertising; Doug Bewsher, chief marketing officer; Christopher Dean, head of consumer market business development; Russ Shaw, vice president and general manager; and Anne Gillespie, head of human resources; Qik founder Ramu Sunkara; and senior vice president Allyson Campa.

In related news, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Thursday approved Microsoft’s buyout offer for Skype. The deal still needs to clear the U.S. Department of Justice and the European Union. Microsoft said it intends to connect Skype video calling services to Outlook, Xbox, and other products if the deal goes through.

Google has allegedly lowered the ranking of competitive vertical search sites — mostly price comparison sites — in favor of its own in the main body of search results as they appear on a Google search results page. These results are “natural”, or unpaid search results as opposed to the paid ads which appear on the top and the right-hand side of the page.

Vertical search sites specialize in a specific kind of search, like travel, health, or shopping. Some appear designed to game Google’s algorithms and benefit from free traffic from the Web search engine rather than providing a genuine service to users, while others offer a legitimately helpful service.

The EC is also looking into claims that Google has manipulated its internal “quality score”, which determines the amount of money an advertiser has to pay for an ad that appears on Google’s search results page. And finally, the Commission is investigating whether or not Google is also trying to stop websites from accepting rival ads, making the company sound like quite the online bully.

While the EC has opened an investigation into the matter, it doesn’t mean there is proof of any wrongdoing on Google’s part–yet. The EC states simply that it will “conduct an in-depth investigation of the case as a matter of priority.”

According to various outlets such as the BBC, BusinessWeek, and the New York Times, Google responded with a statement saying that it has “worked hard to do the right thing by our users and our industry.” Google said it has marked ads clearly and has allowed advertisers export their data from its service to other services easily. Google also said there is always “room for improvement”, and the company will be working with the commission to “address any concerns.”

There is no legal deadline for the investigation, meaning that it is likely to take months, if not years for the EC to reach a conclusion in what will be a highly complex case.

The EU has a history of taking on giant companies before, hitting Microsoft with a fine of 497 million euros, or $794 million, in March 2004 over antitrust issues, and, more recently, the regulator fined Intel 1.08 billion euros, or $1.38 billion. It is apparent that the EU is not a pushover when dealing with multinational companies and therefore this could mean trouble for Google, should the company be found to be using anti-competitive practices.

[Photo credit: Carlos Luna]