Devices Given to Chinese Legal Advocate Had Tracking Spyware, N.Y.U. Says

But according to officials at New York University, several electronic devices that were given to Chen Guangcheng, a Chinese legal advocate, soon after his arrival in the United States last year were loaded with spyware designed to track his family’s movements and their online activity.

Two of those devices, an iPhone and an iPad, were given to Mr. Chen by China Aid, a Texas-based Christian group that pushes for greater religious freedom in China. Bob Fu, the president of the group, said that he was out of the country when Mr. Chen arrived in New York so his wife, Heidi, handed over the equipment. The discovery of the tracking software came as a complete surprise, he said.

“This story is just crazy,” said Mr. Fu, an exiled Chinese dissident who championed Mr. Chen’s plight during the years of persecution Mr. Chen endured as an opponent of forced abortion.

The allegations, first reported by Reuters, threatened to further complicate an already messy narrative surrounding Mr. Chen’s tenure at N.Y.U., which includes accusations that school officials, bowing to pressure from the Chinese government, sought to curtail his public advocacy and then forced him to leave the Greenwich Village campus sooner than he expected.

School officials and associates of Mr. Chen, who is blind, have vehemently rejected such assertions and insisted that his fellowship at N.Y.U. was always meant to last one year.

Mr. Chen has declined to provide evidence backing up his assertions, issued in a brief statement last Sunday, that Beijing pressured N.Y.U. to terminate what he acknowledged was a generous arrangement that included tutors, security and housing for him, his wife, and their two children.

With Mr. Chen silent in recent days, Mr. Fu has become one of his more vocal advocates, eagerly telling reporters what Mr. Fu said were instances in which N.Y.U. tried to limit Mr. Chen’s access to conservative political figures and advocates who opposed abortion. Representative Christopher H. Smith, Republican of New Jersey, who frequently confers with Mr. Fu on human rights issues in China, has threatened to convene a Congressional hearing on Mr. Chen’s time at N.Y.U.

According to people with knowledge of the episode, Mr. Fu’s wife presented the Apple devices to an assistant of Jerome Cohen, the N.Y.U. law professor who was instrumental in arranging Mr. Chen’s exit from the American Embassy in Beijing, where he had sought refuge after escaping house arrest.

The gifts, along with at least two other phones that were handed to the assistant, arrived on the chaotic day Mr. Chen and his family landed in New York. After an examination by N.Y.U. technicians, all the devices were found to be compromised with spyware, said an associate, who asked to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to speak to the news media.

The spyware included global positioning software that allowed a third party to track the whereabouts of the device, and presumably its owner, and another program that copied its contents to a remote server. After removing the spyware, technicians returned the Apple devices to the Chens, who were told about what had happened. The two other phones, their provenance a mystery, were not given to Mr. Chen.

“He was upset, but he was more concerned about the relatives he left behind who were being mistreated by the authorities,” the associate said.

Mr. Fu was not informed about the spyware on the items, and by all accounts, his relationship with the family deepened in the months that followed.

John H. Beckman, an N.Y.U. spokesman, confirmed the broad outlines of the episode but said he had no further information. Professor Cohen told Reuters he thought the compromised devices were an attempt to keep tabs on Mr. Chen remotely. “These people supposedly were out to help him, and they give him a kind of Trojan horse that would have enabled them to monitor his communications secretly,” he said.

Professor Cohen was traveling in Asia on Friday and could not be reached for comment.

In an interview, Mr. Fu said he learned on Thursday from Reuters that the items his wife had bought at an AT&T store in Texas were compromised. He said a technician he employs had activated the devices and added Skype but nothing else.

He suggested that the spyware could have been installed after his wife dropped off the items but before they were given to the Chens, a gap of at least a day.

“More than anyone else, we want to get to the bottom of this,” he said, adding that he had asked the F.B.I. to look into the matter. “We will fully cooperate with any investigation and hope N.Y.U. will do the same.”

Devices Given to Chinese Legal Advocate Had Tracking Spyware, N.Y.U. Says

But according to officials at New York University, several electronic devices that were given to Chen Guangcheng, a Chinese legal advocate, soon after his arrival in the United States last year were loaded with spyware designed to track his family’s movements and their online activity.

Two of those devices, an iPhone and an iPad, were given to Mr. Chen by China Aid, a Texas-based Christian group that pushes for greater religious freedom in China. Bob Fu, the president of the group, said that he was out of the country when Mr. Chen arrived in New York so his wife, Heidi, handed over the equipment. The discovery of the tracking software came as a complete surprise, he said.

“This story is just crazy,” said Mr. Fu, an exiled Chinese dissident who championed Mr. Chen’s plight during the years of persecution Mr. Chen endured as an opponent of forced abortion.

The allegations, first reported by Reuters, threatened to further complicate an already messy narrative surrounding Mr. Chen’s tenure at N.Y.U., which includes accusations that school officials, bowing to pressure from the Chinese government, sought to curtail his public advocacy and then forced him to leave the Greenwich Village campus sooner than he expected.

School officials and associates of Mr. Chen, who is blind, have vehemently rejected such assertions and insisted that his fellowship at N.Y.U. was always meant to last one year.

Mr. Chen has declined to provide evidence backing up his assertions, issued in a brief statement last Sunday, that Beijing pressured N.Y.U. to terminate what he acknowledged was a generous arrangement that included tutors, security and housing for him, his wife, and their two children.

With Mr. Chen silent in recent days, Mr. Fu has become one of his more vocal advocates, eagerly telling reporters what Mr. Fu said were instances in which N.Y.U. tried to limit Mr. Chen’s access to conservative political figures and advocates who opposed abortion. Representative Christopher H. Smith, Republican of New Jersey, who frequently confers with Mr. Fu on human rights issues in China, has threatened to convene a Congressional hearing on Mr. Chen’s time at N.Y.U.

According to people with knowledge of the episode, Mr. Fu’s wife presented the Apple devices to an assistant of Jerome Cohen, the N.Y.U. law professor who was instrumental in arranging Mr. Chen’s exit from the American Embassy in Beijing, where he had sought refuge after escaping house arrest.

The gifts, along with at least two other phones that were handed to the assistant, arrived on the chaotic day Mr. Chen and his family landed in New York. After an examination by N.Y.U. technicians, all the devices were found to be compromised with spyware, said an associate, who asked to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to speak to the news media.

The spyware included global positioning software that allowed a third party to track the whereabouts of the device, and presumably its owner, and another program that copied its contents to a remote server. After removing the spyware, technicians returned the Apple devices to the Chens, who were told about what had happened. The two other phones, their provenance a mystery, were not given to Mr. Chen.

“He was upset, but he was more concerned about the relatives he left behind who were being mistreated by the authorities,” the associate said.

Mr. Fu was not informed about the spyware on the items, and by all accounts, his relationship with the family deepened in the months that followed.

John H. Beckman, an N.Y.U. spokesman, confirmed the broad outlines of the episode but said he had no further information. Professor Cohen told Reuters he thought the compromised devices were an attempt to keep tabs on Mr. Chen remotely. “These people supposedly were out to help him, and they give him a kind of Trojan horse that would have enabled them to monitor his communications secretly,” he said.

Professor Cohen was traveling in Asia on Friday and could not be reached for comment.

In an interview, Mr. Fu said he learned on Thursday from Reuters that the items his wife had bought at an AT&T store in Texas were compromised. He said a technician he employs had activated the devices and added Skype but nothing else.

He suggested that the spyware could have been installed after his wife dropped off the items but before they were given to the Chens, a gap of at least a day.

“More than anyone else, we want to get to the bottom of this,” he said, adding that he had asked the F.B.I. to look into the matter. “We will fully cooperate with any investigation and hope N.Y.U. will do the same.”

Government Takes Legal Action Over Phone Spam

The messages, which typically promise gift cards to national chain stores or other prizes, are sent to random phone numbers and usually direct recipients to a Web site where they are asked for personal information like Social Security numbers or credit card numbers, agency officials said.

Rarely, if ever, do consumers receive any actual reward, said C. Steven Baker, the commission’s Midwest region director. Instead, the Web sites often take users through multiple screens that ask them for more detailed information or entice them to sign up for free trials of products, then charge them for shipping and handling.

“If any consumer gets that far and actually gets a gift card, it isn’t free,” Mr. Baker said, adding that the commission was not aware of anyone who had received a promised reward. He spoke to reporters in a teleconference from Chicago.

Roughly 60 percent of mobile phone users have received one or more spam text messages in the last year, he said, and about 15 percent clicked on the link included in the message.

The cellphone spam industry has proved lucrative because individuals have grown to trust their mobile devices in a way that they do not trust e-mail.

“People are much more likely to read a text message within a few minutes and to click on a link in a text than they are in an e-mail,” said Andrew Conway, a researcher at Cloudmark in San Francisco, which issues an annual report on messaging threats.

In the eight federal civil cases filed across the country in recent days, the F.T.C. named 29 defendants, including 18 individuals, most of whom worked for companies that were hired to send the text messages. One complaint was filed against the operators of one of the Web sites to which consumers were directed by the messages.

Among the companies named were Superior Affiliate Management, Rentbro, Appidemic, Verma Holdings, AdvertMarketing, Seaside Building Marketing and SubscriberBASE Holdings. The commission said it had no contact information for the defendants in the suits, most of whom could not be reached for comment. Lawyers representing SubscriberBASE Holdings and individuals affiliated with that company said the parties had reached an agreement with the F.T.C. for a temporary restraining order, but declined to comment further.

Sending unsolicited commercial text messages is illegal under civil law. Other laws are often violated when spam messages are sent to numbers in the federal “Do Not Call” registry.

The commission said it was pursuing an additional case charging contempt of court against Phillip A. Flora, a serial text-message spammer who was barred in 2011 from sending unsolicited texts. He faces potential felony charges of violating a federal court order, in addition to a new lawsuit filed by the F.T.C. against his company, Seaside Building Marketing. Mr. Flora could not be reached for comment.

The authorities said it was difficult to catch companies that send spam messages because they frequently change the phone numbers used to originate the messages, making them hard to track.

Spam waves have become much more frequent since phone companies began offering unlimited text-messaging plans. Now, spammers buy hundreds of SIM cards, the chips that make cellphones work, allowing them to send a flood of messages and then abandon the phone numbers.

The F.T.C. has received at least 50,000 complaints about spam text messages in the last few years, including 20,000 that related to an offer of a free prize, and the number of complaints is growing rapidly. Mr. Baker said the commission received seven times as many complaints in 2012 as it did in 2011.

Officials advised anyone who receives such a message not to click on any link and not to reply. In particular, they said, consumers should not text “Stop” or a similar direction back to the sender, as spam messages often suggest; that simply lets the sender know the phone number is active and therefore a candidate for sale to other marketers. Instead, consumers are requested to forward the text message to 7726, which is a central repository for spam messages that has been set up by cellphone carriers. The message should then be deleted, the officials said.

Some people who have received the unauthorized text messages are among the 12 percent of mobile phone users who do not have a text message subscription plan, the F.T.C. said. For these consumers, the messages could result in their being charged a per-text fee by their cellphone company.

In addition, some of the text messages can lead to steep, monthly “subscription” charges on recipients’ phone bills. While phone companies will usually reverse those fees once they are brought to their attention, it is generally up to consumers to monitor their accounts for unauthorized charges.

Mr. Conway of Cloudmark said there had been “a noticeable drop-off” in gift-card spam in the last three weeks, perhaps tied to the F.T.C.’s pursuit of enforcement actions. Now, he said, spammers are sending more bank account messages, seeking access to victims’ financial information.

Einhorn Scores Legal Victory Versus Apple in Cash Scuffle

U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan in Manhattan granted a motion by Einhorn's Greenlight Capital for a preliminary injunction stopping a vote on that proposal, scheduled for the company's February 27 stockholders' meeting.

The decision could hand Einhorn more leverage as he pursues his pitch for Apple to issue what he has called the "iPref": preferred stock with a perpetual dividend that he contends would reward investors and help boost the company's share price.

Greenlight sued Apple on February 7 as part of a broader pitch to unlock more of its $137 billion in cash. The hedge fund manager has lobbied Apple to issue preferred stock with a perpetual 4 percent dividend, and on Thursday made a direct appeal to shareholders on a teleconference.

Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook last week dismissed the lawsuit as a "silly sideshow."

The lawsuit itself challenged a measure called Proposal No. 2 that Apple put forward, which would eliminate its power to issue preferred shares without a shareholder vote.

At issue is Apple's "bundling" of that measure with two other unrelated matters into a single proxy proposal.

Greenlight said it supported two of the proposed amendments, but not the one on preferred shares.

In his ruling, Sullivan said Greenlight and another investor who also sued Apple "are likely to succeed on the merits and face irreparable harm if the vote on Proposal No. 2 is permitted to proceed."

"We are disappointed with the court's ruling. Proposal No. 2 is part of our efforts to further enhance corporate governance and serve our shareholders' best interests," Apple spokesman Steve Dowling said. "Unfortunately, due to today's decision, shareholders will not be able to vote on Proposal No. 2 at our annual meeting next week."

A spokesman for Greenlight called the ruling a "significant win for all Apple shareholders and for good corporate governance."

But not all shareholders were happy. California pension fund Calpers, a major Apple investor and public supporter of Apple's proposal, said implementation of "majority voting and shareholder approval for the issuance of new stock - preferred or otherwise - is worth waiting for."

"We encourage Apple to reintroduce these measures as soon as is practical so that all investors can be heard," Anne Simpson, Calpers' director of global governance, said in a statement.

BUNDLES

The ruling could be a warning for other companies when issuing proxy proposals, said James Cox, a professor at Duke University School of Law.

"It's going to make managers reluctant to bundle things together, because you're never going to know when you send them out if there's an Einhorn out there," he said.

The lawsuit was centered on a narrow issue of whether Apple violated U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rules by "bundling" the preferred shares item with two other unrelated matters into one proxy proposal.

Greenlight's lawyers contended the SEC rules were intended to protect shareholders from being forced to vote for a proxy proposal involving materially different issues that the investors might not entirely support.

Apple had argued Proposal No. 2, which only dealt with amendments to its charter, constitute a single matter and wasn't bundled. Sullivan called the company's arguments "unavailing."

"Given the language and purpose of the rules, it is plain to the Court that Proposal No. 2 impermissibly bundles 'separate matters' for shareholder consideration," Sullivan wrote.

Judge Sullivan also found that Greenlight would be irreparably harmed without the injunction, since it would be forced to vote against its own interests. Denying Greenlight's motion would prevent it and other investors from exercising their rights to a fair vote, Sullivan said.

Sullivan separately declined to block a vote from going forward on a separate proxy proposal, Proposal No. 4, which sought an advisory "say on pay" vote on Apple executives' compensation.

The proposal had been challenged by investor Brian Gralnick of Pennsylvania, who contends Apple did not disclose enough details about how it made its compensation decisions.

Sullivan rejected that argument, saying Apple's disclosures were "plainly sufficient under SEC rules."

Arnold Gershon, a lawyer for Gralnick at Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, said he was "very pleased" with Sullivan's decision to the extent it enjoined the Proposal No. 2 vote, though said he would have to decide what to do next with regard to the say-on-pay proposal.

Sullivan directed the parties to submit a joint letter by March 1 outlining the next contemplated steps in this case.

Apple shares closed up 1.1 percent at $450.81 on Friday.

The case is Greenlight Capital LP, et al., v. Apple Inc., U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 13-900.

(Reporting by Nate Raymond in New York; Additional reporting by Poornima Gupta in San Francisco; Editing by Martha Graybow, Gary Hill, Leslie Adler, Carol Bishopric and Lisa Shumaker)

Communications Satellites, Banned as ‘Weapons,’ Now Legal for Export

Although the United States founded the industry, manufacturers were forced to pull back from international markets after a 1999 law categorized the satellites as weapons and restricted their export. At the time, Congress was fearful that selling satellites abroad could allow technology secrets to fall into the wrong hands.

The defense bill that President Obama signed will undo that step and let American companies sell communications satellites as civilian technology rather than as deadly arms. Among the beneficiaries will be companies like Boeing, Hughes and Space Systems/Loral.

“This is a tremendous assist for an industry that is inherently international,” said Patricia A. Cooper, president of the Satellite Industry Association, a business group in Washington. “It will ensure our place at the forefront of space.”

As a practical matter, communications satellites made their debut in 1964 and quickly became stars of the space age. The first craft, orbiting at 22,300 miles, relayed signals to the United States from Japan that let American television viewers watch live coverage of the 1964 Olympic Games in Tokyo.

But the industry stumbled 13 years ago after Republicans in Congress pressed for a law that restricted communications satellite exports. The lawmakers praised it as a security precaution that would prevent China and other perceived foes from stealing technology secrets. Detractors saw it as a cynical ploy meant to discredit the Clinton administration and its policy of Chinese engagement.

That law put communications satellites on Washington’s list of export-controlled munitions: tools of war like tanks, bombs, missiles and equipment for making nuclear arms. Foreign companies took the opportunity to increase their satellite sales.

The new law gives Mr. Obama the authority to return communications satellites to their previous status as civilian technology. It retains provisions that restrict the export of satellites to nations like China and North Korea, and to sponsors of state terrorism like Iran.

Senator Michael Bennet, Democrat of Colorado, who introduced a bill to change the policy on satellite exports and whose state is a space industry hub, said the measure offered satellite manufacturers a crucial lift.

“Companies across the country have been operating at a disadvantage due to these policies,” he said in a statement. “These reforms will give our businesses a chance to compete globally while still protecting our national security interests.”

The strict export controls arose from a political fight over satellite launchings by China, which in the 1980s began offering cheap rides into orbit on low-cost rockets. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, both Republicans, approved transfers of American spacecraft to Chinese rockets, as did President Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

Starting in early 1998, a series of upsets brought the expanding trade to a halt. Two American satellite makers involved in the Chinese launchings, Hughes and Loral, were accused of giving China advice about making not only commercial rockets, but also military missiles.

Republicans, who controlled Congress at the time, argued that satellite exports could lead to a hemorrhage of secret materials and information, and said that China might already have stolen encryption secrets.

After the strict export rules took effect in 1999, the legal complications involved in selling communications satellites and components abroad contributed to a sharp decline in the American share of the market, from a dominating position to about 50 percent today.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Mr. Obama said the rules had “unduly hampered the competitiveness of the domestic aerospace industry” and vowed to push for change.

Representative Howard L. Berman, Democrat of California, who for a decade helped lead the movement for change, said its culmination as law would help restore the nation’s competitiveness in the global satellite market.

“Treating commercial satellites and components as if they were lethal weapons, regardless of whether they’re going to friend or foe, has gravely harmed U.S. space manufacturers,” he said.

Mr. Berman added that the benefits extended beyond the manufacturers. The national security establishment relies on the companies and their technological skills to fulfill the government’s satellite needs and to develop spacecraft involved in a wide range of military missions.

“If they can’t compete in the international marketplace,” he said of the companies, “they can’t innovate and cannot survive.”

Is Google Abusing Its Market Power? Former Legal Allies Disagree

Exhibit A: In the spring of 1998, the federal government and 20 states filed a landmark antitrust suit against Microsoft. A few months later, Google was founded.

Now Google is the subject of major antitrust investigations in the United States and Europe.  In the United States, regulators are expected to announce a decision within days to sue or settle, and under what terms. The European decision will come soon as well.

Much has changed over the years, but two lawyers who helped build the case against Microsoft are playing important roles once again. But this time, Gary L. Reback and Susan A. Creighton are on opposite sides.

The two lawyers, and the positions they have taken, point to some striking similarities yet also significant differences between the two high-stakes investigations — and why the pursuit of Google has proved challenging for antitrust officials.

In 1996, Mr. Reback and Ms. Creighton were partners, representing Netscape, the pioneering Web browser company. They wrote a 222-page “white paper,” laying out Microsoft’s campaign to use its dominance of personal computer software to stifle competition from Netscape, the Internet insurgent. After Netscape sent their report to the Justice Department, the head of the antitrust division ordered an investigation.

Mr. Reback is now an attorney at Carr & Ferrell in Silicon Valley, where he represents several companies that have complained to the government about Google. He does not represent Microsoft, though that company is a born-again champion of antitrust action, against its rival Google.

In Google, Mr. Reback sees a familiar pattern — a giant company trying to hinder competition and attack new markets. Google, he says, is unfairly using its dominant search engine to favor the company’s offerings in online shopping, travel and local listings and thus stifle competition from Web sites that rely on Google search for traffic.

“From my perspective, it’s an instant replay of the Microsoft case,” Mr. Reback said in a recent interview, though he would not comment for this article. “It’s the same playbook.”

Not to Ms. Creighton, a partner in the Washington office of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, who is in Google’s corner. She has testified before Congress on Google’s behalf and negotiated with the Federal Trade Commission, the agency conducting the antitrust investigation, and where she was a senior official during the Bush administration.

“Google’s conduct is pro-competitive,” Ms. Creighton declared in her Senate testimony last year. “Far from threatening competition, Google has consistently enhanced consumer welfare by increasing the services available to consumers.”

Ms. Creighton hits two main themes in Google’s defense. The first is the consumer benefit of all Google’s free services. The second is that the cost to consumers of switching to Internet alternatives like Microsoft’s Bing search engine, the Expedia travel site or Yelp local listings is “zero,” she said. Or, as Google repeatedly says, competition is “just a click away.”

In the late 1990s, Microsoft had its version of both arguments. Microsoft bundled a free Web browser into its Windows operating system — an added feature at no cost, surely a consumer benefit. In its trial testimony, Microsoft showed that millions of people had downloaded the competing Netscape browser onto Windows — a rival product just a double-click away.

But in the trial, the evidence taken as a whole portrayed a wide-ranging effort by Microsoft to crush Netscape. It is not an antitrust violation for a powerful company to gain a dominant share of one market and then expand into other markets. The legal issue is the tactics the dominant company employs to expand its empire.

Data-Gathering via Apps Presents a Gray Legal Area

BERLIN — Angry Birds, the top-selling paid mobile app for the iPhone in the United States and Europe, has been downloaded more than a billion times by devoted game players around the world, who often spend hours slinging squawking fowl at groups of egg-stealing pigs.

While regular players are familiar with the particular destructive qualities of certain of these birds, many are unaware of one facet: The game possesses a ravenous ability to collect personal information on its users.

When Jason Hong, an associate professor at the Human-Computer Interaction Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, surveyed 40 users, all but two were unaware that the game was storing their locations so that they could later be the targets of ads.

“When I am giving a talk about this, some people will pull out their smartphones while I am still speaking and erase the game,” Mr. Hong, an expert in mobile application privacy, said during an interview. “Generally, most people are simply unaware of what is going on.”

What is going on, according to experts, is that applications like Angry Birds and even more innocuous-seeming software, like that which turns your phone into a flashlight, defines words or delivers Bible quotes, are also collecting personal information, usually the user’s location and sex and the unique identification number of a smartphone. But in some cases, they cull information from contact lists and pictures from photo libraries.

As the Internet goes mobile, privacy issues surrounding phone apps have moved to the front lines of the debate over what information can be collected, when and by whom. Next year, more people around the world will gain access to the Internet through mobile phones or tablet computers than from desktop PCs, according to Gartner, the research group.

The shift has brought consumers into a gray legal area, where existing privacy protections have failed to keep up with technology. The move to mobile has set off a debate between privacy advocates and online businesses, which consider the accumulation of personal information the backbone of an ad-driven Internet.

In the United States, the data collection practices of app makers are loosely regulated, if at all; some do not even disclose what kind of data they are collecting and why. Last February, the California attorney general, Kamala D. Harris, reached an agreement with six leading operators of mobile application platforms that they would sell or distribute only mobile apps with privacy policies that consumers could review before downloading.

In announcing the voluntary pact with Amazon, Apple, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft and Research in Motion, whose distribution platforms make up the bulk of the American mobile app market, Ms. Harris noted that most mobile apps came without privacy policies.

“Your personal privacy should not be the cost of using mobile apps, but all too often it is,” Ms. Harris said at the time.

But simple disclosure, in itself, is often insufficient.

The makers of Angry Birds, Rovio Entertainment of Finland, discloses its information collection practices in a 3,358-word policy posted on its Web site. But as with most application makers around the world, the terms of Rovio’s warnings are more of a disclaimer than a choice.

The company advises consumers who do not want their data collected or ads directed at them to visit the Web site of its analytics firm, Flurry, and to list their details on two industry-sponsored Web sites. But Rovio notes that some companies do not honor the voluntary lists.

As a last resort, Rovio cautions those who want to avoid data collection or ads simply to move on: “If you want to be certain that no behaviorally targeted advertisements are not displayed to you, please do not use or access the services.”

Despite multiple requests by phone and Internet over five days, Rovio did not respond to questions.

Policy practices like Rovio’s often do little to inform consumers. Most people simply click through privacy permissions without reading them, said Mr. Hong, the Carnegie Mellon professor. His institute is developing a software tool called App Scanner that aims to help consumers identify what types of information an application is collecting and for what likely purpose.

In Europe, lawmakers in Brussels are planning to bring Web businesses for the first time under stringent data protection rules and to give consumers new legal powers, the better to control the information that is being collected on them.

Proposed revisions to the European Union’s General Data Protection regulation now before the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee of the European Parliament would require Web businesses to get explicit consent from consumers to collect data. A proposal would also give consumers the ability to choose what information an app can store on them without losing the ability to use the software.

But the drafting of the revisions, which are not expected until late 2013 at the earliest, has set off a concerted lobbying battle by global technology companies, most of which are based in the United States, to weaken the consent requirements, which could undermine the advertising-
financed business models that drive many free applications.

Valve Facing Legal Trouble over Steam Agreement

Valve Software could be facing legal trouble in Europe thanks to Steam’s End User License Agreement. The Federation of German Consumer Organization (known as the Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. in German, or VZBV) has given Valve until October 10th to respond to a claim that its recently-modified user agreement is unfair to consumers. If Valve doesn’t respond, the group will seek to “resolve the dispute in the court.”

The VZBV believes Valve’s agreement coerces users into accepting, as hitting "cancel" when the agreement pops up prevents users from logging into their accounts. The group believes this leads to "disadvantaged" Steam users and that Valve should uphold a recent ruling by the EU Court of Justice that users should be able to resell digital software.

Recently, Valve has been in the news for its Big Picture Mode beta, sweeping changes to Steam’s community and launch of Steam Greenlight. Last week, reports of Valve’s hardware plans continued circulating, including the fact that its first hardware beta could come as soon as next year.

We’ve reached out to Valve for comment about the Federation of German Consumer Organization’s claims and will update with any statement we receive.

Source: CinemaBlend

Advertising: Judge Tells Apple to Advertise Legal Win for Samsung

A JUDGE in Britain has ordered Apple to post notices on its Web site and to take out newspaper ads declaring that Samsung did not infringe Apple design patents.

The unusual decision was the latest twist in a global legal battle over patents between the two rivals in the smartphone and tablet businesses. It followed a Pyrrhic victory last week for Samsung, when the same judge, Colin Birss, rejected an Apple claim over tablet designs, saying consumers were unlikely to confuse Samsung’s Galaxy tablets with Apple’s iPad because the Galaxys were “not as cool.”

•

The phrasing raised eyebrows.

“It isn’t a bad thing if judges aren’t always buttoned up,” said Florian Müller, a consultant in Augsburg, Germany, who blogs about patent issues. “But the ‘not as cool’ thing is such a value judgment.”

In the latest order, issued on Tuesday, Judge Birss told Apple to post a notice on its British Web site for six months to tell visitors Samsung did not violate its design patent. According to Bloomberg News, which said it had obtained a copy of the order from Samsung’s lawyers, the order requires Apple to take out advertisements to a similar effect in The Financial Times, The Daily Mail and several other British publications.

In a statement, Samsung said, “Should Apple continue to make excessive legal claims based on such generic designs, innovation in the industry could be harmed and consumer choice unduly limited.”

Apple has said it will appeal the first decision. An Apple spokesman, Alan Hely, declined to comment on the latest one.

While largely siding with Samsung, Judge Birss nonetheless turned down a request by Samsung for an injunction to bar Apple from saying that Samsung had infringed patents.

Britain is just one of many fronts on which Apple and Samsung are fighting over a range of technical and design patents. In the United States, Apple has secured preliminary injunctions blocking Samsung from selling several of its devices. A jury trial is set to begin July 30 in San Jose, Calif.

•

The companies have filed other claims and counterclaims against each other in countries including Australia, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands and South Korea.

Apple said Samsung smartphones and tablets look, feel and operate too much like its iPhones and iPads, but Judge Birss disagreed. Samsung’s Galaxys, he said, are thinner than the iPad and “do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design,” according to Bloomberg.

Mr. Müller said, “It was probably the nicest way that Apple could have lost.”

Advertising: Judge Tells Apple to Advertise Legal Win for Samsung

A JUDGE in Britain has ordered Apple to post notices on its Web site and to take out newspaper ads declaring that Samsung did not infringe Apple design patents.

The unusual decision was the latest twist in a global legal battle over patents between the two rivals in the smartphone and tablet businesses. It followed a Pyrrhic victory last week for Samsung, when the same judge, Colin Birss, rejected an Apple claim over tablet designs, saying consumers were unlikely to confuse Samsung’s Galaxy tablets with Apple’s iPad because the Galaxys were “not as cool.”

•

The phrasing raised eyebrows.

“It isn’t a bad thing if judges aren’t always buttoned up,” said Florian Müller, a consultant in Augsburg, Germany, who blogs about patent issues. “But the ‘not as cool’ thing is such a value judgment.”

In the latest order, issued on Tuesday, Judge Birss told Apple to post a notice on its British Web site for six months to tell visitors Samsung did not violate its design patent. According to Bloomberg News, which said it had obtained a copy of the order from Samsung’s lawyers, the order requires Apple to take out advertisements to a similar effect in The Financial Times, The Daily Mail and several other British publications.

In a statement, Samsung said, “Should Apple continue to make excessive legal claims based on such generic designs, innovation in the industry could be harmed and consumer choice unduly limited.”

Apple has said it will appeal the first decision. An Apple spokesman, Alan Hely, declined to comment on the latest one.

While largely siding with Samsung, Judge Birss nonetheless turned down a request by Samsung for an injunction to bar Apple from saying that Samsung had infringed patents.

Britain is just one of many fronts on which Apple and Samsung are fighting over a range of technical and design patents. In the United States, Apple has secured preliminary injunctions blocking Samsung from selling several of its devices. A jury trial is set to begin July 30 in San Jose, Calif.

•

The companies have filed other claims and counterclaims against each other in countries including Australia, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands and South Korea.

Apple said Samsung smartphones and tablets look, feel and operate too much like its iPhones and iPads, but Judge Birss disagreed. Samsung’s Galaxys, he said, are thinner than the iPad and “do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design,” according to Bloomberg.

Mr. Müller said, “It was probably the nicest way that Apple could have lost.”