Search Engine Goojje Possible Result Of Chinese Attack On Google IP
: Now Google's really got a reason to be pissed off at the Chinese for letting homegrown hackers attack the company's Gmail service, among other intellectual properties: a fake Chinese Google search engine. Mike Igan reports:
Although Goojje appears to be trying to cash in on Google's branding, a closer look shows that it may in fact be something of a tribute to Google. Goojje sounds like the Chinese word for "big sister." A message on the Goojje site reads "Sister was very happy when brother gave up the thought of leaving and stayed for sister." The site was reportedly created by a female college student in China.
The site may want Google to stay, but its very existence shows why Google may want to go. The second sentence of Google's now-famous blog post says it all: "we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google."
There are fears that the code could leak into other Chinese-based websites to be used for less than altruistic ends. "The real risk is when Baidu or some other search engines in China end up using stolen code from Google to compete against Google in the marketplace, and when the government of China uses stolen information and illegal access to crack down on critics of the Chinese government and suppress human rights." Read more on this developing pain-in-the-tuckus for Google in Igan's Fake Google search engine emerges in China.
PatentBaristas.com: Daniel J. Fiegelson guest authors a very thorough piece today and opens his lengthy look at a particular patent case with this salvo:
I’m not a district court decision junkie: since most patent cases revolve, at least in part, around claim construction, and since under Cybor the Federal Circuit reviews claim construction de novo, I tend to ignore many district court decisions – why bother getting into a claim construction-based case before the Federal Circuit has had its say on claim construction? This case, however, Cancer Research Technology, et al. v Barr Laboraties et al. (really Schering v Barr) dealt with the question of prosecution history laches and inequitable conduct. The i.c. part is primarily of interest to people practicing in the pharma and biotech fields, where patent applications are usually filed before extensive laboratory and clinical testing of compounds has been carried out. The laches part is of greater general interest, although less so under the 20-years-from-filing regime.
In case you were wondering the "laches part" refers to a "legal doctrine that a person who waits too long to bring a claim alleging a wrong shall not be permitted to seek an equitable remedy" which plays largely in the aforementioned case. With a timeline stretching out over a decade, this example shows just how patent pendency is a larger-than-life problem for the good examiners at the US Patent and Trademark Office. Fiegelson's Prosecution Laches and Inequitable Conduct: Cancer Research Tech. v Barr Labs takes the gently reader on this rollercoaster ride of a legal battle and provides a solid legal lesson in the finer points of laches.
Discover: How's this for an eye-catching headline: The Intellectual Property Fight That Could Kill Millions. Sounds like a 'Chicken Little' story gone awry, but indeed, this particular IP fight does involve deadly genetics and the raises the increasingly relevant question of who owns them. Delthia Ricks tackles this touchy subject by laying out the game board as it currently looks with the tiny island nation of Bali taking on the rest of the world over the flu virus. She writes:
The recent frenzy in Bali stood in notable contrast to the research paralysis that has gripped this tropical archipelago since late 2006, when Supari declared that flu viruses circulating in Indonesia belonged to her government alone. It was a bizarre, 21st-century twist on an age-old intellectual property argument. Developing nations had long fought passionately over plant and native human genes, but no one had ever before staked claim to microbes that birds could carry anywhere. Yet the 57-year-old health minister insisted she had cause: Rich Western nations were patenting the viral genomes, then using the information to create vaccines that were sold for profit to other Western powers while benefiting Indonesia not at all.
Those are strong words and ones that Bali is taking seriously. Intellectual property doesn't always put people's lives in danger, but in this particular case, the lack of free access to the genetic information of certain virus strains in fact endangers millions of people through no fault of their own.
www.Reuters.com: Big pharma relies heavily on the protection patents provide them with in order to turn billions of dollars of research and development into even more billions of dollars in profits. A trio of the world's largest and most powerful pharma companies are in danger of being hoist by their own petard if they don't get some new drug patents in the pipeline post haste. According to Ransdell Pierson in New York and Kate Kelland in London, the pipeline is looking mighty empty and stock prices of the three companies in question are reflecting this unfortunate circumstance.
U.S. drugmakers Bristol-Myers Squibb Co and Eli Lilly and Co said on Thursday they expect 2010 earnings growth in line with Wall Street estimates, but Britain-based AstraZeneca signaled tough sledding ahead as all three gird for patent protection losses of important drugs.
AstraZeneca (AZN.L) will feel the pain almost immediately, announcing it will slash an additional 8,000 jobs in a further cost-cutting move as it faces expected generic competition in the United States this year for its breast cancer drug Arimidex and asthma medicine Pulmicort Respules.
Bristol-Myers (BMY.N) and Eli Lilly, which will not be hit by key patent losses before next year, posted generally solid fourth-quarter earnings, with Bristol beating Wall Street per share estimates and Lilly missing by just a penny. Bristol shares were up 1 percent, while Lilly slipped 2 percent.
Astra said it expects earnings per share for 2010 in a range of $5.75 to $6.15, down from $6.32 in 2009, and a decline in sales of up to the "mid-single-digit," sending its shares more than 4 percent lower.
This is a big change from the milk-and-honey days of yore when big pharma companies turned poorly performing medicines into erection pills and parlayed patents into huge profits. A number of different partnerships between the three might end up benefiting all involved as any small profit center could mean the difference between profitability or significant losses. Read Pharma fails to impress as patent problems loom for the rest of the story.
ArsTechnica.com: RIAA finally offers benighted Jammie Thomas the opportunity to settle for a somewhat reasonable amount of $25,000 dollars but it's not 100 percent clear if Thomas is going to take said offer or continue to fight against "The Man" with hopes of being found not guilty of copyright infringement via P2P music file sharing. Nate Anderson reports:
[T]he RIAA has given Thomas-Rasset a final settlement offer of $25,000, noting in a letter to her attorneys that a third trial is not in "anyone's interest." Should she accept the offer, it would in turn go to a musician's charity and each party would bear its own attorneys' and court costs. Otherwise, the RIAA will go ahead with the appeal. The RIAA gave her three days to ponder her options. Thomas-Rasset has already chosen to challenge the damage award, and one of her attorneys has since informed CNET that she is going to decline the settlement offer.
$25K seems like small money to get out of the potentially life-destroying previous amount of $2 million, but what do I know? Maybe Thomas is out to prove something and no amount of haggling over dollars will change her mind. Anderson has a few more details of this latest revelation in a long string of legal motions in one of the most infamous RIAA cases in his timely post, RIAA offers to settle Thomas-Rasset case for $25,000.
Bonus IP piece o' the day: Piracy letter campaign 'nets innocents' at BBC News.
Enjoy this article?
