Sponsoer by :

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Battle begins in business-software square-off (AP) : Technet

Sponsored

Battle begins in business-software square-off (AP) : Technet

Battle begins in business-software square-off (AP)

Posted: 02 Nov 2010 02:01 PM PDT

By JORDAN ROBERTSON, AP Technology Writer Jordan Robertson, Ap Technology Writer – Tue Nov 2, 5:01 pm ET

OAKLAND, Calif. – A battle between two of the world's biggest makers of business software hinges on the value of a trove of millions of stolen customer-support documents.

In its first pitch to a federal jury Tuesday, Oracle Corp. said archrival SAP AG's plundering of password-protected Oracle websites dealt a $2 billion blow to Oracle's business.

The attacks on Oracle's resources at times seemed ham-handed.

Oracle said an SAP subsidiary, TomorrowNow, created bogus accounts to get access to walled-off Oracle websites. Once inside, Oracle said, TomorrowNow deployed computer programs that powered through page after page of support documents, "scraping" and saving the contents of those pages as they went.

Oracle spotted the fraud when it noticed an extraordinary amount of downloads coming from accounts that were registered with clearly bad information, such as bad phone numbers ("777-7777") and made-up names ("Tom Now") seemingly connected with the SAP subsidiary. Oracle technicians were also easily able to tell that the downloads went to TomorrowNow servers.

SAP, which is based in Walldorf, Germany, has admitted that the now-shuttered subsidiary secretly siphoned off instruction manuals and technical specifications for Oracle's software. But SAP argues that Oracle's claims of injury are exaggerated. It says it owes Oracle just tens of millions of dollars, a fraction of the $2 billion Oracle is seeking.

The jury trial is expected to last six weeks.

The corporate-espionage allegations show how dirty the fight between Oracle and SAP has become as they square off for more of the business of managing corporations' day-to-day computing chores.

It also highlights Oracle's changing role in the business software industry. In the process, Oracle has made some bitter enemies, particularly SAP.

Oracle has been on a $40 billion shopping spree over the past six years, snapping up companies that have thrust Oracle into selling business applications, an SAP stronghold.

Oracle's main business has historically been selling database software, and it is the industry leader there.

Databases help companies manage their mountains of data. Applications help them do things with data they've amassed, such as cutting payroll checks.

Oracle alleges that SAP has resorted to thievery to poach customers and inflict pain on Oracle following its encroachment on SAP's turf, particularly with its $10.3 billion acquisition of PeopleSoft in 2005.

Shortly after Oracle announced its intention to buy PeopleSoft, SAP bought TomorrowNow, a company that supported PeopleSoft software. It was a bid to take support business from Oracle and eventually upgrade PeopleSoft customers to SAP products.

In some cases, SAP, through TomorrowNow, had legitimate access to Oracle's walled-off sites, as TomorrowNow supported Oracle customers and was allowed to use their accounts to look for answers for support questions. But TomorrowNow wasn't allowed to use the data it found there to support other customers, or to download the information to its own computers. It had to stay on the customer's computer.

Oracle, which is based in Redwood Shores, Calif., says SAP re-branded some of its documents and passed them off to customers as SAP's own. Oracle also accuses SAP of making illegal copies of Oracle's software and using them as models for SAP's own offerings.

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison is expected to testify this week. Oracle also wants to call Leo Apotheker, SAP's former CEO and the new CEO of Hewlett-Packard Co., to testify.

Also Tuesday, Oracle announced that it is buying Art Technology Group Inc., which works with companies such as AT&T, Best Buy and CVS to improve their websites and streamline online purchasing. The purchase price is $1 billion in cash.

Court hears arguments on violent video games (AP)

Posted: 02 Nov 2010 01:47 PM PDT

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press – Tue Nov 2, 4:47 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed sympathy for a California law that aims to keep children from buying ultra-violent video games in which players maim, kill or sexually assault images of people.

But justices seemed closely split on whether the restrictions are constitutional.

The high court has been reluctant to carve out exceptions to the First Amendment, striking down a ban on videos showing graphic violence to animals earlier this year.

California officials argue that they should be allowed to limit minors' ability to pick up violent video games on their own at retailers because of the purported damage they cause to the mental development of children. Some justices appeared to agree.

"We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg with mercy, being merciless and decapitating them, shooting people in the leg so they fall down," Chief Justice John Roberts said.

Roberts decried that one game lets a player "pour gasoline over them, set them on fire and urinate on them." "We protect children from that," he said. "We don't actively expose them to that."

California's 2005 law would prohibit anyone under 18 from buying or renting games that give players the option of "killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." Parents would be able to buy the games for their children, but retailers who sell directly to minors would face fines of up to $1,000 for each game sold.

That means that children would need an adult to get games like "Postal 2," the first-person shooter by developer Running With Scissors that features the ability to light unarmed bystanders on fire. It would also apply to the popular "Grand Theft Auto IV," a third-person shoot-'em-up from Rockstar Games that allows gamers to portray carjacking, gun-toting gangsters.

Some Supreme Court justices wondered where the regulation would stop if they allowed California's law to go forward.

"What about films?" asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "What about comic books?"

Justice Antonin Scalia wondered if movies showing drinking and smoking might be next.

"I am concerned with the First Amendment, which says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech," he said. "It has never been understood that the freedom of speech did not include portrayals of violence. You are asking us to create a whole new prohibition which the American people never ratified when they ratified the First Amendment."

The California law never took effect. Lower courts have said the law violates minors' constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth amendments, and that the state lacked enough evidence to prove that violent games cause physical and psychological harm to minors. Courts in six other states, including Michigan and Illinois, reached similar conclusions, striking down similar bans.

The Supreme Court will make a decision sometime next year.

California lawmakers were trying to help parents control what type of video games their children had access to, said Zackery P. Morazzini, a California supervisory deputy attorney general who argued the case for the state.

But a lawyer for the Entertainment Merchants Association said that there was no proof that violent video games were any more harmful than television, books or movies. "We have a history in this country of new mediums coming along and people vastly overreacting to them, thinking the sky is falling, our children are all going to be turned into criminals," Paul M. Smith said.

Roberts appeared to disagree.

"In these video games the child is not sitting there passively watching something. The child is doing the killing. The child is doing the maiming. And I suppose that might be understood to have a different impact on the child's moral development," Roberts said.

The case appeared to divide the court's conservative members, with Justices Scalia and Samuel Alito engaging in a spirited discussion about the original meaning of the Constitution.

"I think what Justice Scalia wants to know is what James Madison thought about video games," Alito said to laughter in the courtroom.

"No, I want to know what James Madison thought about violence," Scalia retorted.

Showing stronger support for the law, Justice Stephen Breyer said it doesn't make sense to allow bans on minors accessing pornography and not be able to block them from graphically violent video games.

What if a video game showed "gratuitous torture of children?" Breyer asked. "'Now you can't buy a naked woman, but you can go and buy that,' you say to the 13-year-old. Now what sense is there to that?"

"Why isn't it common sense to say a state has the right to say, 'Parent, you want this for your child? You go buy it yourself,'" Breyer added.

The case also provoked debate among the court's more liberal members.

Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that many of the younger staff at the Supreme Court probably grew up playing versions of the video game "Mortal Kombat," a martial arts fighting game that allows victorious players to finish their opponents with graphically violent moves called "fatalities."

And nearing the end of arguments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out the difficulties with enforcement.

She noted that the law bans minors buying video games that show violence to people. But what if game designers make a couple of anatomical changes to the depiction of human beings, like elongating the ears?

"Would a video game that portrayed a Vulcan as opposed to a human being, being maimed and tortured, would that be covered by the act?" Sotomayor asked.

Morazzini said those games would then be legal to sell to children.

Roberts suggested that the court might find a compromise like it did with "crush videos" showing animal deaths. He said the court struck down that ban in a way so that a new, narrower law might be legal.

"Why isn't that a good approach here?" Roberts asked.

___

The case is Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 08-1448.

Swedish hotel replaces room keys with mobile phone (AP)

Posted: 02 Nov 2010 12:27 PM PDT

By MALIN RISING, Associated Press Malin Rising, Associated Press – Tue Nov 2, 3:27 pm ET

STOCKHOLM – Visitors to a Stockholm hotel will be able to use mobile phones instead of keys to unlock the doors to their rooms.

Assa Abloy AB, the world's largest maker of door locks, has launched a pilot in which Clarion Hotel Stockholm will lend customers mobile phones with close-range radio chips, much like devices used for contact-less payments at gas stations.

Repeat visitors during a four-month trial will be able to check in through their phones before arrival and have their phones activated as "keys." They will then be able to skip the registration desk and unlock the door by holding the phone next to it.

The short-range radio technology, known as Near Field Communication, is expected to be built into smart phones in the coming years. It is also envisioned for ticketing and card payments. Assa Abloy says it wanted to test the system before expanding it to other hotels, commercial buildings and homes.

Greger Johansson, a telecommunications analyst at research firm Redeye, said NFC is a hot technology in the mobile phone market. But he said few models have incorporated it so far and it will take "several years" before it becomes widely used.

"It's not just a matter of incorporating the technology into the phones," he said. "You need someone who can read it too. There are quite a few players involved so it will take a while until it works well."

The head of Assa Abloy's mobile keys division, Daniel Berg, acknowledged that participants in the trial may find it cumbersome to have an extra mobile phone.

But once people have the technology in their own phones, he said, it will save them time at check-in and improve security because the access credentials in a lost phone can be revoked remotely.

He said the phone technology works with existing radio-enabled locks, so hotels can continue giving key cards to visitors who don't have the new technology in their phones.

T-Mobile to unleash Android 2.2-powered Comet for just 10 bucks (Ben Patterson)

Posted: 02 Nov 2010 02:04 PM PDT

By Ben Patterson ben Patterson – Tue Nov 2, 5:04 pm ET

One of the early promises of Google's mobile Android platform was that it wouldn't just be for high-end phones. And now here's a little proof: the upcoming Comet, a decidedly modest smartphone that's about to become the cheapest new Android handset available through a major U.S. carrier.

Though there are plenty of Android phones available for less than $50 through the big four carriers (like the LG Ally on Verizon Wireless) -- and a handful of free refurbished Android handsets (such as the Motorola Backflip on AT&T) -- the T-Mobile Comet marks the first brand-new Android phone I've seen to sell for just $10 through a national carrier. That's with a two-year contract, of course, and it's also after a $50 mail-in rebate.

If you're not interested in signing your life away for a phone, the Comet will also be available as a prepaid handset for less than $200, T-Mobile says. Costco is said to be selling the Comet for as little as $150. Most high-end Android devices go for upwards of $500 on a no-contract basis.

Available starting Wednesday, the Huawei-manufactured Comet doesn't come with the fastest of processors—just 528MHz, according to a T-Mobile press release, versus about 1GHz for the hottest new Android phones—nor can its 2.8-inch display compare with the jumbo 4.3-inch screens on the likes of the HTC Evo 4G for Sprint or the Motorola Droid X on Verizon Wireless.

Still, the Comet does manage to include a decent-sounding 3.2-megapixel camera, and it'll also be capable of USB tethering or acting as a portable Wi-Fi hotspot (although you should expect to pay extra for the privilege of sharing the Comet's HSPA data connection).

The Comet also boasts microSD memory expansion (up to 32GB of storage is supported, with a 2GB card coming bundled in the box), assisted-GPS support, an FM radio, and—perhaps most important—the latest version of Android, 2.2 "Froyo." Pretty cool for a bargain smartphone.

Measuring 4.1 by 2.2 by 0.5 inches and weighing just 3.6 ounces, the Comet also makes for one of the lightest Android phones on the U.S. market.

If you're not impressed with the Comet's specs, though, you could always try finding some Android bargains through a third-party wireless reseller. For example, LetsTalk.com and Wirefly are both giving away the HTC Droid Incredible and the Motorola Droid 2, as long as you're willing to sign a new, two-year service contract. And Amazon Wireless is offering both handsets for a penny.

— Ben Patterson is a technology writer for Yahoo! News.

Follow me on Twitter!

Future of ESPN 3D up in the air, network exec admits (Ben Patterson)

Posted: 02 Nov 2010 01:53 PM PDT

By Ben Patterson ben Patterson – Tue Nov 2, 4:53 pm ET

One of the biggest networks to toss its name into the 3-D TV hat this year was ESPN, which launched a dedicated 3-D channel over the summer. But the 24-hour sports network is already making noises about the future of its 3-D effort, with one exec admitting that there's "very little indication" whether the channel will continue in its present form—or indeed, even survive—for a second year.

"We committed to a full year of trial of ESPN 3D, and we're preparing for a second year," said Jonathan Pannaman, ESPN's director as technology, during a recent sports broadcasting confab in Europe (as quoted by TVBEurope). "But whether this is something we repeat or continue or cut is something that at this point we have very little indication on one way or another."

While the "buzz is huge" for 3-D TV, Pannaman continued, ESPN is still "not sure what makes sense" for its 3-D programming, and network bean counters "don't yet see a proven ROI" (return on investment).

Announced with great fanfare at the Consumer Electronics Show back in January, ESPN 3D launched in June and is available to DirecTV, Comcast and AT&T U-Verse customers. As CNET notes, the channel doesn't offer wall-to-wall 3-D coverage, opting instead for specific coverage of events such as the World Cup and college football.

Meanwhile, DirecTV launched a trio of 3-D channels back in July. A 3-D channel backed by Sony, Discovery and Imax that will offer Imax and Sony films as well as various original  shows is slated to arrive in 2011.

Among the options for ESPN 3D is switching over to a 24/7 schedule or going the on-demand way, Pannaman said in the TVBEurope article. The main issue, however, is how to "get more eyeballs looking at 3-D to get some idea of acceptance in the marketplace."

That could prove to be a tall order, at least in the near term, given that U.S. couch potatoes are understandably taking a wait-and-see attitude toward 3-D TV. After all, you can't watch a 3-D network without a new 3-D TV set, and then there's the matter of those 3-D glasses, which (in addition to causing eyestrain if you watch for too long) cost about $150 a pop.

3-D content is also getting off to a slow start, with a mere two dozen 3-D Blu-ray titles expected to be on the market by the end of the year. Little wonder, then, that the industry analysts at DisplaySearch are estimating that only about 1.6 million 3-D TV sets will end up being shipped in North America this year.

So, any sports fans out there hoping that ESPN will keep its 3-D channel around? Or are you happy with ESPN in good old-fashioned 2D?

— Ben Patterson is a technology writer for Yahoo! News.

Follow me on Twitter!

Violent Video Game Ban Could Set Dangerous Precedent (PC World)

Posted: 02 Nov 2010 05:25 PM PDT

JR Raphael Jr Raphael – Tue Nov 2, 8:25 pm ET

Thank God Steve Jobs isn't on the Supreme Court.

Our nation's highest justices, you see, are in the midst of debating a case about violent video games. They're trying to determine whether the government has the right to decide which video games minors should and shouldn't be allowed to buy. In other words, they're trying to determine whether centuries-old guidelines about free speech still apply to modern forms of media like Playstations and Xboxes.

Their decision, needless to say, could have serious implications on the future of First Amendment rights. And I think we can all imagine how Steve Jobs would vote.

The Supreme Court Violent Video Game Case

The Supreme Court case revolves around a California law passed in 2005. The law makes it illegal for anyone to sell a video game deemed as "violent" to a minor. Breaking it would result in a fine of a thousand dollars per violation.

Thanks to legal challenges, the law has never actually gone into effect. And now, its fate rests in the hands of the high court justices.

We can only hope that the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the federal courts that have struck down this law in the past. It isn't even limited to California; similar laws have been enacted in eight states overall, according to NPR, and have been deemed unconstitutional by federal judges in each instance. It's no small coincidence.

Let me be clear about one thing: I rarely play video games -- and I'm certainly not a minor -- but I have every reason to be concerned about this decision. And so do you.

Violent Video Game Ban: Questions and Concerns

Ultimately, the Supreme Court case comes down to the divisive question of how much the government should "protect" us from "offensive" materials.

Consider this: The video game industry has already established a ratings system similar to what we see with movies. If anything, it may be even more effective than its film-based cousin: A 2009 Federal Trade Commission report [PDF] found only 20 percent of minors were able to purchase "mature"-rated video games, compared to 28 percent that were able to buy tickets to R-rated movies. Does the government really need to intervene and get involved? Isn't this system -- not to mention that silly ol' thing called parental supervision -- sufficient enough?

Principles aside, the violent video game law poses plenty of practical challenges. According to the law's wording, a violent video game would be defined as one "in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being" in a manner that's "patently offensive," appeals to a person's "deviant or morbid interests," and lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

So who's going to make the call as to which video games are "patently offensive" and which aren't? Or, as Justice Antonin Scalia asked during the arguments, "What's a 'deviant' violent video game? As opposed to what -- a 'normal' violent video game?"

Like with Apple's arbitrary App Store approval system, we're looking at a purely subjective judgment. Unlike Apple's little world, however, this is the real government we're dealing with here -- and granting this type of power is a dangerous precedent to set.

"If you are supposing a category of violent materials dangerous to children, then how do you cut it off at video games? What about films? What about comic books?" asked U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Supporters of the California video game law counter that argument with the notion that this scenario is different; because players are actively involved, they say, the violent acts are more damaging to their minds than the graphic violence in movies and on TV. They've even dug up some studies that suggest playing violent video games "increases aggressive thought and behavior" and "engenders poor school performance" in minors. Those studies, of course, conveniently make the mistake of assuming causation from correlation -- just because some kids who play video games also have behavioral problems doesn't mean that the video games caused those problems -- but hey, it's far easier to jump to that conclusion than to search for a real explanation.

Violent Video Game Ban: Broader Implications

Here's the kicker: Even if you accept the "video games are different" argument, opening the door to government-controlled content regulation is asking for trouble. Do we want to make the First Amendment a medium-specific form of protection? If evil, mind-warping video games warrant special consideration, what other modern media will need supervision next? Surely our smartphone app markets should be regulated too, right? There's an awful lot of interactive material there that we need to be protected from -- just ask you-know-who. If this law is green-lighted, we'd better brace ourselves for an awful lot of asterisks under America's "free speech" header.

Finally, with government-enforced fines on selling violent video games, how long will it be until the gaming industry itself starts to change? Forbes.com blogger Paul Tassi raises an interesting point:

"If video games are equated with pornography and it becomes a crime to sell them to minors, 'family-friendly' retailers might change their store policies and someone like Wal-Mart might ban all these games from their shelves entirely. This would in turn cause developers to tone down the violence in their titles to make sure that every outlet will sell them."

All factors considered, the outcome of this case is extremely consequential. When real world policies start to resemble those of Steve Jobs' world, there is definite cause for concern.

Contributing Editor JR Raphael writes plenty of things the state of California would find patently offensive. You can find him on Facebook, on Twitter, or at eSarcasm, his highly uncensored geek-humor getaway.

Broadcasters 'misunderstand' Google TV, exec says (AP)

Posted: 02 Nov 2010 02:04 PM PDT

By RYAN NAKASHIMA, AP Business Writer Ryan Nakashima, Ap Business Writer – Tue Nov 2, 5:04 pm ET

LOS ANGELES – Attempts by broadcasters to seek payment for allowing their online video to be viewed through Google Inc.'s new Web-connected TV platform represents a "misunderstanding" of what it is, a Google executive said Tuesday.

Broadcasters ABC, NBC and CBS have blocked full episodes of their shows from being accessed through Google TV's Web browser since the product became available last month.

Google TV is a software platform that allows users to access websites and online videos through their televisions.

Rishi Chandra, Google TV's lead product manager, likened the broadcasters' payment requests to a network demanding fees from Microsoft Corp. so video would work on its Internet Explorer browser.

Analysts have said the broadcasters' blockade was intended to discourage people from canceling their monthly subscriptions with cable and satellite TV service providers by eliminating the option of watching online episodes for free on their Web-connected televisions.

Later, Chandra clarified his remarks to say that although Google TV would not pay to access online shows, another Google subsidiary, YouTube, could extend its advertising revenue-share model to the living room.

"The way we would pay for content is through a similar mechanism that we pay for content through YouTube," Chandra said in a phone interview. "This is the difference between Google TV and YouTube. YouTube is a service. Google TV itself is literally just a platform."

Chandra, who made the initial remarks on the sidelines of the Streaming Media West conference, said it's up to content providers to decide how much to charge consumers. He said Google TV is meant to supplement the cable and broadcast TV business model by adding Web access.

He also said Google TV is preparing to provide access to Hulu Plus, the $10-per-month online video subscription plan that allows users to access the back episodes of many current TV shows from News Corp.'s Fox, NBC Universal and The Walt Disney Co.'s ABC, such as "Glee," "30 Rock," and "Modern Family."

CBS and NBC declined to comment. ABC did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

The Sony television that came pre-installed with the Google software package can still access their channels like any other TV, such as with an antenna or a cable or satellite TV subscription. The Logitech set-top box that comes with Google TV also does not interfere with regular TV signals.

Remains of the Day: Can you tell me how to get…? (Macworld)

Posted: 02 Nov 2010 04:30 PM PDT

Dan Moren Dan Moren – Tue Nov 2, 7:30 pm ET

With the future yet to come, we must resort to reading the tea leaves of the present—as it were. (Remember kids, don't mix metaphors—it's a dangerous business.) Whether it's the iPhone's status as an emblematic gadget, Apple's business plans, or even the technology preferences of the next most intelligent species on the planet, only time will tell. But fortunately for fans of the remainders for November 2, 2010, the future is now.

Why the iPhone is the Greatest Gadget of the 21st Century (CNet UK)

That's right: it's so good, we don't even need to wait another 90 years to see what else might get invented.

Exclusive: Apple, Google are sniffing around mobile payments startup BOKU (TechCrunch)

According to TechCrunch, both Google and Apple are eyeing a mobile payment startup company by the name of BOKU—possibly for acquistion, possibly just for a partnership. The service would potentially allow the use of a mobile device to pay for goods and services. Plus, I bet they could totally get Richard Lewis to hock it on TV ads.

Merlin the dolphin prefers PC over Mac (Toronto Sun)

Apparently Merlin the dolphin prefers using a Panasonic Toughbook to communicate with humans over an iPad, which he was using earlier in the year. Advanced species, ha.

There's an app for that (Sesame Street)

Given that there's apparently nothing the iPogoStick can't do, I'm considering trading in my iPhone 4 for one—though there's no word on what kind of reception AT&T gets on Sesame Street.

Facebook Mobile Event Sparks 'Facebook Phone' Guessing Game (PC World)

Posted: 02 Nov 2010 04:11 PM PDT

John P. Mello Jr. John P. Mello Jr. – Tue Nov 2, 7:11 pm ET

What does Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg have up his sleeve for Wednesday's mysterious November 3 Facebook Mobile Event? Is it the rumored Facebook phone we've heard of?

While kibitzers readily admit they have no inside knowledge of what the leading social network has up its sleeve, that isn't stopping them from speculating up a storm about what might go down tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. PDT.

Foremost on the minds of the ruminators is the possibility of a Facebook phone. Sure, this mythical device has been denied by the Big Man himself, Zuckerberg, but, in the high tech world, today's denial has a way of being tomorrow's new product.

Facebook could announce some development in its strides to be more deeply integrated into the handsets of some manufacturers. The network is reportedly working with ING Mobile on two smartphones that will feature Facebook social networking services. The phones are expected to be released in Europe in the first half of next year and in the United States in the second half of 2011. The odds that official word of the phones will be part of the conference are long--50 to one, according to the Unplugged website.

TechCrunch's Jason Kincaid says a Facebook app for the iPad is an "obvious" possibility. Although Facebook hasn't created an app for the iPad, there are some pretty good apps out there for the network, such as Social, so it certainly would be interesting to see what Facebook would bring to the app table.

Another possibility raised by speculators is the unveiling of a "deal of the day" service (similar to Groupon) that is tied to Facebook's "Places" feature.

"Facebook has recently been testing a Deals service that's connected to Places, and mobile is obviously the best place for users to access those," Kincaid speculates. Unplugged agrees, and thinks the odds that a "Facebook Deals" announcement at tomorrow's shindig are good--five to one.

Although it doesn't have the wow factor of some of the other rumors raised on the 'net, there's also the possibility that Facebook will be revealing a new SDK for app developers (for the development of Facebook mobile apps). Unplugged gives this rumor the best odds of all--two to one. The odds that Facebook will announce an apps store to go along with the new developer's kit are a bit longer, though, at ten to one.

Naturally, nobody will know what goes down til it...actually goes down. Come back tomorrow (November 3) at 10:30 a.m. PDT, and follow PC World's live-blog of the event..

Candidates campaign on Twitter before polls close (AP)

Posted: 02 Nov 2010 05:04 PM PDT

The DT3 - Our top new albums for November 2 (Digital Trends)

Posted: 02 Nov 2010 05:20 PM PDT

Kelly Montgomery Kelly Montgomery – Tue Nov 2, 8:20 pm ET

Each week the Digital Trends staff selects three albums that we think you should know about. Not in-depth reviews, just passing on some music we like.

Want to suggest a band or album? Email us here: dt3@digitaltrends.com or leave a comment below.

Elliott Smith – An Introduction to Elliott Smith

Released by the deceased songwriter's label, Kill Rock Stars, this album is a compilation of some of Smith's best work, spanning all seven of his full-length albums. As the title implies, the compilation is meant to serve as an introduction to the quiet and often profound songs that made Elliott Smith stand out as one of the great songwriters of an era.

For fans of: Bright Eyes, Iron & Wine, Nick Drake

Bear Hands – Burning Bush Supper Club

This new Brooklyn band has just released their debut full-length album and it's full of high-energy indie rock generously sprinkled with electronica. The combination makes for fun tunes that would fit right in at your next Brooklyn house party. Opener "Crime Pays" is especially catchy.

For fans of: Animal Collective, MGMT, The Scissor Sisters

The Autumn Defense – Once Around

Fronted by John Stirratt and Pat Sansone, members of indie rock veteran band Wilco, The Autumn Defense is back with its fourth full-length album, Once Around. The pair churn out classic and somewhat nostalgic folk songs that could function as the easy listening companion to Wilco.

For fans of: Cat Stevens, Simon & Garfunkel, Wilco

Apple to Triple Length of iTunes Song Previews (Mashable)

Posted: 02 Nov 2010 03:16 PM PDT

Ben Parr Ben Parr – Tue Nov 2, 6:16 pm ET

Apple has informed music labels that it will soon triple the length of music previews from 30 seconds to 90 seconds.

This change to iTunes has long been rumored, but we originally thought that Apple would double the song sample length to 60 seconds. Instead though, Apple is giving users a 90 second sample as long as the full-length song isn't shorter than two minutes and 30 seconds.

From the letter sent by Apple to the labels:

"We are pleased to let you know that we are preparing to increase the length of music previews from 30 seconds to 90 seconds on the iTunes Store in the United States. We believe that giving potential customers more time to listen to your music will lead to more purchases."

Longer song previews are a win for users and for labels. Our guess is that the change will lead to more purchases, and we don't think users will be complaining about longer previews either.

[via MacRumors]

Top alternative browsers for Android devices (Appolicious)

Posted: 02 Nov 2010 11:21 AM PDT

HP's new CEO to testify at Oracle-SAP trial (Reuters)

Posted: 02 Nov 2010 04:52 PM PDT

By Jim Finkle Jim Finkle – Tue Nov 2, 7:52 pm ET

OAKLAND, California (Reuters) – Hewlett-Packard Co's new CEO is set to testify at Silicon Valley's biggest trial in years, possibly answering charges he oversaw SAP AG's theft of software from Oracle Corp.

Oracle attorney Geoffrey Howard told a court on Tuesday that former SAP CEO Leo Apotheker -- who started his job as head of HP on Monday -- would testify at the high-stakes trial, with his credibility at stake.

The trial's other celebrity witness will be Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, a billionaire playboy known for his public outbursts and a passion for racing sailboats and cars.

Tuesday marked opening arguments in the technology industry's most closely watched courtroom battle in years. SAP has admitted liability for the wrongful downloading of software content from Oracle, but the two disagree sharply on how much SAP should pay in damages.

SAP says Apotheker and other executives did not know of any wrongdoing when they bought TomorrowNow, and shut it down after they found out. But Oracle's attorneys said at least some SAP employees knew of irregularities before the suit was filed.

They showed jurors an instant messaging exchange between two TomorrowNow employees after Oracle's initial filing of the lawsuit.

"Wonder who on the inside told?" Kimberly Martinez asked.

"I think they caught us," Kristin Paige responded in the exchange that was presented to the jury by Oracle.

HP would not comment on whether Apotheker would show up in court. If he does not appear in the Oakland, California, courtroom, Oracle's attorneys could show a videotape deposition that he has already given.

A French native, Apotheker is no stranger to controversy after having parted ways with SAP amid a barrage of customer and investor complaints. His hiring by HP took some by surprise, initially causing shares in the world's biggest technology company by revenue to decline.

TITANIC DOWNLOADS

SAP bought TomorrowNow in 2005 for $10 million. TomorrowNow built a Web-scraping robot program dubbed "Titan" that automatically downloaded software and other materials from Oracle's customer service website.

Since SAP has already admitted to wrongdoing, the jury of eight men and women need only determine how much money SAP should pay Oracle in damages.

Attorneys for Oracle did not provide a specific number to the jury on Tuesday, though they said it was in the billions of dollars. SAP's lawyers put the total at about $40 million.

SAP attorney Robert Mittelstaedt said Oracle wanted a jury award "out of proportion" to the harm it had suffered.

"They want a windfall. They want a bonanza," Mittelstaedt said.

Ellison, Oracle's co-founder and CEO, has waited 2-1/2 years to bring SAP to court. Ellison has stated he has evidence Apotheker was complicit in SAP's improper downloading of the software, which TomorrowNow used to provide low-cost maintenance services to Oracle customers.

In his opening statement, SAP attorney Mittelstaedt said the German company did not conduct proper due diligence before it bought TomorrowNow to see if it was complying with Oracle's copyright. He called the TomorrowNow acquisition a "mistake."

Speaking outside the packed courtroom on Tuesday, SAP co-CEO Bill McDermott said the parties were past the opportunity to settle.

"A lot of things have been said. Now it's up to the jury to decide," said McDermott, who chatted briefly with Oracle President Safra Catz outside the courtroom.

The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California is Oracle USA, Inc., et al. v. SAP AG, et al, 07-1658.

(Writing by Dan Levine and Jim Finkle; Editing by Edwin Chan, Gary Hill)

Oracle Targets IBM with Plans To Acquire ATG for $1B (NewsFactor)

Posted: 02 Nov 2010 01:44 PM PDT

Jennifer LeClaire, newsfactor.com Jennifer Leclaire, newsfactor.com – Tue Nov 2, 4:44 pm ET

In a move to compete with IBM, Oracle on Tuesday announced an agreement to acquire e-commerce software and on-demand commerce-optimization apps provider Art Technology Group, or ATG, in a cash deal valued at about $1 billion.

ATG's cross-channel software helps enterprises offer an online customer experience that includes high-level merchandising, marketing, content personalization, automated recommendations, and live help services. Oracle said the software compliments its CRM, ERP, retail and supply chain applications, as well as its middleware and business-intelligence technology portfolios.

Cross-Channel Commerce

Thomas Kurian, executive vice president of Oracle Development, said the merger will empower the delivery of next-generation, unified cross-channel commerce and CRM. But analysts said this move looks like Oracle playing catch-up with Big Blue.

"Driven by the convergence of online and traditional commerce and the need to increase revenue and improve customer loyalty, organizations across many industries are looking for a unified commerce and CRM platform to provide a seamless experience across all commerce channels," Kurian said.

Oracle and ATG will work to help businesses grow revenue, strengthen customer loyalty, improve brand value, achieve better operating results, and increase business agility across online and traditional commerce environments. ATG brings more than 1,000 global customers to the Oracle fold.

"This combination will enhance the ability to bring all their commerce activities together, creating a more consistent and relevant experience for their customers across all interaction channels, including online, in stores, via mobile devices, and with call centers," said Bob Burke, president and CEO of ATG.

The Big Blue Threat

For all the public attention on the battle between Oracle and Hewlett-Packard, Big Blue represents a greater threat to Oracle, and this acquisition may be more about competing with IBM long-term than anything else.

At last week's Information on Demand conference, it was clear that IBM is building a complete set of business-related middleware functionality so customers and partners can have unrestrained access to information that fuels business processes and decisions, said Charles King, principal analyst at Pund-IT.

A comment from Bob Weiler, executive vice president of Oracle Global Business Units, shines additional light on the competitive moves against IBM. "The addition of ATG, which brings market-leading products used by some of the largest and most well-known retailers and brands, furthers Oracle's strategy of delivering industry-specific enterprise applications," Weiler said. "This acquisition builds upon our dedication to offer the most complete and integrated suite of best-of-breed software applications and technologies required to power the most demanding companies in the world in every industry."

Oracle Plays Catch-Up

As King sees it, having a high-quality e-commerce platform is critical to Oracle's long-term strategy. IBM already acquired Sterling Commerce from AT&T earlier this year and has started integrating CRM technology and business intelligence. In other words, IBM got a head start.

"It looks like someone at Oracle finally turned around and said 'Oops'," King said. "Either that or they've been so consumed with the challenges the Sun acquisition has provided that they finally are getting back to thinking like a software company. Ideally, a company like IBM or Oracle wants to make sure that their customers don't have any excuse to go to other vendors."

Google settles Buzz lawsuit for $8.5 million, doesn't quite own up to its mistakes (Digital Trends)

Posted: 02 Nov 2010 05:16 PM PDT

Molly McHugh Molly Mchugh – Tue Nov 2, 8:16 pm ET

One of the many legal proceedings Google is involved in is drawing to an end. The company announced on Tuesday that it has been granted preliminary approval for a settlement in its Buzz lawsuit, potentially awarding $8.5 million to funds dedicated to promoting Internet privacy. But don't go thinking Google is admitting any fault in this. Instead, the industry leader reaffirms its commitment to better educating its users about Buzz's privacy options.

Buzz was launched last year as Gmail's social media feature. The networking tool's debut was met with mild confusion to outright rage, as Buzz users were quick to file a complaint with the FTC against the application shortly after its introduction. It seemed Buzz's big downfall was assuming that a user’s most often e-mailed contacts could be considered "friends," and thus, privy to any information shared on it. The lack of clarification on Google's part didn't help matters, despite its attempts at quickly mollifying the issue.

But the company is ready to put the misunderstanding behind it with the multimillion dollar proposal and promise of further instructions for its users – which has an air of condescension to it, sort of like, "I'm sorry you weren't smart enough to figure this out on your own. I'll help you next time."

In a rare message to its Gmail users, Google wrote, "The settlement acknowledges that we quickly changed the service to address users' concerns…We will also do more to educate people about privacy controls specific to Buzz. The more people know about privacy online, the better their online experience will be."

The e-mail also notes, "Just to be clear, this is not a settlement in which people who use Gmail can file to receive compensation." So ends one of Google's many legal sagas – almost. The settlement waits for final approval in January.

An Open Source, HTML5 Framework for iPad E-books (Mashable)

Posted: 02 Nov 2010 09:04 AM PDT

Jolie O'Dell Jolie O'dell – Tue Nov 2, 12:04 pm ET

A group of Italian developers has just released a free and open-source framework for creating e-books for the iPad.

The Baker E-book Framework allows designers and developers to turn fixed-width HTML5 pages into an e-book format and publish the finished product. After that, all you need to do is follow the App Store submission guidelines, and you're on your way to e-book greatness.

To design for the Baker Framework, simply build HTML5 pages with a fixed width of 768 pixels. You can test your HTML versions on an iPad using the Safari browser and iterate accordingly.

Don't own an iPad? No problem. You can even test your e-book in a regular web browser without an iPad; just download the 768px-support ZIP file from Baker's site.

E-book files are then packaged in the HPub format. You give Baker one folder containing all your HTML files and other materials, named 1.html, 2.html, etc. The HPub format is still under development; the developers on this project say the final format won't require every page to be named in this way.

Finally, you download the Baker Framework, rename the Xcode project and include your book and icon. At that point, your e-book is ready for App Store submission.

To see an example of a Baker-created e-book, check out this free title, 5x15 Tokyo [iTunes link]:

"HTML5 is out there," co-founder Davide Casali wrote us in an e-mail. "Why is nobody really making the convergence between the publishing industry and the web, and why are we confined to those crappy designed epubs?" he asks.

Casali and his team hope their creation will lead to more beautiful e-books and digital magazines on the iPad, and for other WebKit-enabled devices later.

You can download all the Baker Framework files at the official site, and you can get involved with the project itself on GitHub.

Do you think this will lead to more and better designed e-books on the iPad and possibly even play a role in the rise of tablets as e-readers? Let us know what you think of the Baker Framework in the comments.

Stallone denies ripping Obama in Twitter message (Reuters)

Posted: 02 Nov 2010 04:36 PM PDT

By Paul Bond Paul Bond – Tue Nov 2, 7:36 pm ET

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) – Who are celebrities voting for on Tuesday? Many have announced in online videos.

Matt Damon, for example, stars in a video where he uses a ballot to instruct folks how to vote for the left-wing Working Families Party. Damon, who turned 40 on October 8, also cut a video practically begging for a birthday present: your vote for the WFP.

Sylvester Stallone seems to be of a different political mindset. He didn't bother taping a Web ad, but chose instead to make his recommendation via Twitter:

"I voted did you? Gotta get the Manchurian Candidate out of the drivers seat before were ALL soaring off a cliff into Oblivion... Be smart," he said.

That tweet led to several follow-ups as some of his 101,060 followers weighed in.

"the Manchurian Candidate was a movie about fake president who was put there by foreign enemies to destroy America. Scary concept. Rise up!" he tweeted.

Despite, the tweet's reference to a "president," Stallone told The Hollywood Reporter that his tweet was "in the spirit of creating a conversation" and that "Manchurian candidate" was "a reference to all career politicians."

Clint Eastwood and Clint Howard seem to agree with Stallone.

The former recently told Katie Couric that he was "not a fan" of Obama, and the clip went viral on the Internet. The latter cut two online commercials ridiculing Obama and other Democrats.

Some celebrities pretend not to care who you vote for, just as long as you vote.

Jay Z, for example, says, "I'm not gonna preach to you," but wants his fans to "vote again 2010," just as they voted two years ago for then-candidate Barack Obama.

Then there's a group of prominent Greeks -- Bob Costas, George Stephanopoulos, Nick Galifianakis and others -- who implore folks to vote because "it's the Greek thing to do." Democracy has its origins in ancient Greece, after all.

Some are invoking the names and images of celebrities but it's unclear if said celebrities are involved in the project, or even aware of it.

Campus Progress, for example, implores college students to "do it for Bieber." Vote, that is, because Justin Bieber is too young to do it for himself. (His Canadian citizenship would also seem to present an obstacle to voting.)

A similar but more partisan ad from the same group asks that you vote in the name of Lady Gaga because gay marriage needs to be legal.

There's also the pro-marijuana crowd coming out in favor of California's Proposition 19, like Danny Glover, Melissa Etheridge and Zach Galifianakis.

The latter went the extra mile for his cause by smoking a joint on live TV recently. A rep for "Real Time With Bill Maher" show later admitted it was a prop.
at 9:22 PM

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

My Blog List