With software developers increasingly flocking to AI tools to support daily activities, new research suggests a concerning portion are using unauthorized solutions.

Findings from Harness’ State of Software Delivery Report show that more than half (52%) of developers don’t use IT-approved tools, raising significant compliance and intellectual property concerns.

“Perhaps the most alarming observation was around the use of company-approved coding tools - of lack thereof,” the report states.

“The unauthorized adoption of AI codegen tools creates significant shadow IT challenges that extend far beyond immediate security concerns.”

Shadow AI is a serious cause for concern for teams, the report added, with developers potentially exposing sensitive code snippets to third-party AI services without proper governance.

“Ultimately, they can’t track the origin of AI-generated code, nor can they ensure consistent security standards across teams,” Harness said.

Software developers aren’t the only ones flocking to shadow AI

The rise of shadow AI has become a recurring talking point over the last two years as enterprises globally flock to the various AI tools available on the market.

In its Chasing Shadows report, Software AG found 75% of knowledge workers are already using AI, with this figure set to rise to 90% in the near future, and more than 50% of this group use personal or non-company issued tools when doing so.

Another study by customer service platform Zendesk noted there has been as much as a 250% rise year on year in the use of unsanctioned AI tools in certain industries.

The financial services sector was found to be the worst affected by this phenomenon with a 250% spike year on year compared to 2023 levels, but the healthcare (230%) and manufacturing industries (233%) also exhibited very high levels of shadow AI use.

Developing robust AI usage policies will be integral to ensuring this growing reliance on unvetted AI tools does not expose your enterprise to unnecessary risks.

Harness’ report listed the critical gaps identified by software engineering leaders in their organization’s AI coding tool policies.

Three-fifths of engineering leaders said companies need policies prescribing the processes for assessing code for vulnerabilities or errors, with 58% stating they need to outline specific use cases where AI is safe or unsafe.

Bharat Mistry, field CTO at Trend Micro, told ITPro implementing the policies included in the Harness report were all wise, but highlighted the importance of training when trying to shape employee behaviour and foster responsible use of personal AI systems.

“I agree with the policies given above, however for me it begins with the human aspect. By investing in comprehensive training and awareness programs, businesses can empower their employees to use AI responsibly, identify and mitigate risks and contribute to the development of ethical and effective AI solutions,” he argued.

“This proactive approach not only enhances the organization’s AI capabilities but also builds a culture of trust and accountability around AI technologies.”

Speaking to ITPro, Steve Ponting, director of Software AG echoed Mistry’s comments, noting that training will be essential in mitigating the risks associated with employees using their own AI tools.

“Workers have been clear: they will use AI whether it’s sanctioned or not. This means that businesses could struggle to manage AI applications, leading to cyber-security risks, skills gaps, and inaccurate work.,” he explained.

“Businesses must have a plan in place to reduce risk, build skills and plan for AI’s inclusion in daily work. If people are determined to use their own AI, training is vital in this regard. Better training would make 46% of employees use AI more, but crucially, they would use it effectively and responsibly.”

MI5 and the FBI held an unprecedented joint address to highlight how the interests of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) represent a growing threat to UK and US businesses.

Addressing an audience of business leaders and academics at Thames House in London, MI5 Director General Ken McCallum and FBI Director Chris Wray laid out serious concerns about the long-term prospects of Chinese mergers and acquisitions (M&As) and intellectual property (IP) theft across all sectors, with copies of their respective speeches available on the MI5 website and FBI website.

The intelligence experts reminded listeners the large Chinese companies that aren't explicitly state-owned are nevertheless required to report to the CCP and maintain internal cells, effectively ensuring that government oversight and control is maintained.

These concerns have previously led to the UK government deciding to remove Huawei devices from UK 5G infrastructure, as well as prompting a group of cross-party MPs to urge for two CCTV companies to be banned from operating in the UK.

Corporate takeover or IP theft was highlighted as a particularly common attack vector against Western firms. Organisations were warned to invest in long-term growth, rather than short-term profitability by selling in the Chinese market. Doing so could result in IP being replicated and sold by a Chinese government-backed firm.

Other methodology that was highlighted includes fake professional networking, in which professionals are encouraged through flattery and business trips to give up key sector information, covert theft of industry secrets by malicious insiders, and the ongoing pressure of cyber attacks by state-backed cyber crime and ransomware groups.

Indeed, Chris Wray warned the assembled audience that “when you deal with a Chinese company, know you’re also dealing with the Chinese government – that is, the MSS and the PLA – too, almost like silent partners".

Throughout the statement, it was reiterated that although the UK and US government have been targets of Chinese-backed cyber attacks and espionage, it's the tech sector and advanced research fields such as those developing artificial intelligence (AI) that are of most material interest to the CCP.

They also raised brewing geopolitical crises such as anticipated action against Taiwan, while warning such incidents might exacerbate the economic downturn caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Wray predicted in the case of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, businesses may come to regret being closely entrenched in the Chinese market and experience "one of the most horrific business disruptions the world has ever seen".

“Just as in Russia, Western investments built over years could become hostages, capital stranded, supply chains and relationships disrupted. Companies are caught between sanctions and Chinese law forbidding compliance with them," he said.

The experts avoided trivialising the situation by offering simple advice, but business leaders were asked to consider whether they have a strategic approach to manage and discuss the issues raised, whether their organisation has a security culture at all levels, and whether or not they have carefully assessed the risks of funding sources and partnerships.

Both agency chiefs stressed they're ready and willing to work closely with organisations to offer advice, check submitted evidence and provide solutions to ward off would-be attackers.

IBM has filed a lawsuit against Swiss-based company LzLabs, claiming the latter has repeatedly infringed on patents safeguarding the firm’s mainframes technology.

LzLabs is accused of infringing five patents, two of which describe IBM mainframe instructions that LzLabs must reproduce with Intel x86 instructions; two that describe emulation/translation techniques to ensure optimal performance; and one that describes a method of identifying and substituting an x86 for each IBM program called by mainframe applications.

IBM contends that LzLabs has also abused the firm’s trade secrets through reverse engineering, reverse compiling, and code translation. In its lawsuit filed in the US District Court in Waco, Texas, IBM also asserts that LzLabs' claims about its products are false and misleading.

Per reports, IBM has sought an injunction against LzLabs for unauthorized use of its intellectual property and trade secrets.

Evidence suggests LzLabs is owned and run by former founders of Austin-based Neo Enterprise Software, LLC.

In prior litigation between IBM and Neon, a US District Court permanently enjoined Neon from, among other things, reverse engineering, reverse compiling and translating parts of IBM software, including the distribution of its own software products.

At the time of this writing, neither LzLabs nor its representatives have responded to IBM’s allegations.

Nvidia's acquisition of Arm has been dealt a fresh blow as the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has sued to block the merger over anti-competition concerns.

The FTC said the deal would "stifle" competition for multiple technologies because Arm is a "critical input" that fosters competition between Nvidia and its rivals.

Such an acquisition, it said, would give Nvidia a way to "undermine" other companies.

An administrative trial is due to start 9 August 2022, but Nvidia appears unconcerned by the lawsuit, calling it the "next step" in the FTC's process in a statement to Techcrunch. The firm remains confident that its proposed acquisition will actually "accelerate" Arm's business model and foster more competition.

However, an FTC lawsuit is a significant step as the commission often takes legal action when it believes a company is breaking the law. Unlike regulators in the UK and Europe, which have powers to block certain deals, the FTC operates under the 'Hart-Scott-Rodino Act', which only allows it to review cases that affect commerce in the US. It has to go through the court to block deals that it believes would "substantially lessen competition".

"Tomorrow's technologies depend on preserving today's competitive, cutting-edge chip markets," said FTC bureau of competition director Holly Vedova. "This proposed deal would distort Arm's incentives in chip markets and allow the combined firm to unfairly undermine Nvidia's rivals.

"The FTC's lawsuit should send a strong signal that we will act aggressively to protect our critical infrastructure markets from illegal vertical mergers that have far-reaching and damaging effects on future innovations."

Nvidia's plans to take over Arm, which is currently owned by the Japanese investment group SoftBank, has been heavily scrutinised from the get-go. Regulators and MPs in the UK have expressed concerns over the proposals, with the Competition and Markets Authority currently investigating the merger.

The European Commission has also launched its own investigation into the purchase.

The UK Court of Appeal has ruled that artificial intelligence (AI) cannot hold ownership of new patents, in a two-to-one majority verdict.

The appeal was heard after Stephen Thaler, CEO of Imagination Engines, lost his case against the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) in November 2019, in which he claimed that his AI system could own the rights to two patents.

Lord Justice Arnold and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing both argued that only a person can be classified as an inventor, and hold the rights associated with any creations.

In a dissenting opinion, Lord Justice Birss ruled that although “machines are not persons”, the wording of the law did not stipulate that a person needed to be named as the inventor.

"The fact that no inventor, properly so called, can be identified simply means that there is no name which the Comptroller [IPO] has to mention on the patent as the inventor," said Birss, underlining that the IPO is not obliged to name anyone or anything.

Birss added that if the applicant “was not such an obsessive” and had named himself as the inventor instead of the AI, none of these problems would arise.

As Arnold and Laing had the majority in the case, the appeal was dismissed.

The case emerged after Thaler made two patent applications in October and November 2018, one for a food container and another for a type of flashing light. In a statement of inventorship on 24 July 2019, Thaler claimed both devices were designed by his AI system DABUS.

The IPO responded on 8 August 2019, stating that Thaler had failed to comply with s. 13(2) of the 1977 Patents Act, which required him to identify a person as the inventor and to indicate how he had derived his rights from that person.

Thaler requested a hearing and on 14 November 2019, in which the IPO decided that DABUS was not a person and, separately, Thaler was not entitled to apply for the patents simply by virtue of ownership of the AI. This decision was upheld by the High Court, and then again in the Court of Appeal.

In July this year, Thaler and the Artificial Inventor Project declared they had obtained the world’s first patent for an AI-generated invention, without a traditional human inventor, in South Africa. The patent is held by the AI’s owner, although the patent names the AI as the inventor.

In the same month, an Australian court also decided that AI systems can be legally recognised as an inventor in patent applications, as reported by ABC.

In 2019, academics called for a change to outdated patent laws in the UK to allow AI to legally author patented ideas. Academics from the University of Surrey teamed up with Thaler and intellectual property rights lawyers to file patents in a bid for it to be attributed to DABUS.

Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield universities have joined forces to launch an investment company that aims to help the commercialisation of university spin-offs and tech startups in the North of England.

The firm, which is called Northern Gritstone, will fund enterprises from each institution using capital raised from a cohort of different investors.

Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield universities have previously supported around 20 commercially viable projects via the 'Northern Triangle Initiative'. That was created in 2018 and forms the basis of Northern Gritstone, which aims to be a key part of the government's 'build back better' agenda to boost economic growth in the North.

Each backed startup will either be a newly formed or an already established company that is linked to one of the universities. These are usually tech and science-based SMBs that are either borne from university research or founded by faculty members and/or students.

Northern Gritstone will provide both 'startup' and 'follow-on' funding to support intellectual property development with a plan to raise £500 million from its corporate partners, institutional investors and "qualifying individuals".

Jane Madeley, the CFO for the University of Leeds, will represent the institution as a non-executive director on Northern Gritstone's board.

"Leeds and our fellow founding universities are technological powerhouses, pursuing research and innovation that has the potential to help tackle some of the biggest challenges facing the world," she said. "But a lack of capital investment has sometimes limited that capability - Northern Gritstone will go a long way to help release this pent-up potential."

If the company is successful with its funding plans, it will make Northern Gritsone one of the largest investors for commercial university tech and science-related intellectual property. Plastic Logic is an example of a university spin-off, having been created at Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory in 2000.

The UK's competition watchdog has raised concerns over Facebook's planned acquisition of image site Giphy, suggesting the deal could limit access for other social media firms.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said that the takeover of Giphy will negatively impact the market for digital advertising and as well as restrict other social media firms that use Giphy on their platforms.

The CMA has now given Facebook and Giphy five days to address its concerns.

Prior to the $400 million acquisition, which was first announced in May 2020, Giphy's advertising business competed with Facebook, and the company was also set to expand digital advertising partnerships into other countries, including the UK.

The CMA argued on Thursday that such a deal would mean Giphy would have less of an incentive to expand its digital advertising and suggested it could lead to a loss of competition within the market. For context, the regulator also pointed out that Facebook's digital advertising business makes up more than 50% of the market - which is said to be worth £5.5 billion.

The regulator is also concerned that Facebook could use the acquisition to disrupt rival social media companies either by preventing them from using Giphy or by changing the terms of the service.

"Many people use Gifs when they communicate online so it's important that platforms aren't restricted in what they can offer and people have a range of options to pick from," said Andrea Gomes da Silva, the CMA's executive director of markets and mergers.

"It is vital we ensure that Facebook, as a large and powerful big tech firm, isn't using its strong market position to stifle competition. Should the companies fail to address our concerns, we will launch a more in-depth review to ensure consumers and businesses don't lose out."

A spokesperson for Facebook told IT Pro that it will "continue to fully cooperate" with the CMA's investigation, adding that the merger is in the interests of everyone in the UK who uses both Giphy and Facebook.

If either firm fail to convince the CMA the deal isn't anti-competitive, the watchdog said it will refer the case to a second investigation.

A former Google engineer who pleaded guilty to stealing trade secrets from the tech giant has been pardoned by President Donald Trump.

Anthony Levandowski was due to serve an 18-month prison sentence for downloading documents relating to Google's driverless car startup Waymo in 2016.

His inclusion among the 130 pardons issued on the last day of Trump's presidency came as a surprise, but it was backed by a number of figures from the tech industry, such as controversial investor Peter Thiel and Oculus founder Palmer Luckey.

"Mr Levandowski pled guilty to a single criminal count arising from civil litigation," the White House notice read. "Notably, his sentencing judge called him a 'brilliant, groundbreaking engineer that our country needs'. Mr Levandowski has paid a significant price for his actions and plans to devote his talents to advance the public good."

"My family and I are grateful for the opportunity to move forward and thankful to the president and others who supported and advocated on my behalf," Levandowski said to TechCrunch.

Levandowski did plead guilty in a federal court to downloading sensitive documents relating to Google's driverless car startup Waymo before leaving to start his own company, Otto in 2016. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison in August, but the ruling judge suspended the sentence due to the pandemic. Levandowski's legal team also argued he was vulnerable to COVID-19 due to having pneumonia.

Otto was acquired by Uber within eight months of Levandowski's departure from Waymo and Google swiftly launched legal action against its former engineer and a separate suit against Uber. The two tech firms settled, with Uber agreeing to not incorporate any information from Waymo and also pay a one-off fee.

Levandowski, however, was made bankrupt by a $179 million award against him. The amount is still subject to another legal dispute in which Levandowski claims Uber is partly responsible for the payment. Levandowski is also seeking damages from Uber for value lost from his Otto startup.

IT Pro has contacted Google and Uber for comment.

A US logistics company is suing a former Uber executive for fraud after accusing him of stealing trade secrets to start a rival firm in London, one that's already secured the backing of some of tech's biggest names.

US-based Vanguard Logistics Services filed the lawsuit in a District Court in California, against its former board member Fraser Robinson.

The 49-page complaint accuses Robinson of deceiving Vanguard by joining its board and violating his fiduciary responsibility by stealing its most confidential information and using it to secretly establish a London-based startup called Beacon Technologies.

Fraser's startup is backed by an 'A-list' set of technology investors, including former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick, Google co-founder Eric Schmidt, and Amazon boss Jeff Bezos.

The lawsuit states that Robinson claimed to know nothing about logistics and describes how he set out to learn more about the industry by integrating himself with the owners of Vanguard through an offer of marketing services. However, the complaint alleges that Robinson revealed to a journalist earlier this year that he sought a relationship with Vanguard after he saw an "opportunity" in logistics and shipping while working at Uber when the company launched Uber Freight.

He stopped working for the ride-hailing firm in 2017, around the same time that the company was exposed for attempting to conceal a massive data breach and amid widespread reports of toxic workplace culture – Robinson has never been publicly linked to these controversies.

A spokesman from Vanguard said: "We trusted Fraser Robinson as a director and fiduciary of the company, this included legal stipulations around non-disclosures and protection of Vanguard's IP, and he betrayed that trust.

"It is fitting that Fraser Robinson launched a company founded on fraud and named it Beacon, a word that describes a warning signal. Anybody doing business with him should certainly beware."

Another former Uber executive, Dmitri Izmailov, was also cited in the lawsuit for assisting Robinson's efforts to extract confidential information from Vanguard. Though he is not named as a defendant, he is listed as a co-founder of Beacon Technologies.

A spokesperson for Beacon told IT Pro: “We are surprised to hear that Vanguard have filed these proceedings. The papers have not yet been issued by the court and have not been served."

"What we have seen so far is an ill-thought out action which is entirely without merit and which has been brought in the wrong jurisdiction," the spokesperson adding. "Any claim will be robustly defended.”

Cisco has been ordered to pay $1.9 billion (£1.46 billion) to a cyber security firm after a US district judge ruled it had infringed its patents.

Judge Henry Morgan concluded after a month-long trial that Cisco infringed upon four out of five patents that belonged to Centripetal Networks, according to Reuters.

Virginia-based Centripetal was founded in 2009 and develops threat intelligence software and firewall hardware for cyber networks. The company took legal action against Cisco earlier this year and has successfully challenged the US tech giant.

In a 167-page decision, Morgan said the case was "not a close call," pointing out inconsistencies in Cisco's evidence and within its own technical documents. Most of these were used by Centripetal during the trial.

The massive payout reflects $755.8 million in damages suffered by Centripetal, which has been multiplied by 2.5 on account of "willful and egregious" conduct from Cisco. Add to that prejudgment interest and it leaves the final sum at $1.9 billion.

With regards to the four patents it lost, Morgan said that Cisco did not "advance any objectively reasonable defenses at trial".

"The infringing functionality was added to their accused products post June 20, 2017, and resulted in a dramatic increase in sales which Cisco touted in both technical and marketing documents," Morgan wrote.

Cisco said it was disappointed with the decision and confirmed it plans to appeal: "Given the substantial evidence of non-infringement, invalidity and that Cisco's innovations predate the patents by many years."

In its latest fiscal year, Cisco posted $11.2 billion of net income from $49.3 billion of revenue.

"With this judgment, the court rejected the primitive doctrine that might makes right," Paul Andre, a lawyer for Centripetal, said in a statement. "This is a significant win for all small, innovative companies."

MarqVision, the AI-based SaaS company founded by computer scientists and intellectual property (IP) law experts from Harvard University and MIT, recently launched its brand-protection platform to help brands combat counterfeit products online.

Using a deep-learning-based image-recognition model to scan through millions of product product listings, MarqVision’s platform can detect those containing products that look similar to the legitimate brand's products. Its machine learning model then detects potential infringements among those listings and uses a bot-powered reporting system to automatically file take-down requests for listings the brand owner confirms are infringements.

The company says brands can regain sales revenue hijacked by counterfeit and knockoff sellers by using the platform. It claims to also help brands protect their reputation while reestablishing customers' trust.

Additionally, MarqVision claims its AI-powered automation technology offers greater efficiency than traditional anti-counterfeiting solutions that often include IP specialists searching for infringements and filing take-down paperwork manually.

"The counterfeit market is currently a $1.7 trillion industry, which makes it the largest criminal industry in the world," said MarqVision CEO and co-founder Mark Lee. "We have pioneered a technology-driven way to solve this serious problem using artificial intelligence. Our beta clients have experienced a 30-fold efficiency increase in their anti-counterfeiting efforts."

Lee added that detecting and removing counterfeits from e-commerce sites is only the beginning for MarqVision.

"Our engineers are building a mapping technology that matches data points from different e-commerce platforms in order to connect sellers to the infringer behind, reveal the infringer's identity, and allow brands to take legal action against the infringer. We plan on equipping the current product with this sophisticated technology soon so that we can stop the distribution of counterfeits at the source,” Lee explained.

Buyers can sign up for early access to MarqVision online and receive a free one-month trial.

A company that specialises in song lyrics has accused Google of scraping data from its website to use in its search engine.

For a few years now, search for the lyrics to a song using Google Search, a little box will appear in the search results with the exact lyrics and details of said song. But, according to Genius Media, the tech giant has been copying these lyrics straight from its website for years.

In a statement to The Verge, Genius chief strategy officer Ben Gross said that the company has "shown Google irrefutable evidence again and again that they are displaying lyrics copied from Genius in their Lyrics OneBox".

"This is a serious issue, and Google needs to address it," said Gross.

The company has been around since 2009, starting out as a platform for "annotating clever rap lyrics" but has since expanded to other genres. It depends on Google Search to send music lovers to its website for lyrics to pop and rap songs that are hard to decipher - but now there is bad blood between the two companies.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Genius notified Google about the copied transcriptions as far back as 2017, and again in a letter sent in April this year. The letter reportedly warned that reuse of Genius' transcriptions breaks the Genius.com terms of service and violates antitrust law.

But, Genius actually first became suspicious about the source of Google's lyrics in 2016, when one of its software engineers spotted something odd about the song "Panda", a hit by rapper Desiigner. While many lyrics sites had published transcriptions of Desiigner's hard-to-understand lyrics with errors, Genius had the definitive version because Desiigner himself provided his lyrics to the site.

The complaints come amid growing concerns over the business practices of tech firms like Google, which denied any wrongdoing. But, in this example, they may have been caught red-handed.

In 2016, Genius said it had made a subtle change to some of the songs on its site, alternating the lyrics apostrophes between straight and curly single-quote marks in exactly the same sequence for every song. When the two types of apostrophes were converted to the dots and dashes used in Morse code, they spelt out the words "red-handed".

Google said the lyrics on its site were licensed from partners, not created by Google, but since the WSJ's report the company has posted a statement to say it's investigating the issues raised by Genius and would terminate its agreements with partners who were "not upholding good practices".

In 2016, Google forged a partnership with LyricFind, a Canadian company that secures deals with music publishers allowing companies such as Google to publish lyrics online. LyricFind Chief Executive Darryl Ballantyne said in an email that his company creates lyrics using its own content team. "We do not source lyrics from Genius," he said.

Intellectual property (IP) is the most precious asset in a company, according to CEOs, with most of them admitting they take it with them when they leave a company.

Although company rules may state the complete reverse, 79% of CEOs believe their work and ideas belongs to them, with 72% admitting to taking IP with them from previous employers upon joining a new organisation, according to software company Code42's 2018 Data Exposure Report.

The main factors behind CEOs' sense of personal ownership over their work include a belief that their time, not the company's, goes into the end product - with 59% agreeing as much. Just under half feel they "impart a bit of myself" into ideas, while 39% say personal ownership matters because they spend time generating them. Otherwise, 18% don't believe a company can outright own ideas, while 8% suggest nobody can "own" work - something clearly contravened by IP and copyright law.

Cases like former Google engineer Anthony Levandowski allegedly stealing 14,000 documents comprising the firm's self-driving car project are not that unusual, the survey suggested.

"Human emotions and behaviour play a bigger role in data exposure than organisations realise," Code42's report read. "Even the strongest security policies can't stop people from making mistakes or poor choices that create vulnerabilities."

Surveying 1,634 senior company employees in the UK, US and Germany, including 600 CEOs as well as security and IT leaders, CSOs, CTOs, CISOs and CIOs, Code42 found that emotionally-driven decisionsat the highest level pose to a company's overall security.

"For years, organisations have spent billions on strategies to prevent data losses and breaches. Those strategies alone no longer work, and companies know it," the report said.

"In an increasingly complex digital landscape, breaches are happening, and prevention-only strategies are no longer effective to keep data safe. Breaches will happen, even when you have a strong prevention strategy."

While 77% of business leaders are fully aware that downloading software without knowing whether it is approved by corporate IT poses a big security risk to their organisation, 41% do it anyway.

In a similar vein, a majority of senior staff in organisations are keeping copies of their work on a personal device, or outside of official company storage, even though they are fully aware this practice may also pose a risk.

For instance, 93% of CEOs have admitted to keeping copies of their work beyond the remit of their company's security network - on a personal device or on personal cloud storage for example - despite 68% agreeing there is a risk to the company in doing so.

One glaring example of business leaders' "disconnect from reality", according to the report, lies in IT visibility - with 82% believing IT can protect information it cannot see, almost entirely contradicting the views of CISOs, 80% of whom agree "you cannot protect what you cannot see".

"It's clear that even the best-intentioned data security policies are no match for human nature," said Code42's chief information security officer, Jadee Hanson.

"Understanding how emotional forces drive risky behaviour is a step in the right direction, as is recognising 'disconnects' within the organisation that create data security vulnerabilities. In a threat landscape that is getting increasingly complex, prevention-only strategies are no longer enough."

More than 1.5 billion sensitive corporate and consumer files, including payroll details and intellectual property data, are publicly exposed, according to cybersecurity company Digital Shadows.

Researchers at the firm detected files amounting to 12,000 terabytes of data hosted across Amazon Web Services (AWS) S3 buckets, rsync sites, server message block (SMB) and file transfer protocol (FTP) servers, Misconfigured Websites (WebIndex), and web-connected NAS drives as publicly accessible over the first three months of 2018, detailing their findings in a report titled Too Much Information.

For scale, the volume of data is roughly 4,000 times the size of 2016's Panama Papers leak.

The files are mostly stored in storage drives or buckets that are unencrypted and open to the public, meaning anyone with the correct URL address could access these documents, despite many containing people's personal information, something the EU's GDPR data protection legislation will be able to punish with huge potential fines when the rules come into force next month.

Digital Shadows CISO Rick Holland said: "The volume of this sensitive data exposure should be a major cause for concern for any security and privacy conscious organisation. In addition, with GDPR fast-approaching, there are clear regulatory implications for any organisation with EU citizen data."

Following numerous high profile breaches from companies mistakenly storing private information in public S3 buckets, AWS introduced the option to enable default encryption for its cloud storage last November. But as recently as February, FedEx locked down an unsecure S3 server following the exposure of data belonging to more than 119,000 citizens from around the world. And Digital Shadows found S3 buckets still accounted for 6.5% of the exposed data it discovered this year.

But at 33%, most of the exposed files were found on unencrypted SMB servers; followed by those stored on file-sync rsync sites (28%) and transferred using FTP servers (26%). Payroll (707,960) and tax return (64,048) files were the most commonly exposed employee data.

Moreover, Digital Shadows found a significant portion of intellectual property data at risk, with the cybersecurity company discovering, for example, a patent summary for renewable energy in a document marked "strictly confidential".

On another instance a document containing proprietary source code submitted as part of a copyright application was found; including code outlining the design and workflow of a site providing software Electronic Medical Records (EMR), as well as details of the application.

Confidential information on members of the public also appeared, with 14,687 files listing people's contact information and 4,548 documents identifying healthcare patients, as well as files including transactional information, and some credit card data exposed.

"While we often hyper-focus on responding to adversaries conducting intrusions into our environments and silently exfiltrating our data, we aren't focusing on our external digital footprints and the data that is already publicly available via misconfigured servers," Holland said.

US firms had the highest number of leaked files, accounting for more than 239 million (16.3%), while the European Union as a whole made up more than 537 million files (36.5%). More than 64 million files were found to be exposed in the UK, while Germany and France together amassed more than 238 million exposed files.

Digital Shadows urged organisations to increase user training and awareness to combat the issue in the long term, but the report also mentioned tips to ensure organisations mitigate their risk to inadvertent exposure.

For users of FTP and SMB servers and rsync sites, Digital Shadows recommended the use of a password, and disabling guest or anonymous access, while firewalling the port off from the internet, and whitelisting the IPs permitted to access the resource.

Although S3 buckets can be encrypted by default, Digital Shadows recommends AWS users understand how to do so, while Misconfigured Websites (WebIndex) users are advised to disable directory listings unless required, and NAS drive users can add a password and disable guest or anonymous access, as well as opt for NAS devices that are secured by default.

Picture credit: Bigstock

Google and Microsoft have agreed to downgrade any links to pirated content in their search results following an agreement with the UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and the creative industries.

The IPO developed a voluntary code of practice that urges search engines to remove infringing links from the first page of search results, and both Microsoft and Google have agreed to follow the advisory.

Ofcom has also supported the campaign, which has been independently researching ways to prevent pirated content being distributed across the internet, according to the BBC.

The IPO worked with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to urge the major search engines to adhere to the guidelines in an attempt to prevent copyrighted content being downloaded.

"Search engines play a vital role in helping consumers discover content online," Jo Johnson, minister of state for universities, science, research and innovation, said.

"Their relationship with our world leading creative industries needs to be collaborative. Consumers are increasingly heading online for music, films, e-books, and a wide variety of other content. It is essential that they are presented with links to legitimate websites and services, not provided with links to pirate sites."

Although Google already has a number of measures in place to stop offending content being surfaced at the top of searches, it said it wouldn't change its existing policies, but the code of conduct would help it communicate its commitment to anti-piracy.

"We are one of the world's leading digital nations, and we have a responsibility to make sure that consumers have easy access to legal content online," minister for digital and culture, Matt Hancock, said.

"Pirate sites deprive artists and rights holders of hard-earned income and I'm delighted to see industry led solutions like this landmark agreement which will be instrumental in driving change."

"As we build a more global Britain we want the UK to be the most innovative country to do business, and initiatives like this will ensure our creative and digital economies continue to thrive," Hancock added.

Apple has accused Qualcomm Beijing of abusing its position in the industry as the dominant chip supplier by violating Chinese laws in an attempt to maintain a monopoly, according to a lawsuit filed on Wednesday.

Qualcomm, which is a major supplier of wireless connectivity chips to Apple and Samsung devices, is also alleged to have under delivered on promises it made to license patents widely and inexpensively, according to Reuters. Apple is now seeking 1 billion yuan (115 million) in damages as a result.

The lawsuit comes after the FTC issued a complaint against Qualcomm on 17 January, in which the company was accused of using anti-competitive tactics. Apple also issued a complaint on Friday to the federal court in California, requesting $1 billion in rebates for overcharged Qualcomm chips. It now appears the lawsuit has spread to Qualcomm's eastern divisions.

Although the company has not seen the lawsuit brought by Apple, Qualcomm stated the complaint "alleges a violation of China's Anti-Monopoly Law, and the other requests a determination of the terms of a patent license between Qualcomm and Apple for Qualcomm's cellular standard essentials patents".

Qualcomm claimed it has attempted to settle the matter with Apple, but insist the tech giant is simply trying to manoeuvre for a better deal.

"These filings by Apple's Chinese subsidiary are just part of Apple's efforts to find ways to pay less for Qualcomm's technology," said Don Rosenberg, executive VP and general counsel of Qualcomm. "Apple was offered terms consistent with terms accepted by more than one hundred other Chinese companies and refused to even consider them."

But Apple contests that it's regularly charged over "five times" more in its transactions than other companies, according to a statement to Business Insider, relating to its complaint on Friday. "Despite being just one of over a dozen companies who contributed to basic cellular standards, Qualcomm insists on charging Apple at least five times more in payments than all the other cellular patent licensors we have agreements with combined," the company said.

"To protect this business scheme, Qualcomm has taken increasingly radical steps - most recently withholding nearly $1 billion in payments from Apple as retaliation for responding truthfully to law enforcement agencies investigating them," it added.

Pressure is mounting against Qualcomm as the company faces legal action for unfair practices around the globe. In February 2015 Qualcomm was forced to hand over $975 million to China following a yearlong antitrust probe, and was most recently fined $854 million by South Korean authorities for unfair practices in patent licensing.

Apple's lawsuit against Samsung that accuses the South Korean firm of copying its smartphone design will continue in front of the US Supreme Court tomorrow.

The Supreme Court is to decide how much Samsung will pay of the $399 million awarded for patent infringement last year.

The design patents that Apple accused Samsung of infringing concern the iPhone's round-shaped corners, the rim surrounding its anterior face and the style of the icon grid that is typical of the iOS operating system.

Samsung declared the award to be disproportionate compared to the extent of its alleged offence, while Apple believes the Korean company will have to pay the full sum for blatantly copying some of the iPhone's unique features.

This is the last one of a long list of lawsuits one of the two tech giants have filed against each other.

Samsung was already found guilty of replicating Apple products and infringing its patents, some of the devices in question including Samsung's Admire, Galaxy Nexus and Stratosphere.

The Korean company already paid Apple $399 million and another $150 million for copying the iPhone's "pinch-to-zoom" feature.

In the past, Apple was also found to infringe Samsung's "quick-links" patent.

The Supreme Court's ruling will determine whether the award will be upheld, invalidated or if the amount of the damages is to be re-determined, though a decision is not expected until December or January.

Oracle has argued that Google's copyright victory over the use of Java APIs should be thrown out, due to the fact that Google withheld key evidence.

Annette Hurst, lead attorney for Oracle, told the federal court that launching the Google Play store on Chrome OS - which the search giant did midway through the trial - was "a game changer".

This, she said, completely undermined Google's central argument, which hinged on the fact that as Android wasn't encroaching on the desktop market for the Java SE platform, it was covered under the principles of 'fair use'.

"Oracle [Android] isn't 'transformative'; it's on desktops and laptops," Hurst told presiding Judge William Alsup, pointing out that Google was doing this using Java code. "That's outrageous, under copyright law."

According to Oracle's lawyers, these plans should have been shared during the trial's discovery phase and by not doing so, the company is "lying to the jury".

Google, however, has argued that as the feature was not ready for a full production rollout it was under no obligation to disclose it and that Oracle knew the company was planning to move Android apps to a laptop environment.

"No party had a duty to supplement discovery with matters beyond the scope of trial," said Google attorney Christa Anderson. "Our answers were appropriate and complete."

Alsup will issue a written ruling on whether or not to dismiss the case based on Oracle's arguments, but advised Google's attorney that "if I had been in your position, I would have disclosed".

18/08/2016: Google did not violate Oracle's IP with Android, jury rules

Google did not commit intellectual property theft when it built Android, a jury has ruled.

The case is the latest in a series of court battles between Oracle and Google regarding the latter's use of Java APIs in the creation of the Android mobile operating system, which now has the largest install base of all mobile platforms.

While Google argued its use of the APIs was covered by fair use, which permits the partial use of copyrighted material for "transformative" purposes, Oracle claimed the company had acted illegally, costing it billions of dollars in revenue and leading to a claim for $9.3 billion in damages.

This question has been resolved, for now at least, by today's federal court jury, which found Google's use of the Java APIs did indeed constitute fair use.

In a statement released immediately after the ruling, Oracle general counsel Dorian Daley said: "We strongly believe that Google developed Android by illegally copying core Java technology to rush into the mobile device market. Oracle brought this lawsuit to put a stop to Google's illegal behaviour. We believe there are numerous grounds for appeal and we plan to bring this case back to the Federal Circuit on appeal."

Google had not released a statement at the time of publication.

18/05/2016: Oracle CEO blames Google for 98 per cent drop in revenues

Oracle CEO Safra Catz has blamed Google's use of Java APIs for massive drops in the company's revenue, a San Francisco court has heard.

The two companies are embroiled in a copyright dispute over Google's use of the Oracle-owned Java APIs in its Android operating system.

Google claims the APIs should be covered under fair use principles, while Oracle is demanding over $9 billion worth of damages for their unauthorised use.

By including Java APIs in Android and then freely distributing it to device manufacturers, Catz told the jury, Google massively undercut the license fees paid to Oracle by existing customers.

Samsung, for example, reduced its license payments down from $40 million to just $1 million, constituting a drop of 97.5 per cent.

According to Catz, Oracle was compelled to offer a similarly precipitous discount to Amazon during the development of the Kindle Paperwhite, after it began using Android for its Fire tablets.

Catz even claimed that Google acknowledged it was breaking the rules. She spoke of an alleged conversation with Google's lawyer Kent Walker at an event in 2012.

"Google is a really special company," Walker allegedly said, "and the old rules don't apply to us."

"Thou shalt not steal," Catz is said to have replied, "It's an oldie but it's a goodie".

Not to be outdone, Google has itself claimed that Oracle is only pursuing the case because it cannot compete in the marketplace. The company pointed to Oracle's abandoned device development project, which was shelved due to "very limited internal expertise".

29/03/2016: Oracle demands $9.3bn damages from Google in Java retrial

Oracle has demanded $9.3 billion in damages from Google to compensate for the use of Java in Android.

Oracle first sued Google in 2010, claiming the search giant infringed on its intellectual ownership of a number of Java APIs by including them in the Android operating system.

The case went to trial in 2012, but while Oracle scored a partial victory last year by successfully arguing that it can copyright code and the way it interfaces with other software, the jury could not reach a decision over whether Google's infringement of this copyright was covered under 'fair use'.

A new trial to resolve this issue is set to begin in a federal district court in San Francisco on 9 May, and Oracle court filings include a document put together by an expert hired by Oracle, putting damages at $9.3 billion (6.5 billion).

Of that amount, $475 million are actual damages for alleged unauthorised usage of the APIs, while $8.8 billion is the amount of Google's profits Oracle believes it is owed.

Google denies any wrongdoing regarding its use of the Java APIs, which is has claimed are covered by fair use. In a court filing last week, Google said the 37 Java APIs it uses are "a fraction of a per cent of the code" that makes up the Android OS.

A pre-trial hearing before a judge is due on 27 April, ahead of the trial commencing.

Java, which is one of the most widely-used programming languages, has had security issues recently, with the discovery of a critical bug in the software leading Oracle to release a number of patches last month.

Guns N Roses frontman Axl Rose has attempted to use copyright infringement claims to remove an unflattering photo of him from the web.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (or DMCA) is a piece of US legislation that allows copyright holders to request the removal of copyrighted content from the web.

While this serves an important function in protecting intellectual property, it can also be used to unfairly silence criticism.

Rose has filed six of these requests against a photo from a Canadian concert in 2010. The photo - which is somewhat unflattering - has spawned a series of 'Fat Axl' memes relating to the singer's increased weight.

While the motivation behind the takedowns has not been made public, some have suggested that it is an attempt at stopping the deluge of images ridiculing the aging rock star.

The requests were filed on behalf of Rose by anti-piracy firm Web Sherriff, and all target examples of the same picture hosted on Blogspot and GoogleUserContent domains.

However, the original image was taken by Winnipeg Free Press photojournalist Boris Minkevich, who said that the only copyright being infringed is his. "The photo was stolen off our website with no permission granted by the Winnipeg Free Press," Minkevich told Torrent Freak.

All photographers at Rose's gigs are required to sign a contract passing copyright ownership to Rose's company, Web Sherriff told the publication, but the photographer cannot remember whether he signed one or not.

Ownership of the actual image remains unclear, but the debate has once again raised the issue of internet censorship. Free speech advocates have previously accused companies of using DMCA takedown requests to censor their critics.

For example, bogus DMCA requests are a favourite tool of companies wishing to remove YouTube videos which portray them in a bad light, and although YouTube has promised better protection for creators hit by these spurious requests, the problem still persists.

Google has not yet acted on Rose's requests to have the photo removed.

The Pirate Bay has returned to its original web domain, ThePirateBay.org, in the wake of yet more court rulings that threaten to confiscate its existing homes on the internet.

A Swedish court is pulling the plug on the notorious website's ThePirateBay.se and PirateBay.se addresses after a case that started in 2013, when an anti-piracy prosecutor demanded the sites were taken down, so Pirate Bay's controllers are now redirecting all traffic to its original .org domain, which it first set up in 2003.

Though the move may allow The Pirate Bay to sidestep the Swedish court ruling, it is likely to face fresh attacks from the US, because of the Virginia-based .org registry office.

The case against the .se domains was heard a year ago, and prosecutor Fredrik Ingblad targeted the organisation responsible for maintaining all .se domains, Punkt SE.

When this organisation refused to pull down the Pirate Bay sites on the basis that the court should take such a decision, the Stockholm District Court ruled that both Pirate Bay .se addresses should be closed.

Pirate Bay co-founder Fredrik Neij is planning to appeal the court decision, according to TorrentFreak.

Apple has settled a lawsuit with Dynamic Advances, a company that held the patent of technology that was used to create Siri, according to the Albany Business Review.

Dynamic Advances was awarded the patent in 2007, four years before Apple would debut Siri in its iPhone 4s.

Apple has agreed to pay $24.9 million (17 million) for violating the patent. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Dynamic Advances will each benefit from this lawsuit, with at least 50 per cent of the money from the settlement being paid to Rensselaer.

The current terms of the settlement state that Dynamic Advances' parent company Marathon Patent Group will receive $5 million from Apple directly after the case. The subsequent $19.9 million are said to come after a few conditions are met.

The lawsuit has been underway since 2012, with Rensselaer, which conducted all of the initial research behind Siri's voice technology, joining the court case in 2013.

Next month the case was supposed to stand a trial at the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of New York.

Rensselaer however has not agreed to the royalty rate that is proposed in the agreement, as it states in a document filed by the Marathon Patent Group. The disagreement "may have to be resolved in arbitration," Rensselaer said.

The technology referred to in patent was created by Cheng Hsu and Veera Boonjing. Hsu was previously a professor at Rensselaer and Boonjing was a doctoral student when the patent was filed.

Rensselaer has declined to comment on the matter due to the pending litigation.

Facebook is to pay millions more in UK tax following changes to its tax structure.

The world's biggest social network has been under criticism for paying low tax rates, despite the UK being one of its most significant markets outside of the US.

Facebook will not longer divert sales through its Ireland division for its largest advertisers, according to an internal memo.

Companies such as Sainsbury's, Tesco, healthcare goods manufacturer Unilever and advertising group WPP will all be handled by its UK division.

By booking advertising through its UK division, its is believed Facebook will account for substantially more revenue, and will pay a higher level of corporation tax at least 20 per cent on profits in the UK as a result.

The changes are due to take place from 1 April, and the social networks first inflated tax bill will be at the start of the 2017 fiscal year.

A Facebook spokesman provided the following statement which matches that of the internal update to IT Pro: "On Monday we will start notifying large UK customers that from the start of April they will receive invoices from Facebook UK and not Facebook Ireland.

"What this means in practice is that UK sales made directly by our UK team will be booked in the UK, not Ireland. Facebook UK will then record the revenue from these sales.

"In light of changes to tax law in the UK, we felt this change would provide transparency to Facebook's operations in the UK.

"The new structure is easier to understand and clearly recognises the value our UK organisation adds to our sales through our highly skilled and growing UK sales team."

The company has been under mounting pressure to pay taxes that are more in line with the large profits it earns. There was widespread outrage when it was revealed that Facebook paid just 4,327 in corporation tax in the UK in 2014 less than the average British taxpayer who pays approximately 5,500 in tax.

Facebook is believed to have been planning to make this change for some time.

This change is said to be about making Facebook more transparent following changes to UK tax law more notably the government's newly introduced diverted profits tax, set at 25 per cent, and specifically targeted at companies using loopholes to move profits out of the country.

However, it will not be paying back taxes on the profits it has already made. And smaller businesses booking online advertising will reportedly still be invoiced by Facebook Ireland the company's international base of operations, which currently houses almost one thousand employees

The social networking giant, which has over one billion global users, and an estimated 30 million in the UK, made $17.93 billion in 2015.

How much of that revenue came from its UK operations is unknown. But its UK business is one of its largest operations outside of its home nation, as evidenced by the fact it now employs around 850 staff at its UK offices. It is currently building a new London HQ to house a range of staff, which will likely include its current UK sales and engineering teams.

Google has also been under fire for its UK tax. Earlier this year the UK government coaxed the search giant into paying 130 million in tax.

British ISPs must block seven websites for sharing pirated ebooks, after a complaint from the Publishers Association (PA).

The UK High Court has previously ordered major ISPs to block more than a hundred piracy sites such as The Pirate Bay, but it's the first time it's specifically targeted websites sharing ebooks.

Under the order, BT, Virgin, Sky, EE and TalkTalk must block seven sites within the next ten days - they are AvaxHome, Bookfi, Bookre, Ebookee, Freebookspot, Freshwap and LibGen.

The order comes after an investigation by the PA itself showed that at least 80 per cent of the 10 million ebook files on the sites infringed copyright.

The PA had previously used takedown orders to fight piracy, filing a million requests to the seven sites.

A message on Freebookspot reads: "Publishers Association is going to block this site. I was forced to delete over 10,000 books."

Richard Mollet, CEO of the PA, welcomed the ruling. "A third of publisher revenues now come from digital sales but unfortunately this rise in the digital market has brought with it a growth in online infringement," he said.

"Our members need to be able to protect their authors' works from such illegal activity; writers need to be paid and publishers need to be able to continue to innovate and invest in new talent and material," he added.

The sites are blocked at the network level, using technology originally developed to stop child-abuse images from being viewed in the UK.

Four US hackers have been accused of stealing the intellectual property of the US military and games developers, amounting to a value of more than $100m (62m).

The software the four managed to hack into included the US Army tools used to train Apache helicopter pilots and intellectual property belonging to developers such as Epic Games, Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Games.

US attorney General Caldwell said: "As the indictment charges, the members of this international hacking ring stole trade secret data used in high-tech American products, ranging from software that trains US soldiers to fly Apache helicopters to Xbox games that entertain millions around the world."

The hackers have been named as Nathan Leroux, Sanadodeh Nesheiwat, David Pokora and Austin Alcala, and each faces charges for conspiracy to commit computer fraud, copyright infringement, wire fraud, mail fraud, identity theft and theft of trade secrets.

All are between 18 and 28 years of old, but this doesn't mean the attacks shoudn't be concerning, said US attorney Ed McAndrew.

They reportedly managed to hack into the organisations' systems by stealing usernames and passwords from employees so they could break in using an SQL injection attack that allows hackers to take a data dump from data-driven applications.

The US Department of Defense, FBI, the Criminal Division's Office of International Affairs, US Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Patrol, US Postal Inspection Service, Western Australian Police and Peel Regional Police of Ontario, Canada, collaborated to bring the four from Indiana to account.

Assistant attorney general Leslie Caldwell said the case should act as a detterent to other hackers and demonstrate that such behaviour won't be tolerated: "The American economy is driven by innovation. But American innovation is only valuable when it can be protected. Today's guilty pleas show that we will protect America's intellectual property from hackers, whether they hack from here or from abroad."

The US government threatened to fine Yahoo $250,000 every day if it didn't hand over user data to the NSA, according to recently unsealed court documents.

In a blog post, Ron Bell, general counsel of Yahoo, said the release of over 1,500 documents shed light on the firm's previously undisclosed fight with the NSA over user data access.

He said that the company "refused to comply with what we viewed as unconstitutional and overbroad surveillance and challenged the US Government's authority."

"Our challenge, and a later appeal in the case, did not succeed said Ron Bell. He added that court material showed "how we had to fight every step of the way to challenge the US government's surveillance efforts."

According to Bell, the court upheld laws preceding Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. This is more commonly known as Prism, which was revealed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

"Despite the declassification and release, portions of the documents remain sealed and classified to this day, unknown even to our team," said Bell.

One document from May 2008 showed that the US government not only threatened to impose a $250,000 fine on Yahoo each day it didn't hand over data but would then double this fine each week the internet giant failed to turn over data. Unsurprisingly, Yahoo complied with the legal action.

Bell said that Yahoo's fight against the US government would continue.

"We are still pushing for the FISC to release materials from the 2007-2008 case in the lower court. The FISC indicated previously that it was waiting on the FISC-R ruling in relation to the 2008 appeal before moving forward. Now that the FISC-R matter is resolved, we will work hard to make the materials from the FISC case public, as well," he said.

He added that Yahoo would continue to "contest requests and laws that we consider unlawful, unclear, or overbroad".

The BBC has said people who repeatedly infringe copyright should not have access to an internet connection and that ISPs should be responsible for making sure they cannot break the law.

The statement was made in a submission to the Australian government's online copyright infringement paper, saying: "ISPs need a policy to deal with repeat offenders," the BBC Worldwide submission reads.

"Possible sanctions could include subjecting repeat offenders to a slowing down of their bandwidth, but stopping short of cutting off the internet service, except in the most serious and egregious circumstances, as is the case in the United States. A competent court or authority should be involved in such cases."

The BBC used the example of Dr Who being distributed illegally in Australia before it was even aired on TV, saying although the leak was down to the broadcaster not putting secure enough controls in place, those who leaked the programme should be punished.

It said, despite the BBC dedicating considerable resources to taking down and blocking access to the materials, 13,000 download attempts were made from Australian IP addresses.

The BBC would like to go down the educational route, warning those who infringe copyright and educating them about the law. If they do not stop illegally downloading content, they should be subject to more serious action - such as their connection being terminated.

Additionally, the BBC said anyone who is proven to be using VPN-style services and consuming a lot of bandwidth in the process should be investigated for piracy.

It said: "It is reasonable for ISPs to be placed under an obligation to identify user behavior that is suspicious' and indicative of a user engaging in conduct that infringes copyright. Such behavior may include the illegitimate use by Internet users of IP obfuscation tools in combination with high download volumes."

City of London Police have arrested a man in Manchester on suspicion of running a series of illegal sports streaming websites.

The arrest was carried out by the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) with support from the Greater Manchester Police.

The 27-year-old man was taken to a local police station for questioning.

The man was arrested at his home in the North West by the City of London Police's specialist IP unit where detectives discovered an "industrial size streaming operation", including 12 computer servers streaming a wide range of sporting events from across the world, which have since been seized and taken away.

The suspect was believed to be operating streaming sites that allow unlawful access to subscription-only TV services, which is said to be costing the industry more than 10milllion.

"Today's operation is the unit's third arrest in relation to online streaming and sends out a strong message that we are homing in on those who knowingly commit or facilitate online copyright infringement," said DCI Danny Medlycott, the newly appointed head of PIPCU.

"Not only is there a significant loss to industry with this particular operation but it is also unfair that millions of people work hard to be able to afford to pay for their subscription-only TV services when others cheat the system."

Police have not named the site that has been taken out of action.

The unit was launched in September 2013 and is tasked with the job of protecting UK organisations from intellectual property theft. In July, the unit served pop-up adverts on websites that contain copyrighted material, warning customers the site is undergoing a criminal investigation.

It also seized 200 websites touting counterfeit goods in June in a joint operation with Europol and US law enforcement agencies.

The government has announced that emergency measures will be brought in to force internet and telephone companies to record customer data.

In a controversial move, parliament has declared the new law necessary so that the security services can gain access to any data they may need.

It will force telecoms companies to retain their customer data for 12 months and allows access to any content within it by an intelligence agent if the order is signed off by a government official.

The planned laws will be in effect until 2016 and have the full backing of prime minister David Cameron and deputy prime minister Nick Clegg. Both deem the legislation necessary to keep the country safe, it is heard.

A recent ruling from the European Court of Justice removed the obligation from telecoms firms to keep records of when and to whom their customers have made calls, texts or emails.

Cameron and Clegg claim that unless the UK brings in reactionary legislation, companies will be able to destroy information that could see them prosecuted.

Some may argue, however, that the government is trying to halt the surge of privacy rights that has swept across the EU in the wake of Google's "right to be forgotten" ruling.

Labour has backed the new measures after all three major parties agreed that it would not extend government rights to data by re-introducing the "snoopers charter" which the Lib Dem leader vetoed going through parliament last year.

"The government knows that since the EU ruling there is no legal basis for making internet service providers retain our data, so it is using the threat of terrorism as an excuse for getting this law passed," said executive director of the Open Rights Group, Jim Killock.

"Not only will the proposed legislation infringe our right to privacy, it will also set a dangerous precedent where the government simply re-legislates every time it disagrees with a decision by the EU."

Other safeguards being brought in for emergency measures include the creation of a new Privacy and Civil Liberties Board to examine privacy law, a review of the RIPA act, the introduction of annual government transparency reports and a "sunset clause" that will cause the powers to expire in 2016.

What replaces this law once it has expired will be the worry of many civil rights groups.

The National Security Agency (NSA), set up to combat foreign and domestic intelligence threats to the US, has had its reputation turned upside down since whistleblower Edward Snowden began to leak details of its clandestine activities.

In the past year, Snowden's leaks have revealed more than 40 separate intelligence campaigns undertaken by the NSA or its UK allies at GCHQ.

Among the most infamous was the news the NSA had been infiltrating the data centres of US technology companies - including Facebook, Microsoft and Google - and snatching user data from the traffic.

Upstream and PRISM, the names of the surveillance operations that conducted those clandestine acts, caused outrage throughout the technology industry and the world. People began to wonder if their data was truly safe in the hands of the big companies and on the internet.

The ripples of that discovery can still be felt today, as companies attempt to side-step their involvement or relocate their services to assuage worried customers.

Yet those two operations were only part of myriad of projects the NSA and GCHQ have undertaken. The details of many more have been released by Snowden over the past year, some of which you might never even have heard of.

Angry Birds

Nowhere is safe from the prying eyes of government agencies, it seems, not even much-loved mobile game Angry Birds.

As soon as a player opened up the game and began their bird-slinging adventures, algorithms within the game's code relayed their age, sex and other information to intelligence agents.

This is according to documents leaked from GCHQ, which revealed how it and the NSA had been working on ways to tap into mobiles and collect data through apps. Not just Angry Birds fell foul of the surveillance program: Google Maps, Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn were also targeted.

"It effectively means that anyone using a smartphone is working in support of a GCHQ system," a secret 2008 report by the British agency said.

NoseySmurf

Also known by the names "TrackerSmurf" and "DreamySmurf", the NoseySmurf project tied into the Angry Birds scheme by tapping into mobile phones to scrape data from users.

The NSA spent over $1 billion (580 million) in its search to find more efficient tracking and piggybacking methods for infiltrating targeted devices. In one top-secret presentation, the agency describes a victim uploading an image to Facebook from their phone as a "Golden Nugget!!"

From the simple act of someone uploading a picture to a social media site, later slides say, agents could glean a victim's contacts, location, gender, age, income, ethnicity, education level and even number of children.

HappyFoot

HappyFoot was the codename for an operation designed to track internet users' movements by piggybacking onto their cookies and location data.

When a consumer visits a site cookies are enabled on their computer, allowing the site's company to tailor advertisements to them, something government snoops were keen to exploit.

Slides released by Snowden and published by the Washington Post revealed the NSA had been latching onto these cookies in order to identify possible targets for further hacking operations.

Using a unique cookie from Google called PREF, intelligence agents could pick out one person from a sea of internet data in order to focus on them specifically. The NSA slides indicated that Google complied with this action entirely after being compelled to by the US government.

Squeaky Dolphin

There's a prize for anyone who can understand the reasoning behind this codename. Squeaky Dolphin was an initiative thought up by the UK's GCHQ. It involved tapping into the cables carrying the world's web traffic in order to monitor what people are up to on social media.

Documents leaked to NBC news by Snowden revealed how British spies showed off their new invention to their US counterparts. GCHQ demonstrated how it could monitor YouTube in real time and collect addresses from the billions of videos watched every day.

Analysts demonstrated how, through a central information hub, they could determine which videos were popular in which cities and at what times, as well as what each demographic preferred to click on.

The UK spooks did mention to their allies that this program was for general trends only and not for spying on individuals, but there are as yet unconfirmed rumours GCHQ used the tech to target Twitter users with propaganda.

Gilgamesh

Unfortunately, this operation has nothing to do with the fifth king of Uruk Mesopotamia.

According both to documents released by Snowden and the testimony of a former drone operator, the NSA used telecommunications devices as targets for drone strikes.

Rather than confirming with operatives on the ground, said the whistleblower, the NSA would identify a target based on the geolocation of their phone and order an assassination.

The drone operator was adamant the technology was aiding the War on Terror but that civilians were "absolutely" being killed en masse by the strikes.

Terrorists cottoned on to the NSA's idea, though, and began to mix up their SIM cards to avoid being tracked. Commanders would switch them with footsoldiers and footsoldiers with civilians.

The NSA often located targets based on their activity levels and not on the content of the calls, resulting in, according to the former pilot "death by unreliable data."

EgotisticalGoat

EgotisticalGoat and its sister program, EgotisticalGiraffe, were designed to help facilitate attacks on people using the anonymous network Tor.

Techniques included targeting web browsers like Firefox and giving the NSA full control over a target's computer keystrokes, online activity and files.

The Tor network is relied upon by journalists, activists and campaigners around the world to maintain the secrecy of their communications and avoid reprisals from their respective governments.

The network, oddly enough, is provided with 60 per cent of its funding by the US government.

Agents operating EgotisticalGoat admitted the Tor network was too large for them to completely crack. In one top-secret presentation named "Tor Stinks" it stated "We will never be able to de-anonymize all Tor users all the time ... with manual analysis we can de-anonymize only a very small fraction of Tor users."

With more information to come from Snowden, who claims his leaks to date are just the tip of the iceberg, do we have more cause for concern over our data than ever before? Are all of these operations a gross misconduct or a necessary evil? Let us know what you think by emailing us at comments@itpro.co.uk.

Nearly 200 websites selling counterfeit merchandise online have been seized in an international swoop by Europol, the City of London Police and US law enforcers.

A total of 188 domain names were seized last week, as part of a collective clampdown dubbed "In Our Sites (IOS) Transatlantic 4".

This brings the total number of domain names seized under the project to 1349 since it began in November 2012.

The project's aim is to close down website that dupe people into unwittingly buying counterfeit goods, including headphones, sports clothing, designer shoes, toys, luxury goods and electronics.

The operation has been co-ordinated by Europol, the City of London Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) and the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations.

They were prompted to take action after being tipped-off by the copyright holders about the activities of the copyright-infringing websites.

Anyone who attempts to access the seized websites will now be greeted by a message that notifies them about unlawfulness of copyright infringement.

Rob Stirling, detective inspector of PIPCU, said City of London was pleased with its ability to help out other overseas crime-fighting bodies with tackling the online sale of counterfeit goods

"It is important that we make sure the public is aware of the risks of buying counterfeits; not only are fake goods likely to be shoddy copies of the original and potentially dangerous, but consumers are also putting their personal and financial information at risk," said Stirling.

"Consumers need to be cautious when shopping online. If you think an offer seems too good to be true, then it probably is. Do not rush and be fooled into thinking you are getting a good deal."

The Pirate Bay's co-founder Peter Sunde has been arrested in Sweden after being on the run for two years, Swedish police announced on Saturday.

Sunde, who has been wanted by interpol since 2012, will now need to serve his eight-month sentence for copyright violations.

Four men linked to The Pirate Bay were each sentenced to a year in jail and fined 32 million crowns (2.9 million), but this was later increased to 46 million Swedish crowns (4.1 million) when their prison sentences were reduced by varying amounts.

These fines were specified by Swedish film and music companies who felt The Pirate Bay founders had breached copyright by allowing their media to be distributed for free via the site.

Peter Althin, who defended Sunde during the trial, told Swedish news service TT: "He is extremely talented and I still think that the judgment was wrong...It's about being on the cutting edge if one is going to be successful... But if one is too far ahead it is not always about success. Peter fought for file-sharing and in 10 years I think it goes without saying that file-sharing for one's own needs will be allowed."

After a short time of being offline for everyone, The Pirate Bay is back up and running, although many ISPs have blocked access to the site. However, the website has released PirateBrowser, an adapted version of Mozilla Firefox that prevents ISPs from blocking the site and allows anyone to access The Pirate Bay, via peer-to-peer technology.

The news comes as a piracy crackdown intensifies in the UK. Last week, one of the world's largest torrent search and download sites, Torrentz.eu, was closed down. Meanwhile, David Cameron's intellectual property advisor put responsibility on search engines to prevent blocked sites appearing in search results.

Google will be required to remove all personal information that appears on its search engine following a landmark court loss in Europe.

The decision, by the European Court of Justice, found that search engines like Google were "controllers" of personal data, responsible for the results and information that is presented to its users. The company had argued that it simply hosts content, rather than endorsing it.

The ruling means that Google will have to respond to any and all requests to remove private information that plaintiffs consider to be harmful. Even if the Menlo Park, California-based firm refuses a request, it will be obliged to employ data protection methods if ordered to by a court.

Exemptions to the rule include persons considered prominent in the public eye, like politicians or celebrities. Due to the European Court of Justice being the highest court in Europe, Google is unable to appeal the decision.

The fallout from the decision may turn out to be far-reaching. Other search engine operators like Microsoft and Yahoo might have to significantly overhaul their search practices in Europe to avoid similar court troubles.

The case's origins lie in Spain, where a citizen asked Google to delete links related to his house's auction. Spain's highest authority held up the complaint and Google moved it to the ECJ, arguing that it was not responsible for data published legally elsewhere.

Google has to face up to a number of legal challenges across the continent over its policies on data protection.

"This is a disappointing ruling for search engines and online publishers in general," Google said in a statement.

"We are very surprised that it differs so dramatically from the advocate-general's opinion and the warnings and consequences that he spelled out. We now need to take time to analyse the implications."

US copyright agency Rightscorp wants to bring its notorious protection methods to Europe and the UK.

Working on behalf of its copyright holder clients, RightsCorp monitors popular torrent sites and tracks the IP addresses of frequent pirates. Once it has a target, it then forces the Internet Service Provider (ISP) to contact the owner of the IP address.

The letters demand the alleged pirate pay $20 (12) for each file they have illegally downloaded. If they refuse RightsCorp will then take them to court.

The agency has accrued over 60,000 court settlements so far in the US, and is looking to bring its successful strategy to European shores.

Sites like IsoHunt or The Pirate Bay are directly monitored by Rightscorp, using software that connects to a downloading user as another file-sharer. In the window of time when the peer is seeding their torrent, the monitor used by Rightscorp determines what has been downloaded and whether it infringes copyright.

Research from the University of Birmingham in 2012 has shown that it takes only around three hours for a user to be tracked by an enforcement agency, and with some adopting blackmail-esque tactics, copyright pirates should watch where they tread.

The last company to attempt something similar was Golden Eye International, which during 2012-2013 sent hundreds of settlement letters to O2 customers. Golden Eye's actions were eventually watered down and withdrawn due to a challenge by the Open Rights Group.

Regarding the tactics employed by some copyright companies, a spokesman for the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) told IT Pro: "FACT proactively protects property in television, film and media using legal matters. We prefer to target those running the illegal sites, not the end users."

Julian Heathcote Hobbins, general counsel at the Federation Against Software Theft (FAST), added that the work of teams like PIPCU has been successful against illegal sites. Tackling the source protects the user, he told IT Pro.

The IP addresses and peer-to-peer sharing information that RightsCorp gathers are by no means solid evidence in a court of law. Only if the recipient of a notice from the agency agrees to settle - an admission of guilt - will they be susceptible to punishment.

What do you think? Is all fair in love and downloads or should there be more stringent rules in place for companies that act like this?

The UK Government has launched a new fund for public sector bodies to release data for use by community projects.

Around 1.5 million will be made available for the projects and efforts will be led by the Cabinet Office and the Open Data User Group (ODUG).

The initial round of funding will be used to support projects that will release public data directly, and also those that will help boost skills in the public sector. The Government said more funding will follow later this year.

It was also announced that more than 100 training places will be available for senior public servants so they can learn about how open data can improve efficiency, bring savings and innovation, and provide wider economic benefits. The aim of the training is to help improve public data release in the future.

It is hoped the funding will help all local authorities release specific data in a consistent way. It cited as an example the Local Authority Voucher Scheme which is aimed at encouraging every local authority to release data on public conveniences, gritting and planning in the same format.

The Cabinet Office said a project such as these would help the open data community develop national products using this data which, it claimed, hasn't been consistently available or standardised before now.

Francis Maude, minister for the Cabinet Office, said: "The UK is a world leader in opening up data because we know that it creates a more accountable, efficient and effective government. Open data is a raw material for economic growth, supporting the creation of new markets, business and jobs and helping us compete in the global race. To ensure this agenda continues to thrive, we are supporting a number of projects which will drive forward this culture of openness."

Cisco and Google are to cross-license patents in an effort to halt potential future legal wrangles.

The partnership deal means each company would license the other's patents without fear of legal action. The agreement covers "a broad range of products and technologies," according to a joint statement and would help in reducing the risk of future litigation.

Both companies failed to disclose financial details around the agreement and did not say which or how many patents are involved.

"Our agreement with Cisco will reduce the potential for litigation, letting us focus instead on building great new products," said Google deputy privacy counsel for patents Allan Lo. "We're pleased to enter into this cross-license, and we welcome discussions with any company interested in a similar arrangement."

Cisco's vice president of Intellectual Property Dan Lang said: "In today's overly litigious environment, cross-licensing is an effective way for technology companies to work together and help prevent unnecessary patent lawsuits," he said. "This agreement is an important step in promoting innovation and ensuring freedom of operation."

Both companies also said the deal would put an end to "privateering" or the transfer of patents to patent assertion entities that harm consumers.

The Cisco deal follows oneGoogle made with Samsungthe previous week. Those two companies pledged to share the content of their respective patent portfolios for the next ten years.

Google is keen to see the back of patent litigation. As reported by IT Pro, thesearch giant was in court against patent owner Intellectual Venturesover a dispute that its Motorola Mobility unit (now sold to Lenovo) infringed three patents covering a variety of smartphone technologies.

Earlier this year, three HTC employees were arrested for stealing trade secrets, accused of taking design ideas to a new business venture directly in competition with the manufacturer.

US soldier Bradley Manning and CIA/NSA employee Edward Snowden have also revealed confidential information to the press, leading to Manning being imprisoned and dishonourably discharged from the military and Snowden seeking asylum in Russia to prevent imprisonment.

Although a company may not be able to act until after the information is stolen, there are ways to prevent it and limit the damage.

As such, it's more important than ever to ensure your company's confidential information is protected.

The impact data thefthas on businesses can be devastating. For example, customer databases are often stolen by employees and then usedto start up newbusinesses which are then able to compete on a level footing without having to invest any time or moneybuildingand developing a database of its own.

Wayne Beynon and Richard Stephens, IP lawyers at Capital Law, explain that many businesses are unaware of the value of their intangible assets.The lawyers said these assets may include intellectual property rights, confidential information and trade secrets such as formulas or processes, contact and customer lists, or data.

Given the value of those intangible assets, it makes sense to adopt a pro-active approach to protect them.This includes putting in place policies, procedures and contracts that prevent or deter employees from using a company's information themselves or disclosing it to third parties.

Often, businesses fail to do this in the mistaken belief that their employees will not steal or leak information outside of the business. Only upon discovering data theft or leakage has happened, is action considered necessary and by this stage of course, it is usually too late to take such action.

There are four categories of business information identified by law and each has different levels at which it can and should be protected.

Trade secrets can be protected both during and after employment by an implied duty of confidentiality, even if there is not an express covenant in an employment contract.Trade secrets may include secret processes of manufacture such as chemical formula, designs or special methods of construction. This is what the HTC employees were arrested for not complying with.

Confidential information is information that a company tells an employee is confidential or it is obvious that it is confidential. Employees must not use or disclose this while their employment continues and must do so in the best interests of the company.After termination they are not bound by this obligation unless they are contractual obliged to do so under confidentiality undertakings in their employment contract. An employer can ensure an employee adheres to this by ensuring confidential information is protected in either their starting contract or leaving contract.

Although Manning and Snowden weren't involved with leaking trade secrets, the information they did reveal was confidential information.

Information that amounts to skill and knowledge of the employee refers to information that belongs to the employee and as such, it can be used as the employee wishes this means it can be transferred to a new company if the employee so wishes.

The final type of information a company can hold is public information that cannot be protected because it is already available in the open arena.

"The easewith which employees can access, use and discloseconfidential information will often depend on the security measures, policies and procedures that a company has in place," said the lawyers.

"If information of a sensitive and commercial nature is readily accessible andemployees it is all too easy for them to copy that information onto a memory stick, email it to a personal email address or simply print hard copies at the office," they explained.

Bob Tarzey, service director at analyst firm Quocirca, agrees that trade secrets are simple to steal'.

"It is easy enough [to steal trade secrets]but if someone wants to steal their employees equivalent of the 'recipe for coke,' a printed sheet slipped in book is easier enough or just memorise it," he says.

"The point often overlooked is that trade secrets are often not that useful when you turn up at the next employer, if it was shown that a competitor had benefited from using stolen secrets it would damage their reputation or they may fall foul of an industry regulation, for example Formula 1 bans teams that are shown to have stolen secrets bought to them be engineers swapping teams."

If an employee does steal trade secrets, an employer can sue them under breach of contract, presuming the contract is clear on this in the first place.

Although much of the protection comes via employee contracts, there are things an IT department can do to ensure confidential information stays confidential and never leaks or is taken with employees to their next job.

Tarzey adds: "What IT departments can more effectively do is prevent the accidental, unintentional leaking of confidential info through the use of data loss prevention techniques, but if an employee is determined to steal stuff they have legitimate access to, it is hard to prevent."

Capital Law advises businesses to take the issue seriously and follow a number of steps to ensure their information is suitably protected.

After an employee has joined a company and their contract is water-tight, a company can limit the circulation of any key information within the workplace, marking sensitive information as confidential' and even by using different coloured paper for confidential documents.

From a tech point of view, an IT department can use password protection on digital files or in locked cabinets, implement monitoring within the workplace together with behavioural monitoring (and a suitable policy) and ensure that there is a proper reporting procedure within the workplace if an employee suspects information has been stolen.

Although no plan is full-proof, ensuring a company is protected from day one and a plan can be put in place if information leaks or trade secrets are stolen, the process can be completed in a more efficient manner, saving time and money.

The House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee has heavily criticised internet giant Google's efforts to combat piracy, describing them as "inadequate" and "derisorily ineffective".

The condemnation of Google's attitude to preventing the infringement of intellectual property rights online is delivered as part of the committee's Supporting the Creative Economy report. This examines intellectual property rights in the UK, as well as the Olympic and Paralympic legacy, and creative hubs, among other areas.

In the report, the committee said: "Google cannot claim ignorance over the scale of illegal activity on the internet. At present, the BPI alone sends Google well in excess of 2 million notices per month relating to individual pages on sites which encourage and promote large scale copyright infringement."

The committee said Google was "notable among technology companies" in its failure to adequately respond to requests from the creative industries to prevent Google search results from directing consumers to copyright-infringing websites.

Referring to the search industry as a whole, the report said: "We are unimpressed by their evident reluctance to block infringing websites on the flimsy grounds that some operate under the cover of hosting some legal content. The continuing promotion by search engines of illegal content on the internet is unacceptable. So far, their attempts to remedy this have been derisorily ineffective."

The committee added it did "not believe it to be beyond the wit of the engineers employed by Google and others to demote and, ideally, remove copyright infringing material from search engine results ... [in the same way they] block child pornographic content from search results," adding the company had provided "no coherent reason" it could not do this.

It was also suggested, during the evidence gathering hearings for the report, that Google has significant influence in the halls of power.

Viscount Younger of Leckie, the intellectual property minister, told the committee: "I am very aware of [Google's] power, put it that way. I am also very aware, I think, that they have access, for whatever reason, to higher levels than me in No. 10, I understand."

However, Google strongly rejected the committee's criticism.

In a statement to IT Pro, a Google spokesperson said: "We removed more than 20 million links to pirated content from our search results in the last month alone. But search is not the problem - according to Ofcom just eight per cent of infringers in the UK use Google to find unlicensed film and 13 per cent to find unlicensed music.

"Google works harder than anyone to help the film and music industry protect their content online," the statement concluded.

BlackBerry's patent portfolio is estimated to be worth between $2 - $3 billion, but a bidding war between technology giants could generate even more cash.

The Canadian smartphone maker has 5,236 active US patents and 3,730 active applications relating to wireless communications. After struggling to bounce back with its BlackBerry 10 operating system, the firm is considering licensing out its technology as well as mulling over a potential sale of assets.

Chris Marlett, CEO of MDB Capital Group, an IP-focused investment bank estimated that BlackBerry's patents are worth up to $3 billion to a sole purchaser. However, they have the potential to generate as much as $5 billion if a bidding war is triggered.

"If (there's) a bidding war, I think the number can go as high as $4 billion to $5 billion," Marlett told AllThingsD.

"This is probably the last big and current [wireless] portfolio available. I don't expect any other wireless-focused portfolio this big will come up for sale again anytime soon, so there will be intense interest in this portfolio."

Nortel was the last major firm to sell off patents in 2011. The firm ended up auctioning off 4,000 patents to the Rockstar Bidco consortium, which was made up of Apple, BlackBerry, EMC, Ericsson, Microsoft and Sony. The sale generated $4.5 billion, which is close to the figure Marlett is estimating for BlackBerry's IP.

If BlackBerry does put itself up for sale, potential buyers include the usual suspects - Apple, Google and Samsung. These firms all dominate the mobile market and are always looking for ways to boost their wireless communication portfolios.

Microsoft and Lenovo have also been tipped to make a move for the patents.

According to Marlett, Microsoft would be interested because BlackBerry has traditionally been strong in the enterprise.

"Someone like Microsoft could justify paying $4 billion to $5 billion for the business, and $4 billion to $5 billion for the IP, which would yield an $8 billion to $10 billion purchase price," he said.

However, given that Microsoft is pushing its own Windows Phone platform and already has close ties with Nokia, an outright purchase may be a longshot.

Lenovo, which is now the world's largest PC maker, is also touted as a potential buyer. The firm reported that sales of tablets and smartphones had overtaken PCs for the first time in Q1, and it is looking to invest in the mobile market.

The Chinese firm was linked with potential partnership with BlackBerry in January. After the news that BlackBerry could put itself up for sale, Lenovo CEO Yang Yuanqing was questioned about whether the PC maker would be interested.

"I cannot comment on any specific target or deal. We believe that the PC industry and the mobile phone industry will continue to consolidate. So Lenovo is definitely in a good position to become an important player," Yaunqing told the Wall Street Journal.

"If a target or deal is consistent with Lenovo's strategy, we would take the opportunity."

However, not everyone is convinced BlackBerry's assets will generate interest. Francisco Jeronimo, research director for wireless and mobile communications at analyst firm IDC, remains unconvinced that tech companies will be clambering over each other to buy BlackBerry.

"Will anyone be interested in BlackBerry when they've probably unsuccessfully explored that option? BlackBerry's statement shows lack of interest in the company. If there was any they would be announcing a partnership/acquisition not a sale," he said.

"Remember what Nokia did? Secretly negotiated a strategic option with Microsoft & publicly announced a partnership. BlackBerry did the opposite."

GCHQ has announced it is putting in place two incident response operations that could protect critical national infrastructure from hackers.

CESG, the Information Security arm of GCHQ, and the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI), has been running pilot programmes of the initiatives since November 2012.

Following the success of the pilots, it was decided that a twin-track approach was needed to protect infrastructure critical to the UK as well as defending public and private sector organisations.

The first scheme is 'broad-based' and will be led by the Council of Registered Ethical Security Testers (CREST), the professional body representing the technical security industry. Endorsed by GCHQ and CPNI, it will focus on "appropriate standards for incident response aligned to demand from all sectors of industry, the wider public sector and academia."

The second scheme is a smaller and more focused Government run Cyber Incident Response scheme certified by GCHQ and CPNI responding to sophisticated, targeted attacks against critical national networks.

GCHQ said that the approach would help organisations under cyber attack to "source an appropriate incident response service tailored to their particular needs and allow GCHQ and CPNI to focus on the most challenging attacks."

"We know that UK organisations are confronted with cyber threats that are growing in number and sophistication," said cyber security minister Chloe Smith.

"The best defence for organisations is to have processes and measures in place to prevent attacks getting through, but we also have to recognise that there will be times when attacks do penetrate our systems and organisations want to know who they can reliably turn to for help."

Industry figures have given their support to the scheme. Rob Cotton, chief executive of NCC Group said that this was a "a great example of government and industry working together to help improve standards of cyber security for businesses across the board."

"Having clear channels of help and support in place when the worst does happen will provide organisations with a massive boost, and also remove the confusion and panic in the immediate aftermath of a breach."

Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom has had a setback in his piracy case after the Court of Appeal in New Zealand ruled the US authorities do not have to hand over evidence against him.

The Court of Appeal overturned a ruling that the FBI should disclose all its evidence to Dotcom ahead of his extradition trial in August.

The US government had a duty of "candor and good faith" in making an extradition bid, the Court of Appeal said, before ruling the authrorities only have to hand over a summary of the evidence they have.

"It is for the requesting state to decide what information it wishes to put before the requested state in support of its request," Reuters reported the court as saying.

Dotcom expressed his disappointment at the decision on Twitter, and claimed his legal team would take the fight to the Supreme Court.

"Am I disappointed about the ruling today? YES. Do 'good faith' & 'US govt' go together? NO. Will I sleep like an innocent baby tonight? YES," he told his 290,000 followers.

"The fight goes on. Next is the Supreme Court of New Zealand."

Dotcom founded the popular Megaupload file-sharing site which allowed users to share any files they wanted. The site raked in $175 million from 2005 until it was shutdown in January 2012 by the FBI.

The US government has accussed Dotcom of illegally copying and distributing copyrighted content - in particular films and music. Authorities are trying to extradite him from New Zealand to the US on charges of piracy, fraud and money laundering.

It remains to be seen whether the US authorities will be successful. The initial raid on Dotcom's property was bungled as courts have ruled the search warrants used were illegal.

A New Zealand government agency was also found to have illegally spied on him, and Dotcom could be entitled to damages.

The extradition hearing for Dotcom and the other three defendants is scheduled to be held in August.

ISPs have been ordered to block more torrent websites following a ruling from court ruling

Virgin Media, BT, BSkyB and other UK ISPs have been told that they must block access to three file sharing websites: Kickass Torrents, H33t and Fenopy.

In a written ruling, Judge Richard Arnold said that users and operators of the torrent websites had infringed on the copyrights of ten music companies "on an industrial scale".

Music and film industry groups welcomed the news.

"The growth of digital music in the U.K. is held back by a raft of illegal businesses commercially exploiting music online without permission," said Geoff Taylor, chief executive officer of the British Recorded Music Industry group BPI. "Blocking illegal sites helps ensure that the legal digital market can grow."

One of the ISPs that will have to block access, Virgin Media, said in a statement that it "supports the clear, legal framework put in place to protect against copyright infringement and we continue to comply with court orders specifically addressed to the company."

But critics of the tactics deployed by the music and movie industry said that blocking access wouldn't solve the problem of piracy.

"The British music industry has nothing positive to show from their site blocks and personal legal threats. Looking at sales figures from 2012, you can't draw the conclusion that stopping access to the Pirate Bay did anything to help artists," said UK Pirate Party leader Loz Kaye.

"Even so, the industry is insisting on pushing for ever greater blocks, just as we in the Pirate Party have been warning."

Kaye said that this latest move meant that the UK has now "handed the power over what we see on the Internet to corporate lobbyists."

Jim Killock, Executive Director of the Open Rights Group said that blocking was "an extreme response", which will encourage new forms of distributed infringement.

"The BPI and others should be mindful that their tactics may have the opposite effect to their intention, by legitimising and promoting resistance to their actions," he said.

"We are concerned that these orders are not protecting speech, are overblocking forums and discussion, and are prone to error as the actual block lists are private."

Five of the major ISPs in the US have begun a 'Six Strikes' policy against users they deem have committed copyright infringement.

The system is the brainchild of the Center for Copyright Information (CCI). This umbrella organisation comprises of five of the US's biggest ISPs - AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon as well as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

The system works by serving suspected copyright infringers warnings. After six such warnings, ISPs will limit but not cut off a suspect's internet access.

"Our content partners will begin sending notices of alleged peer-to-peer copyright infringement to ISPs, and the ISPs will begin forwarding those notices in the form of copyright alerts to consumers," CCI's executive director Jill Lesser said in a blog post.

"Most consumers will never receive alerts under the program. Consumers whose accounts have been used to share copyrighted content over P2P networks illegally (or without authority) will receive alerts that are meant to educate rather than punish, and direct them to legal alternatives," she added.

However, civil rights groups have branded the scheme tantamount to ISPs acting as "judge, jury and executioner".

"These mega-corporations now claim the authority to undermine your Internet access - and want to serve as judge, jury, and executioner," said activist organisation Demand Progress. "Tell them to back off - or that you'll start looking for other places to bring your business."

Other organisations have raised concerns about the scheme. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said such a scheme would undermine the open Wi-Fi movement, " even though open wireless is widely recognized to be tremendously beneficial to the public."

It said an independent body should be in charge of vetting the process.

In the UK, Ofcom's draft code would see users with three strikes within 12 months have anonymous information collected about the which would then be sent to copyright holders. These holders could then seek a court order to find out the identities of the suspected infringer.

The policy had been due to come into force March next year, but was delayed by a House of Lords committee that questioned whether the code, as part of the Digital Economy Act, compiled with Treasury rules.

Businesses need to take greater action to prevent data leakage and theft by employees, according to research carried out by security firm Symantec.

Almost two-thirds (62 per cent) of employees believe it acceptable to transfer work documents to personal devices or cloud-based file sharing services, the survey of 3,000-plus people found.

Furthermore, the majority never delete the data they have moved, because they see no harm in keeping it.

Of those who had left or lost their jobs in the last 12 months, 50 per cent admitted to taking confidential corporate data with them, with 40 per cent saying they planned to use it in their new job.

Employees not only think it is acceptable to take and use IP when they leave a company, they also believe their employers do not care, according to Symantec's findings.

Just 47 per cent of respondents indicated their organisation takes action when employees break the rules surrounding the movement of sensitive information. Some 51 per cent said their company does not strictly enforce policies, so feel it more than OK to take corporate data.

Symantec's research also found that only 38 per cent of employees said their manager views data protection as a business priority, while 44 per cent thought ownership of IP rests with the person who created it.

Lawrence Bruhmuller, vice president of engineering and product management at Symantec, chastised businesses for their lax attitudes.

"Companies cannot focus their defences solely on external attackers and malicious insiders who plan to sell stolen IP for monetary gain. The everyday employee, who takes confidential corporate data without a second thought because he does not understand it is wrong, can be just as damaging to an organisation," he said.

Dave Brutt, founder of Mobility Legal, urged companies to take action before it is too late.

"When it comes to trade secret theft ... an ounce of prevention is usually worth 10 pounds of cure," he said.

"Before employees exit, dust off agreements they likely have not looked at in years, figure out all of the places the employee has stored sensitive company information and get it back, and ensure that employees understand their continuing obligations not to use or disclose company trade secrets," Brutt added.

Over the last few years, suing rivals appears to have become a lucrative sideline for some IT companies.

The list of companies turning to the courts to enforce their intellectual property rights is an illustrious one: Apple, Samsung, Oracle, Microsoft, Google and Nokia are just some of the firms that have recently been involved in high-profile legal cases.

Of course, intellectual property law is complex, and sometimes, companies cannot resolve disputes amicably, or through conventional licensing channels.

In the consumer electronics and telecoms arena, modern products are so complex that there is always the risk that someone's patent, somewhere, will be breached accidentally.

And the idea that "fundamental patents" have to be licensed on a fair and non-discriminatory basis to all comers (known as FRAND to the lawyers) does not always mean all the parties will agree what fair is especially when the sums involved run into the millions.

But news that Oracle and SAP have finally settled their IP theft case could be evidence that the IT industry, at least, is willing to move on.

The SAP-Oracle case was a complex one, turning on whether staff at a company that SAP bought TomorrowNow had knowingly stolen IP from Oracle, and what damages its new parent, SAP, should pay as a result.

The case has been going on for more than five years now, and is one of the longest-running stories IT Pro has covered. So the agreement between the two parties to settle the case, with SAP paying $306 million (195 million) to Oracle in settlement, is a milestone for both companies. In addition to the damages, SAP will also pick up the bill for Oracle's legal costs.

The damages fall far short of the original sum ($1.3 billion) demanded by Oracle, and although the payment will still hurt SAP's profits, it is not a critical blow. And the fact that the parties are willing to settle, rather than go to court again, should be good news for CIOs.

After all, the main losers in these cases is often the consumer whether it is the individual who cannot buy the tablet or phone of his or her choice, or whether it is a CIO who is worried about injunctions blocking access to their preferred software or, in extreme cases, putting a supplier out of business.

Sometimes the greatest concern about IP and patent disputes is the uncertainty it creates, including whether products will continue to be developed or sold, or indeed whether they will have to be re-engineered to remove technology based on the offending patents.

But if such big names as Oracle and SAP can kiss and make up, then that will be a relief for enterprise software buyers everywhere.

Stephen Pritchard is a contributing editor at IT Pro

Amazon.com is planning to hire a slew of intellectual property experts to help it push into patent acquisition and licensing.

Amazon has hired executive recruiting firm Argos Search to help the company hire an intellectual property "Acquisition and Investment Leader" to "identify and evaluate strategic IP acquisition and licensing opportunities," according to a job description obtained this week by Reuters.

The candidate will work closely with all Amazon's technology teams and leaders on future product development, according to the description.

"At Amazon we are rapidly growing in many new and exciting technology areas," the company said in the job posting. "To support and protect our expansion we are seeking an executive to work with our business teams to identify and procure intellectual property."

An Amazon spokeswoman did not respond to an email seeking comment. Thomas Wedewer, an Argos executive recruiter working on the project, declined to comment.

The search suggests Amazon is trying to amass more patents, either through acquisitions of patent-rich companies, purchases of patent portfolios or licensing, according to intellectual property experts.

They are following Apple by delivering digital media to their own hardware.

It is also a sign that the world's largest internet retailer is serious about being a long-term player in mobile devices and digital content, they say.

Amazon is known for developing its own patents, but mostly in the e-commerce area. An expansion into mobile devices and the delivery of digital content to those devices will require a lot of different patents, intellectual property experts say.

"As they get into wireless devices and digital media, they realize the best way to handle this is to get more proactive in IP," said David Pridham of IPNav, which helps companies make money from their patents.

"They are following Apple by delivering digital media to their own hardware devices," he added. "That's the type of technology they want to build an IP fence around."

Buying or licensing intellectual property in these areas will help Amazon protect itself against potential lawsuits alleging it infringes other companies' patents, Pridham said.

"The time for Amazon to go after an IP portfolio is not when they are sued. They want to get the IP ahead of time," he said.

Amazon can also use such patents as a currency for joint ventures and partnerships, according to Vincent Pluvinage, managing partner of Invention Capital Partners.

"Amazon competes with Apple in certain areas and Google in others," Pluvinage said. "It's becoming obvious that building a portfolio is very important both financially and strategically."

Looking outside

Apple accumulated a lot of patents last year when it was part of a group of tech companies that paid $4.5 billion for patent assets from Nortel Networks.

Google agreed to buy Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion last year, partly to use Motorola's patents to fend off legal attacks on its Android mobile platform.

Technology giants are now lining up to bid on a portfolio of patents being sold by Eastman Kodak.

Amazon has already hired three patent experts this year.

Kelly Jo MacArthur, a former general counsel of RealNetworks, became vice president IP Acquisitions and Investments at Amazon in January, according to her LinkedIn profile.

Bill Way, who was also general counsel at RealNetworks, joined Amazon in April, according to his LinkedIn profile.

RealNetworks, known for its RealPlayer online media software, also owns Helix, a technology for delivering digital music and video to PCs, mobile phones and other devices.

Matt Gordon became a general manager of Patent Acquisitions and Investments at Amazon in May, according to LinkedIn. Gordon came from Intellectual Ventures, one of the largest owners of patents run by former Microsoft Corp executive Nathan Myhrvold.

"Buying patents takes a unique skill set. Hiring someone like Matt is a very positive move," said Grant Moss, chief executive of patent broker Adapt IP Ventures.

Moss said he speaks frequently with Gordon, who declined to comment.

"These hires show that the decision-makers at Amazon are thinking about patent acquisitions now," Moss added. "Amazon has filed quite a few of its own patents, but at some point you have to look outside for other people's patents."

Amazon licensed patents from Acacia Research Corp around the end of 2011, according to Acacia Chief Executive Paul Ryan.

The patents cover technology that includes functionality for tablet computers and smartphones, Ryan said.

Acacia obtained the rights to license the patents from a Japanese company called Access Co, which owns PalmSource. PalmSource developed the Palm operating system that ran on the Treo and other early mobile devices.

"This is related to their foray into tablets," Ryan said. "Initially they were a pretty straightforward online retailer, but they are now getting into more sophisticated areas and need more IP for that."

After the Kindle Fire tablet came out in September 2011, Acacia's licensing executives contacted Amazon about the patents, according to Ryan.

"Amazon was very responsive," Ryan said. "They are pretty sophisticated around emerging IP impacting new initiatives they have."

The UK government has solidified plans to create an Open Data Institute (ODI) that will support start-ups and small businesses using publicly available datasets.

We are at the very beginning of the journey. We have an incorporated company, a promise of funds and a huge challenge.

In addition to helping those in need, the institute - co-directed by Professor Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Professor Nigel Shadbolt - aims to have a positive effect on economic growth too. It will be based in the new Tech City UK in London's Shoreditch.

First announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in November last year and developed with help from the government's innovation agency, the Technology Strategy Board, the government has committed up to 10 million over five years to support the ODI. It is hoped this will be a precursor to matched funding from the private sector.

The government plans to involve businesses, the public sector and academic institutions with the ODI and also hopes that it will serve to support greater cooperation, integration and bridge building between them as well as the ability to better exploit economic opportunities around open data.

The ODI will also host hackathons' to support specific data wrangling' activities, work on newly released data sets, or the data of a specific organisation.

It will also look into developing and supporting new use cases and business cases for open data as well as undertaking engagements to demonstrate the way in which a particular business can identify open data to enhance its own processes, products and services.

"We are at the very beginning of the journey. We have an incorporated company, a promise of funds and a huge challenge. We are as yet only three people - but over the course of the next four months we will recruit great staff, procure exciting premises and launch an ambitious programme of work. We are publishing our implementation plan that sets out initial priorities along with a more detailed business plan that details our programme of work and the projected costs," the ODI said on its website this week.

"We will be a place that develops the very best UK talents in open data. A focal point where current and future entrepreneurs and developers, technologists and creatives meet, share ideas, make things happen and drive growth."

Also announced was the ODI's Jump Start scheme for UK students. The ODI will provide technical and business support for ultra early start-ups that have significant open data potential and offer them an opportunity to develop their business ideas with the support of the ODI for up to a year.

The ODI aims to be open by September of this year.

It seems a long time ago now that Lord Carter Of Barnes published his contentious and divisive report on the future of digital Britain. The original document came out in 2009, after a long consultation, and as a result of that, the Digital Economy Act was born.

It was first formally announced at the 2009's Queen's Speech, before going before Parliament in 2010. As of June 2010, it found its way onto the statute books, caught between the old Labour government and the current coalition administration. Yet, for all intents and purposes, it's now the law of the land.

With each passing year, it runs the danger of being less relevant, and raises fears that it may never be fully activated in law.

Or is it? While many parts of the Act are seemingly in force, one of the major controversial areas still isn't. Specifically, the loudly-championed anti-piracy measures. This is the part of the bill that copyright owners had lobbied and campaigned for for, citing it as imperative to help protect their work. It's the part, too, that includes the equally loudly-criticised three strikes policy. But it's the part that also continues to attract problems.

Striking

In short, the three strikes policy, which for many is at the heart of the act, is in a bit of trouble. This is the part of the legislation that aims to deter persistent copyright infringers and illegal downloaders. As such, after a couple of warnings (starting off gently, and then getting sterner), ISPs would hold the power to disconnect continual offenders, and, in fact, would be bound by law to do so. Internet service providers didn't warm to this idea at all, arguing that it was making them a police force for the internet, something they were ill-equipped and ill-funded to do. Thus, two of them took it to a judicial review, which was ruled on in March.

As a result, therefore, of the court's ruling, the decision has been made to delay the implementation of this specific part of the act until 2014. Last month, in the aftermath of the judicial review, the plan was for letters to start going out from ISPs in 2013. And so another year ticks by.

Threat

The delay to 2014 has inevitably led to suggestions that the work of the Act is under some threat. After all, this is going to be a particularly unpopular piece of legislation in some quarters when it actually starts to bite, and as such, that it bares its teeth so close to a general election is one inevitable concern.

The more prominent one, though, is just how relevant the act remains. It's extremely rare to find an act of this ilk that was passed in 2010, yet not enacted for four years, and there's no guarantee that there won't be a further delay either. Given that the path to get this far has been a tricky one, with objections at every turn, it's perhaps unsurprising that the legislation hasn't been straightforward. It arguably didn't help that it was introduced in such a hurry, with a very limited amount of Parliamentary time dedicated to it, before being rubber-stamped into law. The haste of the process inevitably has left problems behind.

With each delay, though, and there's no guarantee that the letters to end users will start going out in 2014, there are bigger questions relating to just what's going to be left at the end of all of this.

The Pirate ban

Ironically, this continues to bubble at a point where ISPs are being directed to block access to The Pirate Bay in the UK. The High Court ordered UK ISPs to prevent access to the site, and all are expected to comply. However, just tracking the history of The Pirate Bay case, and it's as far back as April 2009 that four of the people behind the site were convicted. Three years later, the site is as popular as ever, and the legal process rumbles on.

That gives a hint at what potentially lies next for the Digital Economy Act. After all, if it's taken this long to put the legislation together, and if it's going to take another two years to enact it fully, then imagine the next stage. Sooner or later, somebody is going to be disconnected from the Internet, and sooner or later, an appeal against that is going to be heard in a court of law. If that doesn't go to plan

The bottom line appears to be that an Act that was already proving difficult to enforce in full is losing just a little of its bite, at best. It may be another temporary delay, but the problem remains that with each passing year, it runs the danger of being less relevant, and raises fears that it may never be fully activated in law.

If the delays go on too much longer, Lord Carter might have to write another report...

A group of intellectual property (IP) experts gathered at Microsoft's office in Brussels last week to discuss how to change the way Europeans think about IP.

They included inventor Trevor Baylis (pictured above), Philippe Lacoste of the fashion and sports ware brand, MEPs and members of the software giant's legal team.

But this was not the usual gathering of record companies and music studios, set to co-ordinate their fire on the torrent sites or the Pirate Bay. In fact, the music and movie industries were mentioned only in passing and there was no impassioned debate about the pros and cons of ACTA.

Ideas Matter, as the group calls itself, has a wider remit than anti-piracy. Instead, it is setting out to promote the value of intellectual property, and the economic wealth that is so closely tied to both its creation and its protection. Around a third of the US economy depends on IP, and the EU wants to catch up.

Digital piracy is, of course, an issue. Microsoft is not often portrayed as a victim, but its Windows and Office products are among the most pirated software applications in the world. But it is not just about stopping someone duplicating Office DVDs by the container-load. It is, as the company's associate general counsel Ronald Zink says, as much about protecting the small ideas, and the small inventors.

There are practical hurdles. Europe lacks a single, coherent intellectual property framework, often forcing inventors and brand owners to register trademarks and patents several times over.

The costs are high. As Trevor Baylis explains, protecting a patent can cost upwards of 50,000. "But then someone comes along and steals your idea, and the lawyers want another 100,000 to fight it," he says. Individual inventors and SMEs can scarcely afford those fees.

Part of the answer lies in raising awareness, so that inventors know when to start the patent application process, and what they can say in public about their ideas. The EU is working to make the process easier, and to boost the amount of advice on offer, especially to smaller firms.

And, although the internet is a great help to companies when it comes to product development, fundraising, manufacturing and distribution, it also makes it much easier for people to copy ideas. SMBs, in particular, often lack the IT security measures needed to protect designs and blueprints, for example.

Europe lacks a coherent intellectual property framework, often forcing brand owners to register trademarks and patents several times

Physical copying is also an issue. Ripping CDs to MP3s is one thing, but, as Philippe Lacoste warns, there are entire factories set up to make counterfeit physical goods. These can look convincing, even if they rarely match the quality of the original.

One way of clamping down on the problem, he suggests, is to go after online merchants, and payment gateways, to identify the fakers. But, this would require much better international co-operation, which will take time.

Although Ideas Matter is not specifically a campaign for the IT industry, in many ways IT is central to the task of protecting IP. Legal protection, either through the courts or organisations such as the World Intellectual Property Organisation, can do so much to protect companies, if they fail to safeguard their own data and IP from loss or theft.

Lawyers for Google and Oracle have delivered closing arguments and the jury has been asked to decide whether the web giant is guilty of copyright infringement, before moving on to hear evidence about patent infringement.

Oracle claimed that the Android mobile platform violated its patents and copyright to Java, and is seeking roughly $1 billion in copyright damages.

Sun's leadership had supported Android, and Oracle decided against pursuing a smartphone of its own.

In court on Monday, Oracle attorney Michael Jacobs said the parts of Java software that Google copied took much creative talent to compose.

"It's kind of like creating a symphony," Jacobs said during his closing argument.

But Google attorney Robert Van Nest said Sun's leadership had supported Android, and Oracle decided against pursuing a smartphone of its own.

"It isn't until after they failed that they brought this lawsuit here," Van Nest said.

US District Judge William Alsup must also decide some of the copyright issues.

Oracle paid about $7.4 billion to buy Sun Microsystems, acquiring Java, the programming which is incorporated in Android smartphone technology, in the takeover.

The trial, which began earlier this month, is expected to last eight weeks.

The case in US District Court, Northern District of California, is Oracle America, Inc v. Google Inc, 10-3561.