Rev2.org

Of all the big tech companies out there, it seems that Microsoft finds itself in court more often than any of the others.  They’ve been in patent battles with a company called i4i for several years, ever since Word and other Office apps started supporting XML.

The patent suit is over the algorithms that Microsoft uses to convert and save .xml, .docx, and .docm files.  i4i is a database design company that holds a patent on a specific set of algorithms they created in 2000 to convert USPTO database (Office) files to XML formats.  Judging by the court battles, it appears that the Seattle Giant blatantly ripped them off.

The new court ruling means that Microsoft has four options: don’t ship Office as of January 11, hurriedly remove the XML support from MS Office to continue sales in 2010, hurry up and pay off i4i so they can keep shipping Office, or attempt to get the case heard in the Supreme Court.

None of these are winning options for Microsoft.  At least they don’t have to recall a bunch of past editions of their product and those of us who decided to tell MS and their high-dollar (crappy) software to shove off while we use OpenOffice will be totally unaffected, according to Engadget.

According to an official press statement from Microsoft, they expected to lose and have taken steps to use option #2: remove support from shipping copies.  They also claim that the 2010 Office Suite (in beta now) do not contain the infringing code.  I’m sure i4i would prefer to be the final judge of that.

The patent is actually from 1994 and, according to eWeek, Microsoft has applied for a patent with similar technology that could be their replacement plan.  Regardless, it may be that i4i is now $290 million richer.  Minus lawyer fees, of course.

Both CBS and Walt Disney are talking with Apple about a plan to offer television subscriptions over the Internet and possibly on set tops as well.  According to the Wall Street Journal, Apple is pushing to complete these licensing deals so they can launch Apple TV in 2010.  ABC (being part of the Walt Disney Co) may be interested too.

Up to now, television online has been only a pipe dream with services like Hulu, YouTube, and others being the only way to get television shows (and then only ad hoc) on your computer.  Some networks have streaming TV through their websites and most networks now have dedicated Internet-only shows as well.

According to the New York Times, this deal could potentially destabilize the television business, which relies on cable subscriptions to bundled channels.  With Disney already selling individual shows through iTunes and with Apple’s Steve Jobs being on their Board of Directors, it’s not surprising they’re interested.

Of course, the obvious question is whether people will pay for something that they (sort of) already get free.  Another question is whether America’s households are willing to pay more for Internet in order to get free TV.  After all, most homes receive their high speed Internet via cable, which usually comes from the same cable company they’re getting their television from.  Most of those are in bundles and if you subtract the TV from the bundle, the ‘Net access costs more.  It’s a valid question.

In the end, it will likely be some years before Apple would be able to offer services to rival what most cable companies are already offering.  But with the Apple TV device in the offing and the strong iTunes service, it may be possible.  It’s possible that the shakeup Jobs and Co were able to make in the music industry may be done to the cable networks as well.  TV may not be the same.

The big news on Friday was that Google and Yelp had nearly cinched negotiations for a buyout with Google acquiring the social consumer site, for a sum rumored to be over $500 million.  Well, that deal is off according to breaking news today at TechCrunch.

The deal looked like a win-win for everyone.  Except maybe the loyal fan base at Yelp. Yelp’s investors and shareholders would have stood to gain a huge return on their investment while Google would have gained a vital niche for their local content strategy.  Google seems desperate to fill this niche, which is one of it’s biggest weaknesses and where the search giant seems to be unable to gain any market share.

Google has thus far proven incapable of running either local content portals or social networking portals.  Users of Yelp are big on socializing and are very vocal about things they do and don’t like.  They didn’t like Google or this deal.  This was made clear on CNET where a special Q&A section was put up just to discuss this. The question is, really, what made the deal break?  TechCrunch says that Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppleman walked away from the deal.  While that might be likely, it doesn’t answer the motivation for doing so nor does it cover what he’s telling investors and who gave him permission to do so. Two things immediately come to mind: an IPO or another investor. Yelp has been ripe to go into an initial public offering for some time.  An IPO would definitely raise the bar for the company and probably would result in a huge amount of cash.  The thing is, that’s speculative cash, not real money and so it’s questionable that this is really what killed the deal.  There is no guarantee that a Yelp IPO would generate over half a billion dollars in any amount of time. So the next question is whether there was another investor stepping in or not.

This may be a buyout or a really strong partnership to help push Yelp to the next level.  In this case, it could be a combination of a strategic partnership leading to a stronger IPO. Who would have not only the money, but the interest in nixing a Google-Yelp deal?  Microsoft assuredly. But until someone officially makes an announcement, it’s not likely it will be known how all of this played out over the weekend.

It’s been known for months that Google was interested in and negotiating with Yelp, the consumer search and rating site, for a buyout. The New York Times confirms the story today, stating that the purchase negotiations are underway and the price may be $500 or more.

Yelp is on more serious footing than ever before, having brought in $31 million in venture capital and reportedly looking at revenue almost matching at $30 this year. Yelp dominates the local business listings and reviews. It was founded by Jeremy Stoppelman and Russel Simmons of PayPal fame in 2004.

TechCrunch reports that Yelp has at least 9 million verified monthly unique visitors while Yelp says the number is closer to 25 million. Yelp also expects income in 2010 to be around $50 million and the site currently boasts about 8.5 million local reviews.

With the recent push by Google to incorporate Yelp-like services on their own search results (called Place Pages), catering to local businesses, the acquisition seems like an obvious step for Google.

Interestingly, Gigaom (Om Malik) is saying that Yelp would be fools to bypass this buyout as their time in the local business space is limited. He cites the emergence of Twitter and Foursquare as the long-term death knell for the local business search site. That’s an interesting observation, though probably a little over stated.

With the buyout being reported as “80% probable” and with Google likely willing to pay even more should another buyer come forward to try to cut in (Google recently paid a reported $750 million for AdMob), I think the selling of Yelp is imminent.

Now the question is: will Google integrate this with their pilot program for Place Pages in which they distributed about ten thousand QR code window stickers so visitors to businesses could look the business up on Google Maps/Place Pages quickly? Or will this be the beginning of an entirely new local search offer from the Silicon Search Giant?

That’s hard to say, but Google is clearly seeing that the direction of search is no longer “more is better” and that discerning Web browsers are looking for relevant, localized information.

When Facebook changed its privacy system, we were pretty positive about the updates as we covered them.  Now, however, it’s being reported that some of the suggestions by Facebook itself for keeping private those things which are now permanently public seem to be violating Facebook’s own Terms of Service.  It could also be a sneaky move towards their future monetizing plans.

In line with new deals penned with search giants Google and Bing, Facebook’s new policies are meant to open up more information for services like Google’s new Live Search, which brings up near-real-time information as it’s happening – currently mostly from Twitter.

As the Wall Street Journal reports, however, about half of Facebook’s users have so far rejected putting their information out in the open.  Facebook’s Barry Schnitt says that the information being forced into public, such as profile pics (or avatars), gender, city/state, etc., can be avoided if users wish by just lying when filling out the information.

The problem is, this is a clear violation of Facebook’s latest Terms of Service agreement that all users must agree to in order to use Facebook and violation of which gives Facebook the ability to block or close your account:

You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.

Other questions arise as well, making O’Reilly question the entire Facebook brand, as Mark Sigal wonders why the new privacy push is such a big deal for Facebook and why they would do it without consulting their community.  He quotes the Electronic Frontier Foundation when they question the entire privacy issue itself, stating that Facebook has created a maelstrom of concerns because of their lack of user input into their new system.

To Facebook’s credit, when Friends Lists were announced to be forced public, many users complained.  Hearing the complaints, Facebook quickly reversed the decision and changed the site to allow the privatizing of friends lists.

The problem is, this was done only because of protests from users.  The forcing of Friends Lists into the public was likely a move towards Facebook’s future plans with the Social Graph API.  The site’s owners clearly see this upcoming interface for third-party systems to be the cash cow on which Facebook will finally see real profitability.

Julia Angwin at the WJS ends her article on a rather sad note.  The trouble is, most of us probably have to agree with her.  She is going to make her Facebook profile public, as the move seems basically unavoidable.  But first, she is removing everything personal from her profile and only leaving things she would want her “parents, employer.. or future employer to see.”

“We’ll need to treat this public version of Facebook with the same hard-headedness that we treat Twitter: as a place to broadcast, but not a place for vulnerability.  A place to carefully calibrate, sanitize and bowdlerize our words for every possible audience, now and forever.  Not a place for intimacy with friends.”

I think she’s right and it’s a sad day for what was once a fun, friendly, intimate community.

A new, required configuration of privacy preferences is being presented on Facebook.  The changes were announced on December 1, but they are now official for all of Facebook’s 350 million users.  The announcement came this morning in the Facebook Press Room.

The new controls will let users choose exactly with whom they want to share everything they put on the site.  This includes status updates, photos, videos, links, and more.  Options for sharing includes Friends, Friends of Friends, Everyone, and a custom option to choose specifically who can and can’t see the item.

For some time now, Facebook users have been able to create friends lists to group friends into categories.  This can now be used as a fast way to filter content so that only those you wish to share certain things with will see them.  Now your “Japanese Poetry” list doesn’t have to be subjected to your “Heavy Metal RAWKS” list postings.

Regional networks have been nixed, which CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced would happen last week. Some information is being made public, whether you like it or not, but that is limited mainly to your front-screen profile information (such as name and gender).  The new changes mean the overly-complex privacy controls that were once the butt of blog jokes are now much simpler while giving users more individual control.

Some mandatory privacy settings include setting your default (which is likely currently at “everyone”) for who your content will be shared with.  You will be required to verify your current privacy settings for your profile as well as set defaults for your future content additions to Facebook.  Those under 18 years of age will be restricted to sharing only with friends and school networks.

There is some information, however, that you can’t hide.  Your name, profile picture, gender, city, networks you belong to, friends list, and fan pages will all be available to everyone.  This information is kept public mainly to make Facebook search more useful to users.  You have the option of not including some of this in your profile, of course.  All of this public information is also accessible by search engines like Bing and Google.

Overall, the changes on Facebook are comprehensive, but give a lot more power to the individual user.  This is a big step for the popular social network, whose been plagued by privacy concerns and questions in the past.