Showing posts with label u. Show all posts
Showing posts with label u. Show all posts
Sunday, December 25, 2016
U S Marshals Raid Hoverboard Booth at CES Bloomberg
U S Marshals Raid Hoverboard Booth at CES Bloomberg
The maker of the Onewheel electric skateboard called in federal marshals to shut down the booth of a company making a similar product.
On Thursday afternoon, two U.S. federal marshals showed up at the Consumer Electronics Show to conduct a raid. As a crowd gathered, the marshals packed up a one-wheeled skateboard on display at a Chinese companys booth, as well as a sign and fliers promoting the product, and carried them away. It quickly became clear this wasnt the usual CES publicity stunt. Staffers for the company, Changzhou First International Trade Co., were stunned.
Until that moment, Changzhou First International Trade was having a successful day. It wasn?t the only discount electronic skateboard dealer around, but passersby seemed taken by the design of its product, the Trotter. Instead of a board with a wheel on either end, like the popular hoverboards seen around the show, the Trotter looks like a seesaw with one big wheel in the middle. One man with a microphone and a camera stopped to take some footage; another quizzed employees about how fast the thing could go. The booth?s staff had trouble answering even basic questions in English, but they did their best.
CES, the worlds largest annual gadget conference taking place in Las Vegas this week, has always been full of small-bore dealers, many from China, selling products that look like something you might find in the discount bin at a Best Buy. The Consumer Technology Association, the trade group that puts on the show, welcomes them, as long as they pay the appropriate fees to rent a booth. Unoriginality is not against the rules.
But there is a long-running strain of resentment among companies that feel their patents and trademarks are being violated by low-cost competitors. CESs legal department issues guidelines for those who feel wronged, and there?s even a list of rules for face-to-face disputes, including prohibitions on "loud, offensive or embarrassing confrontations" and a limit on the number of people who come along to accuse someone of ripping them off. The CTA asks companies not to bring more than two employees, one translator, and a lawyer.
The raid on the show floor, which involved federal law enforcement, was the result of a weekslong effort by Future Motion, a Silicon Valley startup that said it invented and patented a self-balancing electric skateboard that looks strikingly similar to the ones the marshals confiscated. The company sent about a half-dozen people from its legal team to accompany the marshals in the raid. The CTA declined to comment, as did a woman present during the raid who appeared to be in charge of the booth, saying the company intended to consult a lawyer. Lynzey Donahue, a U.S. Marshals official, said marshals served a court order at CES.
Future Motions Onewheel skateboard is the brainchild of Kyle Doerksen, a designer who had previously worked on electric bicycles. Several years ago, Doerksen quit his job at the design company Ideo, made a prototype, and rented a booth at CES 2014. The idea was popular enough that a Kickstarter campaign, launched on the same day, eventually raised $630,000. The following year, Doerksen came back with a more finished model. His company, which decided against getting a booth this year, is in town to meet with potential business partners.
Doerksen began the process of patenting aspects of the Onewheel several years ago. In August, Future Motion received a patent for the underlying technology. Earlier this week, it got a second one for the devices design. This patent prohibits competitors from making something that an ordinary observer might confuse with the Onewheel. ?Would we have done this without the design patent being issued? The answer is we wouldn?t have bothered,? said Shawn Kolitch, a lawyer for the company. ?If you can show the design patent drawing next to an accused product side by side, and they look identical, it helps your case.?
Future Motion first found out about the Changzhou First International Trade product late last year, when a Onewheel user posted about it in an online forum. A listing by the Chinese company on Alibabas online marketplace promised to provide some 2,000 boards per month for about $500 apiece to retailers. (Future Motion sells the Onewheel for $1,500 through its website.) ?We said, ?Wow, that?s clearly a knockoff,?? Doerksen said. According to Alibabas website, retailers in Iceland, Germany, and the U.S. bought about $70,000 worth of products.
In December, Kolitch sent a letter to Changzhou First International Trade demanding that it stop selling the products. He never heard back. Kolitch tried again the day before the show floor opened, by approaching the booth directly but got nowhere. By 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, Onewheel filed a request with a judge to stop the Trotters from being displayed on the show floor.
The newfangled electronic skateboards that have captured the imagination of geeks recently have been dominated by dozens of off-brand companies. A recent segment on NPRs Planet Money reported how the hoverboard trend has emerged almost spontaneously from dozens of Chinese factories at once. But Shane Chen, a Chinese-American inventor, disputed that idea. He said the so-called hoverboards were his idea. Like Doerksen, Chen is trying to get the government to crack down on his competitors.
After the raid at CES, all the merchandise and signs had been stripped off the booth. The Chinese companys staff sat around, unclear about what to do next. For Doerksen, getting the booth shut down serves not only to cut off what he saw as an illegitimate competitor but also to protect the reputation of the entire electric skateboard industry. The explosion in popularity of these products have been threatened by reports of low-quality hoverboards bursting into flames. ?If customers start to view the space as full of low-quality, low-cost products, that reflects poorly on everybody,? said Doerksen. ?We hate to see someone poison the well.?
Available link for download
Monday, October 17, 2016
U S Drops Apple Case After Getting Into Terrorist??s iPhone
U S Drops Apple Case After Getting Into Terrorist??s iPhone
- Prosecutor vows `solemn commitment to Dec. 2 shooting victims
- Decision to avoid long legal battle marks victory for company
The U.S. said it has gained access to the data on an iPhone used by a terrorist and no longer needs Apple Inc.?s assistance, marking an end to a legal clash that was poised to redraw boundaries between personal privacy and national security in the mobile Internet age.
The Justice Department said a week ago that it was approached by an unidentified third party about a possible method to get into the phone. The government said in a court filing Monday that it ?has now successfully accessed the data stored? on the iPhone 5c used by Syed Rizwan Farook, who with his wife carried out a December attack in San Bernardino, California. No details were provided on how investigators got the data.
The Justice Department was fighting Apple in an unprecedented court showdown when it abruptly asked last week to cancel a hearing before a federal magistrate judge over her order directing the company to help investigators get into the phone.
The decision to drop a legal battle that could have gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court marks a win for Apple. The Cupertino, California-based company resisted being forced to write new software that would make it easier for the FBI to break into the shooter?s phone. Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook said such a move would pose a threat to the privacy of hundreds of millions of iPhone users around the world, arguing that a backdoor of that nature could be exploited by less reputable parties.
While Apple has emerged victorious from the court tussle, the government?s claim that the FBI was able to hack the phone with the help of a third party tarnishes the iPhone?s purported security prowess. Monday?s filing signals that government agencies can break into phones with encryption systems that were designed to make them impenetrable.
Third Party
The FBI was able to unlock the iPhone over the weekend without compromising the data stored on it using the method provided by the third party, according to a U.S. law enforcement official.
Investigators are currently reviewing the information obtained from the phone, said the official who spoke to reporters on the condition of being anonymous. The official declined to provide any details, such as what was on the phone, the identity of the third party or how the method worked. The official also declined to say whether the U.S. will give Apple details about the hacking method.
?Our decision to conclude the litigation was based solely on the fact that, with the recent assistance of a third party, we are now able to unlock that iPhone without compromising any information on the phone,? Eileen Decker, the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, said in a statement. ?We sought an order compelling Apple to help unlock the phone to fulfill a solemn commitment to the victims of the San Bernardino shooting ? that we will not rest until we have fully pursued every investigative lead related to the vicious attack.?
Apple said the court case never should have been brought.
?We will continue to help law enforcement with their investigations, as we have done all along, and we will continue to increase the security of our products as the threats and attacks on our data become more frequent and more sophisticated,? the company said in a statement. ?Apple believes deeply that people in the United States and around the world deserve data protection, security and privacy. Sacrificing one for the other only puts people and countries at greater risk.?
Future Cases
The U.S. may have a harder time going back to court in future cases where it requires a company to cooperate with a similar investigation because, after first telling the judge only Apple could help unlock the phone, the government has come back a month later saying it doesn?t need Apple?s help after all, according to Victoria Schwartz, an associate law professor at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California.
?It looks like the government cried wolf," Schwartz said in a phone interview. ?Next time, a court may take a more careful look at their request for a similar order.?
While the Justice Department repeatedly argued that a court ruling in the California case would only help it access the individual iPhone 5c affected, other technology companies from Facebook Inc. to Yahoo! Inc. rallied behind Apple?s claim that the matter could set a precedent which would allow other law enforcement agencies a backdoor into handsets.
In an effort to undermine Apple?s argument that the software could be abused by authoritarian regimes, Department of Justice lawyers had highlighted the thousands of times the company helped China access data last year. Nonetheless, Apple has disclosed that U.S. authorities targeted twice as many devices in similar instances.
IOS Vulnerabilities
Apple regularly finds vulnerabilities in its iOS mobile software that it remedies with each new update. Such an upgrade was rolled out last week, including the fixing of a flaw found by two researchers at security consultancy Inverse Path. The Trieste, Italy-based company told Bloomberg News it might theoretically be possible to use the vulnerability, which could be accessed via the USB drive, to modify a phone?s software and bypass security measures.
Several researchers had also outlined how so-called NAND mirroring might be used to break into the phone. In that method, the FBI could copy the hard drive contents onto a separate drive, then should incorrect password combinations prompt the security measures to wipe the drive, the agency could reinstall them and try again.
Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey said last week that the government wasn?t using the latter method, and the agency has declined to outline exactly how it was working to break into the phone. Apple lawyers said before Monday?s announcement that they expect the FBI to explain any successful method it discovers.
Brooklyn Phone
The government has not yet said whether it will pursue a similar fight in Brooklyn, New York, where authorities are trying to crack Apple?s encryption on a drug dealer?s phone. Apple won a first round of the dispute in February, and the U.S. has asked that the ruling be reversed. The San Bernardino case involves a newer operating system -- iOS 9 -- as compared with the iOS 7 device in Brooklyn.
On Tuesday, the government agreed to go along with Apple?s request for more time to respond to a renewed U.S. application for an order compelling the company to help in unlocking the iPhone in Brooklyn.
Apple had sought an extension to April 15 to respond to the government?s request, saying it didn?t have enough information to determine the best way to proceed.
Legally, the question remains open whether the government can force a private
corporation to write code to help with an investigation, said Schwartz, the law professor
?This issue is not going to go away,? Schwartz said.
The case is In the Matter of the Search of an Apple iPhone Seized During the Execution of a Search Warrant on a Black Lexus IS300, California License Plate 35KGD203, 16-00010, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Riverside).
Available link for download
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)