Current Insight Community Cases

Essential Datacenter Tips On Application Performance Monitoring

The Importance Of Skilled Immigrants To The American Economy

Help A New Kind of Music Label Revolutionize The Industry

Mandates To Buy American Should Be More Carefully Considered

Navigating The New Business World After This Recession

Check out our CwF + RtB experiment.
Brought to you by Floor64 and the Techdirt crew.

stories about: "mcafee"
Failures

Failures

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
lawsuits, money, patents

Companies:
altitude capital partners, deepnines, mcafee



Patent Holder Sues McAfee, Gets $25 Million... But May End Up Losing $5 Million Due To Everyone It Has To Pay Off [Update]

from the this-is-fun dept

A few years ago, we noticed the troubling trend of private equity firms raising capital solely for the purpose of investing in patent lawsuits. Basically, these private equity guys saw the ridiculous awards being handed out to patent holders who did nothing, and realized they wanted in on the game. So they raised funds of hundreds of millions of dollars, and basically approached different small patent holders, examined their patents, and basically promised to bankroll lawsuits against companies who actually did stuff, in exchange for a cut of the winnings. One of the biggest players in this space (perhaps the largest outside of Intellectual Ventures) is Altitude Capital Partners.

Joe Mullin has uncovered some of the details of how Altitude works (and how some of these lawsuits work), because Altitude is upset with the amount of money it got back from one of the patent holders whose lawsuit it "invested" in. Note, here, that it does not appear that Altitude invested in the company in question, DeepNines, but specifically in the lawsuit. Altitude gave DeepNines $8 million for its lawsuit in the structure of a loan. DeepNines sued security firm McAfee and worked out an eventual $25 million settlement. How much did DeepNines actually get? Less than $800,000 -- and even that's in dispute. (Updated in the next paragraph).

Basically, because Altitude had a "model" of what it felt DeepNines should get in a lawsuit, and that model popped out a $200 million award, it felt that it didn't get enough. But the breakdown suggests it did fine. DeepNines paid back the loan at a 10% interest clip, plus another $700,000 as its "contingency fee" on the winnings, adding up to $10.1 million. Then DeepNines ended up having to pay its lawyers at Fish & Richardson over $11 million in fees, plus another $1.25 million to local lawyer (and former federal judge) Robert Parker. DeepNines also had to pay additional expenses for travel and other legal costs, adding up to another $2.1 million. In the end, it was left with less than $800,000. Doesn't seem quite worth the effort. (Update: Good discussion in the comments suggesting that the math here doesn't quite add up, and DeepNines may have actually ended up with about $8.8 million, because you have to add the original $8 million investment to the $25 million in counting in the inflow. That makes sense, so the numbers may be off. I was initially relying on the report claiming $800k was leftover, but it may have actually been higher. The rest of the story does make sense however).

Especially since Altitude is demanding another $5.3 million, saying that DeepNines should have calculated its contingency fee based on the overall award, not after subtracting legal fees. Of course, if it did that, then DeepNines -- despite having "won" $25 million, will have lost nearly $5 million on the overall deal. Be careful who you partner with. This should be a huge warning to any patent holders who think about accepting money from a firm like Altitude. Even a $25 million "win" can turn into a huge loss, if you're not careful.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
(Mis)Uses of Technology

(Mis)Uses of Technology

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
antitrust, free, security, software

Companies:
mcafee, microsoft, symantec



Microsoft Realizes No One Wants To Pay Microsoft To Fix Its Own Security Flaws

from the that's-how-it-works dept

Back in 2005, when Microsoft was first mulling the idea of offering security software, we noted that the company was between something of a rock and a hard place. If it decided to charge for the software, people would accuse the company of trying to get people to pay to protect themselves from the security vulnerabilities in Microsoft's own software. Yet, if they went free, then they would face screams about antitrust violations for undercutting competitors in the security software market. We also suggested a third option: design better software that doesn't need security software. But, failing that, Microsoft chose what I think was the worst of the three options: selling security software. Perhaps not too surprisingly, not too many people took Microsoft up on the offer. It could be a combination of reasons why. First, Microsoft just doesn't have a good reputation when it comes to security. Second, that whole issue of paying the same company that created the security holes in the first place. Finally, it might just be inertia. People buy from McAfee or Symantec because they're two names that have been around forever and are recognized (and, most importantly, bundled on many brand-name computers).

So, after a couple years of failing to make much of a dent in the market, Microsoft has abruptly shifted to option number two. It will no longer be selling its OneCare security software and, instead, will be offering a free security suite for users, though with fewer features than the old OneCare offering. The various security software companies put out statements saying, of course, that this is no big deal, but you have to believe they're now doing whatever possible to stir up some complaints out of the Justice Department that this is an antitrust violation. Maybe a few years down the road Microsoft will simply move on to option three, and make software that doesn't require separate security software.

43 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Legal Issues

Legal Issues

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
adware, defamation, lawsuits, naming, spyware

Companies:
7search, mcafee



Yet Another Company Sues Over Being Called Adware

from the yet-again dept

We've seen a few such cases in the past -- and they usually end with a judge telling the suing company to shove off, but here we have yet another company upset that its being labeled as an adware/spyware provider. In this case, it's a company called 7Search, which is suing McAfee. 7Search is claiming that McAfee's warning about "downloads" from its site having been "credibly" called adware or spyware are false and defamatory because 7Search no longer offers software for download off its site (though it apparently did in the past).

As Eric Goldman notes in the link above, just bringing these types of lawsuits tends to backfire. As we noted above, they rarely, if ever, win, and simply filing the lawsuit draws much more attention to the company -- often including reports from users about why they do think the software in question is adware or spyware. In the meantime, if 7Search no longer offers downloads, then it's not clear what it's upset about either, since it's not like the McAfee warning is going to stop people from downloading its software -- since, apparently, there's no software to download.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
(Mis)Uses of Technology

(Mis)Uses of Technology

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
security, viruses, websites

Companies:
mcafee



Latest Antivirus Error: McAfee Blocks A Bunch Of Popular Sites As Risky

from the sorry-about-that dept

A little over a week after Kaspersky's anti-virus software declared Windows Explorer was a virus, it appears that McAfee has had its own mistake, as an anti-virus update from the company started warning people to stay away from a bunch of popular sites, including ESPN, Friendster and Ars Technica. McAfee later admitted that it was a mistake on its end, but it seems that we're seeing these kinds of false positives on a fairly frequent basis these days. It's yet another sign that things need to change in how security software works -- but instead of real advances, it still seems like firms are bogged down with things like pointless patent battles.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Ramblings

Ramblings

by Carlo Longino


Filed Under:
politics, security

Companies:
mcafee



McAfee CEO Says New Laws Are Needed To Deal With Cybercrime

from the passing-the-buck dept

McAfee CEO Dave DeWalt has been pushing politicians to create new laws to deal with cybercrime. He says cybercrime is now a bigger business than illegal drug trafficking in the US, and that the punishment doled out to cybercriminals isn't an effective deterrent. He may have a valid point there, but new laws and sentencing guidelines don't seem to be the most effective potential tool against computer crimes -- particularly when much of this crime comes from overseas, where being caught and punished by a remote government isn't likely to stop many criminals. DeWalt says that the technical side of security is "pretty advanced", and that government is lagging. But if things really were so rosy in the computer security business, it doesn't seem like there would be much of a need for new laws. He mentions malware and phishing, two areas where he says new laws could help -- but both of these represent areas where security vendors could show some improvements too. Traditional methods, like blacklists, seem to be flagging, so some fresh thinking and innovation in the industry, not just a bunch of new laws, would be beneficial. There are some areas, though, where some stronger deterrents might be useful, such as in getting businesses and government to take the security of personal information more seriously.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Rumors, Conspiracies, etc.

Rumors, Conspiracies, etc.

by Carlo Longino


Filed Under:
government, law enforcement, spyware

Companies:
fbi, mcafee, microsoft



How Does The FBI's Spyware Get Around Security Software?

from the cloak-and-dagger-or-point-and-click dept

A teenager in Washington state got sentenced to 90 days in juvenile detention this week, after he plead guilty to making some bomb threats via e-mail to a high school. It turns out that the FBI nabbed him with a piece of spyware called the Computer and Internet Protocol Address Verifier, or CIPAV. The FBI used the spyware after it had obtained server logs from Google and MySpace, which gave them an IP address that led to an infected computer in Italy. This isn't too surprising, really, but what makes it a little more intriguing is that it's not clear how the FBI slipped the program onto the kid's computer, nor how it evaded detection by anti-virus software. The most likely possibility is that they took advantage of some unpatched vulnerability on the kid's PC, with a browser or plug-in hole exploited by a MySpace web message. The question of evading security software looms larger, though, with CNet's Declan McCullagh wondering if the government persuaded security software vendors to whitelist CIPAV. He said that some vendors said they'd comply with court orders to ignore government or police spyware, and that McAfee and Microsoft wouldn't say if that's what had, in fact, happened here. Meanwhile, Kevin Poulsen over at Wired says that a more likely (and less controversial) explanation is that without ever seeing CIPAV, security software vendors can't make a signature for it, so their systems can detect it.

40 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Search Techdirt
And now, a word from our Sponsors..



Popular Posts
Poll

Which Internet Concern Worries You The Most?

 

 

 

 

 

 


Add Techdirt RSS To Your Reader
rss Add Techdirt to your Bloglines
Add Techdirt to your Google Add Techdirt to your My Yahoo
Add Techdirt to your Netvibes Add Techdirt to your Newsgator
Subscribe to Techdirt's Daily Email Newsletter

Techdirt's Daily Email Newsletter

Older Stuff

Thursday

8:11pm: In Going Free, London Evening Standard Doubles Circulation While Slashing Costs (26)
6:10pm: Senate Exploring Med School Profs Putting Names On Ghostwritten Journal Articles In Favor Of Drugs (22)
4:52pm: What Does It Say When A Comedy Show Does More Fact Checking Than News Programs? (56)
3:33pm: Nordic Music Week: Optimism Galore And Found Songs (11)
2:10pm: Would Top Sites Really Opt-Out Of Google Based On A Microsoft Bribe? (37)
12:57pm: Intel Lawyers Again Go Too Far In Trademark Bullying (22)
11:43am: Mandelson Wants Gov't To Have Sweeping Powers To Protect Copyright Holders (40)
10:47am: Once Again, Walmart Stops People From Printing Family Photos Due To Copyright Law Claims (42)
9:39am: Essayist Writes Popular Essay... Then Sends 'Non-Negotiable' Invoice To Church Who Posts It Online (59)
8:23am: ASCAP, BMI And SESAC Continue To Screw Over Most Songwriters: 'Write A Hit Song If You Want Money' (78)
7:07am: Kicking People Off The Internet Not Enough In South Korea, Copyright Lobbyists Demand More (26)
5:33am: Are The Record Labels Using Bluebeat's Bogus Copyright Defense To Avoid Having To Give Copyrights Back To Artists? (42)
3:53am: Larry Magid Calls For News Tax To Fund Failing Newspapers (29)
1:35am: Judge Says 'There's An Ad For That...' And It's Ok For Now (14)

Wednesday

11:01pm: Oh Look, Some Police Do Know How To Use Craigslist As A Tool (8)
8:43pm: Netherlands The Latest To Propose Mileage Tax That Requires GPS For Tracking Driving (30)
6:40pm: Spain Says Broadband Is A Basic Right (12)
4:22pm: Entertainment Industry Wants More People To Know About OpenBitTorrent Tracker (25)
3:00pm: It's The TSA, Not CSI: Actions Limited To Security, Not Crime Investigation (25)
1:49pm: The More Innovative You Are, The More You Get Sued; Yet Another Patent Lawsuit Over Shazam (7)
12:36pm: Oh No! Nobody Reads! Oh No! It's Too Cheap For Everyone To Read! (18)
11:15am: We See Your 'Copyright Contributes $1.5 Trillion' And Raise You 'Fair Use Contributes $2.2 Trillion' (17)
9:55am: Cable Industry Joins MPAA In Asking FCC To Allow Them To Stop Your DVR From Recording Movies (45)
8:44am: Sony Pictures Having Its Best Box Office Year Ever... Still Blaming Piracy For Killing The Business (38)
7:30am: Jenzabar Finds 'Expert Witness' Who Will Claim Google Relies On Metatags, Despite Google Saying It Does Not (38)
5:52am: China Says Microsoft Violates IP With Windows, Bars Sales (26)
4:01am: Don't Post Comments On StlToday.com Or They Might Tell Your Boss (45)
1:50am: Recording Industry Making It Impossible For Any Legit Online Music Service To Survive Without Being Too Expensive (45)

Tuesday

11:01pm: Crackdown On Loyalty Program Scams Shows How Ridiculously Successful They Were (11)
8:56pm: Just Because People Say They'll Pay For Something, It Doesn't Mean They Will (21)
More arrow
Quick Links
Close
E-mail It