Google Sued for $1B Over Outlook Migration Tool

A two-count lawsuit filed by Chicago company LimitNone alleges that Google misappropriated trade secrets and violated Illinois' consumer fraud laws when it developed "Google Email Uploader" which competes with LimitNone's "gMove" application. "Google claims its core philosophy is 'Don't be evil' but, simply put, they invited us to work with them, to trust them — and then stole our technology,'" said Ray Glassman, CEO of LimitNone, in a prepared statement. The lawsuit was filed by Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, the same commercial litigation group which challenged Google over the company's online advertising system.

Comments

My philosophy

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be first post.

Re:My philosophy

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Anonymous Coward,

The author of popular first-posting tool Bone-O-Rama, cyborg_monkey, has filed a lawsuit against you individually and against any entity under which you conduct business alleging infringement of Bone-O-Rama technology.

cyborg_monkey holds that you invited him into a technology sharing agreement the terms of which prevent you from independently using, allowing others to use, or cause to be use, any first posting technology, whether derived from or distinct from, that same technology as used by Bone-O-Rama. Further allegation include but are not limited to: Repeated inappropriate remarks by you about Bone-O-Rama placed on popular blogs, your garbling of the Bone-O-Rama trademark "First Post!" (such garblings include "fr0st ps0t!" and the like), and also cyborg_monkey has a general dissatisfaction with the way you conduct yourself just in general, and we think you registered the Slashdot account cydorg_money, which is obviously trademark dillution.

You'd be wise to post a retraction while there is still time, and apologize for your affronts to decency.

Re:My philosophy

[Anonymous Coward]

I should say- this is off topic, but I need to post. You can easily see when a post is about to be repliable. I've submitted a bug (silently) but nobody seems to care, so here it is:

If you're a subscriber, and subscribe to the RSS feed, it will show you posts in the mysterious future. It will disable comments, until "the mysterious future." But the RSS feed clearly states the exact time comments will be available (in the future).

enjoy.

Re:My philosophy

[Anonymous Coward]

While this is funny, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some moron one day took offense to an Anonymous Coward posting and filed suit against the individual known as "Anonymous Coward"..

We will know we have reached critical mass in morons at that point.

Re:My philosophy

[Anonymous Coward]

why are you suing yourself and me?

Re:My philosophy

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop talking to ourselves. People will think we're crazy.

Get Rich

[whisper_jeff]

If you can't get rich by making a worthy product, then get rich by suing someone. (No, I didn't read the article, but we all know this is the new way of business for most companies - sue their way to wealth.)

Re:Get Rich

[eln]

You really should have read the article. If what's said in the article is even partially true, it sure looks like Google acted in a pretty sleazy fashion. Apparently they were willing to boost this company's product until they realized how much money could be made from it, at which point they decided to build their own clone and give it away for free. It's like Netscape/IE all over again.

Re:Get Rich

[Bandman]

A successful lawsuit against Google could be like the small pebble that causes a landslide.

$1B is a ridiculous amount of money for this lawsuit, but even at $10M, a successful suit would bring more lawsuits out of the woodwork.

And I'm willing to bet that once it happened, Microsoft would be more than happy to finance as many as possible.

Re:Get Rich

[eebra82]

If you can't get rich by making a worthy product, then get rich by suing someone. (No, I didn't read the article, but we all know this is the new way of business for most companies - sue their way to wealth.) If you developed and spent money on a product that you felt was stolen, wouldn't you seek compensation for that loss? I'm not saying the $1B figure is reasonable, but regardless, if Google did what the accuser says, then at least they must make a fight for it.

Obviously, the product is interesting if Google supposedly wanted to steal it.

Re:Get Rich

[Hijacked Public]

You are being a bit dramatic.

There is really very little stopping one entity from suing another for any frivolous thing. Or from making a habit of it. So we get articles like this, or like the one not too long ago where that judge sued the dry cleaner for losing his pants, and people get really worked up about the litigation culture we have.

The problem is that few people pay attention long enough to see who wins what. While there are no doubt silly awards handed out every day, and even sillier settlements outside the courts, it isn't any kind of epidemic and there is no way 'most' companies use this as a business model. Simple math should show that situation isn't sustainable.

People who talk about product liability still bring up the old-lady-vs-McDonalds coffee lawsuit as an example, and that went down something like 15 years ago. Listen to them and you'd think that kind of thing happens every day.

Re:Get Rich

[whisper_jeff]

Ok, I had a chance to read the article and 1) Google said they wouldn't develop a competing product. Did LimitNone have that in a contract? I'm guessing no. And, more importantly, 2) at $19 a pop for 50 million premier customers, that works out, in my basic math, to $100 million. A little short of the 1 BILLION the suit alleges in economic damages. Google may have been dickish in going back on their word, but Google was (presumably) under no contractual obligation to not develop a competing product and LimitNone is suing for an outrageously excessive amount of money, well beyond the actual financial damages they might possibly suffer (not all 50 million premier customers would necessarily buy their product). So, sorry, this still smacks of a company trying to get rich by suing the big kid on the block.

Re:Get Rich

[shadow349]

$1B is a ridiculous amount of money for this lawsuit

I'm guessing the amount is based on this (from TFA):

The lawsuit alleges the tool, which was originally named "MY GRATE" was later renamed, at Google's insistence, "gMove". Though the product retailed for $29, Google asked that LimitNone sell it to Google's customers for $19.

and

According to the complaint, Scott McMullan, a senior executive in the Google Apps partner program, told LimitNone that the potential for 50 million users - was "just too big to come from someone else" and that "this is how Google operates."

50 mil * $19 = $950 million

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently they were willing to boost this company's product until they realized how much money could be made from it, at which point they decided to build their own clone and give it away for free Ah yes, Google made a killing off this deal! The board room discussion must have gone something like this:

Product Analyst: "Look at this gMove product, they are selling hundreds, maybe even thousands of copies. They're making a lot of money! We should do something about it."

VP of Development: "Okay, let's develop our own."

Accountant: "How much should we charge for it?"

Product Analyst: "Well, the makers of gMove believe that they could sell 50 million copies for $29.99- that's like 1 billion dollars!" (said while holding pinky finger to mouth, of course)

VP of Sales: "We could probably sell even more copies if it was cheaper"

Accountant steps out to go to the bathroom.

Product Analyst: "Imagine how many copies we could sell if it was free!!"

VP of Development: "Okay, let's do it! That'll really show 'em!"

Re:Get Rich

[Overzeetop]

1. It's press release by the plaintiff's lawyers.

2. "until they realized how much money could be made from it, at which point they decided to build their own clone and give it away for free." WTF? That doesn't even make sense. We could make a fortune if we had this product, lets give it away for free and we'll all be rich!!! No. I'm not sure if Google cares _how_ the conversion is done, just that the users come to Google at some point in the transaction. A converter, while convenient if it's free, is just as valuable if somebody else sells it...as long as it it used.

Re:Get Rich

[eln]

Yes, it's a press release, which is why I said "if it's even partially true", which it may not be.

As for what Google gets out of it, if they want people to use a converter obviously giving it away for free will result in a far higher adoption rate. They may also have wanted to add it as a free feature of their Premium service to make that service more attractive to potential customers.

The whole thing could be frivolous, but if the facts are as stated in the article (press release), then it's a sleazy thing for Google to do.

Re:Get Rich

[morgan_greywolf]

And I'm willing to bet that once it happened, Microsoft would be more than happy to finance as many as possible.

Who? Microsoft? Financing awsuits? Nah, I'm sure they'd never do that.

Re:Get Rich

[morgan_greywolf]

s/awsuits/lawsuits. Maybe I should *read* the previews.

Re:Get Rich

[whisper_jeff]

Ignore my math. No coffee yet. Me stoopid. Jebus, I can be daft sometimes...

Re:Get Rich

[devnullkac]

Sleazy? Maybe. That depends on the he-said she-said details of the "I promise I won't" allegations. The only thing that matters is in the third to last paragraph of the press release:

"Google Email Uploader" steals gMove's look, feel and functionality

Microsoft proved you can't steal look and feel (from Apple, anyway). Stealing functionality sounds like reverse engineering to me.

I think it comes down to a quote from Richard Marx:

It don't mean nothing, the words that they say ... It don't mean nothing till you sign it on the dotted line.

Re:Get Rich

[smidget2k4]

Offtopic, but that "old-lady vs McDonalds" lawsuit was actually valid, though it was taken by the tort-reform people and manipulated to seem like a silly lawsuit.

McDonalds had been warned several times by the FDA to lower the temperature of their coffee, as several people each year were severely burned by it. The woman was in the passenger seat, her son was driving, and they had pulled off to the side of the drive-thru so she could put sugar in the coffee. When opening the lid, the cup slipped and spilled on to her lap.

The woman suffered third degree burns over her thigh and groin area, totaling to be about 20% of her body, and second degree burns in her groin area.

She then contacted McDonalds, explaining the situation to them, and asked them to reimburse part of her medical bills (for burn treatment and skin grafts). They offered her $500. Since her bills were quickly climbing into the high tens of thousands of dollars, she sued for the cost of her medical expenses.

It was the jury that decided medical expenses were not enough, and awarded her punitive damages (to punish McDonalds) totaling one day's revenue in coffee sales. McDonalds appealed the decision, and an appellate judge overturned the punitive damages. She ended up getting somewhere around $200,000, which barely covered her medical expenses up to that point.

Sorry, that was very off topic, but that case is misused as an example for tort reform so often I felt it needed to be stated. There are other ridiculous cases, sure, but that really isn't one of them. More info here.

Re:Get Rich

[idontgno]

As you point out, Google's profit interest is in more migrations from Outlook. That means that anyone offering a Outloog migration tool is to Google's good. However, someone offering a converter for $$$ raises a barrier: some people won't pay for a converter; if they can't migrate for free they won't use Gmail. How do you overcome that barrier? Offer a converter for free. Yeah, the guys trying to sell their converter get shafted. But Google wins by getting more users who migrate off of Outlook.

That's the motivation point you seem to be neglecting. That's the ??? before "Profit!". In your words, that's WTF.

And yeah, I know, that's the story according to the plaintiff's legal team. We've unofficially heard one side of the story. (Yeah, unofficially. As you point out, it's a press release, not the actual filings.) So, there's obviously a lot more story to come. I hope Groklaw follows this one.

Re:Get Rich

[Ioldanach]

And, more importantly, 2) at $19 a pop for 50 million premier customers, that works out, in my basic math, to $100 million.

Fortunately for the plaintiff, actual math causes that to work out to $950 million.

Re:Get Rich

[JCSoRocks]

Right... in other words - some exec pulled some BS number out of his backside and now Google is getting sued based on that number. Come on. I guess it was only a matter of time before we saw a lawsuit based on someone else's made up numbers rather than the plaintiff's.

Re:Get Rich

[dayjn]

Um, 19 dollars multiplied by 50 million = 950 million (just short of a billion) your math needs help! correct, only a fraction of the customers would buy the converter so the 1 billion seems a bit high, I'd say 500 million is better.

Re:Get Rich

[stiggystiggy]

~$1B == 50,000,000 users * $19 per user.

50,000,000 users == the number of potential users, according to the "Google Exec" in the press release.

$19 per user == the price the plaintiff was going to sell the product for.

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

Your basic math: $19 times 50,000,000 != 100,000,000. It does indeed equal $1,000,000,000. You probably know that and are likely coding a patch for Slashcode to allow editing of previous posts...

Re:Get Rich

[Talderas]

I suspect the product would have actually been sold for $19.99, not $19. In which case, the math would work out to $999,500,000. Just a tad bit shy of the $1B mark.

Re:Get Rich

[Overzeetop]

Well, since LimitNone's own website says that they are "...a leading provider of applications that leverage the revolutionary iPhone and other mobile devices to deliver communication solutions and GPS location-based services to mobile workers." this seems to be a bit of a failed business agreement rather than a stolen core of their business plan. Is it kind of sleazy to steal somebodies idea and make it better? Perhaps, but it depends on a lot of other factors. The talks sounded like they started over a year ago. That's a long time on the internet - maybe Google needed it done now. And conversion software isn't exactly a "novel" idea.

They may be truly wronged, but my money is on the likelihood that they put in the order for the new yacht and private plane before they had shipping product and paying customers and now they're figuring to get the phantom money they might have had by fishing with expensive lawyers.

Re:Get Rich

[trans416]

yes, did you hear about the guy who got rich off of suing a water bottle company by putting a fly in this bottle. and what do you know, it happens to him again like 2 weeks later and sued the company again but lost it all because the judge said it was inappropriate this time.

Re:Get Rich

[ColdWetDog]

Ignore my math. No coffee yet. Me stoopid. Jebus, I can be daft sometimes...

Rule 1 of Slashdot:

Do Not Post before determining that serum caffeine level is above minimal acceptable values for brain function

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually she got a total of $640,000 including cost of punitive damages. Her award for compensatory damages were reduced because, she was found partially at fault.

Honestly though, many people only take their coffee piping hot. And if every Tom, Dick, and Harry sued because something was too sharp, too hot, too cold, too blunt, too fast, too powerful, where would we be now. I should sue VW because I got a ticket for going 100mph.

Re:Get Rich

[Theoboley]

Indeed. I plan to sue slashdot because it takes up too much of my time, and well.. my time is a valuable thing /sarcasm

Re:Get Rich

[jedidiah]

There was one case (in Mississipi I think) where the dolts on the jury
added an extra zero to the amount requested by the plaintiffs. Pretty
much everyone objected to that verdict but it ultimately stood up
because that's what the jury wrote on a small piece of paper.

None of the appeals judges were willing to slay that sacred cow...

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

I never realized the full story. Thanks for the info!

Re:Get Rich

[mdfst13]

Apparently they were willing to boost this company's product until they realized how much money could be made from it, at which point they decided to build their own clone and give it away for free.

Emphasis mine. How much money would Google make from their free product? Of course, reading more finds that the claim is that Google is integrating this into their paid product (Google Apps Premier) rather than giving it away for free. Perhaps you knew that, but it wasn't evident in what you said.

Incidentally, there is a better written article at http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9976405-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

In particular, that article points out that LimitNone is claiming that it divulged technical secrets to Google that Google then used in making its own product. Also, Google apparently changed its Google Apps interface in May of 2008, which caused the gMove product to break. That's apparently the violation of Illinois consumer laws.

Is that related to the differences between Standard and Premier? Apparently Standard does not allow for third party integrations but Premier does. Did Google tell LimitNone that the free version would always support gMove? If so, that will be interesting, as it will help to set expectations around how long Google, eBay, Amazon, etc. have to maintain API compatibility when they want to break it. All of them offer programs like this that allow third party developers to create apps that integrate with their platform. How long are those integrations warranted to work?

The real problem here is not in the relationship between Google and LimitNone but between Google and users of Apps standard edition. Google had been encouraging its users to pay $19 for this product but the functionality no longer works. Further, it apparently stopped working as a result of changes that Google made. If it turns out that it stopped working because Google started charging for something that it previously offered for free, should Google pay back the $19 to users?

Re:Get Rich

[FudRucker]

migrate away from MS-Outlook?! Makes me wonder if Microsoft Encouraged LimitNone to sue Google...

Re:Get Rich

[megaditto]

It's not free. It comes with targetted adds and gets you hooked onto other google services that also come with targetted adds.

Plus, they get to undercut and destroy their competitors on the cheap (spend $200,000 now), since they don't need another potential Youtube situation (pay $3,000,000,000 to buy out a competitor later). Nipping competition in the butt is where it's at.

Re:Get Rich

[beckerist]

All new innovation is based on someone's old innovation. Ever hear of Alfred Russel Wallace? -- probably not, but you've probably heard of most of his work through the guy who pretty much ripped HIM off (yet in the process made it more concise and with more applied observation!)

Google, sleazy? Or Google, business... It's not like source code and design documents aren't "borrowed" constantly anyway...

Re:Get Rich

[russ1337]

We could make a fortune if we had this product, lets give it away for free and we'll all be rich!!!

Well it would work for the Oil companies if they were giving away free cars.

Re:Get Rich

[sexconker]

Bud.
Nip it in the bud.
Before it develops.
Like a flower.
Flowering plants have buds.
Bud.

Re:Get Rich

[jefu]

It is my impression (founded on things I've read in various places, but which have disappeared in the fog) that Darwin's theory was well developed when Wallace proposed much the same thing, but that Darwin did then hurry things along in order to get his ideas out in front of people first. But even so, it took a while for the notion to catch on and the "Origin of Species" was a sufficiently persuasive read that it swept all before it.

Re:Get Rich

[colesw]

Except the exec who pulled out some BS numbers is a Google Exec, so suing them for what they said it was worth seems about right (at least if they have any of that in writing).

Re:Get Rich

[lena_10326]

Yes, it's a press release, but there is a real case and real filings. Before all you guys dismiss this case just because you heard it from a news wire, you ought check and see the court filings. Filed in Cook County Illinois, June 23, 2008, case number 2008-L-006828.

2008-L-006828 LIMITNONE LLC GOOGLE INC 06/23/2008
https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcounty/Finddock.asp?DocketKey=CAAI0L0AAGICI0LD

Re:Get Rich

[HitekHobo]

But this is the intraweb. If you nip someone in the butt, your page rank goes up. Porn is king! Long live Porn!

Re:Get Rich

[MrNaz]

Google gets sued by $foo_small_co:
Random Slashdotter: Damn legal system makes everyone thing they can ge rich by suing.

Microsoft gets sued by $bar_small_co:
Random Slashdotter: See?! I told you M$ was teh evil look how they tried to step on the small guy and squash them like a BUG under their giant boot of Orwellian global dominance!!!!

Slashdot gets sued by Random Slashdotter:
*World implodes*

Re:Get Rich

[curmudgeous]

The woman suffered third degree burns over her thigh and groin area, totaling to be about 20% of her body, and second degree burns in her groin area.

I'm not a doctor by any means, but I have had some biology and physics courses. There just isn't enough stored energy in a cup of coffee to do this.

A first degree burn has redness, swelling and sensitivity (think sunburn); A second degree burn shows blistering; third degree involves destruction of the outer layers of skin and charring of the flesh. At worst she would have experienced mild to moderate second degree burning.

Re:Get Rich

[rtb61]

Well it wasn't free and it wasn't going to be sold with the end user wasting time viewing pointless adds. Google was the customer and, it simply looks like they felt it was going to be cost effective not to pay for the technology per use and simply appropriate it and then fight it out in court.

Obviously end user weren't really interested in paying that much just to get data out of outlook (a really crazy concept why would they use outlook if you have to pay to get the data out, crazy). So google wanted to offer it free and, it doesn't really make good business sence to buy something at around $20 per user (mind you just to port outlook emails) for just a minor part of the overall suite, with just limited adds to pay for it (especially cheap entry level adds).

So it is far cheaper to borrow the technology, claim it as their and pay a one time development cost to reproduce another 'version' code.

OF course the developers who had the product 'borrowed' of course are going to be really concerned as they know it has a very short shelf life ie. the more successful alternates to M$ outlook become and the more rapidly the market for products to get you data out of outlook shrinks. Now, you can also add, the expansion the ODF document standard to eventually kill all those products necessary to readily enable you extract data out of closed proprietary document formats.

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems that there are several "stories" of what really went on, as far as this story goes. You stated "20% of her body". The webpage you link us to says "16% of her body", and http://www.out-law.com/page-3396 claims 6%. Which is true? Did she also sue the makers of her jogging suit? I mean, it did hold the coffee close to her skin, allowing the coffee to burn her....

Re:Get Rich

[dubl-u]

Honestly though, many people only take their coffee piping hot. And if every Tom, Dick, and Harry sued because something was too sharp, too hot, too cold, too blunt, too fast, too powerful, where would we be now. I should sue VW because I got a ticket for going 100mph. To me, this turns on designing for actual use, for normal operator error.

McDonald's put special holes in their building to sell stuff to people in cars. The put scalding-hot coffee in flimsy, slippery cups with flimsy, slippery lids, and then give you cream and sugar separately. And they do this to early-morning, pre-caffeine zombies. It should not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you do this millions of times a day, some people are going to end up in the hospital without expecting it.

VW plans for normal operator error in a host of ways. Good visibility. Good lights. Good user feedback through gauges, car feel, and road feel. Brakes and steering built to handle emergencies. Seat belts, frames, air bags, and a bunch of other little touches optimized for survival after error.

McDonald's, on the other hand, even after being told that they were putting people in the hospital unnecessarily, shrugged and carried on.

Re:Get Rich

[Overzeetop]

1. It does not appear to be their corporate face (they do iPhone stuff)
2. They worked with Google for a year, then things went sour (Google made their own and LimitNone has no boxed product)
3. They suing for a Billion dollars, as opposed to, say, expenses (time and materials) during the working period, likely in the high-6 to low-7 figure range.

Re:Get Rich

[gabebear]

There isn't much "look and feel" to an email importer. Check out the interface at this website. Evidently all this tool does is enable a POP server in Outlook via OLE and sucks the mail into gMail. gMove can only import 5,000 messages at a time, so you will have to run it several times to import all your mail.

This looks like a pretty mediocre product with no "look and feel" to speak of.

Re:Get Rich

[greenguy]

Yes, you are correct
Better yet, your comment was
Almost a haiku

Re:Get Rich

[smidget2k4]

Sorry, I got them mixed up, 20% second degree, some third degree. The coffee (by McDonalds' standards) was kept between 180-190 degrees F. They have since lowered the temperature.

You can, of course, look up the facts of the case and make sure I read them correctly, but third degree burns were cited as an injury.

In fact, during testimony, one of the Doctors brought in as an expert witness stated that at just ten degrees cool, the burns would have been very mild.

Re:Get Rich

[aardvarkjoe]

Offtopic, but that "old-lady vs McDonalds" lawsuit was actually valid...

Not really. A rather substantial number of people tend to think that it's a person's own responsibility to avoid dumping boiling liquids on themselves, and if you do it, it's your own damn fault.

Re:Get Rich

[Bandman]

Yea, cause the RIAA didn't think of this years ago ;-)

Re:Get Rich

[adolf]

It is important to note, at this point, that McDonald's (around here, at least) has started installing the cream and sugar into the coffee cup themselves. There is therefore not much reason to remove the lid anymore, except (quite ironically) to let the scalding brown liquid cool down a little quicker.

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "ad" not "add". Ad is short for "advertisement", not "addvertisement"

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think that google needed to "steal functionality" to import mail? Into their own mail system?

Yeah, I thought so.

Re:Get Rich

[residieu]

Wouldn't it be easier to turn on Gmail's imap support, connect outlook to it and copy all your mails across? You could even preserve your folders

Re:Get Rich

[merreborn]

Obviously, the product is interesting if Google supposedly wanted to steal it.

It was interesting, but that doesn't mean it wasn't also trivial and obvious.

There have been many, many outlook importer tools written since outlook was created. They're extremely trivial to write, especially if you take advantage of outlook's CSV export functionality -- this is comp sci 101 level work.

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, since LimitNone's own website says that they are "...a leading provider of" <snip>

Looks to me like something happened to their website, see:

• Archive.org
• Google Cache

Re:Get Rich

[merreborn]

Offtopic, but that "old-lady vs McDonalds" lawsuit was actually valid

Every coffee shop still serves their coffee at the same temperature (180 degrees), or hotter. Take a thermometer into starbucks and order a drip coffee. It'll read at least 180. In fact, the ISO standard for coffee machines requires that the water be heated to around 200 degrees.

There have been dozens of spilled-coffee suits since this one, against all the major coffee chains. The vast majority of them failed, and none of them have altered their coffee serving temperatures.

Yes, this woman's injuries were grave. And they were her own damn fault. She sat in the spilled coffee for over NINETY SECONDS. Anyone who wasn't a complete idiot would have jumped out of their car, and ripped their pants off, if necessary, inside of 5 seconds.

Obviously, this woman's lawyers did a hell of a job, if they've still got people believing that this lawsuit wasn't complete bullshit. Because it was. If it wasn't, you wouldn't still be able to get a cup of coffee at the same temperature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case#Other_coffee_burn_cases

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

YES! OHHHH YES!! Thank you kind sir! Thank YOU!

You have no idea how happy you just made me!

Bra-vo!

Re:Get Rich

[skiingyac]

1 second exposure to 160 degree water = third degree burns:

http://www.tap-water-burn.com/

McDonald's coffee was 185 degrees:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Re:Get Rich

[encoderer]

And those are the people who don't understand tort law in this country.

Two things and two things only lead to a cause of action: Foreseeability and/or Negligence.

If you do something that can cause foreseeable harm, you are culopable. If you are negligent, you are culpable.

In this particular case, the FTC (not the FDA AFAIK) warned McD's that their coffee was being served at too high of a temp. They changed nothing. I imagine it's because the hotter the coffee, the longer it will stay fresh. That seems logical to me, but it doesn't matter WHY they didn't lower the temp. All that matters is that they were told about the issue in an official way.

Therefore, by definition, the issue of possible burns was foreseeable. One could even argue that not fixing it was negligence.

This is as basic as it gets with tort law.

(IANAL, but I did take 2 years of pre-law)

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad you explained it, I had thought that the coffee was just really hot and it burned her and she sued because she got burned. Now I know that uhhh...well, the FDA warned McDonalds. REALLY? The FDA checks temperatures of coffee? uhh ok. If you spill coffee it will burn you. It's HOT. Sorry! If you drop a knife on your hand it will cut you. I don't care that the XXX Government association warned that knives shouldn't be that sharp. It's not the company's fault that the knife cut you. It's YOUR fault. I've been to restaurants where they served food hot! I know shocking. It burned the roof of my mouth so I had to wait a bit before eating more. I decided not to sue the restaurant because I'm an ADULT and realize that it was MY fault. Sheeeeeeeeesh.

Re:Get Rich

[Altus]

my guess is that the burns were so bad because the coffee soaked into her clothes and continued to burn her, chances are if she was wearing a bathing suit most of the coffee would have poured off of her legs harmlessly, but clothing could keep a large amount of the very hot liquid up against the skin over time.

Not that its her fault for wearing pants.

Re:Get Rich

[idlemind]

Obviously, this woman's lawyers did a hell of a job, if they've still got people believing that this lawsuit wasn't complete bullshit. Because it was. If it wasn't, you wouldn't still be able to get a cup of coffee at the same temperature. It's not really her lawyers but the litigation lobby. They have a vested interest in making people believe that this case was legit. They even have some law professors teaching it as a shining example. Sad.

Re:Get Rich

[gabebear]

You would think IMAP would be the obvius answer, and the website I mentioned has step-by-step instructions on how to do that with Thunderbird, but Outlook's IMAP support evidently sucks.

From this website: "There's lots of hacky ways that huge amounts of email can be moved from Outlook to Gmail for Apps. Believe me, Google knows this is a problem and I'm 99% sure they are working on it. Until then, you can do the IMAP trick above, or use a tool. Time is money, so I used gMOVE from LimitNone."

What I find odd about this statement is that he had to rerun gMove 7 times at what looks like 30minutes each run because it only supports 5000 messages at a time. 35000 messages doesn't seem like that much email...(maybe I've been using gMail too long). How awful is Outlook's IMAP support???

Re:Get Rich

[Loser4Now]

McDonald's wasn't putting anyone in the hospital. People who couldn't handle a cup were putting themselves into the hospital. Whatever happened to personal accountability?

"When opening the lid, the cup slipped and spilled on to her lap."

If you're unable to competently handle a paper cup of a burning hot liquid, don't blame it on McDonald's and ffs don't try to blame it on the cup.

Re:Get Rich

[idlemind]

In this particular case, the FTC (not the FDA AFAIK) warned McD's that their coffee was being served at too high of a temp. Source? Or do they not teach that in pre-law?

Re:Get Rich

[crunzh]

You must be new here? That kind of reasoning is standard operating procedure on /.

Re:Get Rich

[Fri13]

The woman suffered third degree burns over her thigh and groin area, totaling to be about 20% of her body, and second degree burns in her groin area. Okay, third degree burns because of coffee.... Yeah....

I know a man (now 40-45 years old), who saved his grandmother and two sisters when he was 15, from burning house. He ran three times inside the house of fire, carried first his grandmother out, protecting him with carpet. Then he rolled on ground to stop flames on him self, and runned back to get other sister with same way, rolled again and got second sister away from house.

In this few minutes rescue operation, he got over 70% of his skin, 3 degree burns. His skin was needed to cut open with knive around chest, so his lungs got space to expand and allowed him to breath. This field operation (with knive) was done by fireman who arrive there just when he came out last time. He spend months on hospital because of it. My cousin was then on that hospital as his physical therapist. She nursed him two times a day, every muscle was needed to stretch and one day, when she was stretching his frist gently as on all other days, arteria opened and blood started to spray, the frist was so friable. Even he had "fake skin".

Now, ~30 years from it, he has own family, a wife and few childrens and scars all over his skin.

And then we have a people, who sues McDonalds because their coffee is too hot. And the coffee could give them a 3rd degree burnds...
Yes, only on america....

I think wich one would be more possible to get serious 3rd degree burns, you run inside of house what is totally on fire, not once or two times but three times.

Or that you drop your hot coffee on your crouch when you are sitting on car?

Re:Get Rich

[JackieBrown]

Considering that they could have gotten the source for the importer from thunderbird, evolution, kmail, etc.....

Re:Get Rich

[JackieBrown]

At least the didn't use a big number

Re:Get Rich

[wolferz]

heat = stored energy. Assuming the claims by her and the FDA are true (apparently the judge thought they were) then McDonalds were "storing more energy" in their cups than was reasonable. So, assuming the coffee was *does some impromptu research* 100% hotter than normal, your predictions could be way off.

Just a little devils advocate for ya there.

That said I just did a quick google search and found on Starbucks site where they claim to keep theirs at the exact same temperature as McDonalds. Thus it could be argued that she should have been aware of the high temperatures.

At the same time I checked a site regarding brewing coffee and is suggests a temperature around 90 degrees Fahrenheit for the entire brewing process (+ or - a few degrees for different stages). That's half the temperature McDonalds and Starbucks use. Thus it could be argued that both are keeping their coffee too hot.

*shrug*

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

From the link posted by smidget2k4:

# By corporate specifications, McDonald's sells its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;

# Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds

Re:Get Rich

[Toll_Free]

He made reference to it being his guess.

You don't NEED to provide evidence for something you "believe". Hence the term, belief?... :)

Then, you go on to state he is a dipstick (by not qualifying it as parent did, with "my money is on the likelihood" makes it a statement of fact. As such, and publishing it, you just committed libel, or are dangerously close. At the very least, defamation comes to mind.

Personally, I think your both full of crap... But then again, I know nothing of either of you, sans these posts.

Re:Get Rich

[Toll_Free]

Except that they should only be able to sue for profits not gained, and actual expenses to date.

They should NOT get to sue for boxed price of software if it was never finished, never shipped, and never cost them anything additional after point X.

IOW, 19 dollars isn't profit gained on each box. There is no reason they should be able to sue and get damages based upon the entire cost of loss being profit, since you have to figure out of that 950 million (figures from Google themselves, supposedly) they would have had to have pumped money into creating the product, pressing it to disk and getting it into stores.

Probably half the original number, based upon my limited knowledge of software profit margins...

--Toll_Free

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

You failed arithmetic didn't you?

Re:Get Rich

[idlemind]

Check your site again. It probably says 90 celsius. 90 fahrenheit would be awfully cold for a warm drink.

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

From wikipedia:

        * First-degree burns are usually limited to redness (erythema), a white plaque and minor pain at the site of injury. These burns only involve the epidermis.
        * Second-degree burns manifest as erythema with superficial blistering of the skin, and can involve more or less pain depending on the level of nerve involvement. Second-degree burns involve the superficial (papillary) dermis and may also involve the deep (reticular) dermis layer.
        * Third-degree burns occur when most of the epidermis is lost with damage to underlying ligaments, tendons and muscle. Burn victims will exhibit charring of the skin, and sometimes hard eschars will be present. An eschar is a scab that has separated from the unaffected part of the body. These types of burns are often considered painless, because nerve endings have been destroyed in the burned area. Hair follicles and sweat glands may also be lost due to complete destruction of the dermis. Third-degree burns result in scarring and may be fatal if the affected area is significantly large. If extensive enough, it can increase the risk of infection, including bacterial, and can result in death.
        * Fourth-degree burns damage bone tissue and may result in a condition called compartment syndrome, which threatens both the life of the limb and the patient. These are burns in which most of the hypodermis is lost, charring and exposing the muscle underneath. Fourth-degree burns are frequently fatal.

I'm guessing the 'third degree burns' should have been 'first degree burns' in the parent's post...

Re:Get Rich

[Toll_Free]

RTFA. Source doesn't need to be re-cited every time someone who doesn't read TFA acts confused.

--Toll_Free

Re:Get Rich

[barc0001]

Are you kidding me? You do know the "Article" is actually a press release from the plaintiff's lawyers, right? And some of those claims, like "a billion dollars in economic damage"? They think they could make a billion dollars in revenue for a mail migration tool? Fuck off. Let's put this in perspective. Grand Theft Auto IV *might* come close to making a billion dollars in revenue. Some mail migration tool from a company nobody's ever heard of, not so much.

Re:Get Rich

[idontgno]

How awful is Outlook's IMAP support???

In my experience, somewhere between "craptacular" and "OMG I WANNA GOUGE MY OWN EYES OUT WITH UNSHARPENED PENCILS!"

In particular, adding Outlook's casual disdain for open standards to Courier IMAP's "Ve vill do zis IN ORDNUNG und ve vill LIKE IT!" attitude towards standards compliance yields an almost unresolvable mess. In the end, I just abandoned trying to get Outlook to play nice and deployed Thunderbird or Evolution (depending on need) instead.

Re:Get Rich

[torkus]

Unless google actually stole their CODE i don't see how there's much merrit here. I mean 'new or innovative' certainly doesn't apply to the concept of importing information from one email client to another.

Furthermore, it's google API's in gmail and the interaction with them is obviously standardized same with MS and exchange APIs. So yes, your method is going to be very similar to any competition by design.

At a guess things probably went more like
'hi google we're company XYZ and working on this nifty exchange importer. Can you lend a hand since we're teh sux at programming'

'sure, here's one of our programming guru's who has some spare time that can help out'

'thanks, we're sure to make a bundle off this one!'

'err wait. we're not going to help you build a product to sell. we give away stuff here remember?'

'nooooo you must! you're google! Well we got enough out of you to farm the rest out to india and still get rich'

'that's fine, enjoy.'

When will people learn? There are basic rights granted to US citizens. the right to get rich (or even earn money) is not one of them - much less the right to guaranteed money!!!

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yeah, Microsoft has a long history of screwing companies (big and small). Google is relatively new at it.

Re:Get Rich

[Nightspirit]

Yah, it's over 100 here in phoenix. 90 fahrenheit would be colder than the outside air.

Re:Get Rich

[idlemind]

Nope, nothing in TFA. Thanks though.

Re:Get Rich

[osu-neko]

It should also be noted that the particular McDonalds in question had its coffee maker set even higher than the corporate standard: about 200 F, and had been warned about the situation on several occasions and not done anything to fix it. It was a pretty clear case of negligence.

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

would that preserve the sent/receive dates and folder structure of the existing outlook data ? the 'google email uploader' says it does

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not free. It comes with targetted adds and gets you hooked onto other google services that also come with targetted adds.

Except it is only useful if you are already wanting to use Gmail, exactly like the competing app.

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

According to Snopes.. the total was 6% of her body.

Everything

Re:Get Rich

[nakajoe]

No kidding. If you can't handle the cup, don't buy it, or don't open the thing until it cools off.

Re:Get Rich

[rjstanford]

I've often thought that a lot of the "lawsuit reform" inspiring cases could be handled slightly differently...

Punative damages work. You can (and others have) argue that they're the only things that really work against corporations, since its hard to make McDonalds do, say, community service, or serve jail time.

However, there's no reason at all why the original plaintive should receive them (and, by extension, why their lawyers should receive 30% of them). Why not have them go to something like federal defecit reduction, or a similar program for states and lower municipalities?

The corporation is still punished. The plaintiff still receives the non-punative (ie: deserved) portion of the settlement. Nobody becomes an instant billionaire just because their parents died in a spectacularly newsworthy way.

Re:Get Rich

[fwarren]

According to the complaint, Scott McMullan, a senior executive in the Google Apps partner program, told LimitNone that the potential for 50 million users - was "just too big to come from someone else" and that "this is how Google operates."

There are at least 6 billion people on that planet and more than 50% of them are female. That means I have the potential to sleep with more than 3 billion women. There is a big difference between having potential and actually closing the deal.

Even with 50 million users, not all of them have mail in outlook. Some that do, don't care if they lose it. Then there are those that continue to use outlooks imap to connect to gmail, etc, etc, etc.

If I had to guess. Google probably decided it could spend a million or two to buy something now instead of having to build it. So they talked to several companies that had software that could do the job. Somewhere along the lines of "Hey what can pay to get your converter so we can rebrand it". They probably vetted these companies with questions like what protocol do you use for the transfers, how many emails an hour can it import, etc. In the long run, they did not get picked and are now calling sour grapes.

They can allege anything they like. If you read SCO's press releases and their court filings you would be certain that IBM had chiselled SCO. But as you know, once all of the facts are known, it is quite a different story.

Re:Get Rich

[RiotingPacifist]

But did they break the API?
hassle distributors (not even sure who 'distributes' gmail) to only ship their product?
steal code? (not that ms did this)

If not then they only did the legal part of what Microsoft did, if these guys really had a better product they would have been fine (TBH Netscape would probably have been OK anyway, if the hadn't sucked so much )

Re:Get Rich

[encoderer]

Source for WHAT?

Tort law? Or the specific McD's lawsui?

In either case, it's hardly complex or esoteric. Google it. I'm here to write casual comments, not create dissertations with footnotes and MLS cites.

Re:Get Rich

[DeatheScythe]

All new innovation is based on someone's old innovation. Ever hear of Alfred Russel Wallace? -- probably not, but you've probably heard of most of his work through the guy who pretty much ripped HIM off (yet in the process made it more concise and with more applied observation!) Google, sleazy? Or Google, business... It's not like source code and design documents aren't "borrowed" constantly anyway... Perhaps off topic but to address your comment on Darwin, my understanding is that Darwin developed his theory of evolution through natural selection well before Alfred Russel Wallace. He then shelved it for a time and returned to it when Wallace was prepping his work. Only important because you were implying that Darwin somehow read and copied Wallace's work and then presented Wallace's ideas as his own. If you have anything to show that Darwin did in fact plagiarize I would be interested in reading it.

Re:Get Rich

[nchip]

#define stealing?

are google infringing copyright of gMove? no.
are google infringing patent of gMove? no.
are google breaching a contract (NDA, NCA) with gMove. no.
are google abusing gMove's trade secrets? not possible, unless there was a contract between gMove and google.
did google clone functionality of gMove. Yes, but thats perfectly legal.

So, unless there was a NDA/NCA contract between gMove and google, under which gMove shared the trade secret with google, which google then proceeded to incorporate to their own mailloader, gMove's case is warrantless.

But the press release mentions no contracts, nor any shraring of trade secrets.

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

By the same token, a used car is not a pre-owned car, but a post-owned car, as pre means before and is not, in fact, short for previously. I just don't think anyone cares since we all know what was and is meant in either case.

Re:Get Rich

[Curly]

1 second exposure to 160 degree water = third degree burns:

That depends on the quantity of water. For the same reason that the white-hot sparks from a sparkler don't send you to the hospital, a small splash of boiling water soaking through your clothes isn't going to transfer enough heat to your skin to damage it.

I'm not saying the woman in the lawsuit wasn't burned, I'm just saying that "1 second exposure to 160 degree water" not only isn't well-enough defined to declare that it causes third degree burns, but is specifically misleading in the example of spilling coffee in one's lap in a car.

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent should not be modded as flamebait, you stupid teenagers.

Re:Get Rich

[Skeet112]

It don't mean nothing, the words that they say ... It don't mean nothing till you sign it on the dotted line.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this guy meant "It doesn't mean anything...."
...Maybe not.

Re:Get Rich

[aardvarkjoe]

And those are the people who don't understand tort law in this country.

I fail to see how an understanding or a lack of understanding of tort law has anything to do with someone's opinion that it is nonsensical for a company to be responsible for all of the poor decisions of its customers. Do you agree with every single law your country has?

Therefore, by definition, the issue of possible burns was foreseeable. One could even argue that not fixing it was negligence.

Certainly it was foreseeable that some idiot would dump hot coffee on themselves. People are constantly doing all manner of stupid things. It's only negligence if you accept that McDonald's should have reduced the temperature of its coffee in order to prevent stupid people from injuring themselves. You can argue that, but don't be surprised when some people don't agree with you.

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

So why did she have to pay her medical expenses?

Ooh wait, she didn't have health/accident insurance like the rest of the world does. It was her own in the mistake of not buying an insurance! Then she woulnd't have to sue Mc Donalds for money because she couldn't hold the coffee and slipped it.

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

Guy, I don't give a crap how groggy or zombie-like you are in the morning. Their cups are styrofoam, which tends to grip skin. The lids are halfway decent too, you could tip it 90 degrees and probably keep the lid intact.

But here's the real kicker Sir:
Why is it McDonald's responsibility to idiot proof their products to guard against the massive stupidity of their customers?

Answer?
DING DING DING!
IT'S NOT!

End result?
Some stupid old bitch fucked up and spilled her coffee on herself and got burned. The coffee was normal serving temperature for coffee, go head research it, Dunkin' Donuts and StarBucks sold it at the SAME TEMPERATURE.

That lady deserves to be mocked and vilified.
Fuck her and everyone as stupid as her.

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

I think wich one would be more possible to get serious 3rd degree burns, you run inside of house what is totally on fire, not once or two times but three times.

Or that you drop your hot coffee on your crouch when you are sitting on car?

Just because it is "more possible" for one thing to occur does not make it impossible for something else to occur. Not sure what you were trying to prove other than the fact that you're a barely literate idiot.

Yes, only on america....

Oh, now I see what you were getting at. Well played! Moron...

Re:Get Rich

[MikeDX]

That's PREviously-OWNED ya idiot ;)

Re:Get Rich

[idlemind]

I only ask because I have done a great deal of research into this case and then people spout off about stuff they have no clue about. Take the grand parent who started this topic. He provided as a supporting document an article whose 13 talking points were provided by the old womans lawyer; it's essentially a press release.

This case was total BS. It didn't set a precedent, it didn't change the way coffee is served; it was a fluke.

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

And if they sold their coffee as Popsicles, nobody world ever be burned. Hot coffee is called hot coffee because it is HOT. That's why only idiots hold it in their laps.

Re:Get Rich

[dubl-u]

McDonald's wasn't putting anyone in the hospital. People who couldn't handle a cup were putting themselves into the hospital. Whatever happened to personal accountability? The jury found her 20% responsible, and McDonald's 80% responsible.

Remember that she was some old lady who was handed a buck's worth of coffee, whereas they're a large company that carefully designs every aspect of the experience that they sell hundreds of millions of times a year. Although she may not have had an opportunity to carefully study human error rates, the slipperiness of different cup designs, or the particular effects of 180+ degree coffee on human skin, they certainly did.

Most importantly, she may not have been aware of the risk, but McDonald's certainly was, as they had been told about actual accidents.

Regardless, the western legal model of having 100 responsibility units is retarded. Any product user is responsible for using it well. And any product designer is responsible for making it such that people naturally use it well. Barring active negligence, any failure is a failure for both.

Re:Get Rich

[dubl-u]

No kidding. If you can't handle the cup, don't buy it, or don't open the thing until it cools off. That's obviously true. It's also true that you shouldn't continue to make a product that puts people using it normally in the hospital.

Here there are two obvious truths. The problem isn't that one of them is wrong; it's that people get to an obvious truth and stop thinking.

Re:Get Rich

[dubl-u]

Why is it McDonald's responsibility to idiot proof their products to guard against the massive stupidity of their customers? First, this is not massive stupidity. Her behavior was reasonable and natural. They handed her a cup of coffee and some cream. She put the cream in the coffee. Why would she expect that to lead to permanent physical damage requiring reconstructive surgery?

Second, McDonald's has chosen to sell to the general public. There is no exam, no license required, no training needed to shop there. They are therefore obligated to sell a product that is safe for the public to use. When they don't, and could have foreseen that, they must take responsibility for their actions.

Re:Get Rich

[Red Flayer]

by sexconker (1179573) on Wednesday June 25, @12:07PM (#23936131)

With a userID like that, I'd expect your post/poem to look something more like this:

Butt.
Nip it in the butt.
After it develops.
Deflower.
Deflowering adults in their butts.
Butt.

But, what do you know, I guess userIDs are glimpses into the personality of the person using them.

Re:Get Rich

[idlemind]

yet they still make the same product today (e.g. Starbucks)

and normal use is to not spill it.

Re:Get Rich

[causality]

The "pre-owned" label is rather amusing because it's so silly and redundant. When you buy a new car, the dealership obviously has to own it or else they would not have the legal right to sell it to you. Therefore, new cars are also "pre-owned".

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

"Honestly though, many people only take their coffee piping hot."

This gets mentioned everytime this case comes up. If the coffee was hot enough to give third degree burns? How would you drink this without waiting for it to cool somewhat anyway?

Re:Get Rich

[dubl-u]

yet they still make the same product today (e.g. Starbucks) That's not exactly true. Another poster mentions that at least in his area, McDonald's drive-throughs now give you cream and sugar in the cup. Score one for the legal system.

Starbucks, on the other hand, gives you your coffee when you're standing, gives you a counter on which to put it when you are adding cream, and gives you tables to put it on afterwards. And unlike in a car, there's plenty of room to dodge and for the coffee to drain away from your skin.

and normal use is to not spill it. Normal use for a single cup is for some percentage of people not to spill. 99.9%? 99.99%? Regardless, normal usage includes some spilling.

When you serve several hundred million cups of coffee a year to people in cars, no matter how small the percentage of spillers is, you will have a numerically significant number of people who spill. And some will spill enough, and be wearing the right fabrics, and not be agile enough. And they will end up needing medical care, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care.

Re:Get Rich

[Samizdata]

Yeah, like you trust any untrained yahoo to do your installs for you. What about us die hard DIY types?

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

~$1B == 50,000,000 users * $19 per user.

50,000,000 users == the number of potential users, according to the "Google Exec" in the press release.

$19 per user == the price the plaintiff was going to sell the product for.

Assuming that 100% of Outlook users will switch to GMail, 100% of them will need to import while saving folders, 100% of them would be willing to pay full price, and that you could enter a "$1B" industry for a trivial product without a single competitor popping up? priceless.

Re:Get Rich

[gabebear]

Crazy, I only use Outlook at work, where it seems to work fine with the exchange server. It is nice to have email/calendar combined as a desktop app, but the interface seems sluggish. I can't see paying for it given the other better solutions.

Re:Get Rich

[ardle]

What's more, unwelcome plants such as weeds have buds: they're the ones you need to nip in the bud. It prevents them from flowering.

Re:Get Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

problem is mcdonalds wasn't selling hot coffee, they were selling scalding coffee. 10 degrees hotter than any one else in the industry.

Re:Get Rich

[ReedYoung]

The idea had been going around for some time. Charles was not even the first Darwin to conceive of "evolution" of species.

Although he did not come up with natural selection, he did discuss ideas that his grandson elaborated on sixty years later, such as how life evolved from a single common ancestor, forming "one living filament". Ben Stein, eat my shorts!

Re:Get Rich

[deek]

Say what?! $200,000 barely covers the medical cost of getting burnt? Geez, what do you guys have to pay when getting your appendix out?! Do you have to organise a second mortgage before visiting a doctor?

Re:Get Rich

[mgblst]

Stealing functionality sounds like reverse engineering to me.

Yes, because when I wrote my text editor, I clearly must have reverse engineered Microsoft Word. This is clearly wrong. Stealing functionality means just implementing something, like outlook migration, which is mainly done without reverse engineering. Only a very few cases involve actually reverse engineering a product, because it is hard and long.

Re:Get Rich

[TekPolitik]

There are at least 6 billion people on that planet and more than 50% of them are female. That means I have the potential to sleep with more than 3 billion women. There is a big difference between having potential and actually closing the deal.

True, because if you go within a mile of my daughter I'll fix it so you're never capable of "closing the deal" with anybody else, ever.

Re:Get Rich

[TekPolitik]

are google abusing gMove's trade secrets? not possible, unless there was a contract between gMove and google.

Not true. While I don't have any relevant facts on the case at hand and really couldn't be stuffed to RTFA, courts will enforce confidentiality without a contract in the right circumstances. In fact most confidentiality deeds you see really do no more than restate what the court would do anyway. As one lawyer said to me (IAAL) when negotiating a deal that included a confidentiality clause "I know including a confidentiality clause in an agreement with a lawyer is like telling him how to suck eggs, but we're making several of these at once and we want to make sure they contain the same terms." Most of the time the confidentiality agreement does little more than ensure the person giving the undertaking knows of their obligations.

Re:Get Rich

[tehcyder]

Not to flog a dead horse too hard, but I meant, where is the evidence of the planes/yachts?

Re:Get Rich

[skiingyac]

My point is that you only need 160 degrees for 1 second to get 3rd degree burns, so there's no reason why it can't be possible (obviously over only a small area if the ~2 cups of water pools in your lap). Perhaps the woman was wearing a short skirt, depending on how the water is spilled not much soaking needed.

curmudgeous seemed to think that plain old hot water can't "char flesh" and so can't cause 3rd degree burns.

You've got a little evil there on your mouth...

[wolfen]

Wow, if the allegations in the article are even partially accurate,
  Google deserves to take a massive PR hit on this at the least
and probably owes these guys some serious money.

Re:You've got a little evil there on your mouth...

[Intron]

What article? Business wire is a press release service. The "article" authors are listed at the bottom: Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, the lawyers who are suing google.

Re:You've got a little evil there on your mouth...

[Directrix1]

Thats a pretty big IF there buddy. Lets put it this way. Google donates lots and lots of code. Why the hell would they take a little utility like this when it is giving away dev time for free?

Re:You've got a little evil there on your mouth...

[Anonymous Coward]

probably owes these guys some serious money
Maybe (didn't RTFA), but not $1B. Does anyone really think they could make a billion selling an email transfer program? Somebody else would have made an free open-source version within a few weeks (and probably already has.)

Re:You've got a little evil there on your mouth...

[The Warlock]

Wait, you think Slashdot editors actually read the article? I'd say "you must be new here", but then somebody with a 4-digit UID would be legally obligated to come over and bitch-slap me.

Re:You've got a little evil there on your mouth...

[maxume]

I'm wondering if the trade secrets they stole were the public Outlook plug-in APIs or the methods of interoperating with gmail (imap, smtp). Maybe it was the concept of mapping an "Outlook email message" to an "Internet email message".

It's (apparently) a dick move on Google's part, but the idea that the other company had significant technology is pushing it a bit.

Re:You've got a little evil there on your mouth...

[tgd]

*slap*

You're welcome.

Re:You've got a little evil there on your mouth...

[ozmanjusri]

I read the article, as well as several others on the same subject, before I submitted it.

It's a news story, and I know there's not a lot of information there, but remember Slashdot is a discussion site. I'm sure we'll be able to introduce tome interesting analysis ourselves rather than being spoonfed content by the news media.

If you're not sure where to start, how about looking at how hard it would be to export Outlook emails, and whether it would be particularly challenging to develop an app like this.

Re:You've got a little evil there on your mouth...

[sm62704]

You must be n...

oh shit

Re:You've got a little evil there on your mouth...

[Hijacked Public]

It is a news story in the same way that Taco Bell's new additions to their Extra Value Menu is a news story.

I'm going to start submitting links to all the cool banner ads I run across. Next up on Slashdot: Dude You're Getting a Dell!

Re:You've got a little evil there on your mouth...

[MrMickS]

Just because Google does some good works doesn't mean that they are always right. From the press release, its not really an article, it looks as though Google gave the impression that they were pushing LimitNone's product to their users and that there was an understanding that they wouldn't release a competing program.

That said, unless LimitNone's product keeps someones gMail and Outlook accounts in sync, this looks like an excessive amount of money for a trival tool.

Re:You've got a little evil there on your mouth...

[Red Flayer]

The "article" authors are listed at the bottom: Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, the lawyers who are suing google.

To make it clear, since the summary is also misleading:

KD&W are not suing Google.

LimitNone is suing Google, and have retained KD&W as counsel.

I understand that many slashdotters (and people in general) have a distrust/dislike/hatred of lawyers, but is an important distinction to make.

KD&W was counsel for the other lawsuit mentioned in the summary, but they did not in fact sue Google. KD&W is used in a lot of IP/trade secret cases because they are good at it, particularly with respect to software. They have knowledge and they have experience.

Not that I'm defending lawyers in general here (forgot to wear my asbestos undergarments today), but when I use a paring knife to stab someone, do you get mad at the knife or do you get mad at me?

Re:You've got a little evil there on your mouth...

[Proteus]

Damn, you beat me to it. And I really needed to slap someone today. ;-)

Re:You've got a little evil there on your mouth...

[mikl]

*Slap*

(Even lower UID than the first slap you got. Yeah.)

Re:You've got a little evil there on your mouth...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they are just trying to cause a market flux in google's stock price, since their lawsuit seems so spurious.

Re:You've got a little evil there on your mouth...

[Intron]

Oh. So they are just a tool? They get paid the same whether they win or not? They have no stake in the outcome? Or are they by chance acting "on behalf of their client" because they hope to make millions themselves?

The paring knife doesn't care whether I cut prime rib or old shoe leather. Even if it cuts my finger I don't get mad at it. But when a class action suit gets filed "on my behalf" for a drop in shareholder value, for example, I get mad at the law firm as well as the greedy bastards that were coaxed into filing the suit.

Re:You've got a little evil there on your mouth...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I'm defending lawyers in general here [...], but when I use a paring knife to stab someone, do you get mad at the knife or do you get mad at me? If the knife had an independent intelligence and conscience like lawyers are supposed to as human beings, BOTH: You for the stabbing and the (intelligent) "knife" for allowing you to use it.

Re:You've got a little evil there on your mouth...

[atraintocry]

Well, if the knife had free will, maybe a little of both.

Re:You've got a little evil there on your mouth...

[Anonymous Coward]

bitch-slap me. *slap* Bitch.

Re:You've got a little evil there on your mouth...

[Toll_Free]

Damn, you beat me to it. And I really needed to slap someone today. ;-)

I'm assuming with something other than a large trout? :)

--Toll_Free

Re:You've got a little evil there on your mouth...

[Directrix1]

Well, the original poster was positing on a probably. I was just giving him a more likely probably given Google's past performance.

Re:You've got a little evil there on your mouth...

[http]

I think tgd did it wrong - even apologized.
Perhpas you could demonstrate for tgd (and the rest of us) how it's _really_ done?

The Amazing Karnak

[MyLongNickName]

.... says that the majority of posts will be about which side is screwing who despite no one on Slashdot having any clue about what happened at the meetings between the two companies.

Check back later for the results of the prediction.

Re:The Amazing Karnak

[tgd]

You must be new here, of course thats whats going to happen.

Some of us will get witty replies in, we'll probably get a couple "In Soviet America" jokes, a few flamers talking about privacy invasions and at least one sad, months-late attempt at a Rick Roll.

Re:The Amazing Karnak

[H0p313ss]

Some of us will get witty replies in, we'll probably get a couple "In Soviet America" jokes, a few flamers talking about privacy invasions and at least one sad, months-late attempt at a Rick Roll.

I for one welcome our new prediction toting cynical overlords.

Re:The Amazing Karnak

[MindStalker]

Two words, only smucks sue for billions when their product is worth thousands. They might have legitimate claims, but a billion dollars? Come on, these guys are just looking for easy money.

Re:The Amazing Karnak

[MyLongNickName]

Two words, only smucks sue for billions when their product is worth thousands.

Two questions:
What were the "two words".
And is a "smuck" one who makes Smuckers jelly?

Re:The Amazing Karnak

[girasquid]

Imagine a beowulf cluster of those.

Re:The Amazing Karnak

[JCSoRocks]

Hey! You watch out! In Soviet Russia, Roll Ricks you! err... crap.

Re:The Amazing Karnak

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet we bear witness to your post, and its high moderation. Stereotypes are a fallacy.

Re:The Amazing Karnak

[snarfies]

In Soviet Russia, Rick rolls YOU!

Re:The Amazing Karnak

[YodaToad]

Fortunately Google created a public video archive of the proceedings for us to view!

Re:The Amazing Karnak

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us will get witty replies in, we'll probably get a couple "In Soviet America" jokes, a few flamers talking about privacy invasions and at least one sad, months-late attempt at a Rick Roll.

I for one welcome our new prediction toting cynical overlords. 2. ??
3. Profit!!

Re:The Amazing Karnak

[Tanman]

In Soviet Russia, invasions flame PRIVACY! You stupid Americans!

Re:The Amazing Karnak

[Toll_Free]

A 'smuck' would be one who smucks.

DUH.

And I, am offended at your lack of knowing about them...... Me being a smuck.

--Toll_Free

Re:The Amazing Karnak

[Anonymous Coward]

And is a "smuck" one who makes Smuckers jelly?

No, smuck is a verb and smuckers are those that smuck.

Re:The Amazing Karnak

[ozbird]

What were the "two words".

I'm guessing the second word is "SCO", and the first is unprintable. "Litigious bastards" also works.

Re:The Amazing Karnak

[RockWolf]

Why imagine? That would be /.

Re:The Amazing Karnak

[complete loony]

Two questions?
What happened to your second question?

That's plausible

[192939495969798999]

I mean it only makes sense that the large company employing the best engineers in the world would risk everything to steal a product they could write in a day, right?

Re:That's plausible

[Pulzar]

I mean it only makes sense that the large company employing the best engineers in the world would risk everything

Risk everything? How's this risking everything? Google's worth $170B, if they lose this case and have to pay $1B (unlikely that the penalty for stealing some minor software idea will be that large), they will be mighty annoyed, but that's about it. They'll have to make a press release about how they don't accept the verdict, they didn't do anything wrong, but want to put the case behind them and pay... and will move on.

Re:That's plausible

[maxume]

Google is *valued* at $170 billion. What they are worth is less clear. They could certainly manage a $1 billion payout, as they are pulling in a multiple of that each quarter and they have $12 billion just sitting around, but it would do more than leave a bad taste in their mouth.

Re:That's plausible

[the_B0fh]

--
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.

I got you beat with my 747 filled with DVDs!

Whats their contact information?

[tgd]

Perhaps I should sue them for selling a product that did what the Perl script I wrote to import ten years' worth of archives into GMail did several months before the beta was even open to anyone but friends and family of people at Google.

You know, because its really a non-obvious idea.

Re:Whats their contact information?

[nomadic]

You know, because its really a non-obvious idea.

That's not really relevant. Let's say you and I enter into a plan to open a pizza hut franchise. You do all the work setting it up, training staff, etc., while I just hang around and watch, with the plan being that after it opens I'll help with the marketing and advertising. A month before it opens I suddenly open up a competing pizza hut next door.

Opening up a pizza hut isn't a non-obvious idea, hell it's a franchise. But you still should have a legal cause of action against me.

Re:Whats their contact information?

[crazyjimmy]

Maybe we read a different press release. In the release, it says that the product was sold for $29 for most of 2007 (and that google asked they sell it for $19). They even promoted it.

Then, in December, Google announced they would give a free copy away of a similar program to a select group. The complaint the company has is that the product seems very much like their program... almost too much like it.

I'm not saying Google is in the right (though I'm a bit suspicious of the allegations), but that your analogy is completely wrong.

--Jimmy

Re:Whats their contact information?

[kangman]

going through the google blog search for "limitnone" i found this blog post. http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2007/11/past-present-and-future-of-email-with.html gMOVE or "MY GRATE" (horrible name) is just an implementation of the Google Email Migration API. Hence it's open for anyone to develop their own migration tools. I really doubt that the Plaintiff's complaint that Google could NOT implement their own perhaps superior product without the knowhow of limitnone's product is legitimate. As the poster tgd states it's really a "non-obvious" idea *wink wink. It sounds like a case of quasi-developers who are trying to squeeze out all the money it can from a middling products if you can call it that.

Re:Whats their contact information?

[nomadic]

I'm not saying Google is in the right (though I'm a bit suspicious of the allegations), but that your analogy is completely wrong.

Easily fixed. Instead of opening a pizza hut next door before our joint one opens, I open up one after our has been operating for a couple of months. Then I start giving away pizza for free.

Re:Whats their contact information?

[Migraineman]

I fail to see why there would be *any* compulsion to sue. You're missing the three *necessary* elements to have a contractual relationship:
1) an offer must be extended
2) the offer must be accepted
3) there must be an exchange of consideration

Without these three elements, you've got squat. In your scenario, you've got an offer and acceptance - "I'll set up the Pizza Hut, and you'll do marketing and advertising." "Okay." - but if you don't contribute anything to the pot, the contract isn't in-place yet. (Note - "consideration" doesn't necessarily mean cash, but that's usually the easiest way to seal the deal.) In your scenario, if I open up an Italian restaurant across the street, do you expect to be able to sue me because it's a restaurant like yours? You might not like my behavior, but there's no law prohibiting it.

In Google's case, providing access to the API toolset wasn't something specific to LimitNone, so they'll have difficulty proving that an offer was extended. Saying "we don't plan on making a competing offering" isn't a non-compete agreement. NDAs and NCAs exist for a reason, and they're executed in proper contract-fashion. LimitNone might have some traction with the UI design, but without a proper contract vehicle in place, it's an uphill battle. Having RTFA, I failed to see the words "breach of contract," and that's significant considering that the statement was issues by the lawyers. If there was a contract, I'd expect to see mention of it. The lawyers are claiming "misappropriation and fraud," which tends to indicate that a contract doesn't exist.

I wouldn't expect Google to settle out of convenience, as that would set the "easy money" precedent for more nuisance lawsuits.

Re:Whats their contact information?

[nomadic]

I fail to see why there would be *any* compulsion to sue. You're missing the three *necessary* elements to have a contractual relationship:

First of all you're looking at it too narrowly; contract isn't the only way to sue; in actuality the lawsuit appears to be based on the trade secret issue and Illinois statute, neither of which seems to require a contractual relationship. And secondly, even if it was a contractual cause of action I can read enough in the press release to imply consideration did exist on both sides.

Re:Whats their contact information?

[ergo98]

Easily fixed. Instead of opening a pizza hut next door before our joint one opens, I open up one after our has been operating for a couple of months. Then I start giving away pizza for free.

Unless there was a signed non-compete or the like, TFB. In this case it sounds like they have sour grapes because Google independently created an obvious, trivial application, perhaps because they were tired of dealing with these guys. That's life and business. The grocery store can't sue me because I decided to grow some tomatoes in the back yard.

Re:Whats their contact information?

[nomadic]

because Google independently created an obvious, trivial application

According to the complaint, Google came to them precisely because they were having problems implementing it.

Talk about a knee jerk reaction...

[dreamchaser]

If even half of their claims are founded in truth then this is a worthy lawsuit and Google acted in an 'evil' manner. I'll clue you in on something: not all lawsuits are bad. The mechanism exists for a reason.

Then again at least you admitted that you are totally uninformed on the subject since you didn't read the (short) article.

Re:Talk about a knee jerk reaction...

[tgd]

You do realize you didn't read an article either, right?

Its a press-release. By the lawyers. Who are filing the lawsuit. How much of that $1B do you think they'll keep?

Re:Talk about a knee jerk reaction...

[The Warlock]

It's not an article, it's a press release from the plaintiff's attorneys.

I mean, I guess press releases are sort of formatted kinda like news articles, but that doesn't mean they count.

Re:Talk about a knee jerk reaction...

[dreamchaser]

Yes I did read the short article and yes it was a press release. As I said, IF even HALF of what they claim is true then they seem to have a very good case.

Tort reform is another topic entirely and we might even agree on that.

Re:Talk about a knee jerk reaction...

[morgan_greywolf]

If even half of their claims are founded in truth then this is a worthy lawsuit and Google acted in an 'evil' manner.

It's a press release written by lawyers. Well all know that lawyers NEVER distort the facts, spread misinformation or outright lie right? Right?

Re:Talk about a knee jerk reaction...

[mishehu]

Even more important, how much of that $1 billion do you think they'd even win in the lawsuit? Converters for MS LookOut (Outlook) are nothing new, and I find it extremely hard to believe that there is a $1 billion market for this software.

Maybe next they should sue Mozilla because Thunderbird can convert email from Outlook...

Re:Talk about a knee jerk reaction...

[Kalriath]

For the last time, LookOut is an actual product, and it's a plugin for Outlook, and it's owned by Microsoft. Stop calling Outlook that, because MS LookOut is a REAL PRODUCT.

Re:How could they?

[Anonymous Coward]

Strangely, that video's not entirely on topic....

trade secrets? for moving email?

[romanval]

I'd like to know how much R&D effort is needed to write an email migration tool.

I'm not a programmer... but It doesn't sound like something that would justify $1B in losses.

IT ALL LOOKS THE SAME!

[Trek1394]

"The lawsuit alleges that Googleâ(TM)s product, called âoeGoogle Email Uploaderâ steals gMoveâ(TM)s look, feel and functionality. " The last I checked, everything on Google looked the same anyway.

Re:IT ALL LOOKS THE SAME!

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at your post. It's a piece of shit. You probably had to go out of your way to get all those silly-looking letters with umlauts in there, and for what? To make it look like shit. What a piece of shit. The only thing you're missing to complete the shittiness is using that annoying monospace font. Yes, yes. Then you'd really, really be cool. Shit, shit, shit, SHIT.

Re:IT ALL LOOKS THE SAME!

[Anonymous Coward]

you could always be ‘constructive’, and point out the correct use of &;, right?

I Love Lawyers!

[Illbay]

They contribute so much to our free economy! Why, they make sure that business wealth is spread around as much as possible, so that nobody gets too much!

But of course they're well-compensated for their service! They spread all that money around, socking 20, 30 or 40% of it away for themselves, ensuring that the health of their own profession remains robust so that they can continue in this vital function.

Like the Dean of the Duke Law School said several years ago in an interview, when asked "aren't we getting to a critical mass of lawyers?" He responded "oh, no! If anything, we need MORE attorneys for the future! This is truly a GROWTH industry, and will be for decades to come!"

As long as you don't actually KILL the goose, ringing eggs out of it should certainly benefit all concerned.

Re:I Love Lawyers!

[sm62704]

They contribute so much to our free economy!

When I got divorced, I was damned glad I had a good lwayer. When I subsequently filed bankrupcy, again I was glad I had a good lawyer.

When my then-wife ("Evil-X" for those of you who have seen the Paxil Diaries) was hit by a city truck that ran a red light, well, her lawyer sucked but the medical bills got paid. I was glad she hired the same guy for the divorce.

When your incompetent doctor who has lost his license in seven states (but there's no way for you to know that) leaves a sponge in your gut, you are going to need a good lawyer.

I guess your idea of a "free economy" is allowing me to steal from your store.

If you have injury and disease, you're going to need doctors. If you have computers, you are going to need programers. If you are going to have engines, you are going to need engineers. If you are going to have laws, you are going to need lawyers.

BTW, IANAL.

Overture

[threaded]

Isn't this like the Overture thing all over again?

Re:trade secrets? for moving email?

[unformed]

I'm not a doctor but I can't see why people can't just grow back their arms when an alligator eats it off.

I mean lizards grow back tails all the time.

I don't see what the big problem is.

Settlement or dismissal

[Reality Master 201]

Just a hunch. Looks like Google acted like dicks here and released a free, competing product for something they'd previously partnered with LimitNone to promote (according to the article).

On the other hand, Google could pay them off easily, and if there's a contract between the companies that doesn't stipulate non-competition, well then they can eat a dick. And theft of trade secrets? For a tool that uploads Exchange stuff to gmail? Horseshit.

Sounds Bogus

[N8F8]

Having written many Outlook Add-Ins, exporting Outlook to almost any format would be pretty trivial.

Typical Large Company (Google's PR)?

[mrpacmanjel]

I have to admit if the allegations are true then Google probably has one of the best Marketing/PR departments in the world.

I've been in the IT industry for a long time and I can still remember Microsoft's public image was similar many, many years ago! (anyone remember a small company called 'Stac'?) and it's now happening again, same 'strategy' - different company!

Initially I was skeptical when I started reading the article (I know, I know I have just broken a Slashdot cardinal rule) when I read this:

"..the potential for 50 million users - was "just too big to come from someone else" and that "this is how Google operates.."

quoted from Scott McMullan, a senior executive in the Google Apps partner program

Moral of the story?

It's ok to be a 'partner' to a large company as long as your product is not *too* popular or successful.

Anyone partnering with a large company should learn lessons from this - remember a large companie's main responsibility is to it's shareholders - they are the people who want a return on thier investment and usually at any cost!

Re:Typical Large Company (Google's PR)?

[sm62704]

Initially I was skeptical when I started reading the article (I know, I know I have just broken a Slashdot cardinal rule)

You spelt all the wurds rite, two.

Re:Typical Large Company (Google's PR)?

[SatanicPuppy]

No offense or anything but the day I buy an email migration tool...I think a lot of people feel the same way. 50 million paying users for an email migration tool? That many people haven't sprung for WinZip in its entire history, and winzip is vastly more useful.

I think they are dramatically overestimating the amount of marketshare that they could have captured.

Re:Typical Large Company (Google's PR)?

[TubeSteak]

Anyone partnering with a large company should learn lessons from this - remember a large companie's main responsibility is to it's shareholders - they are the people who want a return on thier investment and usually at any cost! I think that's the wrong lesson.
The right lesson is: Always get promises in writing.

I guess the corollary would be:
Don't give up any information without a signed document stating how it can be used.

Re:Typical Large Company (Google's PR)?

[dubl-u]

Anyone partnering with a large company should learn lessons from this - remember a large companie's main responsibility is to it's shareholders - they are the people who want a return on thier investment and usually at any cost! Anybody partnering with anybody should know this. The core of good business relationships is keeping in mind not just your interests, but those of the people you're making deals with.

Whether or not Google actually stole anything, I dunno. But saying that Google had no intention of developing a competing product isn't a promise of anything, especially at Google, where engineers are famously independent.

It was ridiculous to think that Google would ignore Exchange users indefinitely. Limit None should have realized that they were only offering a temporary and limited solution to Google's problems. By thinking only about their desires ($19 per copy) and not about Google's (organize the world's information), they overplayed a weak hand.

LimitNone = :'(

[introspekt.i]

I find it rather ridiculous that LimitNone actually believes that an Email client migration product is such an advanced piece of software that Google with its legions of developers and mounds of cash couldn't cook one up on its own. The article cites that LimitNone claims that the 'gMove' application was a trade secret..it wasn't even patented. This is another huge whiner case. This company has a product that has a snowball's chance in hell of competing with a 'free' Google product, yet they still expect that they are somehow entitled to money for it because Google went back on its word (not contractually..just its "word").

I was sitting in on a product development meeting a few months back and the discussion came up on how to be viable in today's market. One of the big questions in online application entrepeneuring is: How can we remain viable against companies like Google?.. Companies like Google that can cook up the same product with all the same features in a fraction of the time. It seems that if LimitNone had applied some common sense to its product lines, it wouldn't run into the problem of oh, say, Google extending the functionality of one of its already existing applications. Whoops.

Trade secrets? What trade secrets? Google can't write a migration suite for its own email service? Geeze.

This is ust another case of litigation over innovation. I mean, I'm no IP law expert or anything, but a client migration tool? This could have easily have been some kind of open source project..who would LimitNone have sued then?

Re:LimitNone = :'(

[zotz]

"The article cites that LimitNone claims that the 'gMove' application was a trade secret..it wasn't even patented."

Quick, anyone: Can you have a patent on a trade secret? Or a trade secret on a patent?

all the best,

drew

Re:LimitNone = :'(

[nomadic]

I find it rather ridiculous that LimitNone actually believes that an Email client migration product is such an advanced piece of software that Google with its legions of developers and mounds of cash couldn't cook one up on its own.

I didn't see anywhere in the press release where they claim that; if the press release is true, then the issue isn't whether Google couldn't cook one up on its own, but rather that they didn't--instead of that they made a deal with this company to use their product instead.

Trade secrets? What trade secrets? Google can't write a migration suite for its own email service? Geeze.

A trade secret isn't something that necessarily can't be replicated, or has to be unique, it just has to be not readily ascertainable. A typical "trade secret" would be a customer list; if I have a customer list of people who have bought my product, and you make a competing product, you can't gain access to my list through fraudulent means then use it.

This is ust another case of litigation over innovation.

No offense, but you're trying to have it both ways. It's not innovation when Google takes the idea, but when this company tries suing suddenly they're trying to squelch innovation.

I mean, I'm no IP law expert or anything, but a client migration tool? This could have easily have been some kind of open source project..who would LimitNone have sued then?

If the open source team had worked with LimitNone, agreed to help with its promotion, then turned around and released a competing version, yes, LimitNone would probably sue.

Re:LimitNone = :'(

[Anonymous Coward]

The article cites that LimitNone claims that the 'gMove' application was a trade secret..it wasn't even patented. Not that i'm defending them, but there is a sharp difference between a patent and a trade secret. Trade secrets mainly being just that, secret.

Re:LimitNone = :'(

[acramon1]

"The article cites that LimitNone claims that the 'gMove' application was a trade secret..it wasn't even patented."

Quick, anyone: Can you have a patent on a trade secret? Or a trade secret on a patent?

all the best,

drew

No and no. Information that is a trade secret must be kept secret. Information concerning patents must be made available. See Wikipedia.

Re:LimitNone = :'(

[Anonymous Coward]

Trade secrets and patents are mutually exclusive. When you patent something, you reveal the method of doing it to the world at large -- this seems to run contrary to the idea of "secret" to me.

Re:LimitNone = :'(

[zotz]

Bingo!

drew

Re:LimitNone = :'(

[Free_Meson]

The article cites that LimitNone claims that the 'gMove' application was a trade secret..it wasn't even patented.

Trade secrets are very rarely patented (and the patent application would end a piece of IP's status as a trade secret as it functions as a public disclosure). Most often, trade secret protection is used on IP that is not patentable and covers any IP that derives value from its secrecy (e.g. customer lists, secret formulae, etc). Trade secret protection is implemented by securing (most often through contract) confidentiality with all who encounter the IP. If LimitNone had competent attorneys when they spoke with Google, they'll have a contract that limits Google's ability to exploit the disclosed technology even if it was unpatentably obvious. Trade secret cases like this one are fundamentally disputes over the specific contract the parties entered into, with added penalties through state trade secret laws. No attorney interested in keeping his license would file a trade secret suit over an unconditional disclosure to a competitor so there's probably (at the very least) a good faith dispute over the limits of the contract between the parties.

 

Trade secrets? What trade secrets? Google can't write a migration suite for its own email service? Geeze.

LimitNone is probably going to argue that their disclosure agreement with Google prevented Google from doing exactly that. Without seeing the contract it's impossible to know whether such an argument would be viable.

 

This is ust another case of litigation over innovation. I mean, I'm no IP law expert or anything, but a client migration tool? This could have easily have been some kind of open source project..who would LimitNone have sued then?

This case has nothing to do with innovation. If you or I had written the exact same application that Google wrote LimitNone would have no case against us.

Re:LimitNone = :'(

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it rather ridiculous that LimitNone actually believes that an Email client migration product is such an advanced piece of software that Google with its legions of developers and mounds of cash couldn't cook one up on its own.

If they have legions of developers and mounds of cash to create their own product, why did they opt to work with LimitNone in the first place? I don't doubt that Google could easily create a product that trumps anything that most othe companies can make, but I'm not sure why they worked with this company in the first place. Is this lawsuit baseless? Who knows, it might be. But the fact remains that Google invited LimitNone to work with them and then came out with their own product which was released for free. Since they worked together under the "Google Enterprise Professional Program", I'm curious to see if there are certain rules and limitations of working with Google in this program.

Re:LimitNone = :'(

[danomac]

Google can't write a migration suite for its own email service? Geeze.

Nothing is stopping them from writing their own migration tool. The problem lies here (from TFA):

The lawsuit alleges that Googleâ(TM)s product, called âoeGoogle Email Uploaderâ steals gMoveâ(TM)s look, feel and functionality.

gMove would certainly be covered by copyright, what remains to be seen is if it's a direct ripoff of the existing software. If it would have been its own derived piece of software, it'd be different.

Another thing that comes to mind is who knows what their original contract said...

Re:LimitNone = :'(

[Altus]

so if its so secret how did google steal it?

If it was a real development and somehow unique wouldnt they have patented it instead to get real protection?

Probably not given that this company takes the word of some people in a meeting over a signed contract.

Re:LimitNone = :'(

[Altus]

Ah a "look and feel" lawsuit... well that's different.

Maybe they should ask apple how well those work out.

As for a contract, there is no mention of that. The article says repeatedly that they were "told" by google that there would be no competition. If there was a contract with such a stipulation (which there would be if the company was at all competent) they would be getting sued for breach of contract. Since they are not, I find it unlikely that there is a contract with such a clause.

Re:LimitNone = :'(

[dubl-u]

I didn't see anywhere in the press release where they claim that; if the press release is true, then the issue isn't whether Google couldn't cook one up on its own, but rather that they didn't--instead of that they made a deal with this company to use their product instead. Not as I read it. They made some sort of co-marketing deal, but I didn't see anything about a deal to use Limit None's product instead of building their own.

If they had a deal like that, then they would be looking at a straightforward contract violation dispute, instead of this ridiculous "misappropriation of technology" suit.

If the open source team had worked with LimitNone, agreed to help with its promotion, then turned around and released a competing version, yes, LimitNone would probably sue. For what? Mopery and dopery? If the promotion was a quid pro quo exchange for technical assistance, then as long as the promotion happened, then LimitNone doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Not that stops people from suing. As my lawyer reminds me from time to time, "It doesn't mean they can't sue, just that they can't win."

Re:LimitNone = :'(

[nomadic]

For what? Mopery and dopery? If the promotion was a quid pro quo exchange for technical assistance, then as long as the promotion happened, then LimitNone doesn't have a leg to stand on.

The promotion was, according to LimitNone, more than that. From a zdnet article:

LimitNone said it entered a confidentiality deal with Google to share trade secrets of its e-mail migration tool with Google engineers, sales people and key Google Apps customers.

Re:LimitNone = :'(

[stinerman]

But then again no one looks at the patents because if you did and then implemented the invention, you're liable for willful infringement. And as we all know, you can get patents for pretty trivial things.

Patents might as well be secret until they expire.

Re:LimitNone = :'(

[Anonymous Coward]

> The article cites that LimitNone claims that the 'gMove' application was a trade secret..it wasn't even patented.

Perhaps I'm just being pedantic but that statement makes no sense. If it was patented, then it wouldn't be a secret, would it? Part of a patent requirement is that you describe how it works.

Re:LimitNone = :'(

[Anonymous Coward]

The article cites that LimitNone claims that the 'gMove' application was a trade secret..it wasn't even patented A trade secret can't be patented because it is a secret. (patents can't be secrets)

Google might have been evil by promising not to create a produce like "gMove" and still doing it but as far as I can see they didn't do anything illegal.

Re:LimitNone = :'(

[dissy]

This could have easily have been some kind of open source project..who would LimitNone have sued then? Well SCO of course, who said they own the entire opensource modal as well as linux!

Re:LimitNone = :'(

[Thundersnatch]

yet they still expect that they are somehow entitled to money for it because Google went back on its word (not contractually..just its "word").

In the USA, a verbal agreement is a legally binding contract if there is an exchange of value. Of course, from a practical standpoint, there may needs to be some witnesses to the content of a verbal agreement in case it is challenged in a lawsuit.

Even a one-page email that says "we agree to X if you do Y" is a legally valid contract if it is accepted by both parties. Which is why you should always use phrases like "what if" and "pending management and legal reveiw" until the lawyers actually get involved.

Meh

[Arabwel]

I am not surprised. then again, my opinion of Google has plummeted because of the unbelievable arsewaddles they employ, so.... *shrugs*

Re:Meh

[sm62704]

I love some of the Britishisms I see on the internet! In this case, though, Google failed me (Your search - arsewaddles - did not match any documents).

I love that new word, what does it mean?

Re:Meh

[Arabwel]

... bugger if I know, it jsut seemed like an appropriate insult at the time! XD with some careful backthinking, however, i believe it means someone who jsut waddles around on top of being a complete arse.

Re:Meh

[sm62704]

We should get "arsewaddle" (or the Anerican version, "asswaddle") into the popular lexicon!

Re:Meh

[Arabwel]

I'm all for that.

Absolutely not.

[Anonymous Coward]

$1B is a ridiculous amount of money for this lawsuit, but even at $10M, a successful suit would bring more lawsuits out of the woodwork.

If it were only $10 million, Google would just take it out of their toilet paper and soft drink budget and forget about it and it would be business as usual: $10 million is nothing to a big monster mega-corp and it doesn't get any headlines like a BILLION DOLLAR award does. In other words, it only cost $10 million, shit! Let's do it again. Paying off a $10 million lawsuit is much cheaper than developing, marketing, researching it ourselves!

With a billion dollar penalty, it gets them thinking that maybe they shouldn't continue on this path.

Re:Absolutely not.

[mishehu]

Suddenly I have the scene of Dr. Evil demanding One Hundred Beelyon Dollars going in my head...

Re:Absolutely not.

[atraintocry]

I'm sure it's different with a publicly traded company, but my experience is that a large amount of money is still a large amount of money. You don't stay on top by throwing $10m to this guy and $10m to that guy. And I'm assuming that Google has a legal team ready and waiting, so they'd be throwing that money away twice. The case may very well cost less than that to take to court.

There's lots of other variables, like whether its worth it for Google stock-price-wise to stay out of the lawsuit headlines where possible, but my point is that I doubt Google has a $10 million check signed and waiting for everyone who complains about them. $1000, maybe...

Re:Absolutely not.

[Hairy Heron]

Except for the fact that 10 million dollars is a mere .05% of their entire yearly operating revenue. They probably spend more on office supplies in a year than on such a payoff.

Re:Absolutely not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the fact that 10 million dollars is a mere .05% of their entire yearly operating revenue. They probably spend more on office supplies in a year than on such a payoff.

In that case you wouldn't mind giving me 0.05% of your yearly salary, right? And you wouldn't mind me posting publically somewhere that you'd fork over money to someone who just complains?

It's not the specific case, it's the precedent that matters. Same thing in SCO vs IBM; IBM has the money to buy SCO to make it go away, but not the money to fight off every puppet company with delusions of grandeur that would soon follow.

This is surreal

[Kamineko]

So... a corporation who says 'don't be evil' is accused of doing evil and, as they're after $1B, we can only assume they're sued by Dr. Evil.

Evil?

[AdrocK]

So re-writing a little utility that someone is over-charging for ($29 for a one-time use tool that I don't really need?!), then giving it away for free is evil? Since when?

Stealing the look and feel, and functionality of the product is evil? So the gimp is evil too then, cause that arguably provides the same look, feel and functionality as photoshop...?

What about half the other FOSS that was made as an alternative to over-priced commercial software?

And do you honestly think that this company could have made a billion dollars in profits from this utility? I don't.

I DO think it was a bit sketchy that google worked along side them, or made them a "partner" and then reneged, but I don't think that warrants the amount of negative spin that this is getting.

Re:Evil?

[JCSoRocks]

I've always wanted to say this - "Fo'Shizzle".

Please register for our new clinical trial

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad to see you understand what others find hard to grasp.

You'll be happy to hear that Dr. AC's new clinical trial for alligator arm regrowth tonic is opening soon. You can register to be one of our very first volunteer subjects at our new web site!

So what if it is a press release?

[MikeRT]

They made certain allegations about Google's conduct. If half of those allegations prove true, then it is perfectly reasonable to call Google a sleazy company to work with. It is perfectly reasonable to say "if half of these allegations prove true, then Google is sleazy" irrespective of whether or not the original charges came from a press release or an article.

So, where's the NDA and NCA

[Overzeetop]

Sure, a smile and a handshake is fine if you're doing a $300 quick job with a repeat customer, but if a billion dollars is on the line there needs to be paperwork. Now, if it is reasonable to presume that there wasn't much to be made on this at the beginning, then it is also reasonable to believe the change of heart on the part of Google is based on "new" information as to the viability of the product. If there are trade secrets involved, there should (must?) be an NDA, or it's not really a trade secret. And where do consumers come in this (i.e. the consumer fraud complaint)? It sounds like the consumers are going to make out to the tune of $29 per user.

Re:So, where's the NDA and NCA

[nomadic]

Sure, a smile and a handshake is fine if you're doing a $300 quick job with a repeat customer, but if a billion dollars is on the line there needs to be paperwork.

I'm sure there is. What I think a lot of slashdotters don't seem to realize is a "contract" can take many forms, both written and non-written. An e-mail chain can be considered a written contract, for example, if enough information is contained in aggregate.

If there are trade secrets involved, there should (must?) be an NDA, or it's not really a trade secret.

You don't need an NDA to prove a trade secret; if you did that would basically give the green light to industrial espionage. "Judge, yes I hired burglars to break into my competitor's office and steal his papers, but as the burglars never signed an NDA these are not trade secrets."

Re:So, where's the NDA and NCA

[Overzeetop]

As with anything legal, there are gray areas. If verbal agreements and emails were all that were necessary, though, we wouldn't have the aforementioned instruments. Verbal agreements are hard to make stick for large and/or significant disagreements. Again, a handshake and a nod will probably work for a nominal amount in small claims court, and you can find cases of larger settlements, but this smacks of a collaborative deal that didn't pan out.

Industrial espionage is quite different from two partners sharing common information on an interfacing product. It's going to be a bit harder to convince a judge that you volunteered the information on how you connect to a third party's (MS Outlook) format, received interface information from Google in return or as part of the dialog, and then claim those were trade secrets.

Re:So, where's the NDA and NCA

[Zerth]

No, but you need to behave as if the information was a trade secret, i.e. protect it with locks & NDAs. If they had no relationship with google, no they wouldn't need an NDA. But they were actively working with google and were apparently just handing them everything freely, because if they had a real agreement they'd be suing for breach of contract instead.

Re:So, where's the NDA and NCA

[Proteus]

"Judge, yes I hired burglars to break into my competitor's office and steal his papers, but as the burglars never signed an NDA these are not trade secrets."

Perhaps that's true, but if you give me copies without also telling me that I can't disclose the information that's in them, you'll have a lot harder time proving they were secret information later.

The most common way to prove that you've told me not to share information is an NDA in writing.

Re:So, where's the NDA and NCA

[cdrudge]

I'm sure there is. What I think a lot of slashdotters don't seem to realize is a "contract" can take many forms, both written and non-written. An e-mail chain can be considered a written contract, for example, if enough information is contained in aggregate.

If you are dealing with a "billion" dollar product and are relying on an e-mail as your sole legally binding contract, you should fire your lawyer. It may be fine to start work, get the ball rolling, etc until the actual contracts or agreements are signed, but anything significant should have a hard copy, signed with an actual pen agreement.

Re:So, where's the NDA and NCA

[Anonymous Coward]

"It sounds like the consumers are going to make out to the tune of $29 per user"

Sign me up! No fat chicks allowed!

Re:So, where's the NDA and NCA

[nomadic]

If verbal agreements and emails were all that were necessary, though, we wouldn't have the aforementioned instruments. Verbal agreements are hard to make stick for large and/or significant disagreements. Again, a handshake and a nod will probably work for a nominal amount in small claims court, and you can find cases of larger settlements, but this smacks of a collaborative deal that didn't pan out.

Companies enter into formal contracts because those are the best way to make sure all the terms of the agreement are stated. But honestly with a few exceptions (especially in regards to the statute of frauds) an oral agreement isn't any less enforceable than a written one. And most jurisdictions recognize that parties to a contract both promise to deal fairly with the other party, and courts will enforce these unstated terms.

Re:So, where's the NDA and NCA

[nomadic]

If you are dealing with a "billion" dollar product and are relying on an e-mail as your sole legally binding contract, you should fire your lawyer. It may be fine to start work, get the ball rolling, etc until the actual contracts or agreements are signed, but anything significant should have a hard copy, signed with an actual pen agreement.

Only in a lot of cases one party might not want to incorporate an agreement into a formal contract, but wants the other side to think an agreement exists. Which is entirely possible in this case. In that case the party that's trying to get screwed over might be able to show a contract if they can put together enough written communications that contain the necessary elements of a contract.

Re:So, where's the NDA and NCA

[Todd Knarr]

And as any lawyer, or any businessman, will tell you, when the other party says "There's no problem, we don't need to put that in writing.", you will be needing it in writing at some point and you'll be regretting not getting it.

What a half-assed press release

[Anonymous Coward]

they invited us to work with them, to trust them - and then stole our technology..."Google Email Uploader" steals gMove's look, feel and functionality So, they didn't steal technology, they developed a clone from scratch (apparently).

the other party is a small software company that built its business specifically to help Google sell its existing and future products Right. They didn't build the business to make money, they did it to help Google.

Google did not have a workable way to enable Microsoft Outlook users to easily migrate their email (called gMail), calendar and contacts to Google's platform. So, Outlook email is called "gMail"?

Re:What a half-assed press release

[AdrocK]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who had to read that a few times.

Here I thought I just misunderstood it.

steals gMove's look, feel and functionality

[simplerThanPossible]

Can MS sue them, too?

We're not planning to...

[simplerThanPossible]

We're not planning to introduce a competing product

We're not planning to introduce a competing product

We're not planning to introduce a competing product

OK, now we're planning to introduce a competing product

Are you kidding me?

[StellarFury]

I don't think that LimitNone has a case. Sure, they can claim that their migration software was a "trade secret" - but they, of their own volition, SHARED that trade secret with Google. It wasn't like Google had trenchcoat-wearing, fedora'd agents sneak into their company and copy all the source code onto flash drives and then inconspicuously sneak out the garbage chute. They asked LimitNone if they wanted to become part of a program to help with Google Apps, and as part of that program, LimitNone divulged their "trade secret." I don't see the coercion.

Suing someone else for your own stupid mistakes seems really... well, stupid. But I guess that's the name of the game these days.

Sounds like Google made their product successful

[Anonymous Coward]

As with everyone else here, I have no idea what actually went on in the meetings between Google and this company. However, their lawyers description of events goes something like this:

  - Google launches service
  - Google notices small company's product complements service
  - Google aggressively promotes company's product
  - Google starts providing similar product as part of service

It sounds to me like this is a "sour grapes" lawsuit. The company likely benefited tremendously from Google's promotion of it's product, and was probably expecting Google to simply buy them out and integrate the product. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Google developed an in-house solution, making their product redundant.

To put in traditional terms, if I ran a car company, and I promoted a certain brand of GPS in my dealerships, could that GPS company sue me once I started to integrate GPS systems into my vehicles?

Now, there may be many things we don't know, but when the plaintiffs lawyer makes things sound like this, it doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the merit of this lawsuit.

Not article --- lawyer's press release

[Anonymous Coward]

See comment above.

It's just a press release written by the plaintiff's lawyers, dressed up as an article. The only really hard fact here is that the plaintiff's lawyers are doing an OK job smearing Google; possibly in an attempt to force Google into a quick settlement for public relations reasons.

Better posting on CNET

[Anonymous Coward]

CNET is also covering this at http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9976405-7.html

It provides additional details, including: "And in May 2008, Google changed its user interface, breaking gMove compatibility and forcing the company to provide customer refunds."

captcha: nonzero (that's almost like LimitNone)

Re:Better posting on CNET

[onecheapgeek]

That almost sounds like intentionally breaking an API to freeze out a competitor...

Re:Better posting on CNET

[gabrieltss]

So Google can't change their user interface because it would have "broken" gMove? Sounds like it was a crappy screen scrapping app. It deserves to be squased...

Re:Better posting on CNET

[Anonymous Coward]

-- breaking gMove compatibility and forcing the company to provide customer refunds ..or they could just have released an updated product which worked with the new interface. Did they really think google was in some way obligated to keep the interface constant so that their app would work?

Seems to me that they had a nice niche, they had fantastic help from Google in selling their app while that niche lasted, and eventually Google did the obvious thing and added the functionality themselves.

Who would really expect Google to stay serious about gmail and not make their own free importer?

Re:How could they?

[StellarFury]

How could they? On the contrary, how could they not copy the look and feel of gMove when it looks and feels like that?

New Math!

[Anonymous Coward]

So you think 50 * 19 = 100?

Try again. This time with a calculator.

Public school graduate?

I don't get it

[srowen]

TFA does not say there was a "non-compete" agreement which would be crazy to agree to, since in fact this is easy to duplicate. It talks vaguely of "assurances". The CEO claims their technology was "stolen" but then the article says a competing product was released, not theirs.

Looks like they had the benefit of big-time promotion *for almost a year* before Google had anything else to show. They made quite a bit of money they wouldn't have otherwise I am sorry... sounds like someone was hoping for a payday and is just angry now.

Re:I don't get it

[16K Ram Pack]

"TFA does not say there was a "non-compete" agreement which would be crazy to agree to, since in fact this is easy to duplicate."

I remember working on some contracts with a lawyer, and we had to get all sorts of clauses down. I remember a few times saying "but I don't think they'll do that" and the lawyer saying "that's not good enough, we need a way to define it that makes it binding in law".

Re:trade secrets? for moving email?

[zifn4b]

I'm sure it was a piece of cake to write. Microsoft's proprietary API's and file formats are all easy to use and designed for maximum interoperability with third-party software.

Re:Sounds like Google made their product successfu

[Khisanth Magus]

The "for whatever reason Google made their own instead of buying the company" part probably is the fact that it probably took their programmers a few days at most to create the same tool instead of paying millions buying out another company. At most 100 man hours from some code monkeys or millions of $ to another company...hmmmm.

FREELVIS LAWSIUT!11!!1!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dis is teh freelvis lawsiut, cuz teh everbudy no teh googel is teh dunt be teh evel!!!11!!

Dey kant dew dis, cuz it wud be teh evel, an teh google is teh dunt be teh evel!!!1!!

An BTW, teh balmur is teh fat, an teh balmur trow teh chairz!!11! LOLz~!!111! Get it? He trow teh charz, cuz teh googel be teh dunt be teh evel, an he be teh evel!!11!! LOLz!!!1

Re-used code

[sxmjmae]

More than likely a developer involved in both project re-used is own developed code. We have a guy in the office that has been caught re-using coded packages from his previous employer. It is pretty easy to spot as not his work and ask him if understands what it is doing and often ask him re-write it. The case will did the developer back up his code and then transfer it tog Google? Or did he just come over to Google and re-write the code from scratch? I would hope the developer leveraged his experiences to the Google Project.

Googles Rep

[Digital End]

To start with, I have to say I'm siding with google on this... as all of the above posts have stated.

I just wanted to point something out. This is the difference of Googles rep and MS's rep. If MS did this, we'd be all over them searching for everything we could slant in their favor.

Re:Googles Rep

[sexconker]

No, this is the difference between Google sheep and Anti-MS zealots.
(Hint - there is no difference.)

Re:Googles Rep

[tehcyder]

If MS did this, we'd be all over them searching for everything we could slant in their favor.

That is a terribly worded sentence, as it says the exact opposite of what (I assume) you mean:

If MS did this, we'd be all over the other company searching for everything we could slant in the other company's favor.

Re:Googles Rep

[Digital End]

bah, yeah. Thank you for the correction. Shouldn't type and talk to people at the same time.

Re:Googles Rep

[home-electro.com]

I don't think so... If MS did something like this to a company, it would not even be noticed, in comparison to major stuff like XP discontinuing.

use your brain

[poetmatt]

The fact that people can only say that "there is an equal chance it may or may not be right" shows how little information is truly there. Not even a slight lean that it's incorrect or correct or even factual. This is speculating on 0 information whatsoever.

Migrating people to gmail from any competitor makes sense for google, and it's good and all that but really there's no reason google can't offer their own migration tool (as is what it really sounds like). No reason this guy can't offer his own too. I don't get why he didn't ask to have it listed by google or something.

All he's doing now is drumming up publicity for google's version, and ensuring that he's wasted google's time.

Re:use your brain

[wolferz]

You know what? Your absolutely right... and also absolutely off topic.

No one has made any claim regarding whether or not the plaintiffs claims are valid. The parent and op simply pointed out that IF half of the claims were [completely] true (not if they were half way likely to be true) then that would be plenty reason for a law suit and an award for the plaintiff.

The point is that the plaintiffs claims are pretty serious and, IF true, Google needs to pay the price for it's actions. The "half" is simply to point out that not only are just half the claims bad enough that, IF true, google should pay up but there are twice as many, assuming they all turn out to be true, as would be needed to say that google is being a bastard.

None of this has anything to do with whether or not the claims actually are incorrect, correct, or factual and whether or not there is information to support the claims is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Next time you try to claim people aren't using their brain... it might be a good idea to use yours first. Just sayin'...

Re:use your brain

[poetmatt]

it's okay, I understood what you meant :)

it was more "replying in agreement" than as contradictory. I should have definitely posted maybe to the OP instead.

The truth is, I can't really speculate. However, claims are always, always, always always intentionally drawn out 4and well beyond reasonable and rationale thought when you're in court.

This isn't a "shoot for the moon so you get close", its "if the judge happens to actually be retarded and make a bad judgement call, you have to post this unreasonable amount of bond to appeal the claim just to get justice back". In the interim that money is out of google's pocket. Likewise, Jamie Thomas with the RIAA case has to post the bond to appeal 225 thousand bucks or whatever before she can actually do the appeal. This is why corporations crush individuals.

Also, this is exactly why the plaintiff's complaints are very serious. Prosecution has the advantage in a legal situation...they can drop the case after costing google wads of cash and in worst case might face sanctions or have to pay back the legal fees but there isn't enough time in the world for google to sue for damages back on every putz that takes em to court.

I honestly doubt the claims are legitimate, this sounds a lot more like a company lawyering out of its lack of business sense. Failed market = sue successors has been tried and true as of lately. I'm almost surprised they didn't sue in the east texas rocket docket.

Re:trade secrets? for moving email?

[ColdWetDog]

I'm not a doctor but I can't see why people can't just grow back their arms when an alligator eats it off.
I mean lizards grow back tails all the time.
I don't see what the big problem is.

If you can't figure out the substantive differences between a human arm and a lizard's tail, I don't care what profession you claim to have knowledge of - I just want you to stay away - far away - from me.

I done this myself with no programming

[Anonymous Coward]

I have done this myself without any migration tool I just connected to gmail via IMAP and moved my mail from one folder to another. I did not need to move my contacts or calendar. You can just export those out vcf and ics files and import those into gmail.

Re:I done this myself with no programming

[sckeener]

Mind describing the process? I need to move several PSTs into my gmail account.

Re:I done this myself with no programming

[ozzee]

Gmail allows you to connect outlook via IMAP. (See the settings on gmail to enable imap). Configure outlook to connect to gmail. Select the messages you want in gmail and paste them into the appropriate gmail IMAP folder. POC. BTW, I've done this onto any IMAP server. There also exist migration tools that talk imap to imap.

Re:I done this myself with no programming

[Anonymous Coward]

On your gmail account activate the IMAP interface under Settings->Forwarding and POP/IMAP

Enable IMAP in gmail then following the instructions to setup your outlook to connect to gmail. Then you move your messages from outlook
to gmail. This process does take time but once it is done Hope that helps

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

am i missing something!?

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry, but i am pretty sure that limitNone would not have made a penny if Google did not develop gmail, so are they not just shooting themself in the foot.

Citation for this supposed quote?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the Dean of the Duke Law School said several years ago in an interview, when asked "aren't we getting to a critical mass of lawyers?" He responded "oh, no! If anything, we need MORE attorneys for the future! This is truly a GROWTH industry, and will be for decades to come!"

This sounds like bull shit to me, how about provide a citation for this "dean".

Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you are saying is that there isn't enough coverage about this on the tech rags you like, and no word from Google, therefore Microsoft is to blame. Did I parse that correctly?

Please tell us again how you are not twitter?

Re:trade secrets? for moving email?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time someone tried that, he turned into a giant lizard that wore purple pants, and Spiderman had to fight him in the sewers under New York City.

At the risk of sounding silly...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are going to produce proof that LimitNone is a "proxy" for Microsoft, aren't you, Twitter? Something more substantial than a massive conspiracy to report only one side of the story because the other side hasn't commented?

Re:trade secrets? for moving email?

[BCW2]

Possibly the most intelligent comment in this whole thread.

Google Reality Check

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

Google is a publicly traded company and as such here's what's important to them.....

Making money for their stockholders.

Despite all the happy horse hockey about "Do no evil", Google needed to amend it's mission statement once it became a publicly trade company to "We do less evil than everyone else"

Google is going to do what is best in their corporate interest. Surprised? Don't be. It's business

LimitNone's only hope

[Todd Knarr]

LimitNone's only hope is language in a written contract promising that Google won't compete with their product. Absent that, they're toast. Let's face it, their product isn't much. There's nothing in it that hasn't been well-known and in wide use for the last 30 years, and thus can't be a trade secret. Google obviously knows their own formats and APIs for loading messages into gMail. In fact they had to have created them before LimitNone's product existed, if they hadn't LN couldn't have created their product at all. The file formats and things like Exchange server APIs aren't exactly secret. Copying all messages from one to the other is the same basic copy loop that's been used for 40-some years: open input; while not eof(input) do read(input); write(output); done; close input. A loop to iterate through folders and some recursion to handle subfolders, I was doing that in high school. Look and feel? LimitNone's probably using the standard tree-view widgets provided by the system, so yes Google's app will look like theirs because both of them look like the standard system widgets. That's assuming the apps allow message-level selectivity, if they limit it to folder-level or "everything on this server", the UI's even more generic. And the concept of importing mail messages from an old client into a new one? Hardly new. Mail clients have been importing other client's mailboxes since as long as there've been mail clients. Thunderbird has been doing it IIRC for a couple years now, well before LimitNone's product was created.

LimitNone's problem is that they're trying to charge $29 for a basic one-shot function that comes standard with most mail clients and that frankly could be hacked up by a single programmer in a few weeks of full-time work.

Re:LimitNone's only hope

[home-electro.com]

Agree completely. There is nothing wrong with cloning someone else's application. Even if they "promised" not too do so. (Which I'm positive they did not, google is not that stupid to promise such BS)

The application is nothing, and it cost too much even at $19. There are no secrets in it, either. They should have known that and offer google to buy

I'm sure it hurts a lot for this company to lose a market of this size, but hey, tough luck.

Re:Slashdot has done better than most.

[dedazo]

twitter, is it safe to assume that proof of your claim that Microsoft is somehow involved in this will be forthcoming?

Mother Smucker?

[Anonymous Coward]

really?

Always room for self promotion....

[andyast]

Hard to get better *free* advertising than suing google and having a bunch of people discuss your company and your product. You might even get a settlement out of the deal and profit.

Speaking of shamless self promotion...

Use MS Outlook embedded into your iGoogle homepage. http://www.google.com/ig/directory?url=andyast.googlepages.com/MSOutlookWidget.xml

Ok, so maybe I feel a little shameful.
Bad Llama.

Re:Always room for self promotion....

[Kalriath]

I like this one better: http://www.google.com/ig/directory?url=sunnair.googlepages.com/MSOutlook-gadget.xml

No wait, it's the same. Amusingly, the shameless theft of your work is actually on topic!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

How much does Google pay for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

And can I get into that action?

I'm actually curious though, what exactly do you figure you gain by implying that Microsoft (or "M$" as you so cleverly call them) is in any way involved in this? Are you a Google employee by any chance?

Looking at your (decidedly short) posting history, yesterday you were accusing someone here on Slashdot of "astroturfing" because they did not hate TIFF as much as you do. How ridiculously astroturfy do you think this post looks?

I can only conclude that someone voted you "insightful" because you pasted lots of links into your comment.

It's open source...

[Anonymous Coward]

And writing an app to upload email data from an Outlook mailbox is not rocket science - all it takes is just some MAPI calls (vastly simplified, but that's essentially it).

Any college student can do the job.

Prepared Statement

[LeedsSideStreets]

...said Ray Glassman, CEO of LimitNone, in a prepared statement. Well, at least they're reasonably safe against technology theft by SQL injection.

"Don't be evil"

[BOFHelsinki]

Slightly off-topic but it's amusing how "Don't be evil" or "Do no evil" gets touted as Google Inc.'s "core philosophy" or company motto.

When in reality it's chapter 6 of their Corporate Philosophy page, titled "You can make money without doing evil" -- outlining what kind of advertising you should use.

They aren't even talking about themselves; let alone their business model.

So why not give them some slack, everybody. They never claimed they are saints. (Although IMHO they are one of the better behaved companies out there.)

Re:"Don't be evil"

[General Wesc]

Slightly off-topic but it's amusing how "Don't be evil" or "Do no evil" gets touted as Google Inc.'s "core philosophy" or company motto. When in reality it's chapter 6 of their Corporate Philosophy page, titled "You can make money without doing evil" -- outlining what kind of advertising you should use.

And the preface and conclusion of their code of conduct.

Details, details.

Re:"Don't be evil"

[dookiesan]

Suppose they really did f*** these guys over. You're asking to cut them some slack?

Re:"Don't be evil"

[TekPolitik]

I think it somewhat telling that the code of conduct does not include a section titled "responsibilities to society" or "responsibilities to humanity". Other than "comply with the law", every single one of those principles is about furthering Google's interests, not about constraining Google for the benefit of others. Even the ones that are about equal opportunity and confidentiality can be seen through a self-interest prism.

McDonalds coffee verdict

[becker]

I don't recall reading anywhere that McDonalds had been warned by the FDA about the temperature of their coffee. The phrase "several times" implies a specific warning that was ignored, presumably something that would have been brought up at the trial and mentioned in the extensive press coverage.

And where did the "20% of her body" number come from? The number quoted from all credible sources is 6%. You should review your sources, or perhaps consider if you have an extreme bias.

Two sides

[mlwmohawk]

This is only their complaint, I'd like to hear Google's side before I make a judgment.

The issue here is how accurate is their side of the story. How much intentional "misunderstanding" is taking place.

I CAN'T believe Google wouldn't develop an outloook reader, and I can't believe that they couldn't. So, I can't believe these people when they say google had no intention. That does n ot make sense.

What did Google actually say about non-compete?

How much of the "working with google" was merely professional support?

Do they have anything in writing?

Sorry, I'm looking for reasons to hate google, but this doesn't seem like one of them.

Re:Slashdot has done better than most.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is ridiculous, even for Slashdot.

It's a typo

[Richy_T]

Google is actually being sued for $18, the cost of the software. It would be $19 but google had a voucher.

Rich

That's what they want you to believe...

[idlemind]

No. It was not valid. This case was a fluke.

http://overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban-legends-and-stella-liebeck-and-the-mcdonalds-coffee-case/ has a good perspective on the case:

Amazingly, rather than argue that the tort system shouldn't be judged by the occasional outlier, the litigation lobby has succeeded in persuading some in the media and on the left that the Liebeck case is actually an aspirational result for the tort system, and, not only that, but that anyone who says otherwise is just a foolish right-winger buying into "urban legends" (Aug. 14, Aug. 16, and links therein). Even the Mikkelsons at snopes.com have made the mistake of buying into the trial lawyer hype, calling the case "perfectly legitimate" and effectively classifying the common-sense understanding of the case as an urban legend.

Re:That's what they want you to believe...

[Anonymous Coward]

The reference you give is full of it. I read the actual court transcripts shortly after the initial million dollar veredict and on the evidence as presented to the jury, a reasonable person would conclude that McDonalds served the coffee 10-15 degrees higher than the average, had been advised repeteadly to lower the temperature and that the lady didn't do anything that you or I wouldn't have done, i.e. open the coffee to add the cream provided by McDonalds.

I'm not a lawyer nor am I in anyy way connected to the litigation lobby. Just the facts ma'am.

Pile On

[hellfire]

I for one welcome our new prediction toting cynical overlords.

If only I had a beowulf cluster of those...

Re:Give it time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sig and your homepage both point to comments by the person you replied to, and your user name looks suspiciously like a name troll. In cases like these, it's safe to assume you are twitter.

Re:Give it time.

[dedazo]

If you didn't happen to have said the same thing five years ago, I'd be inclined to take you seriously, even with the creative spelling and obvious name troll complete with links to my comments.

Oh, and here's a clickable link to your sig URL. Really twitter, if you need help figuring out how to create an anchor tag in HTML, let me know.

just go away twitter

[Anonymous Coward]

you are a disgrace, and you give all of us a bad name, because you seem to be a normal user but in reality are not better than the goatse first posters, the page wideners, the ascii artists and the gnaa trolls. i wish you would just go away.

there are enough things to blame microsoft for without having to make stuff up when you're bored and then expect everyone to take you seriously. we don't need your "help" to advance free software. just go away.

It'll settle

[sofla]

I'd be real surprised if this actually makes it to court. Its much more likely to settle.

Slashdot has a bias.

[Anonymous Coward]

Get over it already!

Good Complete Products are Complicated

[jackjjordan]

The concept of moving emails and all from Exchange is simple but doing for $19 per company, flawlessly, without need for customer support, without risk of blowing up the Exchange box would be really tough. Most people who are in the $19 product range are not that technical. If it wasn't perfect this would be brutal on the support staff. If Google was having trouble and this company showed them how not to have trouble, then Google seems to owe them something. Everyone always thinks the other person's product is easy....rare they think their own is.

The truth is in the APIs

[termite12]

I'm no lawyer, but I have to believe that the underlying technology has to come to play here.

Gmail provides two APIs for managing mail in Gmail:

1) IMAP - clearly you can create, read, update, delete emails through IMAP. LimitNone would be silly to sue Google for creating an IMAP client for migration purposes.

2) The email migration API. In true Google fashion, this is a REST API that only supports one way posting of mail to Google. It is very single purpose.

gMove used neither of these. It instead, used non-supported, non-documented protocols that the navtive Gmail interface uses to talk to the server.

Sure, gMove may have been a clever implementation, but a robust product it was not. If they were charging customers for a product built on an ever changing, non-documented API, that's the risk they understood. Hell, their customers should be suing them for false advertising.
 

Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

http://investor.google.com/conduct.html

Google stole my code too.

[louzer]

I once participated in a code jam sponsored by Google. And we did not win any prize. But Google implemented our feature by next week.

"Don't be evil" philosophy cannot be practiced in a human enterprise in a Utopian sense.

So ...

[wye43]

... basically everyone agrees that Google acted like dicks, but LimitNone has close to squat chance to win this lawsuit. Well, beside the obvious win for the lawyers (you gotta love'em), there is the public that they are after.

And that has some value for Google. Well, not 1B$, but you gotta start negotiations from some number (and 42 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answer_to_Life,_the_Universe,_and_Everything/ is not good in this case). Unless GOOG shareholders are starting to think only about short term gains.

So a potential 1Bn asked for

[Anonymous Coward]

and potentially 1Bn has been paid.

Sounds like it's already been paid off to me!

I believe this could be true

[Bottle Washer]

A company I used to work for partnered up with a large Software as a Service provider years ago (when they were a bit smaller). We along with other companies were writing applications to work with their software, and the Service provider was happy to have all of these applications to offer with there service. Turns out that they would find out which ones were most popular and then copy it which would put the integrating company out of business. Fortunately for us, we saw the patten early on before they had a chance to do it to us, an we left them. Proof that this does happen. The provider today does not get tagged as an evil company, yet it does this.