Internet Lawyer Blog

The central provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the "AIA") went into effect in March 2013, revolutionizing the United States patent system. Traditionally, the United States had maintained a "first-to-invent" patent system, which awarded patent rights to the first inventor who created a unique invention. However, as the AIA went into effect, not only did the statute change the effects of U.S. patent law, but it also affected how inventors will make the decision of whether to file patents.

How Does the AIA Change the U.S. Patent System?

Before this new provision, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") awarded patents to the individual or entity that invented first, rather than the individual or entity that filed an application for a patent first. Now, an inventor could lose patent rights to another inventor who potentially created the same invention later in time, but managed to file a patent application for the same invention sooner. Essentially, regardless of who conceptualized an invention first, the first to submit a good-faith patent application secures patent rights.

Under this system, inventors have a greater chance of losing their patent rights if they fail to take appropriate actions to file a patent application in time. Accordingly, the USPTO will likely see an influx of provisional applications as inventors take care to submit their applications first. Simply keeping records and documenting the date of an invention will not work towards protecting an inventor's rights any more.

How Does the AIA Affect Inventors and their Patent Rights?

First, inventors no longer have the luxury of preserving their rights to inventions simply because they are the first to invent. To protect patent rights, inventors will need to make quick decisions to file patent applications. To protect patent rights longer, inventors will also need to thoroughly consider whether they intend to seek a patent application before they make new inventions public. Especially if inventors are looking to secure their patent rights outside the United States, they will need to make sure they file for patent protection before they introduce their invention in the international market. If an inventor fails to secure patent rights in advance, he may lose his property right and interest in the underlying invention.

However, even a patent application that is filed first may be invalid if the underlying invention comes from stolen or misappropriated ideas. Therefore, companies that primarily work with new inventions and patent rights should ensure that any invention that comes from outside the company includes written authorization from the patent owner. These companies should also keep careful records of their research and development in the event that a patent infringement lawsuit requires the company to establish that it used the invention in good faith.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in legal matters by using extensive knowledge and skills to create innovative solutions. Please contact us today to set up a confidential consultation.

President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Act"), or ObamaCare, as it is more commonly known, into law on March 23, 2010. The Act intends to decrease the number of Americans who do not have medical insurance. Additionally, the Act aims to decrease the overall cost of healthcare in the nation. One of the primary provisions of the Act requires employers that have at least 50 full-time employees to provide healthcare benefits for their employees. If such employers fail to provide benefits adequate under government standards, the employers will have to pay a fine. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the plaintiffs questioned the constitutionality of ObamaCare, arguing that the federal government did not have the authority to require businesses to provide health care. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the constitutionality of ObamaCare.

Although, ObamaCare will not go into effect until 2014, it is already starting to have an effect on small businesses in America. Indeed, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service released regulations, in December of 2012, that require companies that average 50 or more full-time employees to provide healthcare or pay a fine now.

The way small businesses structure in 2013 could determine their status under ObamaCare next year. Companies have considered limiting growth to eliminate the need for additional employees. Accordingly, employers are choosing to outsource work instead of hiring full-time employees in order to avoid the cost of providing government-approved health care. Also, employers are hiring employees only on a part-time basis to avoid meeting the standard under ObamaCare.

This may prove to be a problem in light of the IRS's dedication to audit employers who improperly label employees as "independent contractors" to avoid paying taxes on wages. Therefore, small businesses with close to 50 full-time employees need to be careful with how they choose to categorize employees. An IRS audit that reveals improperly categorized employees could hold an employer liable for back taxes and penalties for failing to provide the appropriate healthcare benefits.

The potential for incorrectly categorizing employees is increasingly unclear because an employer's definition of an independent contractor may be different from the government's definition. The vague IRS guidelines take into account: (i) how much control the employer has over the employee, (ii) how permanent the employment is, and (iii) how the employer pays the employee. Given the confusion that these standards may generate, employer can file certain forms with the IRS to determine if an employment relationship properly constitutes contract employment.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in legal matters by using extensive knowledge and skills to create innovative solutions. Please contact us today to set up a confidential consultation.

The news outlets have been reporting that the Chinese have allegedly been hacking into American infrastructures. Assuming this report is accurate, the United States is not equipped to handle the consequences of such an attack. These hackers would possess the power to disable the critical infrastructure in this country, eliminating electricity, gas, water, and all major transit systems. Indeed, earlier this year, both The New York Times and The Wall Street reported that hackers had infiltrated their systems and stolen confidential employee information. The New York Times has further reported that it has been experiencing constant attacks from the Chinese in an attempt to control information that pertains to China. The Ministry of National Defense in China denies any such cyberattack on The New York Times. In light of these recent developments, it has become increasingly important for individuals and businesses to take steps to ensure their cyber protection. By serving California and Washington D.C., the skilled attorneys at the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh successfully work on legal matters pertaining to cybersecurity and Internet law.

The former Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, has described the scene that will unfold after such an attack as a "cyber Pearl Harbor." Indeed, these hackers could possess software with the capacity to destroy infrastructure hardware. Such an attack would spread chaos throughout the country for months while the government works to restore its vital systems. Pointing to the failed Cybersecurity Act of 2012, Panetta has called upon the private citizens and businesses to act to secure their cybersecurity. Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State, confirmed that this was a crisis that required global attention.

These instances of "cyberterrorism" threaten to cause damage far beyond the destruction of 9/11. Mandiant, a cyber-security company based in the United States, traces these cyber-attacks to the People's Liberation Army, the Chinese military. The efforts in America to make sense of these attacks have not led to any definitive answers. The dangers of cyber-attacks are apparent in the recent attack on Aramco, the Saudi Arabian oil company. The attack consisted of a virus, which destroyed 30,000 Aramco computers, and replaced essential files within the system with an image of an American flag burning. There was also a reported cyber-attack on Telvent (now known as Schneider Electric), an international corporation that provides companies with the network and connections to remotely control power grids, oil pipelines, and gas pipelines. It remains unclear whether the hacking efforts are meant to steal confidential information, or whether the hacking is part of a larger scheme to derail vital American infrastructures. Indeed, the threat may not be limited to the Chinese, but rather part of a greater effort to launch an attack against American cybersecurity. This certainly poses a threat not only for national security, but also for individual cyber-security involving consumers and businesses that compose and participate in the crucial business and technology infrastructures.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in legal matters by using extensive knowledge and skills to create innovative solutions. Please contact us today to set up a confidential consultation.

In light of recent news that America's cyber-network is vulnerable to outside attack, President Obama signed an Executive Order to improve cyber-security for the nation's "critical infrastructure." According to the Order, "critical infrastructure" applies to the vital physical and virtual systems in the United States that are essential to the country's economic security, public health, and safety. This definition is in line with the definition of "critical infrastructure" in the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, which the federal government failed to pass.

The Executive Order is meant to promote greater information sharing among members of the same network. This will ensure that all network providers are adequately aware of potential threats to the system in time to plan and implement an effective response. Accordingly, American companies now bear the responsibility of evaluating whether "critical infrastructure" applies to their operations. Alternatively, the Executive Order may also apply to companies that provide goods or services to other companies that the Executive Order implicates. In this case, the Executive Order would also apply to the companies that provide the goods or services. These companies would then bear the same responsibility to abide by the Executive Order and participate in the information-sharing network.

The Executive Order also requires various federal agencies to participate in this network. The Office of the Attorney General, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of National Intelligence, among others, are responsible for participating to create an information-sharing network. Such a network will make it easier to detect and ward off cyber-threats. Additionally, the information-sharing network will allow the participating agencies to quickly notify the President of any legislation that is necessary to further protect the nation's cyber-network. Furthermore, a working and productive network will incentivize other agencies and companies to join the network. Increased participants will improve the breadth of the network, work to expand the reach of the network, and add to the information that is available within the network.

President Obama addressed the Executive Order in his State of the Union speech. The President explained that while the Executive Order was not a substitute for cybersecurity legislation, the Executive Order would prohibit further threats to the nation's cyber-network before Congress implements such legislation. Accordingly, Congress revisited the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act ("CISPA") the day after President Obama signed the Executive Order. Meanwhile, the Senate is reviewing the Cybersecurity and American Cyber Competitiveness Act of 2013. Past attempts at passing cybersecurity legislation have alarmed associations that aim to protect civil liberties. Specifically, there is an underlying concern that such expansive information sharing stands to violate individual privacy rights. However, the American Civil Liberties Union has already spoken out in support of the Executive Order and the national security the Executive Order seeks to implement.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in legal matters by using extensive knowledge and skills to create innovative solutions. Please contact us today to set up a confidential consultation.

As part of a recent move to revise its body of business law, the Council of Washington D.C. has adopted an amended Title 29 of the District of Columbia Code on Business Organizations. Chapter 4 applies specifically to rules pertaining to Nonprofit Organizations. Also known as the Nonprofit Corporation Act of 2010 (the "Act"), as of January 2012, chapter 4 has applied to all non-profit corporations that existed after 1962. Nonprofit corporations that existed prior to 1962 will have until January 2014 to give notice waiving application of the Act to their operations. If pre-1962 corporations fail to file such notice by January 2014, the Act will apply to their operations.

A nonprofit organization's Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws may replace most of the provisions of the Act. The Articles of Incorporation or bylaws serve as a set of specific laws that govern the operations and structure of each individual corporation. The revised Act may still provide new benefits for such companies. For instance, under section 29-102.11 of the Act, nonprofit corporations must now file their biennial reports by April 1st, not January 15th. In addition, according to section §29-401.03, nonprofit organizations must give notice in the form of a record. Under the Act, a "record" includes e-mails, taxes, and telegrams. However, a nonprofit corporation may include a provision in its Articles of Incorporation of bylaws, allowing for oral notice. The Act also allows nonprofit organizations to provide for electronic meetings-- annual, regular, or special--under section 29-405.01-02. In the case of elections, section 29-405.28 now allows nonprofit corporations to appoint election inspectors to manage elections. When forming committees, the Act allows nonprofit organizations to only have a single member as the director of the committee. Furthermore, whereas nonprofit corporations' directors held fiduciary duties towards the organization, including, but not necessarily limited to, duty of loyalty and duty of care under case law, now section 29-406.30-31 of the Act holds such duties. Finally, under section 29-406.70 of the Act, a transaction that bears the risk of a conflict of interest is not automatically voidable if the corporation has taken the steps to approve the transaction with shareholders. Additionally, a conflict of interest transaction may not necessarily be voidable if the corporation can demonstrate that the transaction was fair to the organization at the time that it was approved by the board of directors.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in legal matters by using extensive knowledge and skills to create innovative solutions. Please contact us today to set up a confidential consultation.

Former CIA Director David Petraeus from his position after the FBI looked through Petraeus' private Gmail account and discovered that he was having an extramarital affair. These events have brought to light the fragile state of individual privacy on the Internet, particularly in relation to individual email accounts.

According to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 ("ECPA"), which is current and applicable cyber law, the FBI has the authority to look through any email account simply by accessing the account through providers such as Yahoo or Gmail. Under the ECPA, law enforcement agencies do not need a search warrant to look through such accounts if the message is more than 180 days old.

In addition, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA"), under Title 50, sections 1801 et seq. of the United States Code, allows the government to monitor communications between foreign parties, without a search warrant. A 2008 amendment to FISA further allows the government to monitor communications between American parties if the government does not know of the parties' exact locations or identities. A group of attorneys raised a constitutional challenge to this amendment, and the matter is now before the United States Supreme Court. The justices have focused on whether the amendment offers the government an inappropriate range of power, or whether the amendment simply expands the government's resources to protect America.

In response to public discontent, the Senate Judiciary Committee has considered an update to ECPA that would require police to obtain a search warrant before searching private emails. As technology advancements give law enforcement agencies increased avenues to access private information, the public calls upon legislatures to "catch up."

There are certain legal remedies in place to protect individual privacy on the Internet. For example, the Stored Communications Act ("SCA"), which Congress also enacted in 1986, allows a party to sue in civil court when there is unauthorized access of personal email. However, the SCA's main focus is the privacy of emails upon delivery, which does not necessarily protect the privacy of stored emails after delivery.

However, the government is also taking action to protect privacy on the Internet. The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") initiated a lawsuit against Google for violating a 2011 privacy settlement. Google paid $22.5 million for violating the settlement by allowing cookies to track user information on the Safari web browser on Apple products. According to the FTC, this is the largest settlement they have ever obtained for their efforts to protect individual privacy. However, skeptics argue that this will only be a "slap on the wrist" for Google and actual Internet privacy will call for Do Not Track Legislation.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in legal matters by using extensive knowledge and skills to create innovative solutions. Please contact us today to set up a confidential consultation.

Facebook is struggling to decide how to handle its pictures. While consumer companies urge Facebook to profit from its face recognition technology, international regulators insist that user identities remain protected. According to a New York Times article entitled, Facebook Can ID Face, But Using Them Grows Tricky, Facebook agreed to delete user identification information, which the site gathers through facial recognition technology. The technology at issue is Facebook's "tag suggestion" which automatically matches names with faces when a user uploads a photo. Facebook has deactivated this feature to make improvements that international regulators can approve.

Chris Hoofnalge, a professor at the University of California Berkeley, School of Law stated in the article that increasing developments in this field "directly affects civil liberties." Although, the public is more likely to accept using identifying information from facial recognition technology for security purposes, Wall Street is now pressuring Facebook to utilize its users' personal data for profit. Legislators, such as Senator Al Franken, have expressed concern over Facebook's "database of face prints," which Facebook has gathered "without the explicit consent of its users." Franken urged Facebook to provide the same right of privacy to its American users as it does its European counterparts.

The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") has issued a guide, "Facing Facts Best Practices for Common Uses of Facial Recognition Technologies," aimed at defining facial recognition technology and outlining authorized uses. In addition, earlier this year Google announced a new tool that would allow individuals to blur their faces in YouTube videos. This is one of the first steps to provide "visual anonymity" in cyberspace.

In a Villanova Law Review comment entitled, "Every Breath You take, Every Move You Make, I'll Be Watching You: The Use of Face Recognition Technology," author Bridget Mallon paints a picture of a future where surveillance cameras have the capacity to instantly look up an individual's entire history and record from a picture. And while this extreme may be a reality of a far more distant future, the privacy threats of face recognition and video surveillance are concerns today. The threat that Facebook employs face recognition technology stems from a concern that the website will then allow access to this data for surveillance purposes. The Electronic Privacy Information Center has warned the FTC that it should prohibit any law enforcement agency from using Facebook's face recognition technology and database "absent a showing of adequate legal process, consistent with international human rights norms." As the technology continues to develop, the FTC is conducting studies to better understand the benefits and consequences of face recognition capabilities. However, in the meantime, Facebook's database of personal information and pictures continues to grow, absent any real limitations.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in legal matters by using extensive knowledge and skills to create innovative solutions. Please contact us today to set up a confidential consultation.

We have submitted a petition to ask Congress to review and modify section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in order to limit the protection granted to interactive online services, such as news websites, blogs, forums, and listservs. Also, Congress should set new policies and procedures for interactive online services to confirm the true identity of their users and members. This confirmation of a user's or member's true identity promotes protection against bogus statements made against innocent individuals and prevents the victimization of businesses.

This petition should be signed because consumers and businesses are facing various problems such as defamation, harassment, or retaliation by anonymous users on interactive online services without recourse and protection. Unfortunately, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants broad immunity to interactive online services. By doing so, such immunity tilts the scale of justice and creates an unreasonable result for innocent individuals who are being targeted by anonymous users and have no remedy for protection.

Please visit this link, review and sign it if you are willing to support our request for change in legislation.

Computers and computing activities play an increasingly integral role in daily life in America, affecting our financial activity, social interactions, and more. With an increased level of dependence on networked devices comes the risk of theft, or even attacks, on and through our computer networks. While the business community has already recognized the importance of cybersecurity, the government and legal system are finally responding in five key areas.

National security. The federal government has made cybersecurity a central feature of its national security strategy. Recognizing the risk of an attack on the nation's computer networks by a foreign power or sub-national group, the Department of Defense created a comprehensive strategy for cybersecurity (PDF file) in 2011. The strategy treats "cyberspace" as its own "operational domain," requiring specialized training and organization. The government has also taken steps to combat online theft, which can include not only monetary theft but theft of intellectual property and identity theft. The latter has become more and more sophisticated as thieves find ways to exploit personally identifiable information (PII) stored online.

Federal legislation. The Obama administration proposed legislation outlining ten points for cybersecurity protection. These generally included protection of the American people, the nation's infrastructure, and the federal government's networks and computer systems. Several bills pending in Congress address aspects of cybersecurity. The controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), for example, allows sharing of data between companies and the National Security Agency in order to investigate and combat cybersecurity threats.

State legislation. Protection of government data, PII, and personal privacy have informed numerous state statutes enacted in the past ten years. California passed a law requiring notification of cybersecurity breaches in 2003, and forty-six other states and the District of Columbia followed suit. Laws requiring "reasonable" levels of security for protected information exist in at least ten states, and numerous states are enacting statutes protecting people from wiretapping and other monitoring of electronic activity.

Regulatory initiatives. Multiple regulatory agencies have addressed cybersecurity concerns through additional regulations, guidelines, and enforcement actions. The U.S. Security and Exchange Commission (SEC), for example, recently issued a new set of guidelines for publicly-traded companies. The guidelines address disclosure of cybersecurity breaches as a means of making information available to investors. The FBI, meanwhile, established a joint task force to investigate cyber threats.

Continue reading "Legal Developments and Trends in Cybersecurity for 2012" »

President Barack Obama is summoning top congressional Republicans and Democrats to a rare Sunday meeting at the White House to begin "hard bargaining" on a broad debt-reduction deal.

At the July 10 session Obama will make his latest bid to break a partisan impasse over whether to include cuts in entitlement programs and tax increases in an agreement. Both sides in the debate are signaling openness to compromise on each front.

See more here.

The White House will host a Twitter town hall with President Barack Obama on July 6. The president will answer questions submitted via Twitter, which limits messages to 140 characters. The town hall will focus on jobs and the economy, and a video feed of Obama's answers will be streamed online.

See www.twitter.com/salaratrizadeh for more information.

Earlier, a post on this blog noted the jurors in the corruption trial of former Governor Rod Blagojevich had informed the judge they had only reached a decision on two of the 24 charges in the case. Now, the news comes that the jurors have reached a final verdict: on one count only. Jurors have found Rod Blagojevich guilty on one count of lying to federal agents. The judge has decided to declare a mistrial on the remaining 23 counts.

Prosecutors have wasted no time in announcing that they intend to retry Blagojevich and his brother Robert on the other charges. As the Associated Press reported, one of the main charges as yet undecided is whether or not Blagojevich attempted to sell the senate seat vacated by President Obama. The presiding judge in the trial, James Zagel, has set a hearing for Aug. 26 to decide issues regarding the retrial.

The AP reported that the jurors looked wearier than they had during the trial. The single count verdict came after 14 days of deliberations. At one point, the jurors had informed Judge Zagel that they were deadlocked on as many as 11 of the charges. They had also informed the judge that they had reached agreement on two charges, but seemed to have lost their consensus along the way to the jury verdict.

The lone count on which Blagojevich was found guilty was for lying to federal agents when he told them he did not track his campaign contributions and kept a "'firewall' between campaigns and government work." The conviction carries a maximum sentence of up to five years in prison and a fine of $250,000.

During the corruption trial, Robert Blagojevich testified that his brother was "trying to politically work something to his benefit" regarding the handling of the Senate seat, but was thinking in terms of political horse-trading, not corruption, according to a report by CNN.

Visa Inc., the world's biggest payments network, fell as much as 5 percent after saying the U.S. Department of Justice may sue the company over a policy that bars merchants from charging extra to customers who pay with credit cards.

"The department has indicated that it is considering filing a civil lawsuit," Chief Executive Officer Joseph W. Saunders said yesterday in a conference call with analysts after San Francisco-based Visa reported fiscal third-quarter results. "We are currently engaged in constructive negotiations with the department to resolve its concerns as it relates to Visa without litigation or payment of monetary damages."

Visa, American Express Co. and Purchase, New York-based MasterCard Inc. disclosed in 2008 that the Justice Department was investigating the companies over so-called anti-surcharging policies and rules prohibiting merchants from "steering" customers to other forms of payment.

The Justice Department's antitrust division is "investigating whether certain credit-card network rules regarding merchants' treatment of various payment forms, including credit cards, are anticompetitive," spokeswoman Gina Talamona said in an e-mail. She declined to discuss specific companies.

Visa dropped $3.40, or 4.5 percent, to $71.78 at 1:04 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading after touching $71.40. MasterCard declined 1.7 percent and AmEx fell less than 1 percent.

'Regulatory Uncertainty'

The Dodd-Frank Act includes provisions that address some of the complaints raised by the Justice Department and a pending federal antitrust lawsuit brought by merchants against Visa and MasterCard. One of the rules pushed by U.S. Senator Richard Durbin, the Illinois Democrat and majority whip, will allow merchants to offer discounts for various forms of payment.

FBR Capital Markets analyst Scott Valentin cited "regulatory uncertainty" in lowering his forecast for Visa, saying the shares may climb to $96 within 12 months, down from $115.

"Management commentary lacked specifics regarding the impact of the Durbin amendment," Valentin said today in a note to clients. He continues to rate the shares "outperform."

The legislation and Saunders's comments may indicate that Visa also is working to avoid a trial by settling the merchants' lawsuit, said Jason Kupferberg, an analyst with UBS Securities LLC.

'Differential Pricing'

"The Durbin amendment has effectively legalized differential pricing for all tender types, which may address the anti-surcharging and anti-steering practices that the DOJ was examining," Kupferberg said in an interview.

It's too early to tell whether the legislation and a Justice Department lawsuit would lead to a settlement in the merchants' case, said K. Craig Wildfang, lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

"Having another government agency conclude that these things are anticompetitive -- it's been true around the world -- and to have the DOJ weigh in on this, would be, in the grand scheme of things, helpful to the private plaintiffs," Wildfang said in a telephone interview.

MasterCard, which is scheduled to report second-quarter results on Aug. 3, didn't address Visa's comments.

"We've been cooperating fully with the DOJ since they issued their civil investigative demand in October 2008," MasterCard spokesman James Issokson said in a telephone interview

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com

On January 22, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States granted unlimited corporate spending on elections. The justices overturn a century of U.S. electoral law by a 5-4 vote. Millions of extra dollars are expected to start flowing from big business to Republican candidates.

Overturning a century-old restriction, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as much as they want to sway voters in federal elections.

In a landmark 5-4 decision, the court's conservative bloc said that corporations have the same right to free speech as individuals and, for that reason, the government may not stop corporations from spending to help their favored candidates.

The ruling -- which will presumably apply as well to labor unions and other organizations -- is likely to have an impact on this year's congressional elections. Many political analysts and election-law experts predict that millions of extra dollars will flood into this fall's contests, much of it benefiting Republican candidates.

President Obama called the ruling "a major victory for Big Oil, Wall Street banks, health-insurance companies and other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." He promised to seek "a forceful response to this decision" from Congress. Some Democrats talked about seeking legislation that would require corporations to get approval from their shareholders before spending money on politics.

See http://articles.latimes.com for more information

Redmond's top legal mouthpiece Brad Smith is calling on US lawmakers to overhaul rules on cloud computing, just as the company ramps up its efforts to belatedly step on other vendors' toes in that marketplace.

He asked Congress yesterday to legislate cloud computing, in a move to protect business and consumer information.

Smith's comments came on the same day that Microsoft inked a deal with cloud rival Intuit, and spun out a survey about the relevance of small businesses climbing on board the hosted services wagon.

Microsoft's top lawyer proposed a Cloud Computing Advancement Act in a speech at the Brookings Institute in Washington DC on Wednesday. He also penned an op ed piece for the Huffington Post.

"While the benefits of these new [cloud computing] technologies are clear - accessing data at your fingertips whenever and wherever you want - these benefits also come with challenges. The recent security breaches reported by Google last week once again make this abundantly clear," he opined.

Smith then crossed his fingers and prayed for a sprinkling of fairy dust. We need a safe and open cloud - a cloud that is protected from the efforts of thieves and hackers while also serving as an open source of information to all people around the world," he said.

The MS legal beagle then took on the role of rights advocate, by asking anyone who cared to listen if they understood online privacy law and what that meant for an individual's cloud-based data.

"Are you confident that your privacy is being protected? If you live in one country but your data is stored in another, whose laws govern?" he demanded to know. "These questions about privacy, security, and international sovereignty require immediate attention."

Microsoft, of course, has data centres dotted across the globe - holding exactly the sort of information Smith appears to be having sleepless nights about.

At the same time, Smith was keen to point out the validity of cloud computing - quite right too, given that Microsoft is finally making a play for all things fluffy.

But for customers to take Microsoft's efforts seriously, Smith thinks that the interwebulator needs to be better policed to keep the yobs out.

Clutching at straws

"The internet should not be a 'town square,' where anyone wandering the street can get a peek at what you are doing. But current law is not clear about how to deal with privacy concerns as they relate to the cloud. Users' privacy is something that businesses, governments, consumers, and other key stakeholders must seriously address," he said.

In effect, Microsoft wants some degree of consistency about how such a lockdown can be achieved across countries that have different regulatory concerns about how data and apps are hosted in the cloud.

Under Smith's proposed Cloud Computing Advancement Act, he has called on Congress to improve privacy protection and data access rules by strengthening the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

Microsoft also wants to see the legislature of the US federal government overhaul the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to hand police the tools to go after hackers and cut down instances of online-based crimes.

Add to that some "truth-in-cloud-computing principles", and a "pursuit of a new multilateral framework to address data access issues globally" and Microsoft pretty much has its very own manifesto on hosting info and apps on the web.

But its call to arms comes nearly a year after an Open Cloud Manifesto landed, led by old guard tech titan IBM.

At the time Microsoft snubbed any involvement in that particular "call to action for the worldwide cloud community".

The reality is that different software vendors have very different ideas about how online data should be regulated. Microsoft can lobby Congress all it likes, and may have some powerful people making the right sort of noises in there to do it, but the company still has to get in line and form a queue with its rivals.

Until all the disparate parties shake hands (never gonna happen), it's hard to foresee a happy-ever-after up in the clouds.

After all, back down on earth, software makers large and small bump heads all the time over how the industry should be shaped and governed. Why should Microsoft, or anyone else for that matter, expect cloud computing to get an easy ride?

Article By: Kelly Fiveash

Posted in IT Director, 21st January 2010 16:02 GMT