>New Google CEO Larry Page takes over from Eric Schmidt

>

Google’s co-founder Larry Page takes charge today, as Eric Schmidt stops “adult supervision” to become Executive Chairman.

Google co-founder Larry Page today formally becomes the search giant’s chief executive. The move, announced on 20 January, sees the triumvirate at the top of Google move to a slightly different configuration but all stay closely involved in the business.

Eric Schmidt, formerly chief executive and provider of “adult supervision” to the founders, will become Executive Chairman, while Larry Page will become Chief Executive. Sergey Brin retains his role as co-founder.

Mr Schmidt was brought in to guide Google’s student founders in 2001. Speaking at the announcement in January, he said: “I believe Larry is ready. His ideas are very interesting and clever and it’s time for him to have a shot at running this.

“I am enormously proud of my last decade as CEO and I am certain that the next 10 years under Larry will be even better! Larry, in my clear opinion, is ready to lead.”

Mr Schmidt also said that the triumvirate structure had slowed down decision making, and that the changes would help clarify the individual roles so “there’s clear responsibility and accountability at the top of the company”. However, he reassured investors that he does not expect any “material change” in the way the company is run because “we tend to agree on pretty much everything”.

Mr Schmidt is expected to take a wider role in so-called “outreach”, travelling the world to explain Google’s ambitions. In the company’s most recent results, he announced a jump in annual profits to $10.8 bn

>Judge Rejects Google’s Deal to Digitize Books

>

Google’s ambition to create the world’s largest digital library and bookstore has run into the reality of a 300-year-old legal concept: copyright. The company’s plan to digitize every book ever published and make them widely available was derailed on Tuesday when a federal judge in New York rejected a sweeping $125 million legal settlement the company had worked out with groups representing authors and publishers.

The decision throws into legal limbo one of the most ambitious undertakings in Google’s history, and it brings into sharp focus concerns about the company’s growing power over information. While the profit potential of the book project is not clear, the effort is one of the pet projects of Larry Page, the Google co-founder who is set to become its chief executive next month. And the project has wide support inside the company, whose corporate mission is to organize all of the world’s information.

“It was very much consistent with Larry’s idealism that all of the world’s information should be made available freely,” said Ken Auletta, the author of “Googled: The End of the World as We Know It.”

But citing copyright, antitrust and other concerns, Judge Denny Chin said that the settlement went too far. He said it would have granted Google a “de facto monopoly” and the right to profit from books without the permission of copyright owners.

Judge Chin acknowledged that “the creation of a universal digital library would benefit many,” but said that the proposed agreement was “not fair, adequate and reasonable.” He left open the possibility that a substantially revised agreement could pass legal muster. Judge Chin was recently elevated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, but handled the case as a district court judge.

The decision is also a setback for the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, which sued Google in 2005 over its book-scanning project. After two years of painstaking negotiations, the authors, publishers and Google signed a sweeping settlement that would have brought millions of printed works into the digital age.

The deal turned Google, the authors and the publishers into allies instead of opponents. Together, they mounted a defense of the agreement against an increasingly vocal chorus of opponents that included Google rivals like Amazon and Microsoft, as well as academics, some authors, copyright experts, the Justice Department and foreign governments.

Now the author and publisher groups have to decide whether to resume their copyright case against Google, drop it or try to negotiate a new settlement.

Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild, said in an interview that it was too early to tell what the next step would be. “The judge did expressly leave the door open for a revised settlement,” he said.

Hilary Ware, managing counsel at Google, said in a statement that the decision was “clearly disappointing,” adding: “Like many others, we believe this agreement has the potential to open up access to millions of books that are currently hard to find in the U.S. today.” The company would not comment further.

Google has already scanned some 15 million books. The entire text of books whose copyrights have expired are available through Google’s Book Search service. It shows up to 20 percent of copyrighted titles that it has licensed from publishers, and only snippets of copyrighted titles for which it has no license.

The settlement would have allowed it to go much further, making millions of out-of-print books broadly available online and selling access to them. It would have given authors and publishers new ways to earn money from digital copies of their works.

Yet the deal faced strong opposition. Among the most persistent objections, raised by the Justice Department and others, were concerns that it would have given Google exclusive rights to profit from millions of so-called orphan works, books whose rights holders are unknown or cannot be found. They also said no other company would be able to build a comparable library, leaving Google free to charge high prices for its collection. And some critics said the exclusive access to millions of books would help cement Google’s grip on the Internet search market.

Judge Chin largely agreed with the critics on those points. But he suggested that substantial objections would be eliminated if the settlement applied only to books whose authors or copyright owners would explicitly “opt in” to its terms.

When the Justice Department suggested as much last year during a court hearing, Google rejected the idea as unworkable. It would leave millions of orphan works out of the agreement and out of Google’s digital library, greatly diminishing its value to Google and to the public.

“Opt-in doesn’t look all that different from ordinary licensing deals that publishers do all the time,” said James Grimmelmann, a professor at New York Law School who has studied the legal aspects of the agreement. “That’s why this has been such a big deal — the settlement could have meant orphan books being made available again. This is basically going back to status quo, and orphan books won’t be available.”

Some longtime opponents of the settlement hailed the decision, saying that they hoped it would prompt Congress to tackle legislation that would make orphan works accessible.

“Even though it is efficient for Google to make all the books available, the orphan works and unclaimed books problem should be addressed by Congress, not by the private settlement of a lawsuit,” said Pamela Samuelson, a copyright expert at the University of California, Berkeley who helped organize efforts to block the agreement.

Gina Talamona, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said in a statement that the court had reached the “right result.”

A group of publishers said they were disappointed by the decision, but believed that it provided “clear guidance” on the changes necessary for the settlement to be approved.

John Sargent, the chief executive of Macmillan, spoke on behalf of the publishers, which included Penguin Group USA, McGraw-Hill, Pearson Education, Simon & Schuster and John Wiley & Sons.

“The publisher plaintiffs are prepared to enter into a narrower settlement along those lines to take advantage of its groundbreaking opportunities,” Mr. Sargent said in a statement. “We hope the other parties will do so as well.”

He added: “The publisher plaintiffs are prepared to modify the settlement agreement to gain approval. We plan to work together with Google, the Authors Guild and others to overcome the objections raised by the court and promote the fundamental principle behind our lawsuit, that copyrighted content cannot be used without the permission of the owner, or outside the law.”

>Google eliminates 55 malware-infecting apps from Android Market

>

Responding to complaints of malware-infecting applications of its Android platform, Google removed a total of fifty-five applications from its Android Marketplace.

The applications in question had been modified to contain the malware. Once downloaded, these applications used to secretly install malware on the device to steal users’ personal information such as handset’s unique IMEI number.

In addition, the malware-infecting applications would exploit security holes and install a backdoor application to allow further installation of pirated software.

Earlier in January, Android platform manager Eric Chu announced that Google would also introduce an in-app payment system for Android and enhance discovery of applications in its mobile storefront. But, the malware fiasco has retarded the company’s broader push to enhance the Android Market.

In addition, the malware fiasco is hurting the reputation of the Android Market, which is trying to challenge Apple’s renowned App Store.

In the past, Apple and Amazon had to face sever criticism for remotely removing or disabling apps or e-books. But, Google should not be blamed for remotely removing the concerned applications due to the potential damage that the malicious applications could have done.

>Google Nukes Rogue Android Apps On Users’ Devices

>

Your Android phone has a built-in kill switch for nasty apps. And Google, apparently, is not afraid to use it.

Over the weekend, the search giant announced that it had remotely wiped “a number” of malicious Android apps from users’ phones, programs that earlier in the week had been identified as malware and pulled from Android’s app store. 

“We are remotely removing the malicious applications from affected devices. This remote application removal feature is one of many security controls the Android team can use to help protect users from malicious applications,” Google wrote on its mobile blog, linking to an explanation it posted in June of a built-in functionality for deleting apps from users’ phones.

Google also wrote that it’s contacting law enforcement about the issue and updating Android devices with a fix for the exploit used by those apps–pirated copies of legitimate programs with malicious code weaved in–designed to prevent any further compromise of users’ data. The company added that “we are adding a number of measures to help prevent additional malicious applications using similar exploits from being distributed through Android Market and are working with our partners to provide the fix for the underlying security issues.”

Exactly what those “measures” might be, Google isn’t saying. A Google spokesperson I contacted declined to comment beyond the text of the company’s blog post.

But Chris Wysopal, the chief technology officer of security vulnerability analysis firm Veracode, speculates that Google is likely introducing signature-based scanning to the Android Market, a tool for identifying malware and making sure that similar instances of malicious code are blocked from the Market in the future, just as viruses are identified and blocked by signature-based scans on PCs.

“This relies on someone external to Google finding the first malware and reporting it. In this case the trojan apps were pirated so the original developers were tipped off,” Wysopal wrote to me in an email. “This is definitely an improvement, but I expect malware writers to adjust.”

The last time Google deleted applications that were already downloaded to users’ devices was in June, and its targets were two proof of concept apps built by security researcher Jon Oberheide. As I wrote at the time, that use of its kill switch seemed to be a loud warning to malware writers about the company’s ability to remotely destroy their tools. After all, Oberheide’s apps were designed to show the possibility of creating an Android-hosted botnet, not to actually create one.

But as cybercriminals increasingly look to mobile platforms as new targets, their malware is no longer a mere demonstration–and nor is Google’s ability to nuke those apps from orbit.

>Hacker discovers PS3 3.56 exploit, will not release

>

On Saturday night, the well-known hacker Mathieu Hervais posted on his Twitter that he had found a way to exploit Sony PlayStation 3 firmware 3.56 although he refuses to release the details, as not to anger Sony.

The hacker will not unveil the exploit, but says “this wasn’t about getting attention at all, or fame, this was just done so the right people know this bug is there for the finding.”

Hervais’ decision comes after Sony has taken custom firmware creator Geohot to court, as well as subpoenaed IP addresses of other hackers and even casual visitors of Geohot’s site and YouTube account.