Slashdot Log In
Google Sued for $1B Over Outlook Migration Tool
Journal written by ozmanjusri (601766) and posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Jun 25, 2008 09:19 AM
from the thats-a-lotta-bucks dept.
from the thats-a-lotta-bucks dept.
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.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
My philosophy (Score:3, Funny)
Don't be first post.
Re:My philosophy (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
"Don't be evil" (Score:4, Insightful)
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.)
Parent
Re:"Don't be evil" (Score:4, Informative)
And the preface and conclusion of their code of conduct. [google.com]
Details, details.
Parent
The Amazing Karnak (Score:5, Insightful)
.... 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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:The Amazing Karnak (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:The Amazing Karnak (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Parent
That's plausible (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Whats their contact information? (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Typical Large Company (Google's PR)? (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
LimitNone = :'( (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
So, where's the NDA and NCA (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Better posting on CNET (Score:5, Informative)
CNET is also covering this at http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9976405-7.html [cnet.com]
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)
I don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
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:You've got a little evil there on your mouth... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:You've got a little evil there on your mouth... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:You've got a little evil there on your mouth... (Score:5, Funny)
*slap*
You're welcome.
Parent
Re:You've got a little evil there on your mouth... (Score:4, Funny)
Damn, you beat me to it. And I really needed to slap someone today. ;-)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Get Rich (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Get Rich (Score:5, Funny)
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!"
Parent
Re:Get Rich (Score:5, Informative)
Bud.
Nip it in the bud.
Before it develops.
Like a flower.
Flowering plants have buds.
Bud.
Parent
Re:Get Rich (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, you are correct
Better yet, your comment was
Almost a haiku
Parent
Re:Get Rich (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Get Rich (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Get Rich (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Get Rich (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Get Rich (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
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:
Parent
Re:Get Rich (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [cnet.com]
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. [google.com] 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?
Parent
Talk about a knee jerk reaction... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Talk about a knee jerk reaction... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:Get Rich (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Get Rich (Score:5, Informative)
50 mil * $19 = $950 million
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Get Rich (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously, the product is interesting if Google supposedly wanted to steal it.
Parent
Re:Get Rich (Score:5, Informative)
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. [centerjd.org]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Get Rich (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Get Rich (Score:5, Informative)
1 second exposure to 160 degree water = third degree burns:
http://www.tap-water-burn.com/ [tap-water-burn.com]
McDonald's coffee was 185 degrees:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm [lectlaw.com]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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:I Love Lawyers! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent