New Mac 'game' plays Russian roulette with your files

Looking for an ideal holiday gift for that brooding philosophy student in your life? It's reminiscent of classic arcade games like Space Invaders, but with a sobering twist: Each time you destroy an alien, the game deletes a file from your Mac. Check out Lose/Lose. Forever.

Get touched by an alien, you lose. Created by Zach Gage, a digital artist in New York City, Lose/Lose puts the player in the position of shooter as aliens rain down from above. Kill an alien, you score points-but you also vaporize a random file from your home directory. The game is clearly intended to be food for thought rather than mindless entertainment. If your ship is destroyed, the game deletes itself from your hard drive.

Above the download link on his site, Gage issues a warning-in large, red, all-capped lettering-that Lose/Lose permanently deletes files from your hard drive. Or maybe it is. "By way of exploring what it means to kill in a video-game, Lose/Lose broaches bigger questions," Gage writes on his site. It's not meant for hardcore gamers. Gage himself doesn't seem entirely clear on what those bigger questions are. This calls into question the player's mission ... Is the player supposed to be an aggressor?

He meanders through a few ideas, including the value of data versus the value of real objects and the question of what the real point of the game is. "[T]he aliens will never actually fire at the player. Or merely an observer, traversing through a dangerous land?" If it's the latter, you don't have to be a great thinker to know that Lose/Lose won't go viral anytime soon. That hasn't stopped people from downloading it. Symantec, the Maytag repairman of the Mac software world, says it considers the game a potential security threat and will begin detecting it as OSX.Loosemanque. A list of high scores on Gage's site includes a few "Losers" who claim to have eclipsed 4,000 points. If nothing else, it's a way to kill time while you reformat a hard drive.

Google barks back at Microsoft over Chrome Frame security

Google hit back at Microsoft today, defending the security of its new Chrome Frame plug-in and claiming that the software actually makes Internet Explorer (IE) safer and more secure. "Accessing sites using Google Chrome Frame brings Google Chrome's security features to Internet Explorer users," said a Google spokesman today. "It provides strong phishing and malware protection, absent in IE6, robust sandboxing technology [in IE6 and on Windows XP], and defenses from emerging online threats that are available in days rather than months." Although both IE7 and IE8 include a "sandbox" defense dubbed "Protected Mode," the feature works only when the browsers are run in Vista (IE7 and IE8) or Windows 7 (IE8). Google's Chrome Frame , however, prevents malicious code from escaping the browser - and worming its way into, say, the operating system - on Windows XP as well. Bazdukas blasted plug-in security in general, and Chrome Frame specifically, while taking the latter to task because it busts IE8's private browsing features. "Chrome Frame breaks the privacy model of IE," claimed Bazdukas. "Users are not going to be able to use IE's privacy features, something that's not made apparent to users. Yesterday, Microsoft warned users that they would double their security problems by using Chrome Frame, the plug-in that provides better JavaScript performance and adds support for HTML 5 to Microsoft's browser. "Running a browser within a browser doubles the potential attack surface in a way that we don't see is particularly helpful," said Amy Bazdukas, Microsoft's general manager for IE, on Thursday.

They're essentially circumvented." Google countered that its plug-in is secure. "Google Chrome Frame ... was designed with security in mind from the beginning," the company spokesman added in an e-mail. "While we encourage users to use a more modern and standards-compliant browser such as Firefox, Safari, Opera or Chrome rather than a plug-in, for those who don't, Chrome Frame is designed to provide better performance, strong security features, and more choice ... across all versions of Internet Explorer." According to Google, Chrome Frame receives automatic, behind-the-scenes security updates with the same mechanism used by the Chrome browser itself, relieving users of manually patching the plug-in. Chrome Frame lets IE utilize the Chrome browser's WebKit rendering engine, as well as its high-performance V8 JavaScript engine. The company is also investigating bugs filed with the Chrome team by Microsoft developers, who reported that Chrome Frame broke IE8's privacy mode. The extra speed and HTML 5 support are necessary, said Google earlier this week, if IE users are to run advanced Web applications such as Google Wave , a collaboration and communications tool that Google launched in May. It's available from Google's site as a free download . Google pitched the plug-in as a way to instantly improve the performance of the notoriously slow IE, and as a way for Web developers to support standards IE can't handle, including HTML 5. The Chrome Frame plug-in works with IE6, IE7 and IE8 on Windows XP and Windows Vista.

Infoblox, Neustar form alliance

Infoblox and Neustar will announce Tuesday a strategic partnership that allows the two companies to resell each other's DNS products to enterprise customers and hints towards tighter integration of these offerings in the future. Infoblox customers include financial services firms such as VISA, healthcare companies such as Pfizer and government agencies such as the Nevada Department of Corrections. Tools cure IP address-management headaches Infoblox sells appliances that handle DNS, Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) and IP Address Management (IPAM) functions for internal corporate networks.

Internal DNS is how employees reach enterprise IP-based applications such as VoIP. Neustar offers the UltraDNS, DNS and load balancing services aimed at helping leading e-commerce sites such as Zappos.com and BuyOnlineNow.com handle external DNS queries without investing in their own global network infrastructure. Now Infoblox will offer Neustar's cloud-based services to its customers, while Neustar will resell Infoblox appliances. "Infoblox is a sales agent for Neustar's services including a global secondary service. External DNS is how Web sites publish the latest information about their DNS and IP address changes to their customers over the Internet. In this particular service, our customers will still use Infoblox as their primary DNS but in terms of the secondary services that is handled by the Neustar cloud," explains Richard Kagan, vice president of marketing for Infoblox. "The nice thing is that it will all be done through a single pane of glass. Neustar already sells a managed internal DNS service. "Think of the Infoblox appliances as offering an extension to our service portfolio that provides internal DNS components," says Jim Leach, vice president of marketing at Neustar. It can all be managed under the Infoblox [graphical user interface.]" Infoblox also will resell Neustar's services for external bi-directional DNS and global load balancing. "These are the kinds of things that most organizations are hard-pressed to [deploy their own] infrastructure for," Kagan says. "For those capabilities, the UltraDNS cloud is authoritative." Meanwhile, Neustar will resell Infoblox appliances to its customers that are looking to upgrade their internal DNS capabilities.

Neustar and Infoblox did not announce any special offerings that would marry their products together, but Leach said "we do see ourselves doing some enhanced services through joint development." The Infoblox/Neustar alliance comes at a time when Neustar's UltraDNS services face additional competition from DNS software vendor Nominum, which announced a cloud-based service called SKYE in September.

Microsoft: Word legal foe paints cockeyed tale

Microsoft Corp. called the claim by Canadian developer i4i Inc. that it plotted to drive the company out of business "distorted," and "a breathless tale" that was not supported by the evidence, according to a court documents. But Microsoft also pressed the appeals court for a complete reversal, saying that decisions made by the Texas lower court led "to erroneous verdicts of infringement and validity, and grossly unsupportable damages." Microsoft's response brief saved its most blistering words for i4i, the Toronto-based company that in 2007 said Microsoft illegally used its patented technology to add XML editing, and "custom" XML features, to Word 2003, and later, to Word 2007. "Having little to rebut Microsoft's arguments on the merits, i4i devotes the majority of its brief to a distorted presentation of irrelevant 'evidence'," read Microsoft's brief. "i4i labors mightily to paint Microsoft pejoratively, portraying it as a once-close 'business partner' that supposedly stabbed i4i in the back and 'usurped' i4i's patented invention." Last week, i4i claimed Microsoft marketed the former's XML software to potential customers at the same time it planned to make that software obsolete by building similar features into Microsoft Word using its technology. At the least, Microsoft told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal District, it deserves a new trial. "At minimum, a new trial is warranted," the company said in a reply brief filed Monday. Within days of a 2001 meeting between representatives of the two companies, according to an internal e-mail, someone at Microsoft said, "[I]f we do the work properly, there won't be a need for their [i4i's] product," i4i said as it linked the two events.

Microsoft's reply was the latest round in a patent infringement case that started two years ago when i4i accused the software maker of using its technology in Microsoft's popular Word software. That's nothing but a tall tale, Microsoft said. "Unfortunately for i4i, the truth is both comparatively mundane and innocent: After a handful of unfruitful meetings, i4i and Microsoft went their separate ways and Microsoft later released the custom XML functionality for Word that it had told i4i it was developing," the company's lawyers said in the brief. Last May, a Texas jury said Microsoft was guilty of patent infringement, and awarded i4i $200 million in damages. The injunction, said Microsoft, meant it might have to pull Word, and the Office 2003 and Office 2007 suites, off the market for months. In August, U.S. District Court Judge Leonard Davis added more than $90 million in additional damages and interest to Microsoft's bill, then issued an injunction that would have prevented it from selling Word 2003 and Word 2007 as of Oct. 10. Microsoft quickly won a fast-track appeal after warning the three appellate judges that the injunction would create sales chaos for the company and its partners, including Hewlett-Packard Co. and Dell Inc., the world's two largest computer makers. Two weeks ago, the court of appeals suspended the injunction while it hears and decides Microsoft's appeal.

But the company's lawyers also disputed claims made by i4i in the brief it submitted Sept. 8, particularly the conclusion that Microsoft had schemed to tout i4i's software on the one hand, and use its technology in Word on the other. "Most of the evidence demonstrates only that i4i attended certain meetings with Microsoft," the company said. "There is absolutely no evidence in this record from which a juror reasonably could infer that Microsoft had knowledge of the contents of the [i4i] patent." Nor should the injunction against selling current versions of Word stand, said Microsoft. "Even assuming that i4i had shown both competition and harm tied to that competition, an injunction is inappropriate because i4i has not shown that whatever harm it has suffered is irreparable and cannot be remedied by money damages," Microsoft stated. "Today's reply brief is an opportunity to reinforce our key assertions in this case," said Microsoft spokesman Kevin Kutz on Monday. "We believe the district court erred in its interpretation and application of the law in this case [and] we look forward to the September 23 hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals." Kutz's reference was to the oral hearing scheduled for next week, when both parties will present their arguments before the panel of three judges. i4i was unavailable for comment on Microsoft's brief. Most of Microsoft's brief was a recitation of points made last month in its request for an appeal, when it lambasted Davis for his handling of the case and called the verdict a "miscarriage of justice." Microsoft again hit on some of the same points, criticizing Davis' rulings during the trial and arguing that i4i's patent was obvious, and thus not protected.

Oracle/Sun: Why European Union jurisdiction matters

A mild war of words is breaking out between American and European regulators on the proposed merger between Oracle and Sun. But American officials are not contesting Europe's jurisdiction over the matter and previous cases show that European regulators have broad powers over American companies that do business in Europe. Slideshow: Hottest Tech M&A deals U.S. government officials have expressed displeasure with the European Commission's objection to Oracle's planned acquisition of Sun. The European Commission issued a fine of more than $1 billion to Intel this year after finding the company guilty of antitrust violations.

In 2001, for example, Europe prevented a merger between General Electric and Honeywell even after American regulators had given the deal a green light. "If the annual turnover of the combined businesses exceeds specified thresholds in terms of global and European sales, the proposed merger must be notified to the European Commission, which must examine it," European officials explain on their official competition Web site. "These rules apply to all mergers no matter where in the world the merging companies have their registered office, headquarters, activities or production facilities. In rare cases, Europe has also blocked mergers between American companies. This is so because even mergers between companies based outside the European Union may affect markets in the EU if the companies do business in the EU." In its merger regulation, the EU stipulates that it has control over mergers in which the combined worldwide revenue of the companies involved exceeds $7.5 billion, and more than $374 million within Europe. Sun earned $11.4 billion in worldwide revenue in fiscal 2009, and $3.8 billion in Europe. In fiscal 2009, Oracle alone pulled in more than $23 billion in worldwide revenue and nearly $8 billion in the Europe, Middle East & Africa (EMEA) region. When Oracle first announced its deal to purchase Sun in April, the merger was valued at $7.4 billion.

European officials objected to "the combination of Sun's open source MySQL database product with Oracle's enterprise database products and its potential negative effects on competition in the market for database products," Sun said in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Although U.S. officials gave Oracle and Sun the green light, the European Commission issued a formal statement of objections this week, a decision that could scuttle the acquisition. U.S. officials issued a mild criticism of their European counterparts. "Several factors led the [U.S. Antitrust] Division to conclude that the proposed transaction is unlikely to be anticompetitive," Deputy Assistant Attorney General Molly Boast of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division said in a written statement. "There are many open-source and proprietary database competitors. The Department also concluded that there is a large community of developers and users of Sun's open source database with significant expertise in maintaining and improving the software, and who could support a derivative version of it." The U.S. comments were described as "unusual" by a European official. The Division concluded, based on the specific facts at issue in the transaction, that consumer harm is unlikely because customers would continue to have choices from a variety of well established and widely accepted database products.

According to the Reuters wire service, a European Commission spokesman named Jonathan Todd said "That's unusual. We apply European merger control rules, they apply U.S. merger control rules," Todd said. I cannot recall any instance where the European Commission has ever issued a statement concerning ongoing investigations in another jurisdiction." Todd further noted that the United States and Europe have different methods of judging whether a deal is anticompetitive."We have our methods, they have theirs. The GE/Honeywell failure was the last time U.S. and European authorities have issued different decisions on a merger, according to the Reuters article. The Antitrust Division will continue to work constructively with the EC and competition authorities in other jurisdictions to preserve sound antitrust enforcement policies that benefit consumers around the world." Follow Jon Brodkin on Twitter. In her statement, Boast said the United States will continue to work with Europe on competition policy. "The Department and the European Commission have a strong and positive relationship on competition policy matters," Boast said. "The two competition authorities have enjoyed close and cooperative relations.