Cody Taylor

eldavojohn writes “A policy from the Bush era seen as a hurtle to the government prosecuting companies under antitrust laws has been withdrawn by Obama’s Department of Justice. From the article, ‘The DOJ’s Antitrust Division has withdrawn a September report that “raised too many hurdles to government antitrust enforcement and favored extreme caution” toward antitrust enforcement action, the DOJ said. The change in policy could mean that the department looks harder at the actions of technology vendors such as Google, Oracle and IBM, as detractors have raised antitrust concerns about all three in recent months.’ You may recall that Google has come under some antitrust scrutiny recently and the pressure may have just gotten a little more intense.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

ausekilis sends us to DarkReading for the news that auditors have identified thousands of vulnerabilities in the FAA’s Web-based air traffic control applications — 763 of them high-risk. Here is the report on the Department of Transportation site (PDF). “And the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization, which heads up ATC operations, received more than 800 security incident alerts in fiscal 2008, but still had not fixed 17 percent of the flaws that caused them, ‘including critical incidents in which hackers may have taken over control of ATO computers,’ the report says. … While the number of serious flaws in the FAA’s apps appears to be staggering, Jeremiah Grossman, CTO of WhiteHat Security, says the rate is actually in line with the average number of bugs his security firm finds in most Web applications. … Auditors were able to hack their way through the Web apps to get to data on the Web application and ATC servers, including the FAA’s Traffic Flow Management Infrastructure system, Juneau Aviation Weather System, and the Albuquerque Air Traffic Control Tower. They also were able to gain entry into an ATC system that monitors power, according to the report. Another vulnerability in the FAA’s Traffic Flow Management Infrastructure leaves related applications open to malware injection.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

With today’s Free Summit broaching the subject of the “dangers” of free, TechDirt has an interesting perusal of why free often can’t work without a good business model and why it often gets such a bad reputation. “I tend to wonder if this is really a case of free gone wrong or free done wrong. First, I’m always a bit skeptical of ‘free’ business models that rely on a ‘free’ scarcity (such as physical newspapers). While it can work in some cases, it’s much more difficult. You’re not leveraging an infinite good — you’re putting yourself in a big hole that you have to be able to climb out of. Second, in some ways the model that was set up was a static one where everyone focused on the ‘free’ part, and no one looked at leapfrogging the others by providing additional value where money could be made. The trick with free is you need to leverage the free part to increase the value of something that is scarce and that you control, which is not easily copied. […] Still, it’s an important point that bears repeating. Free, by itself, is meaningless. Free, with a bad business model, isn’t helpful either. The real trick is figuring out how to properly combine free with a good business model, and then you can succeed.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.