Data Loss Prevention Trends To Watch In 2008

By Stefanie Hoffman, CMP Channel

No doubt about it, 2007 was the year that high profile data breaches splashed across the front pages with as much sensation as paint on a Jackson Pollock canvas. TJX kicked off 2007 with the largest data breach in history — a whopping 45.7 million records lifted when hackers infiltrated the company’s network over a period of 18 months. And other large-scale losses, such as a phishing scam at a military research lab and the misplacement of two unencrypted U.K government disks — followed in its wake.

Experts say this is just the tip of the iceberg. Since January 2005, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse has identified more than 215 million records belonging to U.S. residents that have been compromised due to a security breach.

The costs of these and other breaches have weighed heavily on the organizations that are impacted. A recent study conducted by the Ponemon Institute determined that the total average costs for lost or exposed data grew to $197 per compromised record, representing an increase of 8 percent since 2006 and 43 percent since 2005. Currently, the average total cost for companies is more than $6.3 million per breach, which accounts for increased legal and public relations costs as well as lost business. And experts warn that the amount of lost revenue a company experiences in the wake of a data breach will only continue to grow.

For the rest of this story see Chanel Web Network.

Judge Sanctions 6 Qualcomm Lawyers

By DON CLARK

A federal magistrate issued sanctions against six Qualcomm Inc. attorneys for mishandling evidence in a high-stakes patent case against Broadcom Corp.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Major referred the conduct of the six lawyers to the California State Bar Association for an investigation of possible ethical violations. She decided not to sanction 13 other Qualcomm attorneys involved in the case.

Judge Major also issued an $8.5 million judgment against Qualcomm, though that ruling actually carries no cost to the company. Another federal judge had already ordered Qualcomm to pay Broadcom that amount to cover attorney’s fees, and the judge ruled that no additional monetary penalty was necessary because the original penalty was so large.

Five in-house Qualcomm attorneys were ordered to take part in a “comprehensive” review of the company’s procedures and obligations associated with producing evidence.

The case and its aftermath were a hot topic in the legal community after the discovery that Qualcomm had failed to produce thousands of pages of documents that had been requested by Broadcom.

Qualcomm, a San Diego chip maker, had originally sued Broadcom in October 2005 for allegedly infringing two patents on video-compression technology. One of Broadcom’s defenses to the allegations was that Qualcomm violated an obligation to disclose its patents to an industry committee setting standards on the technology. Qualcomm insisted that it hadn’t participated in the group.

During the final days of trial, a senior Qualcomm engineer disclosed that she had emails related to the group that hadn’t been turned over to Broadcom. Following the trial, which Qualcomm lost, thousands more documents were discovered; Qualcomm’s general counsel apologized for what happened and later resigned.

Judge Major ordered 19 Qualcomm lawyers to appear at a hearing in October to defend their actions. That task was complicated by the fact that communication between the lawyers and Qualcomm was protected by confidentiality rules, and so was not released. The lawyers issued declarations explaining their actions and insisting that they had no intention of deliberately withholding evidence.

But the judge concluded that their declarations and other evidence lead to “the inevitable conclusion that Qualcomm intentionally withheld tens of thousands of decisive documents from its opponent in an effort to win this case and gain a strategic business advantage over Broadcom,” according to 48-page order released late yesterday.

“Qualcomm could not have achieved this goal without some type of assistance or deliberate ignorance from its retained attorneys,” she added.

Broadcom declined to comment. A Qualcomm spokeswoman said the company regrets the errors that occurred in the case, but said its actions after the errors were found “defy any suggestion that Qualcomm engaged in intentional misconduct. We are considering our options, including further appeal.”