��������Ƶ

PARIS: The publisher of the novel that won France’s top literary price has strongly defended its French-Algerian author after an Algerian survivor of a 1990s massacre in the North African country claimed the book is based on her story used without her consent.
French-Algerian writer Kamel Daoud this month won the Goncourt for his novel “Houris” centered on Algeria’s civil war between the government and Islamists in the 1990s.
The novel, banned in Algeria, tells the story of a young woman who loses her voice when an Islamist cuts her throat as she witnesses her family being massacred during the civil war.
However the survivor of a massacre during the period has alleged on Algerian TV that the main character in the book is based on her experiences.
The woman, Saada Arbane, said she had told her story during a course of treatment to a psychotherapist who is now Daoud’s wife. She accused Daoud of then using the details narrated during their therapy sessions in his book.
Publishers Gallimard however said Daoud and his wife were the victims of orchestrated attacks after the banning of the book in Algeria, adding that the publishing house had also been banned from Algeria’s main book fair earlier this month.
“Although Houris is inspired by tragic events that occurred in Algeria during the civil war of the 1990s, its plot, characters and heroine are purely fictional,” said publisher Antoine Gallimard who heads the Gallimard publishing house.
“Since the publication of his novel, Kamel Daoud has been the subject of violent defamatory campaigns orchestrated by certain media close to a regime whose nature is well known,” he added.
Arbane has alleged that she told the psychotherapist not to reveal her story but has found that there are details in the life of the main character in the book — Aube — that would only have been known to the doctor.
Speaking on television with a speech aid, she has described the book as a “violation of my intimacy” and accused the psychotherapist of going back on a promise that her story would not feature in Daoud’s work.
But Gallimard said: “It is now the turn of his wife — who in no way is a source for ‘Houris’ — to be attacked over her professional integrity.”
Daoud, who used to work as a journalist and columnist in Algeria, has stirred controversy with his analyzes of society in Algeria and elsewhere in the Arab world in French and international media.

SAN FRANCISCO: The US will urge a judge to make Google-parent company Alphabet sell its widely used Chrome browser in a major antitrust crackdown on the Internet giant, according to a media report Monday.
Antitrust officials with the US Department of Justice declined to comment on a Bloomberg report that they will ask for a sell-off of Chrome and a shake-up of other aspects of Google’s business in court Wednesday.
Justice officials in October said they would demand that Google make profound changes to how it does business — even considering the possibility of a breakup — after the tech juggernaut was found to be running an illegal monopoly.
The government said in a court filing that it was considering options that included “structural” changes, which could see them asking for a divestment of its smartphone Android operating system or its Chrome browser.
Calling for the breakup of Google would mark a profound change by the US government’s reglators, which have largely left tech giants alone since failing to break up Microsoft two decades ago.
Google dismissed the idea at the time as “radical.”
Adam Kovacevich, chief executive of industry trade group Chamber of Progress, released a statement arguing that what justice officials reportedly want is “fantastical” and defies legal standards, instead calling for narrowly tailored remedies.
Determining how to address Google’s wrongs is the next stage of a landmark antitrust trial that saw the company in August ruled a monopoly by US District Court Judge Amit Mehta.
Requiring Google to make its search data available to rivals was also on the table.
Regardless of Judge Mehta’s eventual decision, Google is expected to appeal the ruling, potentially prolonging the process for years and possibly reaching the US Supreme Court.
The trial, which concluded last year, scrutinized Google’s confidential agreements with smartphone manufacturers, including Apple.
These deals involve substantial payments to secure Google’s search engine as the default option on browsers, iPhones and other devices.
The judge determined that this arrangement provided Google with unparalleled access to user data, enabling it to develop its search engine into a globally dominant platform.
From this position, Google expanded its tech empire to include the Chrome browser, Maps and the Android smartphone operating system.
According to the judgment, Google controlled 90 percent of the US online search market in 2020, with an even higher share, 95 percent, on mobile devices.
Remedies being sought will include imposing measures curbing Google artificial intelligence from tapping into website data and barring the Android mobile operating system from being bundled with the company’s other offerings, according to the report.