LONDON – WikiLeaks disclosed its entire archive of U.S. State Department cables Friday, much if not all of it uncensored — a move that drew stinging condemnation from major newspapers which in the past collaborated with the anti-secrecy group's efforts to expose corruption and double-dealing.

Many media outlets, including The Associated Press, previously had access to all or part of the uncensored tome. But WikiLeaks' decision to post the 251,287 cables on its website makes potentially sensitive diplomatic sources available to anyone, anywhere at the stroke of a key. American officials have warned that the disclosures could jeopardize vulnerable people such as opposition figures or human rights campaigners.

A joint statement published on the Guardian's website said that the British publication and its international counterparts — The New York Times, France's Le Monde, Germany's Der Spiegel and Spain's El Pais — "deplore the decision of WikiLeaks to publish the unredacted State Department cables, which may put sources at risk."

Previously, international media outlets — and WikiLeaks itself — had redacted the names of potentially vulnerable sources, although the standard has varied and some experts warned that even people whose names had been kept out of the cables were still at risk.

But now many, and possibly even all, of the cables posted to the WikiLeaks website carried unredacted names.

There's a debate over what kind of an impact that will have.

In an interview with the AP earlier this week, former U.S. State Department official P.J. Crowley warned that the new release could be used to intimidate activists in authoritarian countries. Crowley said "any autocratic security service worth its salt" probably already would have the complete unredacted archive of cables, but that the fresh releases mean that any intelligence agency that did not "will have it in short order."

WikiLeaks staff members have not returned repeated requests for comment sent in the past two days. But in a series of messages on Twitter, the group suggested that it had no choice but to publish the archive because copies of the document were already circulating online following a security breach.

WikiLeaks has blamed the Guardian for the blunder, pointing out that a sensitive password used to decrypt the files was published in a book put out by David Leigh, one of the paper's investigative reporters and a collaborator-turned-critic of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

But the Guardian, Leigh and others have rejected the claim. Although the password was in fact published in Leigh's book about seven months ago, Guardian journalists have suggested that the real problem was that WikiLeaks posted the encrypted file to the Web by accident and that Assange never bothered to change the password needed to unlock it.

In their statement, the Guardian's international partners lined up to slam the 40-year-old former computer hacker.

"We cannot defend the needless publication of the complete data — indeed, we are united in condemning it," the statement read. It added: "The decision to publish by Julian Assange was his, and his alone."

The media organizations' rejection is a further blow to WikiLeaks, whose site is under financial embargo and whose leader remains under virtual house arrest in an English country mansion pending extradition proceedings to Sweden on unrelated sexual assault allegations.

It's also a sign of the borderless online whistleblower's increasing estrangement from traditional media outlets. Assange and his supporters have long feuded with the Guardian and The New York Times, and in a recent statement the group noted that other Western media organizations had "slowed their rate of publishing" stories derived from the cables.

As a result, the anti-secrecy site said it would increasingly turn to "crowdsourcing" — that is, relying on Internet users to sift through its leaked documents and flag important material.

It's a relatively new tactic for the group, which has in the past relied on mainstream partners to organize and promote its spectacular leaks of classified information — including hundreds of thousands of U.S. intelligence documents detailing the course of America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

WikiLeaks says the process is working, pointing to one document flagged by Twitter users who've already begun perusing the newly released files.

The cable, filed in 2006, carries an explosive allegation that U.S. forces entered a house during a 2006 raid in Iraq, handcuffed 10 members of the same family and executed them.

Although the U.N. letter in which the allegation was made was five years old, its publication put new pressure on the already strained negotiations over keeping U.S. forces in Iraq. Iraq's government said Friday that it is investigating, and some officials said the document is reason enough for the country to force the American military to leave instead of signing a deal allowing troops to stay beyond a year-end departure deadline.

"Crowdsourcing has proved to be a success," WikiLeaks said.

But amid the controversy over the unredacted cables, some supporters are keeping their distance. The press freedom group Reporters Without Borders said Thursday that it had temporarily suspended its WikiLeaks "mirror site." Such sites act as carbon-copies of their originals, relieving pressure due to heavy traffic and preserving data in case of attack.

In a statement, Reporters said it had "neither the technical, human or financial resources to check each cable" for information that could harm innocent people and thus "has to play safe."

___

Greg Keller in Paris contributed to this report.

___

Raphael G. Satter can be reached at: http://twitter.com/razhael

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge on Thursday threw out a "grossly excessive" $1.3 billion verdict that Oracle won against SAP in a landmark intellectual property case, possibly setting the stage for another circus-like showdown between the two technology companies.

The decision was a surprising twist in a 4-year-old case that's been filled with them. There will be a new trial if Oracle Corp. formally rejects a lower $272 million award, which it has indicated it will do.

While Thursday's ruling was a victory for SAP AG, a German maker of business software, it's not necessarily as much of a setback for Oracle, which stands to humiliate SAP again even if it can't secure the higher award.

If the second trial is anything like last year's, expect more high-wire theatrics from Oracle's outspoken CEO, Larry Ellison, who has pilloried SAP for its amateurish theft of software and customer-support documents from password-protected Oracle websites. SAP has admitted that a now-shuttered subsidiary, TomorrowNow, committed the offense.

Oracle is the leading maker of database software, which helps companies organize their information. Its aggressive expansion into business applications has forced Oracle into a faceoff with SAP, the leader in that space.

Oracle argued that the stolen information helped SAP steal customers by offering similar services at cheaper prices. SAP argued that TomorrowNow wasn't that great at stealing customers with the information anyway and should have to pay only $40 million for accounts that SAP did manage to lure away.

The jury ultimately awarded Oracle more than 30 times that amount after a three-week trial last November. It was one of the largest verdicts in a case involving software-related theft and showed how severely jurors were willing to punish corporations for intellectual-property theft from rivals.

Although the amount was less than what Oracle asked for, it was far more than what SAP had budgeted. SAP had set aside $160 million to pay anticipated damages and had already spent $120 million of that in payments to Oracle's lawyers. The punishment amounted to more than half of SAP's total profit in the prior year.

Thursday's decision by Judge Phyllis Hamilton in in U.S. District Court in Oakland, Calif., is a major victory for SAP. She said the size of the penalty was "contrary to the weight of the evidence, and was grossly excessive."

Oracle can now choose whether to accept the lower award of $272 million or proceed with a new trial before a different jury. The $272 million amount was based on an earlier estimate from an Oracle expert on what profit Oracle lost and SAP gained.

Whatever happens, Oracle has already scored repeated public relations wins because of the case.

The case gave Ellison a platform to taunt another foe, former SAP CEO Leo Apotheker, who is now CEO of Hewlett-Packard Co. Oracle is increasingly battling HP in the market for computer servers, straining a decades-long technology partnership.

Oracle, which is based in Redwood Shores, Calif., tried to summon Apotheker to testify at the trial, and the company pushed the image of a "Where's Waldo?"-type manhunt involving private investigators and a vanished executive. Apotheker wasn't spotted within the jurisdiction of the Oakland court in time, and he didn't appear.

HP, based in Palo Alto, continually skirted questions about Apotheker's whereabouts at the time, presumably because there was little to be gained in allowing him to testify. HP accused Oracle of harassing its new executive and said Oracle had ample time to question Apotheker in an earlier deposition.

SAP said it was very gratified with Thursday's decision.

"We believed the jury's verdict was wrong and are pleased at the significant reduction in damages," the company said in a statement. "We hope the court's action will help drive this matter to a final resolution."

Oracle said it plans to fight for the full amount it was awarded.

"There was voluminous evidence regarding the massive scope of the theft, clear involvement of SAP management in the misconduct and the tremendous value of the (intellectual property) stolen," Oracle said. "We believe the jury got it right and we intend to pursue the full measure of damages that we believe are owed to Oracle."

Oracle's stock fell 23 cents, or 0.8 percent, to close Thursday at $27.84. SAP's stock fell 75 cents, or 1.4 percent, to $53.76.

SAN FRANCISCO – Netflix's negotiations to keep a key piece of its Internet video library have collapsed, dealing a major blow to the largest U.S. video subscription service as it raises the prices for most of its 25 million customers. The setback triggered a nearly 9 percent drop in Netflix Inc.'s stock price.

Starz Entertainment delivered the bad news Thursday in a terse statement announcing that it won't renew a contract that allows Netflix to show a lineup of recently released movies and TV shows over high-speed Internet connections.

That means Starz content will be removed from Netflix's streaming service starting in March. Starz' library includes movies from Walt Disney Co.'s assorted studios and, until recently, Sony Corp.

The talks fell apart after the two sides disagreed over the value of the Starz content and how it should be sold to Netflix subscribers, according to people familiar with the negotiations. The people asked not to be identified because they weren't authorized to speak publicly.

The content from Starz' cable TV channel played an instrumental role in increasing usage of Netflix's Internet service and helped Netflix add nearly 17 million subscribers since the deal was signed in October 2008.

That growth probably wouldn't have happened without the boost that the Starz deal gave to Netflix streaming, said Janney Montgomery Scott analyst Tony Wible.

"What created (Netflix's success in streaming) is frankly, initially getting Starz, getting that content, which got you more subscribers, which allowed you to buy more content," Wible said. "The virtuous cycle that has made Netflix what it is could work against it. If you lose content, you lose subscribers; ... it could be a downward spiral from here."

Netflix had been expected to work out a new contract with Starz, although at a much higher price than the estimated $30 million a year that it had been paying under the current agreement. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings acknowledged earlier this year that the company might have to pay as much as $250 million a year to retain the Starz rights when the current contract expires in February.

But those hopes were dashed, if not blown up completely, with Thursday's bombshell dropped by Starz CEO Chris Albrecht.

The timing of the announcement was seen a way to kick Netflix in the shins at a particularly vulnerable time. It came on the first day of a new Netflix pricing system that will hit U.S. subscribers with price increase of as much as 60 percent if they want to continue to get DVD rentals through the mail along with unlimited streaming of Internet video. The new pricing system has incensed a large group of Netflix subscribers who have threatened to cancel their accounts, a backlash that could intensify if it looks like Netflix's streaming library is becoming less attractive.

Albrecht said Starz had decided against a renewal "to protect the premium nature of our brand by preserving the appropriate pricing and packaging of our exclusive and highly valuable content."

The contract renewal talks broke down when Netflix refused to meet demands that could have driven up the annual licensing rights to $300 million or more, according to one person familiar with the negotiations.

A major sticking point arose when Starz insisted its content be corralled on a higher-price tier, another person said. Instead of making their content available to any Netflix subscriber paying just $8 per month, Starz executives wanted viewership limited to people paying at least $16 per month for a package that bundles DVD rentals with Internet video.

That stipulation was seen as a way to preserve Starz' relationship with cable and satellite TV distributors, who include Starz in channel packages that cost far more than the $8 monthly fee for Netflix streaming. Albrecht said Starz, part of Liberty Media Corp., is in an "excellent position" to make more money from other sources besides Netflix.

Netflix tried to downplay the possible loss of the Starz relationship. The company, which is based in Los Gatos, Calif., said it would spend the $250 million that Hastings had earmarked for the Starz renewal to buy audience-pleasing content from other distributors. Hastings has left no doubt that he intends to invest heavily in Netflix's Internet video library because he wants more subscribers to use that option. That would allow Netflix to cut postage and other costs to mail DVD rentals to its customers.

As it is, Starz has become less important to Netflix as the service expanded its streaming rights. In June, Sony also stopped allowing its movies, which include "Easy A" and "Grown Ups," to part of Starz streaming in June. Those factors have reduced Starz's share of Netflix streaming viewership in the U.S. to 8 percent, according to Netflix.

The rising cost for Internet streaming rights is one of the reasons that Netflix raised its prices for people who want to rent DVDs through the mail and stream video. The changes don't affect customers who subscribe to the streaming-only plan.

Starz's decision to end the talks with Netflix underscores the escalating tensions with pay-TV services that view Netflix's popularity as a competitive threat. Time Warner Inc.'s HBO has consistently refused to license its shows for Netflix streaming, and Showtime recently has declined to make some of its top series, including "Dexter" and "Californication" available to the service.

Morningstar analyst Michael Corty said he thinks Netflix can salvage the Starz deal, given there is still six months before the current contract expires. To do that, Netflix will likely have to pay even more than it intended because Starz appears to have more negotiating leverage, Corty said.

Although Albrecht's statement made it sound as if there is little chance of a new deal, Netflix left the door open.

"We have tremendous respect for the Starz creative team, and we look forward to someday licensing some of their original or licensed content," Netflix said in a statement.

The falling out with Starz added to the worries of Netflix investors already fretting about the higher prices driving away subscribers. Netflix's stock plunged $19.97 to $213.30 in extended trading Thursday, after the announcement by Starz.

___

Nakashima reported from Los Angeles.

SAN FRANCISCO – The Justice Department's rejection of AT&T's proposed purchase of T-Mobile USA will test new federal guidelines on challenging mergers and the companies' resolve in forming the nation's largest wireless carrier.

A courtroom battle is likely and could wring out information that the companies would prefer to keep private. Still, AT&T Inc. has a big incentive to fight: If the deal is called off, the company has to pay a $3 billion breakup fee and surrender some of its unused spectrum for wireless communications.

AT&T is promising to fight the Justice Department's decision. The department filed a lawsuit Wednesday to block the $39 billion deal, saying it would reduce competition and lead to price increases for customers.

If AT&T follows through on that, it could produce the biggest antitrust showdown since business software maker Oracle Corp. squared off with the federal government seven years ago. That dispute, triggered by the government's decision to block Oracle's proposed purchase of rival PeopleSoft Inc., exposed several well-kept corporate secrets and required Oracle CEO Larry Ellison to testify before a packed courtroom.

In the end, Oracle pulled off something few companies have done in the past 30 years: It persuaded a federal judge that the Justice Department didn't have grounds to block its PeopleSoft deal. Oracle closed its $11.1 billion takeover four months after getting the favorable court ruling.

Usually, not even the most powerful companies bother to fight government regulators in an antitrust dispute. Google Inc., for example, backed off in 2008 when the Justice Department threatened to sue to block a proposed Internet search partnership with Yahoo Inc. Microsoft Corp., the world's largest software maker, pulled out of a deal to buy Intuit Corp. in 1995 after the Justice Department objected.

The Justice Department filed 138 antitrust cases in federal courts from 1999 to 2008 and lost just four of them, according to the latest breakdown from the agency.

One reason that the Justice Department has such a good track record is because it rarely challenges a deal unless it's very confident it can win, said Joseph Bauer, a University of Notre Dame law professor and antitrust expert.

Knowing AT&T would probably go to court, the Justice Department may have wanted to signal that it intends to get tougher on corporate marriages between rivals in markets with few other competitors.

A union between AT&T and T-Mobile USA would leave Verizon and Sprint as the only other major cellphone carriers in the U.S. T-Mobile, a subsidiary of German telecom company Deutsche Telekom AG, is currently the No. 4 wireless carrier, while AT&T is second. Combined, AT&T would be the largest.

In a sign of its confidence, the Justice Department decided to strike down the deal even though it could have taken about three more months to study the pros and cons. The timing stunned AT&T, which said it didn't get any advance warning.

"It was an aggressive and impressive move by the DOJ to take the battle right at AT&T," said Daniel Wall, a San Francisco attorney who represented Oracle in its 2004 fight to win the right to buy PeopleSoft. "It sent a statement that the DOJ intends to fight this one all the way to the finish line."

Wall said AT&T may have a tougher time proving its case than Oracle did against the Justice Department. In the PeopleSoft deal, Wall said, antitrust enforcers seemed to be manipulating the definition of the business software market. "This time, it looks to me that they have a pretty solid market definition," Wall said. "They don't appear to be playing games."

University of Iowa law professor Herbert Hovenkamp said the Justice Department is being guided by a set of new guidelines, issued late last year, which make it clearer when mergers should be challenged on antitrust grounds.

"I don't think they are overreaching here," Hovenkamp said. "If there is a broader message here, it's that the government intends to enforce these new guidelines."

Besides being forced to divulge potentially damaging information, AT&T will face other risks if it doesn't settle with the Justice Department. Going to trial will take months, or even years, leaving the company in a legal limbo that could depress its stock price and cause customers and key employees to defect.

There's another risk to going to trial: as they try to prove their case, antitrust lawyers sometimes obtain confidential e-mails that contain embarrassing snippets and present other evidence that can make companies look bad.

Those are some of the reasons why AT&T mayl try to reach some kind of settlement with the government.

If AT&T persists, antitrust experts said that it's better off going up against the Justice Department than the Federal Trade Commission, which also handles antitrust reviews. That's mainly because lawsuits with the Justice Department are contested in federal courts. By contrast, the threshold for the FTC to block deals is generally lower, and the ensuing legal skirmishes occur in administrative law proceedings that drag on longer.

"The merging parties usually have a better shot when they are going up against the DOJ than the FTC," said D. Daniel Sokol, a University of Florida professor specializing in antitrust law.