Slashdot Mirror

Article 1 and Article 2

Article 1 and Article 2

Here's a consumer alert from the Federal Trade Commission on why you shouldn't post your email address online... how ironic!

Maybe people whose address is posted should file a complaint with the FTC against the U.S. Treasury Department. I know, the Treasury dept is technically not a "business" (although it's arguable) but it would be funny if the FTC received tons of complaints because of this.

Here's a consumer alert from the Federal Trade Commission on why you shouldn't post your email address online... how ironic!

Maybe people whose address is posted should file a complaint with the FTC against the U.S. Treasury Department. I know, the Treasury dept is technically not a "business" (although it's arguable) but it would be funny if the FTC received tons of complaints because of this.

Here's a consumer alert from the Federal Trade Commission on why you shouldn't post your email address online... how ironic!

Maybe people whose address is posted should file a complaint with the FTC against the U.S. Treasury Department. I know, the Treasury dept is technically not a "business" (although it's arguable) but it would be funny if the FTC received tons of complaints because of this.

I personally refuse to use ISP-side spam blocking filters because:

1) False positives.
2) Blocking Spam does nothing to stop it coming to your mail server. You should report the spam that comes into your inbox and get those barstards caught.

I personally use SpamCop. The FTC has a spam collection address too:

--> I want Viagra offers <--

(it's uce@ftc.gov )

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980710 /index.html
DRAM Performance: Latency vs. Bandwidth Created:
July 10, 1998 By: Bert McComas

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980729 /index.html
Performance Impact of Low Latency DRAM Created:
July 29, 1998 By: Bert McComas

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980814 /index.html
Performance Impact of Rambus Created:
August 14, 1998 By: Bert McComas

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980923 /index.html
Rambus on Alternate Platforms Created:
September 23, 1998 By: Bert McComas

...and touring the world demonstrating the Micron "Samurai" DDR chipset; a chipset that would never be built, and which was intended only to divert mindshare from Intel and RDRAM:

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19991216 /index.html

http://www.ebnonline.com/digest/story/OEG19991110S 0054

http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19991110S0028

While at the same time he was colluding with the industry to limit RDRAM production, coordinate their lies, and provide some cover from antitrust prosecution [From the FTC-Rambus case docket at http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9302/index.htm]:

1567. In April 1998, Bert McComas, an industry consultant, gave an "exclusive" seminar for DRAM manufacturers about Intel's selection of RDRAM (Rambus memory). (RX 1138 at 1; Tabrizi, Tr. 9061-62). Mr. McComas pre-cleared his seminar invitation and list of topics with Mr. Tabrizi. (Tabrizi, Tr. 9064).

1568. Mr. McComas's invitation asked its recipients not to forward the invitation to Rambus or Intel. (RX 1138 at 1). A few days later, Desi Rhoden (now Chairman of the Board of JEDEC) sent an email to Mr. Tabrizi about the attendance restrictions. (RX 1149; Tabrizi, Tr. 9064-65). Mr. Rhoden's e-mail stated that he knew McComas and that his "main focus appears to make sure that Rambus and Intel do not attend and therefore has been very restrictive on who can attend. If he says everyone except Rambus and Intel, then it is restraint of trade; while if he says only suppliers, then most of who he wants can attend without there being a charge of restraint of trade." (RX 1149 at 1).

1569. During his April 1998 seminar presentation to the DRAM manufacturers, Mr. McComas stated that a manufacturer that chose to build RDRAMs was making a "guaranteed bad bet for margin enhancement" (RX 1482 at 12), and he stated that RDRAM "deepens [the manufacturer's] financial dilemma." (RX 1482 at 26). As a "possible strateg[y]," Mr. McComas suggested that DRAM manufacturers "tape out but do not fully productize or cost reduce" the RDRAM device, in the hopes of "resist[ing] popular deployment" of RDRAM. (RX 1482 at 34-35).

***************

1571. Mr. McComas spoke at the June 25, 1998 SLDRAM Executive Summit about the problems faced by DRAM manufacturers. One of the "tactical" problems he identified was how to "Manage Price Competition, Profitability." (RX 1188 at 1). He also talked about how man

And Rambus Inc.'s practices are better?

As for what Replay is doing with their "free" offer, it appears to violate the Federal Trade Commission Guidelines for use of the word "Free". These are quite specific.

• Because the purchasing public continually searches for the best buy, and regards the offer of ``Free'' merchandise or service to be a special bargain, all such offers must be made with extreme care so as to avoid any possibility that consumers will be misled or deceived. ...

  when the purchaser is told that an article is ``Free'' to him if another article is purchased, the word ``Free'' indicates that he is paying nothing for that article and no more than the regular price for the other. Thus, a purchaser has a right to believe that the merchant will not directly and immediately recover, in whole or in part, the cost of the free merchandise or service by marking up the price of the article which must be purchased, by the substitution of inferior merchandise or service, or otherwise.

  ... When making ``Free'' or similar offers all the terms, conditions and obligations upon which receipt and retention of the ``Free'' item are contingent should be set forth clearly and conspicuously at the outset of the offer so as to leave no reasonable probability that the terms of the offer might be misunderstood. Stated differently, all of the terms, conditions and obligations should appear in close conjunction with the offer of ``Free'' merchandise or service.

That's clear enough. It's binding on the supplier as well as the retailer; the supplier can't pass the buck here.

California also requires this: (Business and Professions Code 17509).

• Any advertisement, including any advertisement over the Internet, soliciting the purchase or lease of a product or service, or any combination thereof, that requires, as a condition of sale, the purchase or lease of a different product or service, or any combination thereof, shall conspicuously disclose in the advertisement the price of all those products or services.

I do not live in America, but shouldnt there be a lot of people reporting SCO to the appropriate governmental Body that oversees frauds in the stockmarket? (SEC)

For p&d (pump and dump) to actually occur, SCO must be shown to be making false claims for the purpose of increasing their stock. At this point that cannot be determined (legally) since nothing has been proven in a court of law. That doesn't mean the SEC isn't watching.

The FTC might also be watching, since interstate commerce is involved.

Are they waiting until the hammer falls (most likely) in heavy disfavor to Sco?

I think they have to wait. I do hope they are watching.

(Holy Shit, Batman, did I actually say I hoped the government was watching?)

Insightful comments? Well I guess it is a good semantic argument, though sadly and completely ignorant of the law. Please see the official FTC guidelines. I would look up famous prosecutions involving bogus "sales" from this year but am too lazy right now, it being 3:25 am. IIRC some womens clothing companies got nailed for claiming a sale when in fact it was just a shallow marketing ploy.

And no, neither the "a sale merely means that objects are being sold" nor the "Chewbacca Defense" worked for them.

No, that's horizontal price-fixing. Verical price-fixing is also illegal. See here, where it says "Vertical price-fixing -- an agreement between a supplier and a dealer that fixes the minimum resale price of a product -- is a clear-cut antitrust violation."

Because Apple does not allow you to sell Apple products below the pricing offered by Apple themselves.

Umm, that's illegal.

Vertical price-fixing -- an agreement between a supplier and a dealer that fixes the minimum resale price of a product -- is a clear-cut antitrust violation. It also is illegal for a manufacturer and retailer to agree on a minimum resale price.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/atmcard .htm

It is important to report this as soon as possible, or else your exposure rises. In the case of ATM fraud like this, it is very unlikely the people would report the theft before the cards were used since they had no idea the info was stolen. Plus, from a purely beuracratic standpoint, it is more difficult to convince a retail bank that you are not liable vs a credit card company.

uce@ftc.gov

BTW, has anyone recieved their settlement check?

http://bestbookbuys.com (compares prices for books accross most online bookstores)
http://consumerreports.com (untainted consumer information, subscription required)
http://edmunds.com (a good read before you buy a car)
http://insweb.com (cheap online insurance agency with a number of insurance providers)
http://www.ftc.gov (to learn your rights as a consumer or as a business)
http://forums.ebay.com/db1/forum.jsp?forum=107 (scams performed on Ebay -- good read for Ebay newcomers)
http://resellerratings.com (to check the track record of electronics resellers, some of the cheapest electronics resellers are one-fly-night operations that take your money one day, go bankrupt the next, and restart the day after under a new name)
http://pricewatch.com or http://pricescan.com (compares prices on pc hardware and electronics)
http://techbargains.com
http://bottomdollar.com

It's important to note that the offending company did not even have the slightest amount of decency to apologize, not that I'm surprised.

So what happens to the company now? Do they just get off scott free having harassed this guy for a few months with advertisements for snake oil? Doesn't Canada have an equivalent of the Federal Trade Commission to investigate their deceptive advertising? I say give the guy who made the threats some community service time and some anger management classes, but then have the Canadian authorities haul the asses of the company into court.

Besides, everybody knows the only reliable penis enhancement device is a Penis Mightier.

Cooperation between the US and EU instead of what happened with Data Privacy and Safe Harbor.

See if they advocate education route with security or regulation route with licensing users for access to the public arena

Ok how about just perjury alone. Forged video evidence was also presented in the anti-trust trial in the U.S.

Ok how about the court's decision, upheld on appeal, that the company used illegal methods to maintain a desktop monopoly?

There are also the false and misleading advertising, against palm, novell, and regarding MS-Passport. MS-Passport cannot be secure even in theory, so any claims were clearly known to be falsehoods. And since MS-Office 2003 is tied into that, expect more legal action.

Then there have been a series of fines regarding patent infringements. The most recent being from SPX.

Where I come from, all that's called lying or stealing.

Or it could just be jealousy. Microsoft's claim of increased security were unfounded in south africa. This is not the first time it has been busted for false advertising, it seems to be a habit.

Doh...sorry, but the direct link to the list of domain names was incorrect on the prior message.

Here is the PDF file of the Square D domain names.

Sell pop-up spam tools to the marketing firms, and sell blockers to the consumers.

is here.

The USPTO definition of prior art is a prior patent. If nobody has filed a patent on something, there is no prior art and they consider it patentable.

Nonononono. Wrong bug report. The problem is elsewhere. The USPTO definition of prior art is the same as the one in the US patent code (35 USC sec. 102), and this includes _much_ more than prior patents and non-patent literature. (E.g., prior inventions of other inventors in the USA are also part of the prior art even if not published, but unpublished material is quite hard to bring into the process and hard to prove.) Novelty searches in the patent office could be more thorough than they are, and sometimes are careless. But the examiners do sometimes look at non-patent publications.

The USPTO issues a patent if it doesn't find relevant prior art. This means that a careless USPTO search is likely to result in the issue of a patent with claims that should not be patentable, or at least are too broad.

Currently, there are access-to-justice issues (the law does not yet provide enough, or effective, opportunities for third parties to challenge issued patents). That means correcting mistakes like this is usually an uphill struggle, slow, and likely very expensive. So in the meantime, the beneficiary of the USPTO mistake, the owner of the patent, may be able to cash in on it.

The Federal Trade Commission recently made proposals aimed at correcting these defects of the system. The FTC proposals might or might not go far enough, but either way, between now and possibly getting them adopted, there would be another hard slow struggle ahead for their advocates :( .

But the bug in the system is not the one diagnosed by the parent poster (inadequate definition of prior art)! It lies in either or both of two other places (a) the skill/thoroughness of patent examination before patent issue and (b) lack of proper opportunities to correct mistakes after patent issue.

Executive Summary
Official Press Release
Full Report: Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy
A Report by the Federal Trade Commission, October 2003

Of course, it would have been nice if some one had submitted this article yesterday. ;)
2003-10-28 18:40:17 FTC Issues Report on Competition and Patent Policy (articles,patents) (rejected)

Executive Summary
Official Press Release
Full Report: Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy
A Report by the Federal Trade Commission, October 2003

Of course, it would have been nice if some one had submitted this article yesterday. ;)
2003-10-28 18:40:17 FTC Issues Report on Competition and Patent Policy (articles,patents) (rejected)

Executive Summary
Official Press Release
Full Report: Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy
A Report by the Federal Trade Commission, October 2003

Of course, it would have been nice if some one had submitted this article yesterday. ;)
2003-10-28 18:40:17 FTC Issues Report on Competition and Patent Policy (articles,patents) (rejected)

Please tell me that YANAL. Otherwise, you need to be sanctioned for malpractice in public.

Magnuson Moss covers all consumer warranties in the United States.

Please read the "A Businessperson's Guide to Federal Warranty Law" from the US Federal Trade Commission.

Also, a search of the FTC website for "Magnuson Moss" reveals two FTC orders regarding computer warranties on the very first page: Gateway 2000 in 1998, and Tiger Direct in 1999.

Please tell me that YANAL. Otherwise, you need to be sanctioned for malpractice in public.

Magnuson Moss covers all consumer warranties in the United States.

Please read the "A Businessperson's Guide to Federal Warranty Law" from the US Federal Trade Commission.

Also, a search of the FTC website for "Magnuson Moss" reveals two FTC orders regarding computer warranties on the very first page: Gateway 2000 in 1998, and Tiger Direct in 1999.

From FTC.gov ; Understanding the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is the federal law that governs consumer product warranties. Passed by Congress in 1975, the Act requires manufacturers and sellers of consumer products to provide consumers with detailed information about warranty coverage. In addition, it affects both the rights of consumers and the obligations of warrantors under written warranties.

FTC floats patent changes

Released yesterday from the the FTC

Comments from law.com

Check this quote out:
"There is a little underappreciation by the FTC for the applications that don't get allowed," he said, adding that more than 80 percent of business method patents are rejected.

Sounds great but 20% do make it..

Given the response by telemarketers against the FTCs Do Not Call List, how long before the first lawsuits are filed against AT&T?

1. The Department of Commerce; VeriSign's contract to operate .com and .org was originally with them.
2. The Federal Communications Commission, which oversees telecommunications.
3. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications; contact the committee itself, the chairman, the ranking member, and any of the other members you'd like.
4. The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, including the committee itself, the chairman, the vice-chairman, and the ranking member. Plus any of the other members you feel like contacting.
5. The Federal Trade Commission, which hears consumer complaints.
6. Your U.S. Representative
7. Your Senators
8. Your Governor
9. Your State Legislators
10. ICANN's wildcard comment address
11. Finally, complain to the media. If they get enough letters on a topic, they'll run stories. Try the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News and MSNBC.

Remember, VeriSign is busy telling them its side of the story. We need to tell them ours!

In a court of law - it's called perjury. You lie, or you tell something that is opposite of what you said you'd say under oath, and you go to jail.

You can't lie even when you're marketing. There's something called 'truth in advertising' as well

FTC has a generic complaint webpage, which includes categories for telemarketing complaints.

and the cost is staggering

Oh, WAAAAAAAAAH! Poor telemarketers.

From FTC's info page: (my emphasis added)

How much does it cost to access the registry?

Data for up to five area codes will be available for free. Beyond that, there is an annual fee of $25 per area code of data, with a maximum annual fee of $7,375 for the entire U.S. database.

That's so much less than a penny per phone number that you don't get any sympathy at all.

If you're a national telemarketer, you pay your $7,375.00 and download the 122MB compressed file annually. I don't think this is a large fee or burden compared to the actual costs of the telecommunications equipment, not to mention your staff.

On the other hand, the amount of lost revenue from the diminished "audience" for your calls has got to hurt. Cry me a river. :)

- Peter

I found a 1997 Texas law that mandates proper Caller ID identification. But individual state laws are harder to enforce...

The federal law that accomplishes the same thing will take effect next year. From the FTC's page:

Requires caller ID transmission.
Beginning January 29, 2004, telemarketers must transmit their telephone number and if possible, their name, to your caller ID service. This will protect your privacy, increase accountability on the telemarketer's part, and help in law enforcement efforts.

That should help. Vigilant anti-marketers should notice any blocked Caller ID, and switch into feigned-interested-consumer mode to gather enough information from the company to report them.

- Peter

Overall IMHO listening to the comments in the joint news conference I think that they will go for the easy targets that get the most complaints first although they refuse to specify methods it is clear that they have the will to enforce.

Our Government in action! Who whould have thunk?

Then again...

Luckily for me, I have privacy manager, and the only way that calls come through is if they're identified on caller ID in the first place. So I pulled the name and number and had exactly the same problems trying to find a place to file my complaint. Ultimately, linking from my state do-not-call page (which is really only a front for the federal stuff), I got to a generic FTC complaint page here. So that's where I filed my complaint. Good luck.

I got another automated call today from "Jeffrey Caldwell at the National Consumer Council" today. You probably know the message. The FTC has heard of them. They're a "nonprofit" front for a couple of commercial companies.

I filed a complaint, though that "nonprofit" bit might shield the bastards. Other than those folks, I don't think I've received a telemarketing call in the past few days. Good riddance!

1)(A) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000; or

(B) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater;

(2) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow; and

(3) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court.

619. Obtaining information under false pretenses [15 U.S.C. 1681q]

Any person who knowingly and willfully obtains information on a consumer from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both.

I worked (very peripherally) on the Do Not Call list, and there was some discussion as to the jurisdictional issues between the FTC and FCC, but those were dealt with. If you would like more information, go the the FTC's website which has the language of the rule, plus a layman's interpretation.

The rules are unclear from your point of view because you obviously have not Read The F---ing Manual . If they claim to be a charity/survey/politician and then they also try to sell you something, they are not exempt and are subject to prosecution.

They're breaking the law:

Abandoned calls often result from the telemarketers' use of predictive dialers to call consumers.
[...]
Under the Rule's definition, an outbound telephone call is "abandoned" if a person answers it and the telemarketer does not connect the call to a sales representative within two seconds of the person's completed greeting. The use of pre-recorded message telemarketing, where a sales pitch begins with or is made entirely by a pre-recorded message, violates the TSR because the telemarketer is not connecting the call to a sales representative within two seconds of the person's completed greeting.
[...]
The abandoned call safe harbor provides that a telemarketer will not face enforcement action for violating the call abandonment prohibition if the telemarketer:

1. uses technology that ensures abandonment of no more than three percent of all calls answered by a live person, measured per day per calling campaign.
2. allows the telephone to ring for 15 seconds or four rings before disconnecting an unanswered call.
3. plays a recorded message stating the name and telephone number of the seller on whose behalf the call was placed whenever a live sales representative is unavailable within two seconds of a live person answering the call.
4. maintains records documenting adherence to the three requirements above.

Yes. Callers purporting to take a survey, but also offering to sell goods or services, must comply with the Do Not Call provisions. But if the call is for the sole purpose of conducting a survey, it is exempt. However, sellers and telemarketers should also be aware that the FCC regulates telemarketing calls.

If the call is really for the sole purpose of conducting a survey, it is not covered. Only telemarketing calls are covered - that is, calls that solicit sales of goods or services. Callers purporting to take a survey, but also offering to sell goods or services, must comply with the National Do Not Call Registry.

Yes. Callers purporting to take a survey, but also offering to sell goods or services, must comply with the Do Not Call provisions. But if the call is for the sole purpose of conducting a survey, it is exempt. However, sellers and telemarketers should also be aware that the FCC regulates telemarketing calls.

If the call is really for the sole purpose of conducting a survey, it is not covered. Only telemarketing calls are covered - that is, calls that solicit sales of goods or services. Callers purporting to take a survey, but also offering to sell goods or services, must comply with the National Do Not Call Registry.

Yes! Sometimes it's nastier to be nice.

Anyway, telling telemarketers not to call you is also enforceable in the U.S. Scroll down to "How can consumers limit telemarketing calls?"

I also keep meaning to have the phone company block my incoming calls if the caller is hiding their caller ID. That would get rid of huge numbers.

The rules cover this

"Similarly, it makes no difference whether the calls are made from outside the United States; so long as they are made to consumers in the United States, those making the calls, unless otherwise exempt, must comply with the TSR's provisions."