Slashdot Mirror

Part of the deal to purchase NBC Universal required that Comcast offer equal access to NBC content over other networks. But making it free bandwidth for your customers, but not for other customers, seems to violate the intent of that requirement while perhaps adhering to the letter of it.

*This* is why you cannot have one company as the service provider and the content provider.

Prior to the merger, the justice department released a Competitive Impact Statement which is concerned with Comcast not allowing access to NBC (and others) content. But it did not consider the possibility of Comcast offering special benefits to the content for their subscribers. Now that I think about it, nothing stops Comcast from offering content cheaper, faster, better quality, in 3D, etc.

Comcast's web site has the regulatory approval document which explains their limitations. It doesn't seem to specifically say they can't do this, but it looks like other people figured they couldn't do this. This blog entry from Mediapost says that the ruling:

Does not disadvantage rival online video distribution through its broadband Internet access services and/or set-top boxes. Does not enter into agreements to unreasonably restrict online distribution of its own video programming or programming of other providers.

So I think most people believed that this was illegal.

http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs5/5049/

Methamphetamine is a schedule II drug. MJ is schedule I.

Meaning? Under federal law, it can be legally used for a medical purpose (a schedule I cannot be used for such).

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Schedule+II+Controlled+Substance

So yes, it is more illegal than meth.

Sam

Oh good, you took everything out of context to prove your point. Usage in that sense came from the actual "pirate at sea stealing things" sense.

And in every example you have given except for 1996, these are the "traditional" meanings of piracy. Even the 1996 entry probably relates to selling counterfeit software, which is common in poor parts of Asia. A physical good is either copied mechanically or reproduced on another medium. Of course the 1654 quote is not long enough to tell if it involves ships.

I don't see any evidence that anyone but the BSA / MAFIAA and media printing MAFIAA quotes have brought "unauthorized use" into the common usage of the word "piracy" until the pre-BSA did in the 1970's. The very concept of copying without using a physical medium did not exist until the digital age.

Copying a disc and selling the disc, whether it's music or software, or movie, meets the pre-MAFIAA definition. But it does not meet the "downloading without paying for it" definition from the 1970's, and I draw a clear line between monetary gain and gainless copying.

Piracy is a subset of copyright infringement which downloading is not a part of, and this overloaded usage equates violently storming a ship at see and plundering its booty with clicking a link and having something without paying for it.

I believe in the evolution of language, but this is not an acceptable overload of the word. We should not accept such usage.

In US law, which is what the MAFIAA follow and what we are discussing for SOPA/PIPA, Piracy is almost always either accompanied by "profiteering" in the sense of counterfeit or otherwise copied tangible items, or specifically qualified as in "Cyberpiracy" such as 15 USC 1129.

The RIAA website answers the "Piracy" question with specifics using "copyright infringement" and "unauthorized", not "piracy"

http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_the_law

A report to Congress summarizes the usage of the term "piracy", and software/music/movies are not mentioned.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00009.htm

It has only caught on in sound bites from MAFIAA, therefore I don't accept the redefinition.

Typically compulsory licensing requirements include that the price must be fair.

You're obviously a legal genius compared to me, because I'm not even aware that such things exist. I'm sure you'll enlighten us all with numerous examples.

Your sarcasm is as obvious as your lack of knowledge.
Here is a USA example Search for the term "reasonabl" (last character purposely left off so you can hit the variations of the word).
Here is a WIPO Study. Check out page 9. It seems to apply to the EU.
Next time, do your own homework. =D

Do you know if they still doing this?

A) The use of the word was should be a hint that it may or may not be the case.

Do you have any citations?

B) Yes, I have citation from the Dept. of Justice no less, http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f0000/0045.htm Relevant paragraph quoted:

Beginning in 1988, and continuing until July 15, 1994, Microsoft induced many OEMs to execute anticompetitive "per processor" licenses. Under a per processor license, an OEM pays Microsoft a royalty for each computer it sells containing a particular microprocessor, whether the OEM sells the computer with a Microsoft operating system or a non-Microsoft operating system. In effect, the royalty payment to Microsoft when no Microsoft product is being used acts as a penalty, or tax, on the OEM's use of a competing PC operating system. Since 1988, Microsoft's use of per processor licenses has increased. In fiscal year 1993, per processor licenses accounted for an estimated 60% of MS-DOS sales to OEMs and 43% of Windows sales to OEMs.(3) Collectively, the OEMs who have such per processor contracts are critical to the success of competing operating system vendors, but those OEMs effectively are foreclosed to Microsoft's competitors.

Of course, that was before judgement...you could always read the court's findings of fact, if that helps with the credibility of this. http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

That's some bullshit right there.

C) May be the case, but it still happened. And as I recall, the practice continued to happen after the trial was concluded, for a short time. The trial concluded in late '99, which means the practice did continue into the '00s... Of course, this is old news, see something from 2007 no less... http://techrights.org/2007/10/29/exclusionary-deals-linux/ I'll leave the rest to you as an exercise.

Do you know if they still doing this?

A) The use of the word was should be a hint that it may or may not be the case.

Do you have any citations?

B) Yes, I have citation from the Dept. of Justice no less, http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f0000/0045.htm Relevant paragraph quoted:

Beginning in 1988, and continuing until July 15, 1994, Microsoft induced many OEMs to execute anticompetitive "per processor" licenses. Under a per processor license, an OEM pays Microsoft a royalty for each computer it sells containing a particular microprocessor, whether the OEM sells the computer with a Microsoft operating system or a non-Microsoft operating system. In effect, the royalty payment to Microsoft when no Microsoft product is being used acts as a penalty, or tax, on the OEM's use of a competing PC operating system. Since 1988, Microsoft's use of per processor licenses has increased. In fiscal year 1993, per processor licenses accounted for an estimated 60% of MS-DOS sales to OEMs and 43% of Windows sales to OEMs.(3) Collectively, the OEMs who have such per processor contracts are critical to the success of competing operating system vendors, but those OEMs effectively are foreclosed to Microsoft's competitors.

Of course, that was before judgement...you could always read the court's findings of fact, if that helps with the credibility of this. http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

That's some bullshit right there.

C) May be the case, but it still happened. And as I recall, the practice continued to happen after the trial was concluded, for a short time. The trial concluded in late '99, which means the practice did continue into the '00s... Of course, this is old news, see something from 2007 no less... http://techrights.org/2007/10/29/exclusionary-deals-linux/ I'll leave the rest to you as an exercise.

How about adding the Public Integrity Section (PIN) at the US DoJ?

Thank you for visiting the Department's "Contact Us" page. On behalf of the Attorney General, the Department of Justice would like to thank you for your many messages on law enforcement issues and activities and other matters of special interest to many groups across the nation. The Attorney General appreciates the fact that so many citizens have taken the time to express their views and thoughts on these important matters.

By Mail

Correspondence to the Department, including the Attorney General, may be sent to:

        U.S. Department of Justice
        950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
        Washington, DC 20530-0001

By Phone

Department of Justice Main Switchboard - 202-514-2000

Office of the Attorney General Public Comment Line - 202-353-1555

To call component officials, see the Directory of Department Officials

By E-Mail

E-mails to the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General, may be sent to AskDOJ@usdoj.gov. E-mails will be forwarded to the responsible Department of Justice component for appropriate handling.

Please note:

        Before sending e-mail, please read our Privacy Policy for details about how we handle personal information.
        E-mail accounts are not available for service of official, case-related or legal documents and is not monitored for such submissions or for other time-sensitive communications.
        E-mails with attachments will be deleted as a precaution as they may contain viruses.
        Please include your mailing address in the event that the Department replies via United States Postal Service.

Thank you for visiting the Department's "Contact Us" page. On behalf of the Attorney General, the Department of Justice would like to thank you for your many messages on law enforcement issues and activities and other matters of special interest to many groups across the nation. The Attorney General appreciates the fact that so many citizens have taken the time to express their views and thoughts on these important matters.

By Mail

Correspondence to the Department, including the Attorney General, may be sent to:

        U.S. Department of Justice
        950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
        Washington, DC 20530-0001

By Phone

Department of Justice Main Switchboard - 202-514-2000

Office of the Attorney General Public Comment Line - 202-353-1555

To call component officials, see the Directory of Department Officials

By E-Mail

E-mails to the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General, may be sent to AskDOJ@usdoj.gov. E-mails will be forwarded to the responsible Department of Justice component for appropriate handling.

Please note:

        Before sending e-mail, please read our Privacy Policy for details about how we handle personal information.
        E-mail accounts are not available for service of official, case-related or legal documents and is not monitored for such submissions or for other time-sensitive communications.
        E-mails with attachments will be deleted as a precaution as they may contain viruses.
        Please include your mailing address in the event that the Department replies via United States Postal Service.

The US does not refuse to extradite its citizens who commit crimes over seas.

List of countries with which US has bi-directional extradition treaties:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties

Even where there is no such treaty:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_18_00003196----000-.html

It Happens a lot more than you think:
http://www.peruviantimes.com/17/american-citizen-to-be-extradited-to-peru-for-killing-wife-and-dumping-body-at-sea/3491/
http://www.modernghana.com/news/70410/1/extradited-us-citizen-for-trial-today.html
http://www.justice.gov/usao/cas/press/cas11-1121-Extraditions.pdf

If the US made a deal where they will buy x amount of drugs per year, the US drug prices would be lower. IT's ahs to do with guaranteeing volume; which is a standard and sane business practice. There is nothing shady about it.

". There is evidence that top level Google executives were actually aware of the kinds of drugs that were sold. "

NO there ISN"T. EVERY part of that story is simple implication.
I can't found a damn think here http://www.justice.gov/usao/ri/meetattorney.html about it.

The original story says NOTHING about Larry Page knowing anything.

All evidence points to a con man lying.

Look at the article, it is eaither ineptly written, or worded to get Google headlines.

it's for mat is :
Implication.
"Out of context quote"
Implications.

The source is crap. When they get a good source that talks about it outside the article, let me know.

Follow the alleged quote from Mr. Neronha.
I can't fin any information about this prior to the Huffington Post link. And the Huffington post isn't exactly rigors with fact checking.

from near as I can tell, The Con artist claims he said that. No one talked to Mr. Neronha,

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/August/11-dag-1078.html

Here is an older article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/23/david-whitaker-google-pharmacy-probe_n_1027362.html

And this is the same level of skepticism I apply to all articles and all companies.

Digging in to the "settlement" from the DOJ back in September, this line was a gem:

"The proposed settlement, which if accepted by the court will be in effect for five years, prohibits the companies from engaging in anticompetitive no solicitation agreements. Although the complaint alleges only that the companies agreed to ban cold calling, the proposed settlement more broadly prohibits the companies from entering, maintaining or enforcing any agreement that in any way prevents any person from soliciting, cold calling, recruiting, or otherwise competing for employees."

So you have companies engaged in criminal collusionary behavior and what do they get? They have to monitor themselves for five years and then everything goes back to normal. Oh, and wait, even though we were only talking about cold-calling, by the way, monitor yourselves for the next few years to make sure you are not breaking the law. Yeah, that last part was really just added for no reason. Please ignore the wage suppresion behind the curtain.

All we get is a pittance of a civil suit.

Wonder-fricking-ful.

Of course, this also has nothing to do with requesting more H-1B access and the like, the whole "we can't find good people", please move on, nothing to see here...

I see a lot of venting and ranting, but not a lot of info about what actually has or has not happened. No one seems to have noticed some of these Web sites are up and running.

copyright.gov is up
DOJ is up
RIAA seems to be down
MPAA is up
UMG is down
BMI is down

OK, now that we've got those facts sorted out, the next question is who cares?

This isn't like a DDOS attack against Amazon or Google. None of these organizations, government or otherwise, depend on their Web sites to transact business. Copyright.gov is an informational resource that contains reference material you can find in many other places. No one cares if it's down. Did you even know it existed before it allegedly went down? Justice.gov exists to inform the people about what the department is doing. That's it. If Anonymous wants to raise awareness about the DOJ's activities, taking their site down has the opposite effect, and does not hurt the DOJ. When was the last time you visited the MPAA or RIAA site? Is that where you're going to look to decide what movie you want to see tomorrow, or what music you're going to buy on iTunes? And UMG and BMI's businesses don't depend on their Web sites... their music is marketed and sold elsewhere.

We've known for about 12 years now that it's really not that hard in the scheme of things to DDOS even the biggest sites on the Web. Remember the shocking 3-hour attack on Yahoo in Feb 2000? The prevailing thought then was, "If they can shut down Yahoo, they can shut down anybody." This was a legitimate concern because with its site down, Yahoo's business does not exist. But these attacks are being directed at sites where it really doesn't matter. All it does it generate a scary-sounding news headline. Some of Anonymous's other antics have some real world implications for their targets... this does not.

US Dept of Justice and Universal Music are down. Source

The summary doesn't mention it, but none of those indicted or arrested were U.S. citizens or had likely even ever set foot on U.S. soil. Even if you're in another country, you had better make sure you're not violating U.S. law. Here's a full list of those foreigners who foolishly thought they weren't under U.S. jurisdiction (from the DOJ website):

Kim Dotcom, aka Kim Schmitz and Kim Tim Jim Vestor, 37, a resident of both Hong Kong and New Zealand. Dotcom founded Megaupload Limited and is the director and sole shareholder of Vestor Limited, which has been used to hold his ownership interests in the Mega-affiliated sites.

Finn Batato, 38, a citizen and resident of Germany, who is the chief marketing officer;

Julius Bencko, 35, a citizen and resident of Slovakia, who is the graphic designer;

Sven Echternach, 39, a citizen and resident of Germany, who is the head of business development;

Mathias Ortmann, 40, a citizen of Germany and resident of both Germany and Hong Kong, who is the chief technical officer, co-founder and director;

Andrus Nomm, 32, a citizen of Estonia and resident of both Turkey and Estonia, who is a software programmer and head of the development software division;

Bram van der Kolk, aka Bramos, 29, a Dutch citizen and resident of both the Netherlands and New Zealand, who oversees programming and the underlying network structure for the Mega conspiracy websites.

Dotcom, Batato, Ortmann and van der Kolk were arrested today in Auckland, New Zealand, by New Zealand authorities, who executed provisional arrest warrants requested by the United States. Bencko, Echternach and Nomm remain at large.

Sure, it was easy to switch to Linux from Win98.

Except you pretty much had to pay for Win98 and IE before installing Linux and Netscape, because MS taxed OEMs for any non-Windows machines.

Learn history, it's not something hidden.

Having lived in Rochester and worked at Kodak I'm quite saddened by the current state of the company, although it's a fate completely self inflicted. As for the 'government attacking business' line, Kodak deserved it's anti-trust come-uppance. You didn't mention Kodak also got barred from selling private label film for anti-trust reasons (1921). As well they were barred from mandating Kodak processing for Kodak films (1954). (just like Ford can't force you legally to go to for for repair service) a short summary of Kodak's history with the Sherman Antitrust Act

In short, Kodak did some illegal things and got busted. Stuff that's illegal for very very good reasons. However, Kodak ultimately failed because they lacked foresight and made bad business decisions. Here's a Forbes article citing a few cases: How Success Killed Eastman Kodak

The ultimate Irony that will probably be lost on you is that based on free market principles Kodak is a perfect example of the market doing it's job and punishing a company that has not kept up and is no longer producing valuable products services that people want to buy. By EVERY measure they deserve their fate. If they HAD NOT been 'attacked by the ebil gubment' this fate would probably have been avoided, and we probably wouldn't even have digital imaging now because they would have invented it, sat on it and/or prevented digital cameras from being imported. When I think about the amount of astronomy tech and science, defense tech, consumer imaging (camera phones, etc), professional imaging that would likely have been prevented or severely retarded (as in slowed down) by allowing Kodak to throw it's weight around owning all imaging/picture taking back in the 20's and 50's, I'm in fact quite grateful that we prevented a monopolist from abusing it's position.

Imagine where we would be now if we continued with that policy instead of abandoning it. *sigh*

Kind of an anti trust issue here...

Why? People keep saying this, but I really don't see the key things that are needed for Google to have real Anti trust issues.

A) I haven't seen any evidence that Google's monopoly is illegally acquired. People keep forgetting this, when they compare Google with Microsoft. Microsoft is a fundamentally immoral organisation. They acquired their monopoly by using illegal tactics to block other competitors (to understand the basics, have a look at Judge Jackson's findings of facts). Many of the restrictions which should be imposed on Microsoft come not simply because they have a monopoly, but because they broke the law to get that monopoly. If it were anyone but Microsoft people would say "if you can't take the time then don't do the crime"; because it's Microsoft and they are rich somehow a whole bunch of apologists appear acting as if they did nothing wrong.

B) Google is easily substitutable; it's not like a computer where you need to pay money or even an operating system where you need to know how to reinstall. You just go to a different web page, or you even just type "Bing" into Google. There is only one thing which keeps people on Google's results rather than Bings. It's not even the quality as such, which, IMHO has been going downhill since they stopped treating keywords as having to be in the page. The thing is that people trust Google not to trick them. The results are honest and clear. This is Google's biggest competitive advantage, and if it turns out that Google is wrongly ignoring twitter, that will be an opening for another search engine that is more honest. Fortunately for Google, their competitor at present is Microsoft which is congenitally incapable of honesty. The stupidity of a company which gets caught copying it's results from Google and doctoring results in favour of it's own products in the first few months after launching a new search engine is astounding.

So; what is a search engine? A system which gives an opinion about which pages they would like to recommend based on your query string. If Google's opinion is that you are better with their data than Twitters that's fine for them to say. More importantly; if Google doesn't want to pay for access to Twitter's data. Or any other bunch of factors at Google's discretion then that is Google's decision. In order to change that you would need real evidence that Google broke the law in ways which greatly benefitted their search engine "monopoly".

Correction. Microsoft did and does harm consumers directly and indirectly. See the US vs Microsoft. Take your time to actually read the findings of fact. Microsoft generally protects their products (Windows, Office) and their monopoly position that brought/bring them their profits. Here's Charlie Kindel, former microsoft, take on why windows phone 7 didn't take off:

Users: Own the disposable income. They are highly influenced by advertising. All they know is they buy phone service from mobile carriers and/or buy a phone from a carrier. They love speeds & feeds and will generally buy anything they are told to by television ads and RSPs (Retail Sales Professionals).

Does this look like they really care about customers or their choices? Not really. They do care about their product though. See the legal nonsense they go through, the bogus patent claims, the astroturfing etc they do to protect their product and their brand name. If only they did half of that to protect the consumer and consumer choice as Google does, they might actually have some traction.

But I guess with your theory, being the product has more advantages than actually being the customer in this capitalistic world too?

People make mistakes, but seriously, after your first made-up claim made it to +5, couldn't you take your winnings and run?

I care about knowing the facts and being right, not some integer counter on /.'s server. If I didn't reply then I wouldn't have been enlightened to the truth, now would I?

Jokes aside, it's interesting how among all the different types of intellectual property, only copyright is settled in criminal courts.

This is not an accurate statement. Selling counterfeit goods (ie Trademark Infringement) is criminal in most countries, including the US:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01715.htm

Patent infringement is not criminal in the US, but there's been discussion of making it criminal in the UK. It is currently criminal in China:
http://www.chinaipr.gov.cn/direrdcusarticle/directions/criminal/rdclpfaq/200706/235031_1.html

That's a criminal offense. See 17 USC 506(c): "Fraudulent Copyright Notice. -- Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. "

The Department of Justice is squishy-soft on enforcing this. It's apparently never been enforced. Nor does it create a private right of action, so you can't sue under it.

So, you're saying that it's legitimate for Apple to buy itself a collection of patents and monopolize the market, but if other companies try to get together and fight back, that's somehow an antitrust violation? I don't think so.

Actually, yes, that's pretty close to how it works. Companies can assert patent rights without running foul of antitrust regulations, but if they start teaming up, then there's an issue. The DoJ helpfully put out a set of guidelines back in 1995. Since then, they've become a little more accepting of patent pools generally, but they don't look kindly on anticompetitive pools.

I am sorry but you seem not to be familiar with anitrust law. All barriers are considered. Again I point you to the microsoft case. Hopefully this time with a proper link:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. MICROSOFT CORPORATION

You will note that viable alternatives were considered practically nonexistent. All barriers are taken note of when examining monopoly power. And in this case, there simply isn't anything keeping users locked to Google. There are viable alternatives, just a click away that keep Google from being able to effectively abuse its power.

Antitrust isn't just slammed at any company, you have to carefully examine all the facts to conclude that there is in fact a market distortion that does harm to the comsumers in some way. In Google's case, it simply is not the case.

Maybe THIS will help:

http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm#v

IANAL, but if I am not mistaken, if the issue does not involve imminent danger to the public, or (I think) high probability of escape in the case of felonies, warrants are typically supposed to be served when the property owner (or resident) is present, the warrant is supposed to be read to said property owner or resident before a search, and it is supposed to be served during daylight hours. This ain't CSI or SWAT. The fact that police on television shows regularly storm residences does not make it proper or legal procedure.

I don't know what time of day it was, but from all appearances, and contrary to law, the police actively avoided confronting the resident and owner of the seized property, nor did they read him the warrant.

That should be very troubling to everyone here. Every time they get away with something like this, is one more example to the public that they CAN get away with it.

Because they illegally deprived Chen of the use of his property, and illegally searched his personal records (and, also illegally if I am not mistaken, made public comments about those illegally-seized private records), Chen and whoever is representing him should probably prosecute them under 18 USC, Section 242, "Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law".

That is a Federal law that applies to everybody, even State and Federal prosecutors, and it has teeth. Depending on what they did, the penalties range all the way up to death.

I strongly urge you to read the page at that link, because it is a very handy law to know about if you are ever harassed or victimized by the police or any government official. Don't threaten them, but if they are aware of this law (they probably are), and they know that YOU know about it, that alone could cause them to back off.

In my state, for example, it is no longer allowed to prosecute a policeman for any crime they commit against a citizen, unless actual malice can be shown. That was a well-intended law that has backfired and led to all kinds of police abuses. But they can still be prosecuted under the Federal statute, 18 USC 242.

Not even close. A patent is, by definition, a monopoly on a specific technology which is granted by the government specifically for this purpose - to prevent unauthorized use and theft of intellectual property (well, really to advance the arts and sciences, but who are we fooling).

Um, yeah. I'm a patent attorney. Not sure what your point is. Do you believe that, because patents are limited monopolies, they aren't subject to anti-trust regulation? If so, that's incorrect. Here's a transcript of a presentation on antitrust and patents by the DoJ, in fact. Here's a particularly relevant quote to the Samsung-Apple fight and my previous post: "unconditional refusal to license a patent could give rise to antitrust liability."

Antitrust laws should not exist, but that's a larger discussion of why government shouldn't be allowed in business and money in the first place.

If a company has enough scale to undercut its competition, the government is then protecting the competition, it's not protecting the consumer with anti-trust laws, because the government then protects consumers from lower prices.

This case calls bullshit on your statements. Consumers didn't benefit from the death of personal computing choices. Price an IBM PC (or clone) against a consumer friendly system in the '80s (Commodore, Atari, Coleco, etc.); you see a sharp decrease in affordable computers by 1994. How did Microsoft's monopoly benefit consumers? Look at the viable operating system technology back then; OS/2 and Amiga were clearly better than Windows. Windows today still hasn't met all of the vapor promised with "Cairo". How has that benefited consumers?

The Microsoft antitrust suits were more about them bundling IE with their OS

Please, before repeating Microsoft's lies for them again, get the facts.

Plus the 1994 consent decree should be considered as well. Microsoft didn't establish their monopoly through consumer choice.

The Microsoft antitrust suits were more about them bundling IE with their OS

Please, before repeating Microsoft's lies for them again, get the facts.

Well, it just wasn't the re-branding of some cheapo routers...

http://www.justice.gov/usao/vae/news/2011/05/20110526zhaonr.html

"In addition to the conspiracy conviction, Zhao was convicted of 15 additional counts, including importation fraud, trafficking in counterfeit goods and labels, false statements to law enforcement, false statements in naturalization and money laundering. She was acquitted on one count of false statements and one count of money laundering. "

The government is not seeking to punish or pre-punish AT&T. It certainly isn't saying "or else".

Check out the Justice Department's complaint: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/August/11-at-1118.html

The DOJ's point is that the merger is bad for competition to the extent that it reduces competition below some minimum acceptable level.

Markets are good because they foster competition, not because they lack government interference. Vibrant and healthy competition is what gives markets their value. It drives innovation, drives prices down, and quality up, which increases value to consumers.

Monopolies, on the other hand, are not compelled to innovate, and in this "free" market the monopoly is free to raise prices and reduce quality. Monopolies reduce value to consumers. The market dominated by a monopoly serves the monopoly, not consumers. And the monopoly will do everything it can to prevent competition from reestablishing itself for as long as it can. This is inevitable as long as a monopoly is dedicated to maximizing shareholder value. As long as a monopoly exists, I'd hardly call the market free.

The market, free or otherwise, should always serve consumers. As an ideological matter, this is more important than allowing a market to remain free to become dominated by a monopoly, whereupon it is no longer free anyway.

So at a certain point, yes, the government should tell companies to quit trying to gain market share. If it promotes or preserves competition, it isn't anti-competitive.

Informative link:

FOIA update: OIP guidance: The Attorney-Client privilege

You seem to think that prosecutorial decisions are made by the FBI. That doesn't happen there, instead the decision is made by the US Attorney for that area.

Correct, mea culpa.

The minute the FBI gets involved it ceases to be a state matter

Not true. State and local law enforcement agencies are not subordinate to the FBI. However, if the FBI initiates an investigation there's no requirement to notify local LE or even the DOJ in some cases. The State is not prohibited from legal action until the DOJ files suit.

If you think the FBI ever hands stuff back to state or local law enforcement, you haven't been reading up on FBI much

Actually, the FBI frequently refers cases back to local jurisdictions, and for a wide variety of offenses such as child pornography, mortgage fraud, public corruption, and fraud. As you said (correctly), the prosecution is handled at the discretion of the US Attorney, and they can initiate, decline or transfer cases as they like. See USAM Chapter 9-27.001-.260

The FBI has no control over this process whatsoever as they are strictly an investigative agency. They do not...really make much of a decision about how far to pursue an investigation.

Not true. The FBI is a division of DOJ, but has full autonomy. The USAG appoints the FBI director, but does not have the authority to set or change FBI policy. The FBI can initiate investigations without a DOJ request and are not required to notify DOJ for certain investigation types. Similarly, the FBI can terminate an investigation on their own recognizance, regardless of DOJ direction. See DOJ Guidelines for Domestic FBI Investigations

You are correct the FBI did not direct the prosecution of this guy - that is DOJ's purview. But the FBI has it's own mission and prerogatives - it's not just DOJ's thug squad.

In the end, we really don't know who initiated it, who directed it, or at what point DOJ was put into the loop. So there is a burden on both parties. DOJ and FBI guidelines try to err on the side of avoiding costly, time-consuming or difficult cases where "substantial Federal interest is not served". I would argue this is true here. But the guy pled guilty, so it's all moot.

If I were the Akamai lead counsel, I would be super pissed though. There's no way they were in on this until the very end. That means the Feds let a known insider threat sit inside his network for years, stealing company data.

You seem to think that prosecutorial decisions are made by the FBI. That doesn't happen there, instead the decision is made by the US Attorney for that area.

Correct, mea culpa.

The minute the FBI gets involved it ceases to be a state matter

Not true. State and local law enforcement agencies are not subordinate to the FBI. However, if the FBI initiates an investigation there's no requirement to notify local LE or even the DOJ in some cases. The State is not prohibited from legal action until the DOJ files suit.

If you think the FBI ever hands stuff back to state or local law enforcement, you haven't been reading up on FBI much

Actually, the FBI frequently refers cases back to local jurisdictions, and for a wide variety of offenses such as child pornography, mortgage fraud, public corruption, and fraud. As you said (correctly), the prosecution is handled at the discretion of the US Attorney, and they can initiate, decline or transfer cases as they like. See USAM Chapter 9-27.001-.260

The FBI has no control over this process whatsoever as they are strictly an investigative agency. They do not...really make much of a decision about how far to pursue an investigation.

Not true. The FBI is a division of DOJ, but has full autonomy. The USAG appoints the FBI director, but does not have the authority to set or change FBI policy. The FBI can initiate investigations without a DOJ request and are not required to notify DOJ for certain investigation types. Similarly, the FBI can terminate an investigation on their own recognizance, regardless of DOJ direction. See DOJ Guidelines for Domestic FBI Investigations

You are correct the FBI did not direct the prosecution of this guy - that is DOJ's purview. But the FBI has it's own mission and prerogatives - it's not just DOJ's thug squad.

In the end, we really don't know who initiated it, who directed it, or at what point DOJ was put into the loop. So there is a burden on both parties. DOJ and FBI guidelines try to err on the side of avoiding costly, time-consuming or difficult cases where "substantial Federal interest is not served". I would argue this is true here. But the guy pled guilty, so it's all moot.

If I were the Akamai lead counsel, I would be super pissed though. There's no way they were in on this until the very end. That means the Feds let a known insider threat sit inside his network for years, stealing company data.

Now that *everyone* has a computer, computer crimes are no longer treated as a serious thing.

This is nonsense.

Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section

Sentencing for Oliveras is scheduled Oct. 28, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. EDT. He faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a fine of $1,541,349 on the wire fraud charge, and two years in prison and a $250,000 fine on the identity theft charge.

BROOKLYN MAN PLEADS GUILTY TO ONLINE IDENTITY THEFT INVOLVING MORE THAN $700,000 IN REPORTED FRAUD [August 10]

First of all, TFA makes it sound like a straightforward case of "don't advertise illegal crap". Google didn't outright take ads for vendors of illegal drugs, they took ads for entirely legal Canadian pharmacies. The FDA just doesn't like anyone cutting in on US pharmaceutical industry profits (even when the drugs come from those very same US companies).

I suggest that you go to the source. Here's the release from the Department of Justice outlining the settlement, and here's the relevant passage:

The importation of prescription drugs to consumers in the United States is almost always unlawful because the FDA cannot ensure the safety and effectiveness of foreign prescription drugs that are not FDA-approved because the drugs may not meet FDA’s labeling requirements; may not have been manufactured, stored and distributed under proper conditions; and may not have been dispensed in accordance with a valid prescription. While Canada has its own regulatory rules for prescription drugs, Canadian pharmacies that ship prescription drugs to U.S. residents are not subject to Canadian regulatory authority, and many sell drugs obtained from countries other than Canada which lack adequate pharmacy regulations. ... “This investigation is about the patently unsafe, unlawful, importation of prescription drugs by Canadian on-line pharmacies, with Google’s knowledge and assistance, into the United States, directly to U.S. consumers,” said U.S. Attorney Neronha. [Emphasis mine]

It's not a matter of "advertising illegal crap", as you put it, and the fact that the Canadian pharmacies are "entirely legal" is irrelevant. As the statement in the DOJ release makes clear, these pharmacies aren't subject to the Canadian food and drug regulations, and are basically allowed to sell drugs to Americans from any source they see fit, however questionable. The FDA is in fact fulfilling it's basic mandate in this case, namely protecting the American public from drugs and medication whose standards they cannot ensure.

And for the consumption of idiots who think that Google is somehow the victim, here's another passage from the statement:

An investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Rhode Island and the FDA/OCI Rhode Island Task Force revealed that as early as 2003, Google was on notice that online Canadian pharmacies were advertising prescription drugs to Google users in the United States through Google’s AdWords advertising program. Although Google took steps to block pharmacies in countries other than Canada from advertising in the U.S. through AdWords, they continued to allow Canadian pharmacy advertisers to target consumers in the United States . Google was aware that U.S. consumers were making online purchases of prescription drugs from these Canadian online pharmacies, and that many of the pharmacies distributed prescription drugs, including controlled prescription drugs, based on an online consultation rather than a valid prescription from a treating medical practitioner. Google was also on notice that many pharmacies accepting an online consultation rather than a prescription charged a premium for doing so because individuals seeking to obtain prescription drugs without a valid prescription were willing to pay higher prices for the drugs. Further, from 2003 through 2009, Google provided customer support to some of these Canadian online pharmacy advertisers to assist them in placing and optimizing their AdWords advertisements, and in improving the effectiveness of their websites.

Google blocked foreign online pharmacies after being notified by the FDA in 2003 — except those from Canada. The statement also makes clear that customers were willing to pay online pharmacies a premium if they didn't have a valid prescription,

What if eveyone on Slashdot that is concerned about this issue were to file a complaint against these telcos here I wonder what would happen? I think that would be interesting to watch these telcos squirm their way out of this practice once justice comes a knocking.

Actually, when you're talking about the entire US federal budget of $3,550 billion, the $25 billion or so going to the entire Department of Justice, including $2 billion to the DEA (source), is in fact an insubstantial amount of cash.

The Richard Cheng in the article is a US Atorney who has pursued other cases on behalf of Cisco:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/can/press/2011/2011_01_10_daly.sentenced.press.html

Perhaps someone should inquire about that relationship.

Many criminals will use encryption that permits access by law enforcement, if that is the type of encryption that is commonly used and included in over-the-counter software

Because criminals buy their encryption software at Best Buy...

Given that the Office of The Inspector General, not exactly a noted hotbed of antigovernment radicals or clinical paranoids, fairly recently concluded that the FBI's use of 'National Security Letters', 'Exigent Letters', and similar spook stuff was in flagrant violation even of their own extremely broad discretion and weak internal policies, I'm going to say that you haven't heard because the FBI does their best to be quiet, and nobody really cares that much...

What, exactly, did Gates do for MS as a technology leader?

MS Bob Ignore the internet ActiveX Illegal practices

They HAVE a Bill Gates there. Ballmer is doing what Gates managed to do to them in the past.

Bill gates never ignored internet Check this http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/exhibits/20.pdf

You know? It's funny. MS was sued for "monopolic practices" for including Internet Explorer as their default option.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And in this case, you either have too little knowledge, or are simply trolling.

MS was sued for a variety of reasons; the browser issue was only one small part (which got a lot of airtime). The per-processor licensing agreements that required OEM's to pay Microsoft for both a DOS and Windows license for every computer they shipped, even if it didn't include DOS or Windows was a significant part of that suit (as it made any computers that shipped with any other OS's much more expensive, as they had to pay for DOS, Windows, and the alternate OS, passing those extra costs on to the customer, who didn't get the or license to use DOS or Windows, even though they had paid for it), as was Microsoft's breaking of their licensing agreement with Sun over Java.

But as to the IE issue, the problem wasn't that Microsoft bundled a browser. The problem was that Microsoft bundled a browser that was bolted into the OS in such a way that it was impossible to remove, and required (via licensing terms) OEMs to ship Windows with IE, and the IE icon on the desktop. Thus, even if an OEM wanted to install Netscape as the default browser, even if to fulfil customer demand they also had to include IE, and make it prominent by including it on the desktop. What's more, not only did they bolt it into the OS to make it difficult to remove, the court found that they specifically scattered IE functionality into unrelated libraries, including the core Win32 DLL's, to make it virtually impossible for anyone to remove.

But you know what really did them in? Their own internal e-mails and memos, which specifically showed that they did these things with the intent to put the competition completely out of business. They wielded their monopoly in Operating Systems to put companies in a completely different market out of business, and the e-mails and memos presented to the court bear this out. That is why they got into trouble.

If you want to read up on this (including quotes from their internal messages that show they specifically took actions that hurt browser developers, OEMs, and Windows users in general), why not go right to the source? Courts Findings of Fact ss 3.F. Now that you have a lot of knowledge at your disposal, you can avoid being incorrect in the future. You're welcome.

Yaz

I'm not arguing that among veterans, fraud is common. I'm arguing that among fraudsters, false claims of military service are quite common.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/waw/press/2007/sep/operationstolenvalor.html

If Mabie really has engaged in fraud and extortion in his business practices, wouldn't it be interesting if he was also lying about his military service, dishonoring veterans like yourself? It's a long shot, but you never know.

Wrong. Take a look at what Microsoft did with Kerebos. http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc-00029523.htm

Is this international kill the 4th amendment week in the US???

Nothing international about it; this is a domestic effort.

Geez...the police state is gathering steam MUCH faster than I'd expected.

Really? It was not all that long ago that the secret service was trying to imprison people who merely possessed a copy of the BellSouth E911 document. During that same period of the time, the Justice Department was trying to sneak back doors into cryptography products (clipper chip), something that they are still pushing for to this day:

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/crypto.html

...and in an appropriate way. Say some BS internet rumor gets started. An affected agency will often have a debunking website dedicated to the topic that browsers can easily access. Remember Compean and Ramos, the two border agents the anti-immigration crowd turned into heroes? The DoJ did a great point-by-point debunking of the interwebz myths about their case. Didn't stop a Bush pardon, unfortunately.

Educate Yourself