Slashdot Mirror

People interested in this news item might be interested in this relatively brief overview (considering lawyers' tendency to logorrhea) of antitrust and IP rights bundling put out by the US government. Enjoy!

According to the original paperwork and release by the DOJ - http://www.justice.gov/usao/txn/PressRel09/mcgraw_cyber_indict_pr.html - the two counts each carried a maximum of 10 years (to which he got close) and a £250,000 fine. At least they only fined him $31,881.75, so he'll only be slightly poor when he eventually gets out.

So this is a crime that's been on the books since colonial days?

According to the original paperwork and release by the DOJ - http://www.justice.gov/usao/txn/PressRel09/mcgraw_cyber_indict_pr.html - the two counts each carried a maximum of 10 years (to which he got close) and a £250,000 fine. At least they only fined him $31,881.75, so he'll only be slightly poor when he eventually gets out.

Before we shell out the cash, let's write our elected reps in congress and the justice department and try to halt the merger.
http://senate.gov/
http://house.gov/
http://justice.gov/

It's ultimately not the FCC, but rather, the DOJ that would have to step in and stop it. So write them.

but they can't throw anyone in jail for it

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

US DOJ Fraud: Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Lay Persons Guide to FCPA

Specific section from the PDF:

The following criminal penalties may be imposed for violations of the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions: corporations and other business entities are subject to a fine of up to $2,000,000; officers, directors, stockholders, employees, and agents are subject to a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to five years. Moreover, under the Alternative Fines Act, these fines may be actually quite higher -- the actual fine may be up to twice the benefit that the defendant sought to obtain by making the corrupt payment. You should also be aware that fines imposed on individuals may not be paid by their employer or principal.

Additionally, companies can be prohibited from federal contracts, but this probably doesn't happen as often as it should (otherwise I'm sure companies would put in greater effort to avoid this).

but they can't throw anyone in jail for it

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

US DOJ Fraud: Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Lay Persons Guide to FCPA

Specific section from the PDF:

The following criminal penalties may be imposed for violations of the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions: corporations and other business entities are subject to a fine of up to $2,000,000; officers, directors, stockholders, employees, and agents are subject to a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to five years. Moreover, under the Alternative Fines Act, these fines may be actually quite higher -- the actual fine may be up to twice the benefit that the defendant sought to obtain by making the corrupt payment. You should also be aware that fines imposed on individuals may not be paid by their employer or principal.

Additionally, companies can be prohibited from federal contracts, but this probably doesn't happen as often as it should (otherwise I'm sure companies would put in greater effort to avoid this).

WTF are you talking about, Doc? We do have "those laws", and this article is about them being enforced.

It's called the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/

More laws for shit not our jurisdiction. Just like how if you're 18 and you go to Europe and drink a beer, you can be extradited and the USA will criminally charge you for underage drinking. This is a huge problem for American foreign exchange students, who when caught drinking (legally in the country they're studying in) are sent back to America under legal penalty and lose their scholarships and are forced to pay back all the money they got for free sometimes etc.

Its not problem, this is from the DoJ. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/January/11-crm-085.html

Except that it is. If you actually care about having a phone that works outside the U.S., your choices are... AT&T or...

Oops. There's no second choice!

Yup. Unless you pay out the nose for an expensive "world phone", your options are basically AT&T or T-Mobile, and with T-Mobile gone, AT&T will be the only remaining GSM carrier in the United States.

I've done my part by writing a letter of complaint. Now go do yours.

http://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.html

That's criminal copyright infringement. If it's for commercial gain, and the total retail value exceeds $1000, and distributed over a computer network, the criminal provisions apply. At $2500, it becomes a felony.

Here's how to report it.

Has everyone forgotten about the 1995 consent decree?

Or am I conflating ethical with legal?

How can that be "unethical" if it's what all vendors do?

Do "all vendors" bill you per-processor, whether or not you use their software on the computer?

Perhaps you need to go back and understand the licensing agreements that Microsoft that with the PC OEMs. Even if MS software was not installed, the OEMs paid Microsoft. The US DoJ had an issue with it all.

And while you're at it, it is interesting to take a peek here . Ignorance of history on a moderator's part is not a reason to mark a posting as a troll.

Prohibition is necessary in the case of hard drugs. Its true that we need to attack it from all angles, but legalization and taxation of most of the illegal drugs would be a societal disaster the scale of which we have never seen.

What, why? What's wrong with doing (e.g) cocaine, exactly? All sorts of businessmen and entertainers and other powerful people do it on a regular basis, without significant side-effects; because it's illegal, you only hear about the people who crash and burn because of it, not the people who keep it in check.

I mean, seriously, we can get a good idea of how much cocaine is being used, even if (because it's illegal, obvs) we can't track actual rates. The NDIC claims that there's roughly 300 metric tons of cocaine available in the USA annually - and you can bet that a significant portion of that gets used. If cocaine is so dangerous, and people are using so much of it, where are all the cocaine addicts who burn out and need to be treated? Sure, there are some, but not significantly more than any other legal drug like alcohol or tobacco.

Our current "hard drug" policy is like basing alcohol policy on surveys of Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and temperance groups. What we need are reality-based policies, not these bullshit wish-based policies we have right now.

Whats wrong with doing cocaine? See Charlie Sheen please.

Prohibition is necessary in the case of hard drugs. Its true that we need to attack it from all angles, but legalization and taxation of most of the illegal drugs would be a societal disaster the scale of which we have never seen.

What, why? What's wrong with doing (e.g) cocaine, exactly? All sorts of businessmen and entertainers and other powerful people do it on a regular basis, without significant side-effects; because it's illegal, you only hear about the people who crash and burn because of it, not the people who keep it in check.

I mean, seriously, we can get a good idea of how much cocaine is being used, even if (because it's illegal, obvs) we can't track actual rates. The NDIC claims that there's roughly 300 metric tons of cocaine available in the USA annually - and you can bet that a significant portion of that gets used. If cocaine is so dangerous, and people are using so much of it, where are all the cocaine addicts who burn out and need to be treated? Sure, there are some, but not significantly more than any other legal drug like alcohol or tobacco.

Our current "hard drug" policy is like basing alcohol policy on surveys of Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and temperance groups. What we need are reality-based policies, not these bullshit wish-based policies we have right now.

In accordance with recently established Open Internet requirements, Comcast is prohibited from unreasonably discriminating in the transmission of an [online video destributor]'s lawful network traffic to a Comcast broadband customer. Comcast must also maintain the high-speed Internet service it offers to its customers by continuing to offer download speeds of at least 12 megabits per second in markets where it has upgraded its broadband network. Additionally, Comcast is required to give other firms' content equal treatment under any of its broadband offerings that involve caps, tiers, metering for consumption or other usage-based pricing;

What is 'reasonable' will, of course, be up for interpretation, but the prohibition is better than nothing.

here is a more detailed press release from the DoJ itself. It has more specific language such as:

The settlement also includes other relief aimed at ensuring that Comcast cannot evade the provisions designed to protect competition. For example:

• Comcast may not retaliate against any broadcast network (or affiliate), cable programmer, production studio or content licensee for licensing content to a competing cable, satellite or telephone company or OVD, or for raising concerns to the department or the FCC;
• Comcast must relinquish its management rights in Hulu, an OVD. Without such a remedy, Comcast could, through its seats on Hulu's board of directors, interfere with the management of Hulu, and, in particular, the development of products that compete with Comcast's video service. Comcast also must continue to make NBCU content available to Hulu that is comparable to the programming Hulu obtains from Disney and News Corp;
• In accordance with recently established Open Internet requirements, Comcast is prohibited from unreasonably discriminating in the transmission of an OVD's lawful network traffic to a Comcast broadband customer. Comcast must also maintain the high-speed Internet service it offers to its customers by continuing to offer download speeds of at least 12 megabits per second in markets where it has upgraded its broadband network. Additionally, Comcast is required to give other firms' content equal treatment under any of its broadband offerings that involve caps, tiers, metering for consumption or other usage-based pricing; and
• Comcast may not, with certain narrow exceptions, require programmers or video distributors to agree to licensing terms that seek to limit online distributors' access to content.

The AG isn't elected either, another political appointee who is approved by the Senate. United States Attorneys (Prosecutors) are appointed, vetted and voted on by the Senate. Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSA) are civil servants, not elected, hired by the district they work in and answer to the USA for that district.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/kidspage/prosecutor.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney

Thats similar to how the United States Marshals Service works.

I just checked the US Constitution and all the amendments. It is a quick read.

There is nothing in it about the FBI having the right to wiretap peoples communications without a warrant. A few years ago, there were less than 3,000 judge approved wiretaps inside the entire USA. http://www.justice.gov/nsd/foia/reading_room/foia_readingroom.htm

There are 310,000,000 people in the USA. http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html They are suggesting all that this infrastructure be built to monitor 3,000 people? Only government thinks this way.

I'm sorry that monitoring private communications isn't easy. I'm also happy it isn't.

... If it's to be treated as a medical treatment, it should be moved to Schedule II or III, prescribed by doctors, and distributed through pharmacies. ...

Funny thing - the DEA already lists Marinol - which is pure THC at only Schedule III!

And if you check out the drugs listed in Schedule V - the lowest and least restrictive category - it consists almost entirely of Schedule III or higher drugs in lower potency preparations. If normal scheduling procedures were followed cannabis would be listed no higher than Schedule V.

It is interesting to observe the procedures for acquiring Schedule V drugs ordained by the DEA. For the Schedule V drug Robitussin AC (it contains codeine) up to four ounces can be purchased within a 48 hour period without prescription, provided the purchaser is at least 18 years of age, sign a log book, and provide identification if not known to the pharmacist. So basically you can buy some Schedule V drugs simply by showing up to your friendly neighborhood pharmacist, siging a book, paying your money and walking away.

The US has no Official Secrets act. It is perfectly legal for anyone to tell classified information to anyone else as long as they have not sign documents stating they will not do that.

Basically, all punishment for leaking classified information is contractual. Mannings agreed to it, and hence he be punished.

Not quite.

18 U.S.C. 793 : US Code - Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;....

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of
the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

This also looks interesting: 18 U.S.C. 798 (disclosing classified information)

As does this: 18 U.S.C. 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

The Pentagon Papers case does not have the expansive application that many assume.

II. There is no Clarity in Current Constitutional Doctrine Over Whether The First Amendment Permits the Criminal Prosecution of Reporters for the Mere Possession or Subsequent Publication of Classified Material. There is, however, Substantial Reason to Doubt that Current First Amendment Doctrine Does Bar the Making of Mere Possession or Subsequent Publication of Classified Material Criminal. Testimony of Dean Rodney A. Smolla, United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary

There is plenty of reason to believe that the investigation against Assange is motivated by his behavior, not by some government conspiracy.
10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Julian Assange
The wildly promiscuous lifestyle of WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange: Look away now Jemima as our report reveals the sordid truth

Contrary to some people's ideas, Interpol does get involved in rape cases.

Since when does the CIA investigate crime?

The CIA has its own Inspector General, and no doubt other investigators. There are plenty of circumstances that might call for investigations when national security is involved in a large organization like the CIA.

I'm just a little baffled that the CIA is openly admitting the government is trying to figure out ways to charge Assange with a crime.

Assange was/is allegedly?/apparently? involved in a conspiracy to procure and publish hundreds of thousands of stolen classified US Government documents on the web so that any enemy of the United States can access them and hunt down named info

> It's not theft. It's breach of trust.

According to the press release (also linked above), it's theft of trade secrets:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/mie/press/2010/2010-11-17_xyu.pdf

I assume it's also a breach of his employment contract. (Which would be relevant to a civil case by Ford against him.)

The word is not destroy but kill.

http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f1700/1762.htm#N_57_

"Naturally, we would never do it, but it would give us some idea of how much time we have to work with in killing Sun's Java."

http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm

Hop to it.

From http://www.justice.gov/otj/nafaqs.htm:

Can American Indians and Alaska Natives vote?
American Indians and Alaska Natives have the same right to vote as all United States citizens. American Indians and Alaska Natives vote in state and local elections, as well as in tribal elections. Just as state, federal, and local governments have the sovereign right to establish voter eligibility criteria; each Tribe has the right to decide its voter eligibility criteria for tribal elections.

Basically, Indians actually have more rights than the rest of us, at least when they're on reservation land. They get all the rights of regular citizens, but they also get to thumb their noses at State laws (like those which forbid casinos), so they can build casinos right next to big cities where it's banned otherwise. Obviously, this works out better for those tribes who happen to have reservations conveniently located right next to major metro areas, rather than reservations located in the middle of nowhere.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it. They got screwed over so much 150+ years ago, a few little bonuses like being able to have a monopoly on casinos in some areas seems ok to me.

1999 US v Microsoft. Judge Jackson's findings of fact details Microsoft would not license Windows 95 to IBM unless IBM stopped pushing Lotus SmartSuite. Judge Jackson eventually ruled in 2000 that Microsoft be split up into several companies. His ruling was overturned on appeal and Microsoft and the US attorney general settled out of court in 2001. The resulting consent decree limits some of what Microsoft can and cannot do with Microsoft Office.The largest concern being "undocumented" APIs used by Microsoft Office applications that are not available to third party vendors.

And did you miss all the various EU rulings just these past couple of years?

Of course! That's why OxyContin, Vicodin, morphine, and countless other prescription drugs can be abused with no problems! After all, nobody's ever stolen anything, or damaged property, or killed anyone to get those, right?

Illegal drugs are illegal because they're usually addictive, and lead to users doing anything to get more. Try walking through Chicago's south side and counting the druggies offering (or threatening) anything to get more of their toxin of choice. If tobacco were discovered today, knowing what we know now, it'd most likely be banned as well.

Maybe if drugs were legal, then the users could still have good jobs, and wouldn't turn to crime. It's a great theory, until you try actually working with a habitual drug user. I've done it, and my coworkers' mental states have usually brought record-low productivity.

I'm currently working in the medical field. One amazing thing I've learned is that there has been research into medicine for thousands of years. Things like glaucoma, cancer, and loss of appetite have been studied for far more than 50 years, and - now here's the amazing part - are treatable already! There are well-defined methods for helping a patient eat, and there are refined treatments for lowering eye pressure! Even more amazing is that these medications have very rare side effects, and don't result in memory loss, lung irritation, loss of coordination, or even low blood pressure. Marijuana may have its medical uses, but they're less effective and carry more side effects than current treatments, so they aren't practically useful for treatment. Thus, marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use", and belong on the Schedule I list.

Facts don't change. Situations change and the set of known information changes. If a use were found where marijuana was actually the best or only option, I'd certainly change my opinion to be a bit more supportive of that limited use. Until that day, I'll think back to all the crap I've had to go through to compensate for drugs' effects, and I'll continue to think that drugs are bad, mmmk?

Eli Lilly agreed in 2009 to pay $515M, regarded as the "largest criminal fine paid by a single corporation in federal prosecution". Along with that went a $100M forfeiture of assets and a $800M civil settlement with the US and several state governments, for a grand total of $1.415 billion.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/January/09-civ-038.html

Also, Hoffman-La Roche agreed to pay $500M in federal criminal fines back in 1999.

June 6, 2007 Congressional Testimony of Laszlo Bock: "Google's hiring process is rigorous, and we make great efforts to uncover the most talented employees we can find."

September 24, 2010 Justice Department Press Release: "Beginning no later than 2006, Apple and Google executives agreed not to cold call each other's employees...Beginning no later than September 2007, Google and Intel executives agreed not to cold call each other's employees...In June 2007, Google and Intuit executives agreed that Google would not cold call any Intuit employee."

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/January/10-crt-030.html

"WASHINGTON – The Justice Department today announced separate agreements under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Pace University in New York City and Reed College in Portland, Ore., regarding the use in a classroom setting of the electronic book reader, the Kindle DX, a hand-held technological device that simulates the experience of reading a book.

Under the agreements reached today, the universities generally will not purchase, recommend or promote use of the Kindle DX, or any other dedicated electronic book reader, unless the devices are fully accessible to students who are blind and have low vision. The universities agree that if they use dedicated electronic book readers, they will ensure that students with vision disabilities are able to access and acquire the same materials and information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same services as sighted students with substantially equivalent ease of use. The agreements that the Justice Department reached with these universities extend beyond the Kindle DX to any dedicated electronic reading device."

This isn't about branding or at least not in the sense you seem to be referring to. According to TFA, they have two issues with Google; one being anti-competitive actions by google regarding the way they deal with handset vendors and their own Google branded software (as opposed to 3rd party software), and the other issue relating to patent violations regarding the use of WiFi to determine location.

I've never seen the stipulation that a phone using Android must use Google branded core services, and I assume, therein lies Skyhook's beef. They claim Google uses unfair advantage pushing it's own services over 3rd party solutions with handset vendors, basically withholding OS releases to 3rd party developers while they make deals with handset vendors behind the scenes. The 3rd partie developers are then pretty much shut out and can't compete at all in those areas as a result.

I read an interesting article from a .GOV website that talks about anti-competitive behavior without market dominance, and apparently there is precedence:

"Market Power Without A Large Market Share:

The Role of Imperfect Information and other

"Consumer Protection" Market Failures"

[Excerpt]

Market Power from "Consumer Protection" Market Failures
A firm also can obtain the ability to raise prices from the types of market failures most often associated with consumer protection violations.(8) The most common of these fall within five categories: (1) coercion; (2) undue influence; (3) deception; (4) incomplete or asymmetric information; or (5) unreliable, uncertain or overly confusing information.(9)

This list of "consumer protection" market failures is really not all that different from the types of market failures that prevent entry to challenge a monopoly's dominance. However, consumer protection problems cannot occur absent market failures occurring "inside the head" of ultimate purchasers. Hypothetical purchasers who are perfectly informed, rational, and intelligent can never be subject to consumer protection abuses. Ordinary consumers, however, can have greater difficulties.

...

It is crucial to note, however, that these consumer protection violations, flowing from these "consumer protection" market failures, can occur even if the firm committing the act in question does not have a monopoly market share. We prosecute a company that commits consumer fraud even if its market share is small. We prosecute fraudulent companies even if 80% of the sellers in their market are honest.(13)

Although the first bit talks about simple mechanisms like raising prices, anti-competitive behavior can easily encompass more obscure aspects like preventing others from entering a market, manipulating markets through coercion, etc.

They could most definitely have a case against Google.

Sorry. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 pretty much did away with literacy tests for voters. Sigh.

They are illegal, in the US and a bunch of other countries, don't know about India.

In the US, you are dealing with the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996, making it a Federal crime. Here is a link to the DoJ's web site. Virus creators fall into this same category.

However, AiPlex is based in India. Couldn't tell you about their laws... however, I'm sure that there may be a few people who take down their site.... from the AiPlex web site: "Aiplex Software Pvt. Ltd. is one of the leading providers of healthcare (Medical Transcription), Net Vigilance (Anti movie piracy) and Search Engine Optimization (SEO) services to clients across the globe."

Standard Oil was not the only oil company, and had minor players. People were always free to buy from them. Windows was not the only operating system, you could always use Linux or buy a Mac.

You bring up a good point about not requiring a complete monopoly nor lock-in to run afoul of the law, however, I think the facts of both Standard Oil's business practices and Microsoft's business practices made it so you were not always free to buy from competitors.

Standard Oil used business partnerships and buying up relevant assets to make it virtually impossible for competitors to bring their product to market.

The wiki article for Standard Oil shows a need for citations so I would recommend further research, however, Microsoft's practices are well documented in the Finding of Facts from the US DOJ vs Microsoft case where Microsoft was found guilty of violating anti-trust laws.

Microsoft uses similar tactics to block access to markets. So I think it is wrong to suggest that people are always free to buy from competitors, it is not that simple.

But getting back to your main point, the fact that Google has a monopoly is not an issue but if they use that monopoly position to block competitors from the market then Google will be in violation of anti-trust laws. They will not be in violation for being a monopoly, that is not illegal, they will be in violation of using their monopoly position to block competitors and protect their monopoly position from competition.

That is exactly what got Standard Oil in trouble and Microsoft as well. They used their position in the market to destroy competitors so they would not have to deal with the difficulties of market competition.

We can only wait to see if there is any merit to the case but the fact that it seems Microsoft is behind the legal attack it appears at the moment to be the MO of a corporation that has been found guilty of multiple violations of anti-trust laws.

Even after 15 years, illegally tying MSIE to Windows is still happening. This anti-competitive activity has hurt standards, hurt competition, hurt the economy and held back the net.

There is even a form to report ongoing anti-trust violations, there are so many.

If M$ executives and employees would have ditched MSIE if security or performance were an issue. Opera and even Safari are far and above superior, if closed source is an obligation. Keeping MSIE in place AND keeping pieces of it throughout the OS show that there is no intention of MSIE being there to benefit the end-user in anyway. If we add up the cost over 15 years of all the MSIE malware in one column we will have an astronomical sum. If we then total the combined costs of all Opera, Netscape, Cameleon, Safari, Firefox, Mozilla, and Konqueror malware in another column and subtract that total of non-MSIE costs from the MSIE costs, we will still have an astronomical sum. Based on quarterly malware damage, the sum is probably in the range of 100's to 10's of thousands of billions of dollars. The Apollo program to the moon itself only cost 25 billion and we got integrated circuits out of that. Even for the unrealistically low sum of 1 billion dollars, what kind of rocking Free Software distro, applications or infrastructure could have been created? Even building a full distro from scratch we could have a full kernel, drivers, utilities, desktop, services, and applications for less.

You can put a stop to this and advance technology, economy and security by not feeding the Windows monopoly any more market share. Tagging this one as "antitrust".

Even after 15 years, illegally tying MSIE to Windows is still happening. This anti-competitive activity has hurt standards, hurt competition, hurt the economy and held back the net.

There is even a form to report ongoing anti-trust violations, there are so many.

If M$ executives and employees would have ditched MSIE if security or performance were an issue. Opera and even Safari are far and above superior, if closed source is an obligation. Keeping MSIE in place AND keeping pieces of it throughout the OS show that there is no intention of MSIE being there to benefit the end-user in anyway. If we add up the cost over 15 years of all the MSIE malware in one column we will have an astronomical sum. If we then total the combined costs of all Opera, Netscape, Cameleon, Safari, Firefox, Mozilla, and Konqueror malware in another column and subtract that total of non-MSIE costs from the MSIE costs, we will still have an astronomical sum. Based on quarterly malware damage, the sum is probably in the range of 100's to 10's of thousands of billions of dollars. The Apollo program to the moon itself only cost 25 billion and we got integrated circuits out of that. Even for the unrealistically low sum of 1 billion dollars, what kind of rocking Free Software distro, applications or infrastructure could have been created? Even building a full distro from scratch we could have a full kernel, drivers, utilities, desktop, services, and applications for less.

You can put a stop to this and advance technology, economy and security by not feeding the Windows monopoly any more market share. Tagging this one as "antitrust".

The behavior talked about in the SEC link is certainly improper, but it is a little overboard to speak about it as if it is controlling society

Not sure where you got your "controlling society" spin from - all you have here is one concrete example of how the SEC did not pursue a long term billion dollar fraud against the general public until it was in someones political interests to do so. When they did pursue it, claimed damages (~20 million) and fines levied were an insult to all the citizens of the US whose retirement savings were robbed over the decades.

each of the alleged fraudulent trades likely had a genuine market order on one side of it.

I suggest you educate yourself on how the fraud is being carried out, before you start making apologies or excuses for their criminal activity.

Perhaps start with this research PDF: "NYSE Response to Specialist Misconduct: An Example of the Failure of Self-Regulation" but there are more you can easily find now you have some search keys to look it up.

Here's a 2 facts for you, Combating kidnapping although is under the FBI's purview, Is not one of the FBI's strategic Goals. Combating Drug use is....

Therefore according to the FBI putting people with a joint in the joint is more important then catching kidnappers.
how's that for priorities?

source

Search "how to make a bomb" with Google. Not only do you get videos and diagrams, Google is very helpful in coming up with additional information:

Searches related to "how to make a bomb":

• how to make a bomb with household items
• how to make a tennis ball bomb
• how to make a stink bomb
• how to make a chlorine bomb
• how to make a pipe bomb
• how to make a gun
• pipe bomb
• how to make fireworks

It's not like it's difficult information to find. A Justice Department report says "the DOJ committee has determined that anyone interested in manufacturing a bomb, dangerous weapon, or a weapon of mass destruction can easily obtain detailed instructions from readily accessible sources, such as legitimate reference books, the so-called underground press, and the Internet."

You can read the internal memos they discovered during the trial yourself, where the phrase "embrace, extend, extinguish" originates. Claiming they didn't intentionally break compliance, when they say they are planning to do so in their own e-mails requires absurd bias on your part.

Why detain them all the way down there, when you can prosecute them in the states and still get a 99% conviction rate for anything even remotely linked to terrorism and get obscene amounts of jail time.

Tesla's model is new to the auto industry: manufacturer sells direct to consumer, and also owns the distribution network and the service departments. That's nothing new in high tech: Apple's made a fortune using that model. The "Apple Store" gives a retail presence, but the guy at the Apple Store doesn't really care whether you buy the thing on the spot or go back home and buy it through the website.

Applying that model to cars is interesting - and potentially groundbreaking. In the case of the Big Three, the dealer networks were an albatross around the neck of the auto manufacturers. If Tesla's model works, Telsa won't need a network of thousands of independent dealerships, because the only function of the dealerships will be to provide test drives and occasional servicing. Dealerships will be profit centers, not loss centers, for the manufacturer.

Actually, it's not new: Europe has this model in place right now. Over there, manufacturers are allowed to sell directly to customers - as well as to franchised dealerships. Customers are able to go and pick up their cars straight from the factory in some cases (see Autostadt in Wolfsburg).

However, in most states in the US, it's illegal for manufacturers to sell directly to the customer (page two, footnote four). My Google-fu is not terribly strong so I was not able to easily find an accessible list of states that permit direct manufacturer-to-consumer sales. That's not to say that manufacturers can't own a stake in dealerships, but that's not quite the same.

For additional bed-time reading, check out a DOJ paper on the effects of bans on direct manufacturer-to-dealer sales.

Here is the official document detailing what they did, and what they're being charged with. A very interesting read, though be warned, you'll feel like laughing out loud at times.

Well, if you read the recently published official complaint, SVR gave one of the agents the following order:

in its January 2010 messages, the SVR also instructed MURPHY to buy certain computer equipment using "all necessary precausions [sic]: no preliminary order, pay cash, destroy receipts, etc.," and to bring that computer equipment to Center.

and it was carried out:

A database of sales maintained by the Computer Store reflected that, earlier that day, an individual who identified himself as "David Hiller" had paid cash for, inter alia, an ASUS EEE PC 1005HA-P laptop computer. This was the make and model of computer that the SVR had directed MURPHY to buy.

(I kid you not, it's page 28 in the PDF.)

So there. I mean, for sure, it was a cunning plan to bug it and then sneak it in as a gift to Obama alongside his BlackBerry... though as a Russian myself, I'm tempted to conclude that SVR is financed so badly that they purchase laptops for themselves indirectly through agents in the field, so they can write off the price as operative expenses. ~

Mod parent up Informative.

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/18usc2511.htm

By the way, that page benefits *enormously* from Readability.

http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/

Funny, the cordless telephone provisions are... uhmm... interesting. Does that mean that cordless phones enjoy the same protections as cellphones? What?

--
BMO

Dark cloud over good works of Gates Foundation
In a contradiction between its grants and its endowment holdings, a Times investigation has found, the foundation reaps vast financial gains every year from investments that contravene its good works.

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Holdings Outperforming S&P 500 Handily
It is also overweight Healthcare, Consumer Staples and Industrials. The Foundation is underweight Telecom, Consumer Discretionary and Energy, and it has a 0% weight in Technology, Utilities and Materials.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Owns Over 7 Million Shares of BP

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Buys CSX Corp., M&T Bank Corp., XTO Energy Inc. Mcdonald's, Devon Energy Corp., Sells Johnson & Johnson
These are the top 5 holdings of Bill Gates

      1. Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK-B) - 1,251,250 shares, 48.36% of the total portfolio
      2. McDonald's Corp. (MCD) - 6,867,500 shares, 5.27% of the total portfolio
      3. Canadian National Railway Company Fully (CNI) - 8,399,653 shares, 4.82% of the total portfolio
      4. Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) - 4,285,000 shares, 4% of the total portfolio
      5. Costco Wholesale Corp. (COST) - 6,128,000 shares, 3.74% of the total portfolio

Is this a philanthropic venture or a tax evasion investment scheme?

I do commend Gates for what he is doing but I would not go so far as to slobber all over him for his philanthropic works considering his past illicit activity that played a significant role in providing him with the funds to become a philanthropist.

MS didn't have an effective monopoly either. Read your Sherman.

Micro$erf,

Read your Jackson. Microsoft "[enjoyed] monopoly power" as defined by the Sherman act, and that finding of fact was never overturned.

Sorry, you were saying something funny?

Copyright does not protect game rules, ideas, systems, concepts or methods of playing a game. Copyright only protects items of sufficient authorship, for example: you can not copyright a square. You can however copyright an ornate square that has decorations/artwork on it.

Trademark doesn't protect ideas/concepts either, in fact trademark isn't even applicable unless you call your game "Tetris". Trademark doesn't protect any functional parts of the game either, It is required that a trademark be completely non-functional, this is known as functionality doctrine.

Tetris is copyrighted, as in: the source code is copyrighted, the particular ornate look of the blocks is copyrighted. You can however make your own game that uses the same rules, idea, system, concept and method of playing and it is perfectly legal. I already spoke to their lawyers, The Tetris Company claims copyright infringement based on "look&feel" copyright - claiming that the "look&feel" of their game is copyrighted. Under "look&feel" they cite things like: "the blocks fall, the blocks rotate, the completed lines are removed from the field, the field drops by the number of completed rows". I already checked with the U.S. Copyright office, and they assured me that there is no such thing as "look&feel" copyright. I spoke with lawyers already, they also assured me that there is no such thing as "look&feel" copyright. The only thing The Tetris Company has is the trademark for the name "Tetris", and you're safe from that unless you call your game "Tetris" and use their logos.

Think about it: if there was a "look&feel" copyright, Duke Nukem 3D, Unreal and the hundreds of other first person shooters that all look and feel the same would all be infringing Wolfenstein 3D's copyright. There really isn't anything called "look&feel" copyright.

An unlawful monopoly exists because only The Tetris Company controls the market for a product, and it has obtained that market power, not because its product is superior to others, but by suppressing competition with anticompetitive conduct. I took this excerpt from http://www.justice.gov/atr/laws.htm and added "The Tetris Company" to where it said "one firm". The Tetris Company is anti-competitive. Please go to DoJ antitrust web site and file a complaint.

From the DoJ web site:
Information from the public is vital to the work of the Antitrust Division. Your e-mails, letters, and phone calls could be our first alert to a possible violation of antitrust laws and may provide the initial evidence needed to begin an investigation.
So I urge you to file a complaint against The Tetris Company: http://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm

Copyright does not protect game rules, ideas, systems, concepts or methods of playing a game. Copyright only protects items of sufficient authorship, for example: you can not copyright a square. You can however copyright an ornate square that has decorations/artwork on it.

Trademark doesn't protect ideas/concepts either, in fact trademark isn't even applicable unless you call your game "Tetris". Trademark doesn't protect any functional parts of the game either, It is required that a trademark be completely non-functional, this is known as functionality doctrine.

Tetris is copyrighted, as in: the source code is copyrighted, the particular ornate look of the blocks is copyrighted. You can however make your own game that uses the same rules, idea, system, concept and method of playing and it is perfectly legal. I already spoke to their lawyers, The Tetris Company claims copyright infringement based on "look&feel" copyright - claiming that the "look&feel" of their game is copyrighted. Under "look&feel" they cite things like: "the blocks fall, the blocks rotate, the completed lines are removed from the field, the field drops by the number of completed rows". I already checked with the U.S. Copyright office, and they assured me that there is no such thing as "look&feel" copyright. I spoke with lawyers already, they also assured me that there is no such thing as "look&feel" copyright. The only thing The Tetris Company has is the trademark for the name "Tetris", and you're safe from that unless you call your game "Tetris" and use their logos.

Think about it: if there was a "look&feel" copyright, Duke Nukem 3D, Unreal and the hundreds of other first person shooters that all look and feel the same would all be infringing Wolfenstein 3D's copyright. There really isn't anything called "look&feel" copyright.

An unlawful monopoly exists because only The Tetris Company controls the market for a product, and it has obtained that market power, not because its product is superior to others, but by suppressing competition with anticompetitive conduct. I took this excerpt from http://www.justice.gov/atr/laws.htm and added "The Tetris Company" to where it said "one firm". The Tetris Company is anti-competitive. Please go to DoJ antitrust web site and file a complaint.

From the DoJ web site:
Information from the public is vital to the work of the Antitrust Division. Your e-mails, letters, and phone calls could be our first alert to a possible violation of antitrust laws and may provide the initial evidence needed to begin an investigation.
So I urge you to file a complaint against The Tetris Company: http://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm

Hey, I'm on the same boat. I also made a really awesome game of falling 4th order polyominoes (tetris style game) called BitBlocks. It was wildly successful, had much better ratings than even the official Tetris game by EA. My game was on the Android Market for 3 months, and became one of the top 5 games for the Android. On March 9th it got removed from the Android Market.

Your options are limited. You can't fight The Tetris Company because you can't afford the lawyer expenses. If you did have the money to fight The Tetris Company, you would surely win in court, but the court victory would be a loss for The Tetris Company as well as you because it would mean The Tetris Company no longer has any authority to stop people from making falling block games and there would be a flood of falling block games on the market, perhaps some even better than your game. (See Lotus vs Borland, in the end Borland won, but Lotus and Borland both lost when Microsoft came out with Excel)

What The Tetris Company is doing is anti-competitive. Under The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, monopolizing a trade using anti-competitive practices is a felony punishable by up to $10,000,000 fine and three year jail sentence. According to DOJ web site:

The Sherman Act also makes it a crime to monopolize any part of interstate commerce. An unlawful monopoly exists when only one firm controls the market for a product or service, and it has obtained that market power, not because its product or service is superior to others, but by suppressing competition with anticompetitive conduct.

(http://www.justice.gov/atr/laws.htm) -- that paragraph entirely describes what The Tetris Company is doing with falling block games.

I don't know if the DOJ will care or even lift a finger, but it's worth a try and if people on slashdot can create a big enough wave perhaps they will be swayed to investigate The Tetris Company. You can report antitrust concern here: http://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm

So I urge all slashdotters to file a complaint with the Department of Justice. Show you care about tetris, file a complaint against The Tetris Company! It's time we put an end to their monopoly.