Tag Archives: Legal

FTC Sues To Block Microsoft’s Acquisition of Activision



The Federal Trade Commission on Thursday sued to block Microsoft’s $69 billion acquisition of the video game publisher Activision Blizzard, charging that the massive deal would allow the Washington tech giant to suppress its competitors in gaming, The Washington Post reported.

According to The Washington Post, the lawsuit represents the FTC’s most significant effort to rein in consolidation in the tech industry since prominent tech critic Lina Khan (D) became the commission’s chair and was expected to usher in an era of antitrust enforcement characterized by a willingness to bring cases in court rather than pursue settlements with companies.

The FTC lawsuit against Microsoft could foil the company’s ambitions to become a heavier hitter in gaming frontiers. Activision is the owner of popular titles such as Candy Crush and Call of Duty, and its acquisition could bolster Microsoft in its competition with Japanese console makers Nintendo and Sony.

The Washington Post also reported that the commission voted Thursday on a party-line vote to issue the lawsuit in administrative court, with the three Democrats in favor of the complaint and one Republican against it.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) posted the following:

The Federal Trade Commission is seeking to block technology giant Microsoft Corp. from acquiring leading video game developer Activision Blizzard, Inc. and its blockbuster gaming franchises such as Call of Duty, alleging that the $69 billion deal, Microsoft’s largest ever and the largest ever in the gaming industry, would enable Microsoft to suppress competitors to its Xbox gaming consoles and its rapidly growing subscription content and cloud-gaming business.

In a complaint issue today, the FTC pointed to Microsoft’s record of acquiring and using valuable gaming content to suppress competition from rival consoles, including its acquisition of ZeniMax, parent company of Bethesda Softworks (a well-known game developer). Microsoft decided to make several of Bethesda’s titles, including Starfield and Redial Microsoft exclusives despite assurances that it had given to European antitrust authorities that it had no incentive to withhold games from rival consoles…

…Activision is one of only a very small number of top video game developers in the world that create and publish high-quality video games for multiple devices, including video game consoles, PCs, and mobile devices. It produces some the most iconic and popular video game titles, including Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Diablo, and Overwatch, and has millions of monthly active users around the word, according to the FTC’s complaint. Activision currently has a strategy of offering its games on many devices regardless of producer.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Sony has been the loudest critic of the planned Activision deal, arguing that it could hurt competition if Microsoft restricts access to Activision games, especially Call of Duty, due to the franchise’s exceptional popularity.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Microsoft has said it doesn’t plan to deny Sony and others access to Activision games and that its deal for the company wouldn’t hurt competition. The company has publicly pledged to give Sony and Nintendo access to new Call of Duty games on their consoles for the next 10 years. Though Microsoft doesn’t disclose Xbox sales, it has said it would still be the third-largest video game console maker after Sony and Nintendo after merging with Activision.

What does this mean for gamers? It seems to me that the FTC’s decision to sue Microsoft over the Activision Blizzard acquisition means there could be a lengthy court battle. There is no way to know how a court will decide this case. Based on what I’ve seen on social media, there are a lot of gamers who hoped the acquisition would happen. The FTC’s decision to sue is disappointing.


Uber Settles Discrimination Lawsuit



uberlogo[1]Ride-sharing service Uber agreed to settle a lawsuit brought against them by the National Federation of the Blind. The suit contended that Uber was engaging in discriminatory practices by refusing to pick up blind passengers with service dogs. The settlement is still being reviewed by a judge and pending approval. The terms of the settlement force Uber to notify all of its drivers that they must take all passengers with service animals. The suit also awards $225,000 to the National Federation of the Blind over three years.

From a statement released by Uber:

As part of this settlement, we have agreed to take steps to make clear to drivers using Uber that they are obligated to transport to any passenger with a service animal. If the settlement is approved, drivers will see a pop-up in the Uber app reminding them of this obligation. We will also send periodic email reminders to drivers.

We have also agreed to publish a service animal policy which, in addition to our code of conduct and new deactivation policy, makes clear that any driver found to have refused someone with a service animal will be barred from using the Uber platform.

The National Federation of the Blind will deploy blind passengers with service animals to help test the new measures put in place by the settlement.


Free Beer from Alcohoot at CES!



Alcohoot Logo

Alcohoot are offering free beer for visitors to their stand at CES (booth 74549). On the surface, it’s a cheap trick but as they sell breathalyzers there’s a certain relevance to it. No doubt the merit of personal breathalyzers will continue to be debated for years to come but focussing on the technology, Alcohoot have produced a portable breathalyzer that plugs into the headphone jack of both Android and Apple smartphones. The Alcohoot uses an FDA-registered fuel cell sensor built into a hand-sized pocket device to record the owner’s alcohol level as he or she breathes into the unit.

Alcohoot and Phone

The complementary app is available on both the Android and iOS platforms and lets the owner track his or her consumption. Handily, it can provide contact details for taxis when over the legal limit for driving.

App Screens

The Alcohoot was a winner of the Red Dot Design Award, 2014, which puts it in good company along with Apple, Beats By Dre, Bose, BMW, Nest, Nespresso, Blackberry, Lenovo, Nike+ FuelBand, LG and many more.

Available in three colours – black, white and red – the Alcohoot can be bought from their store for $99.99 along with extra mouthpieces.

If you want to learn more, pop into Alcohoot’s CES booth 74549 at the Sands Expo Center for a few beers. Cheers!


Freedom of Speech in the UK



Law GavelIn the latest podcast, Todd rightly asks about the apparent lack of freedom of speech on social media in the UK. Undoubtedly, it’s a complex issue but it is becoming increasingly clear that the right to free speech is under threat here in Britain. In this post, I’ll look at some of the issues, but to start with, I am not a lawyer (thank goodness) and this doesn’t constitute legal advice.

Unlike the USA, the UK does not have a written constitution guaranteeing rights. The closest the Britain gets to this is the Human Rights Act (1998) which only came into force in 2000. The Human Rights Act is the embodiment in UK law of the European Convention on Human Rights (pdf).  The ECHR’s Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression but as will be noted from part 2 of the article below, there are plenty of possible exceptions. I’ve embolden the part that is relevant to the discussion here.

“The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Obviously, the UK police do not pro-actively monitor social media looking for offensive posts. A complaint has to be received by the police based on someone taking offence at a posting on social media. The UK law has increasingly moved away from “offence intended” to “offence taken”. This was primarily done to increase the power of law in areas of discrimination, where people could avoid convictions by claiming that sexually or racially offensive language wasn’t intended in the way it was taken. Now the law supported those who were offended by the sexual or racial innuendo, regardless of intention. However, the “offence taken” law has grown out of its discriminatory roots to take hold in almost any area of offence.

Much as the compensation culture has grown, a similar one has arisen that “bad things” are always someone else’s fault and they have to pay. Although it started with physical hurt, this has gradually extended to psychological hurt and finally simple feelings. Instead of “sticks and stones will break my bones”, it’s “I’m going to tell on you.”

Finally, both the police and the legal system have increasingly taken a view of what’s legal and illegal rather than what is right and wrong. Consequently, instead of the police looking at the social media post with a bit of common sense and telling the complainant to grow-up, the police are now obliged to follow procedure and take up the complaint.

Overall, these changes in the law and approaches to policing now mean that abusive and offensive comments are taken much more seriously than before.

Let’s take a look at three cases that show the variety of circumstances.

The first tweet to come to widespread notice was Paul Chamber’s tweet in response to his local airport being shut because of snow. “Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your (expletive deleted) together, otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!” He was initially found guilty in May 2010 of sending a “menacing electronic communication” but fortunately eventually won his challenge in July of this year. The whole incident was farcical and made the law look stupid.

The second isn’t a tweet but a T-shirt worn in response to the shooting of two police officers that said, “One less pig perfect justice”, pig being an abusive slang term of the police. Barry Thew was jailed for four months for this, but many would have seen this as political commentary, particularly as it was about to be revealed that the police covered up their incompetence in a sporting disaster in which 96 people died by disgracefully blaming football fans killed and injured in the incident.

And finally, Britain has been embroiled in child sex abuse scandal involving a well-loved (but now dead) BBC TV personality. In the wake of this, a living person was named on Twitter as being a paedophile when he was wholly innocent and completely blameless. He’s now suing everyone who repeated the lie unless they apologise.

As can be seen, it’s a complex issue with both the freedom of speech under threat and the rights of others needing to be protected. The Crown Prosecution Service has recognised that there is potentially a problem and is intending to consult with the legal profession and social media companies. The Director of Pubic Prosecution, Keir Starmer, QC, has said that “People have the right to be offensive, they have the right to be insulting, and that has to be protected.

In a recent statement about another tweeting case, the DPP said, “Social media is a new and emerging phenomenon raising difficult issues of principle, which have to be confronted not only by prosecutors but also by others including the police, the courts and service providers. The fact that offensive remarks may not warrant a full criminal prosecution does not necessarily mean that no action should be taken. In my view, the time has come for an informed debate about the boundaries of free speech in an age of social media.

There’s hope yet.

Courtroom Gavel photograph courtesy of Bigstock.


Ohio Attorney Found Guilty of Creating Digitally Altered Images for Use in Court



An Ohio attorney and former state prosecutor who describes himself as a “computer expert” has been found guilty of creating fake child pornography images in an effort to defend people accused of child pornography in two separate court cases.

Dean Boland purchased two stock images and digitally altered them to appear sexually explicit.  On Friday the Sixth Circuit Court found Boland guilty after the FBI became aware of him and began investigating his court use of the faked, explicit images.  Boland had used the images to argue two cases in Ohio and Oklahoma, saying that it was “impossible for a person who did not participate in the creation of the image to know [the child is] an actual minor.”

In 2007, the parents of the children in question became aware of Boland’s activity and filed civil suits against him.  The Sixth Circuit Court found that he put “six-year-old Jane Doe’s face onto the body of a nude woman performing sexual acts with two men.”

The federal judge has awarded the families $300,000 in damages after Boland argued that he was immune from any civil law suits because he had only created the images for use in court, never distributed them beyond the court room, and was protected by the First Amendment’s freedom of expression provision.  The First Amendment actually doesn’t protect individuals from the use of obscene speech.

Frankly, I can’t believe this case dragged out as long as it did, given the cut-and-dry look of it.  Boland could have easily used  altered images of adults or virtual images, both of which would have fit within the law, but he instead chose to alter images of real children and now he has paid the price for his actions.

Image: Court Room by BigStock


Apple, Samsung and a Third Way for Patents



Samsung LogoWhen I heard the verdict on the Apple v. Samsung case, I was angry. Angry with Samsung for copying, angry with Apple for suing, angry with jurors for naivety, angry with the legal system for letting itself be a pawn. Over the weekend, I’ve mellowed a little but I’m still concerned about the impact it will have on consumers.

Apple is not a great first inventor. It didn’t invent the PC, the GUI, the digital music player, the smartphone or the tablet: I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to educate themselves as to who did. Apple is great at design, marketing, timing and extracting value from suppliers, partners and customers. Absolutely no doubts there and they have the bank balance to prove it.

Android LogoThe word on the street was that Apple was looking for a $30 licensing fee to cover the use of the patents. As a consumer, I think that’s a rip off when compared to the overall price of the device. None of those patents are intrinsic to the device and I would happily have a phone or tablet that doesn’t have those features. Multitouch and pinch-to-zoom is over-rated generally, and as for the bounce-back, it’s a waste of CPU cycles.

Obviously there are two possible outcomes from an Android perspective. Either the patents are circumvented and Android users get an arguably lesser experience or the manufacturers stump up the licensing fees.

But there is a third way…Wouldn’t it be great if, as an Android consumer, one could choose whether to avail of certain patents or not? You could accept the Apple licensing and pay the extra $30 or else decline and get the non-infringing version. How brilliant would that be and it would let the market decide which patents are valuable and which aren’t.

Of course, the chances of it happening are slim but remember Google and Samsung, you read it here first.


GNC-2012-05-08 #763 Show Notes are Back!



As you can see there is a link below that has a no-follow tag on it that takes you to the new show notes page. I explain in the show tonight the reason for the change. There may yet be a software solution here at GNC. But we have to do some more investigating on how to implement it. But one thing I am pretty sure of the list of links to all of the articles I cover are forever gone from within the show notes blog post.

Tonight I take you on a tech journey that covers a wide range of topics including some cool stuff happening here at Geek News Central. I want you to pull up a chair or watch the show from your lazy boy as I break down the latest tech news. You have a great chance to win a cool prize in today’s show so listen to win.

Support my Show Sponsor: Best Godaddy Promo Codes
$11.99 – For a New Domain Name cjcfs3geek
$6.99 a month Economy Hosting (Free domain, professional email, and SSL certificate for the 1st year.) Promo Code: cjcgeek1h
$12.99 a month Managed WordPress Hosting (Free domain, professional email, and SSL certificate for the 1st year.) Promo Code: cjcgeek1w
Support the show by becoming a Geek News Central Insider

Subscribe Today:  Audio |  Video (HD) |  Mobile Video |  iTunes |  Zune

Download the Audio Show File

Follow me on Google+
Follow @geeknews on Twitter
Geek News Central Facebook Page
Show Hotline 24/7 1-619-342-7365 or e-mail geeknews@gmail.com

Listener Links
Innovators in e-Learning from Michigan Virtual University
Free Tech for Teachers.
VW Hover Car in China.
AT&T continues to cry and be Greedy.

Links to articles covered in this Podcast on the GNC Show Notes Page [Click Here]