Jeffrey Sprecher, the chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, sold $3.5 million in stock on February 26, a month after his wife, Senator Kelly Loeffler of Georgia, received a closed-door briefing about the covid-19 threat. According to SEC filings, Sprecher sold $15.3 million more in stock on March 11, at the beginning of the crash that has seen trillions of dollars wiped from the financial markets. Both stock sales were of Intercontinental Exchange (known as ICE), the company that owns the NYSE, and of which Sprecher just happens to be CEO.

The revelations about Sprecher come from a new report by CBS News, which examined filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Loeffler’s own stock sales recently made headlines after it was revealed that she sold millions in stock the same day she received a closed-door January 26 briefing on the potential impact of the covid-19 pandemic. Loeffler denies having any knowledge of the sales done in her name.

What makes Sprecher’s stock sales a scandal? For one, they should have been reported as part of Loeffler’s financial disclosures, but were not. Senators have been required to give periodic financial disclosures since 2012 and those filings include any sales and purchases made by the politician’s spouse.

[…]

his wife had secret information about a global pandemic and both of them unloaded while she kept publicly saying everything was fine and dandy.

In fact, this was the video Loeffler posted to Twitter on March 10, the day before her husband unloaded $15.3 million worth of stock in his own company.

Sprecher and Loeffler are reportedly worth at least $500 million. Capitalism may be on its last legs during the covid-19 pandemic, but you can bet that millionaires and billionaires will do everything they can to keep it afloat. Even if a few million people have to die.

Source: New York Stock Exchange Chairman Sold Millions in Stock Before Crash

Senator Richard Burr is a real piece of work. In 2012 he was one of only three Senators to vote against the STOCK Act. This was a law put in place following a 60 Minutes expose about how Congress was getting filthy stinkin’ rich off of insider trading, since Congress was exempt from insider trading laws. The bill did pass — Burr’s vote against notwithstanding — and President Obama signed into law. Unfortunately, the next year, Congress passed (and Obama signed) an amendment that rolled the rules back for staffers, though it still does apply to elected officials themselves.

So, it’s quite interesting to see the news that Senator Burr just sold off a “significant percentage” of his stock holdings, according to a ProPublica article detailing the sale. A big chunk of that stock sale? In the hospitality industry that has been so hard hit. He had a big chunk of stock in Wyndam Hotels and Extended Stay America, but sold those off just before everything went bad. The timing is interesting:

Soon after he offered public assurances that the government was ready to battle the coronavirus, the powerful chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard Burr, sold off a significant percentage of his stocks, unloading between $628,000 and $1.72 million of his holdings on Feb. 13 in 33 separate transactions.

As the head of the intelligence committee, Burr, a North Carolina Republican, has access to the government’s most highly classified information about threats to America’s security. His committee was receiving daily coronavirus briefings around this time, according to a Reuters story.

Now, you might say that there might be another reason why he sold stuff off, but it certainly appears that Burr knew full well what was coming. And that’s because in another news bombshell from just a few hours earlier, a recording was leaked of Burr telling a private luncheon gathering that things were going to be bad — all at the same time he was insisting that the US was totally prepared for COVID-19. A month after he sold all that stock, and a few weeks after he told the private luncheon that the coronavirus was “much more aggressive in its transmission than anything that we have seen in recent history” and compared it “to the 1918 pandemic” he publicly was claiming that we had everything under control:

“Luckily, we have a framework in place that has put us in a better position than any other country to respond to a public health threat, like the coronavirus.”

He also said the same thing just days before selling all that stock:

Thankfully, the United States today is better prepared than ever before to face emerging public health threats, like the coronavirus, in large part due to the work of the Senate Health Committee, Congress, and the Trump Administration.

That op-ed also said:

The public health preparedness and response framework that Congress has put in place and that the Trump Administration is actively implementing today is helping to protect Americans. Over the years, this framework has been designed to be flexible and innovative so that we are not only ready to face the coronavirus today but new public health threats in the future.

And then he sold most of his stock earning somewhere between half a million and a million and a half dollars — most of which would have plunged in value if he’d kept it invested. And, the fact that such a large chunk was in the hospitality industry is telling: he would have likely realized were going to be hit hard by any form of lock down and the expected decline in travel due to the pandemic.

Hours after the Burr story broke, The Daily Beast highlighted how another Senator, the new Senator from Georgia, Kelly Loefler, sold off millions of dollars of stock the very day she was briefed about the COVID-19 threat. She literally tweeted that day:

And then she dumped tons of stock:

Loeffler assumed office on Jan. 6 after having been appointed to the seat vacated by retiring Sen. Johnny Isakson. Between then and Jan. 23 she did not report a single stock transaction from accounts owned by her individually or by her and her husband jointly.

Between Jan. 24 and Feb. 14, by contrast, Loeffler reported selling stock jointly owned with her husband worth between $1,275,000 and $3,100,000, according to transaction reports filed with Senate ethics officials.

For what it’s worth, it’s probably worth noting that Loeffler’s husband, Jeffrey Sprecher, is the chairman and CEO of the New York Stock Exchange. The stock sales included a bunch of retailers: Ross Stores, TJX (owners of TJ Maxx, Marshalls and a bunch of similar brands), and Autozone. All of those are struggling — TJX just announced it’s closing all its stores for at least two weeks.

Like Burr, Loeffler toed the Trumpian line that the country was all set to handle this pandemic that (spoiler alert!) it’s still not ready to handle:

Some might argue that while she didn’t have any transactions in the weeks leading up to that coronavirus briefing, and then sold a bunch of stock, she did make two purchases of stock in that period. But those really don’t help her case:

One of Loeffler’s two purchases was stock worth between $100,000 and $250,000 in Citrix, a technology company that offers teleworking software…

Yes, sold a bunch of other stock, but purchased stock in a company that enables telework, just weeks before practically the whole country moved to telework. The other purchase? Oracle. While Oracle stock has declined along with most of the rest of the market, given how much Oracle pushes itself as a “cloud” provider, you could see someone thinking it might get a boost as well.

Given all, a little other spelunking through the newly released financial disclosures for stocks sales in this period from three other Senators as well: Ron Johnson, Dianne Feinstein, and Jim Inhofe. The details of those sales don’t look quite as suspicious as the other two, but still might raise some eyebrows. Inhofe sold a bunch of Paypal, Intuit, and Apple stock. Feinstein sold a bunch of Allogene Therapeutics stock, a biotech firm doing cancer research — so it’s not clear that that’s related to pandemic info. Johnson made a bundle: between $5 million and $25 million in selling all of his share of a plastic extrusion company, Pacur, but that’s a private family company that he ran before becoming a Senator (his brother now runs the firm), and the sale was made to a private equity firm, and shows no evidence of being connected in any way to the pandemic (indeed, the company does plastic extrusion for medical devices, and you can see why that might suddenly be in more demand these days).

In a just world, someone would be looking into the Burr and Loeffler sales as insider trading. I’m not convinced that we’re in that world right now, though. In the meantime, as many of us are isolated at home, we can rest safe, knowing that Senator Burr and Senator Loeffler socked away a bunch of money while the rest of us suffer. The only surprising thing I will note, is that Burr, at least, is now receiving heavy criticism from both Democrats and Republicans, and even Tucker Carlson — usually a trusty voice repeating Trumpian talking points, has called for Burr to resign.

Of course, it’s worth highlighting one more point: profiting off the coming disaster is horrible and disgusting and awful. But it’s much, much worse to have spent weeks or even months knowing what disaster was about to befall the country and lying to the public about it.

The potential insider trading is dreadful and possibly criminal, but what could elevate this to a historic scandal is the idea that senators may have known enough to be alarmed for themselves yet still projected rosy scenarios to the public AND failed to make sure we were ready. https://t.co/PeMktkEPFA

— David French (@DavidAFrench) March 20, 2020

Source: Two Senators Sold A Bunch Of Stock After Being Briefed About COVID-19; While Telling The World Things Were Going To Be Fine | Techdirt

NASA needs 215 more petabytes of storage by the year 2025, and expects Amazon Web Services to provide the bulk of that capacity. However, the space agency didn’t realize this would cost it plenty in cloud egress charges. As in, it will have to pay as scientists download its data.

That omission alone has left NASA’s cloud strategy pointing at the ground rather than at the heavens.

The data in question will come from NASA’s Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS) program, which collects information from the many missions that observe our planet. NASA makes those readings available through the Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS).

To store all the data and run EOSDIS, NASA operates a dozen Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs) that provide pleasing redundancy. But NASA is tired of managing all that infrastructure, so in 2019, it picked AWS to host it all, and started migrating its records to the Amazon cloud as part of a project dubbed Earthdata Cloud. The first cut-over from on-premises storage to the cloud was planned for Q1 2020, with more to follow. The agency expects to transfer data off-premises for years to come.

NASA also knows that a torrent of petabytes is on the way. Some 15 imminent missions, such as the NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR) and the Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) satellites, are predicted to deliver more than 100 terabytes a day of data. We mention SWOT and NISAR because they’ll be the first missions to dump data directly into Earthdata Cloud.

The agency therefore projects that by 2025 it will have 247 petabytes to handle, rather more than the 32 it currently wrangles.

NASA thinks this is all a great idea: in its documentation for the migration, it said:

Researchers and commercial users of NASA Earth Science data will have increased opportunity to access and process large quantities of data quickly, allowing new types of research and analysis. Data that was previously geographically dispersed will now be accessible via the cloud, saving time and resources.

And it will – if NASA can afford to operate it.

And that’s a live question because a March audit report [PDF] from NASA’s Inspector General noticed EOSDIS hadn’t properly modeled what data egress charges would do to its cloudy plan.

“Specifically, the agency faces the possibility of substantial cost increases for data egress from the cloud,” the Inspector General’s Office wrote, explaining that today NASA doesn’t incur extra costs when users access data from its DAACs. “However, when end users download data from Earthdata Cloud, the agency, not the user, will be charged every time data is egressed.

“That means EDSIS wearing cloud egress costs. Ultimately, ESDIS will be responsible for both cloud costs, including egress charges, and the costs to operate the 12 DAACS.”

And to make matters worse, NASA “has not yet determined which data sets will transition to Earthdata Cloud nor has it developed cost models based on operational experience and metrics for usage and egress.

Scientific data may become less available to end users if NASA imposes limitations on the amount of data egress for cost control reasons

“As a result, current cost projections may be lower than what will actually be necessary to cover future expenses and cloud adoption may become more expensive and difficult to manage.”

There’s more. The watchdog concluded: “Collectively, this presents potential risks that scientific data may become less available to end users if NASA imposes limitations on the amount of data egress for cost control reasons.”

And to put a cherry on top, the report found the project’s organizers didn’t consult widely enough, didn’t follow NIST data integrity standards, and didn’t look for savings properly during internal reviews, in part because half of the review team worked on the project itself.

The result is three recommendations from the auditors:

1. Once NISAR and SWOT are operational and providing sufficient data, complete an independent analysis to determine the long-term financial sustainability of supporting the cloud migration and operation while also maintaining the current DAAC footprint.
2. Incorporate in appropriate agency guidance language specifying coordination with ESDIS and OCIO early in a mission’s life cycle during data management plan development.
3. Ensure all applicable information types are considered during DAAC categorization, that appropriate premises are used when determining impact levels, and that the appropriate categorization procedures are standardized.

At least NASA seems to have bagged a good deal from AWS: The Register used Amazon’s cloudy cost calculator to tot up the cost of storing 247PB in the cloud giant’s S3 service. The promised pay-as-you-go price for us on the street was a staggering $5,439,526.92 per month, not taking into account the free tier discount of 12 cents. The audit, meanwhile, suggests an increased cloud spend of around $30m a year by 2025, on top of NASA’s $65m-per-year deal with AWS.

You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to learn about and understand data egress costs. Which left The Register wondering how an agency capable of sending stuff into orbit or making marvelously long-lived Mars rovers could also make such a dumb mistake.

It turns out NASA makes plenty: your humble vulture found this story after looking into Tuesday’s audit of the agency’s development work on its mobile launchers – the colossal vehicles designed to assemble, transport, and launch SLS and Orion rockets and capsules.

That audit found the project “has greatly exceeded its cost and schedule targets in developing ML-1. As of January 2020, modification of ML-1 to accommodate the SLS has cost $693 million — $308 million more than the agency’s March 2014 budget estimate — and is running more than 3 years behind schedule.” ®

Source: NASA to launch 247 petabytes of data into AWS – but forgot about eye-watering cloudy egress costs before lift-off

Electric car company Tesla asked employees to show up to work on Wednesday despite the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, including at its sprawling Fremont, California, production facility, according to emails obtained by CNBC.

[…]

According to CNBC, in an email to workers on Wednesday, Tesla North America HR leader Valerie Workman wrote the company had received “conflicting guidance from different levels of government.” But she suggested that many Tesla jobs are “essential,” mirroring the language of the shelter-in-place order and ignoring a clear directive from the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office that only “minimum basic operations” can continue.

“There are no changes in your normal assignment and you should continue to report to work if you are in an essential function: production, service, deliveries, testing and supporting groups as discussed with your manager,” Workman wrote. She added that Tesla workers would not be penalized for using paid time off if they do not feel well or are “reluctant to come to work.”

According to the Los Angeles Times, Tesla CEO Elon Musk—who is not a doctor or public health expert, but has fought claims of unsafe conditions at Tesla facilities for years—downplayed concerns about the virus in a Monday email to staff. Musk wrote “My frank opinion is that the harm from the coronavirus panic far exceeds that of the virus itself” and stated his belief that covid-19 cases “will not exceed 0.1% of the population.”

“I will personally be at work, but that’s just me,” Musk wrote. “I’d rather you were at home and not stressed, than at work and worried.”

Sgt. Ray Kelly, a spokesman for the Alamedia sheriff, told CNBC that “Our directive was clear” and trying to prevent a slump in production does not constitute an essential service. Many other automakers including General Motors, Ford, and Fiat Chrysler have temporarily suspended U.S. car production on a rotating basis.

According to Bloomberg, an Alameda County spokesperson said that Tesla is preparing to reduce staffing at the facility by 75 percent, though the company didn’t reply to their request for comment.

Update: 3/18/2010 at 9:25 p.m. ET: Per the LA Times, Tesla said it had 2,500 workers on site on Wednesday, about 25 percent of the factory’s normal workforce.

Kelly told the Times that the county “had a good conversation with Tesla today. They understand our position. The county explained they cannot continue their business as usual. They have to go on a minimum operations basis.”

Kelly added that as of Wednesday “it sounds like they’re still making cars,” but that “Tesla is not going to decide what the law is.” If the company continues production despite the workforce reduction the Fremont Police Department may get involved, he added.

Source: Tesla Told Employees to Show Up for Work on Wednesday Despite Shelter-in-Place Order

Last month we reported about Tesla’s occasional practice of removing features like Autopilot and Ludicrous mode from used cars after they’d been purchased by people who bought the cars with those features enabled. While Tesla eventually restored the removed features to the subject of the original story, I’ve been in touch with a number of people with similar stories, and, perhaps even more importantly, with Tesla employees who have confirmed that often Tesla’s actions have been directly counter to the company’s own policies, at least as understood by Service Techs and help center workers.

It’s also worth mentioning that, while I have spoken with Tesla employees at call centers and seen correspondence from service techs about this issue, Tesla corporate has so far not responded to any of my inquiries, not from the previous story, and not from this one.

[…]

I called Tesla’s customer support line at its call center in Draper, Utah. I spoke with two different representatives, and asked each if a feature that was on and available on a used Tesla—I used Ludicrous Mode as an example for one and Autopilot as an example for the other—was a feature that would stay with the car, or if the feature would need to be re-purchased by the next owner.

Both representatives assured me that the features are connected to the car’s VIN, and remained with the car for “the life of the car.” I had them clarify that these features were not subscriptions and were more like installing features in any car, which they confirmed.

I wanted to hear from a Tesla Service Tech as well, right from a Tesla-owned dealership, and I was able to do so when another Tesla owner, Michele, reached out to tell me about issues she had with her purchased-new Model 3, and specifically getting her Autopilot system purchase registered with Tesla’s systems.

I asked her to email her local Tesla dealer (this one was in Santa Barbara) and find out exactly if those features she paid for could be sold with her car if she decided to sell it, and this was the response she got (emphasis mine):

Good Morning Michele,It looks like Tesla did a full-fleet audit of Autopilot which cause this on your vehicle since it was purchased through the service center and not online or the mobile app. Autopilot once purchased stays with the life of the vehicle.

So, we’ve got two very different stories coming from Tesla. On the one side we have what has been actually happening to buyers of used cars. On the other we have the responses I got from call center representatives and an official dealer service advisor are very clear that any feature that was ordered with the car, be it FSD or Autopilot or Ludicrous Mode, stays with that car, keyed to that car’s VIN, for the life of the car.

This fits with how cars have been bought and sold for over a century: the original buyer of the car picks a set of factory-installed options, and if those options are on the car at the time of sale, unless specifically addressed otherwise, those options are considered intergral parts of the car that is being sold.

That means that whatever price was agreed upon for the car is expected to include those options, and if the automaker decides to remove any of those features post-sale, that’s theft.

Again, this is in opposition to what we’ve seen in the examples sent to us directly and appearing in various forums online—Tesla has treated add-on features like FSD and Ludicrous mode as being non-transferable when the car is sold—such as in the cases mentioned here of Alec, Brad, and the used car dealer who bought a Model X for his father.

These both can’t be right. The way that makes the most sense and seems the most fair is to treat these features as any car features like air conditioning or heated seats have been treated. They’re part of the car. When you sell the car, they go with it. Period.

If Tesla does not want to employ this method, it needs to make that absolutely clear to potential buyers of used and new Teslas alike. If you’re buying a used Tesla, the features that need to be re-purchased should not be available on the car when it’s being sold, and if you’re buying a new Tesla, the customer has a right to know they cannot count on those expensive features being part of the car to maintain its resale value.

If Tesla wants to make Autopilot and Ludicrous mode a subscription-type service, then it needs to own up to it and accept its lumps for deciding to do something so craven and greedy. We don’t have to like it, but we’d have to accept it if they made it obvious this was how it worked.

As things are now, it’s confusion. Customers are told one thing very clearly and simply from service centers and help lines—features stay with the car for life—but some customers, without any clear pattern, are told the opposite, in what feels like a brazen attempt to extract thousands of dollars for the company from every Tesla sold used.

I’ve given Tesla plenty of chances to set the record straight here, and if it somehow decides to finally reach out, I’m happy to present its side here, and hopefully bring some clarity to this mess.

As it stands now, though, I’d encourage every Tesla potential buyer, new or used, to get everything clarified and in writing when it comes to your expensive options.

Source: Tesla’s Removal Of Features On Used Cars Appears To Be In Violation Of Its Own Rules

KPN and VodafoneZiggo do not have to open their networks to third parties. That is what the Board of Appeal for Business has decided today.

This means that providers without their own network cannot enforce access to those networks for the provision of services.

The ACM had stipulated that KPN and VodafoneZiggo should both open up their fixed networks to other providers. This was laid down in the wholesale fixed access market analysis decision. This regulation took into consideration on 1 October 2018.

KPN and VodafoneZiggo are very strong in this market and can use that position according to the regulator to raise prices, adjust conditions to their advantage or slow down investments.

However, the CBb considers that ACM has not (sufficiently) proven the existence of such a joint market power. This eliminates the basis for the regulation imposed on KPN and VodafoneZiggo and therefore the access obligations are also lost.

The ACM is ‘disappointed’ by the ruling and is now studying its consequences.

Source: Hoogste rechter vernietigt besluit ACM over openstellen netwerken KPN en VodafoneZiggo – Emerce

Source: Research – GDI

With the spreading coronavirus pandemic forcing movie theaters to close, Comcast is breaking with tradition and making a number of new movies available to watch at home.

Universal’s “Trolls World Tour” will be the first movie it will simultaneously debut online and in theaters on April 10. Other films that are currently in theaters, like “The Invisible Man,” “The Hunt” and “Emma” will be available for a 48-hour rental as soon as Friday with the suggested price of $19.99.

Typically, movie studios wait 90 days for a film to run in theaters before putting it out to home viewing, but the company will be releasing new films online while they are still in cinemas.

Notably, Universal has decided to implement this new policy for its low-to-mid-tier budgeted films. The budget for “Trolls World Tour” is half that figure, “Invisible Man” was around $7 million and “The Hunt” was around $14 million.

Meanwhile, the release of the upcoming “F9” was pushed from May 2020 to April 2021. The budget for “F9″ is likely on par of that of its predecessor “The Fate of the Furious,” which cost $250 million to make, excluding marketing.

“NBCUniversal will continue to evaluate the environment as conditions evolve and will determine the best distribution strategy in each market when the current unique situation changes,” Jeff Shell, CEO of NBCUniversal, said in a statement Monday.

“Trolls World Tour” is the sequel to Dreamworks and Universal’s animated hit from 2016 “Trolls.” With schools around the country closing and more people seeking to self-quarantine or being ordered to stay at home, “Trolls World Tour” wasn’t likely to draw big crowds. Many theaters that remain open in the U.S. have capped the number of people who can attend.

Making this kid’s film available online allows parents to keep their kids safe from the transmission of COVID-19, but also entertained.

Source: Universal to release movies online while they are in theaters, starting with ‘Trolls World Tour’

Apple has been hit with a record-breaking fine for antitrust practices. French competition authority Autorité de la Concurrence has found Apple and its wholesale distribution partners Ingram Micro and Tech Data guilty of running a cartel for Apple products, and has fined the companies €1.1 billion ($1.2 billion), €62.9 million ($70.2 million) and €76.1 million ($85 million) respectively.According to the authority, Apple and its partners agreed not to compete with one another and to prevent other distributors from competing on price, “thereby sterilizing the wholesale market for Apple products.” This subsequently meant that premium distributors had no choice but to keep prices high to match those of integrated distributors.Finally, the authority says that Apple “abused the economic dependence” of these premium distributors by subjecting them to unfair and unfavorable commercial conditions compared to its network of integrated distributors. The ruling takes into consideration all Apple products — including computers and tablets — except iPhones, which are frequently sold via separate carriers.Isabelle de Silva, president of the authority, said in a statement that “given the strong impact of these practices on competition in the distribution of Apple products via Apple premium resellers, the Authority imposes the highest penalty ever pronounced in a case. It is also the heaviest sanction pronounced against an economic player, in this case Apple, whose extraordinary dimension has been duly taken into account.”The ruling marks the conclusion of a case dating back years, stemming from a complaint by store chain eBizcuss, which prompted the competition authority to raid Apple offices in France back in 2013. Apple is certainly no stranger to antitrust complaints — most recently, France’s Competition and Fraud body fined Apple €25 million ($27.3 million) for intentionally slowing the performance of older iPhones.

Source: Apple hit with record-breaking $1.2 billion antitrust fine in France | Engadget

Apple – which banked $55bn profit in its 2019 fiscal year – is willing to pay up to $500m to settle US claims that the company secretly slowed certain iPhone models to preserve battery life, according to a proposed class action settlement.

That’s about 18x more than the i-thing maker agreed to pay a month ago to settle a related legal claim in France.

On December 20, 2017, Apple revealed that it had implemented performance management code in iOS 10.2.1 and iOS 11.2 to prevent sudden shutdowns that could occur when age-diminished batteries failed to meet the requirements of apps demanding peak power from iPhone processors.

Source: Apple checks under the couch for $500m in spare change, offers it to make power-throttling gripes disappear • The Register

PostNL will raise prices during SinterKlaas, Christmas and Black Friday. They claim that the package post infrastructure is not sufficient to cope with this raise in demand at those periods and so someone – the webshops, the consumers – have to pay for this spike.

PostNL increased turnover with 32m to 471m in the last quarter, with a 10% increase in volume. Doesn’t this mean that the extra capacity should be paid for using regular pricing?

Source: Pakketten PostNL met Sint en kerst extra duur – Emerce

An American biz watchdog has stepped up its probe into possible market abuse by Big Tech – Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft – by demanding information on all acquisitions not reported to antitrust authorities in the past decade.

The FTC issued “special orders” to the big five on Tuesday requesting “the terms, scope, structure, and purpose of transactions that each company consummated between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2019.” That will amount to information on hundreds of deals, the FTC said during a press conference.

If the federal regulator finds a pattern of wrongdoing or abuse of market dominance, it will use its full range of enforcement actions, from a warning all the way up to a “full divestiture of assets” i.e. breaking a company up, FTC chair Joe Simons warned.

The watchdog is adopting a “very broad definition” of the term acquisition including minority investments in companies, licensing transactions, rights to appoint someone to a board. Notably it will also treat data “as an asset that could have competitive effects.”

The goal behind the request is to help the FTC “deepen its understanding of large technology firms’ acquisition activity,” the regulator explained. But Simons was at pains to note that the information is not related to law enforcement actions and will not be shared with other agencies.

That’s relevant because the Department of Justice and a large number of state attorneys general are currently suing the same tech giants over anti-competitive behavior; the FTC data will not be shareable with them under the “unique” authority that the FTC is invoking, it stated.

However, Simons noted, if the FTC does find activity it feels is anti-competitive it will use it as a start point for further investigation; something that could result in the “unwinding” of deals made in the past decade.

Snuffing out competition

There have been numerous reports in the past 10 years of big tech giants buying out competitors that threaten their market and then shuttering them in order to maintain effective monopolies in specific markets.

Simons said the impetus behind today’s order was a series of hearings the FTC held at the tail-end of 2018 where a number of panelists warned large tech platforms were buying up “nascent” companies in order to shut them down.

He painted the special orders as a “follow-up” to those hearings. “We heard at the hearings that there were a lot of transactions by major tech platforms that are not reportable,” Simons said. “What we want to know is why they were not reportable and whether there is anything we should do about it.”

Under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (HSR Act), companies are required to report acquisitions of other companies if the size of that acquisition is greater than $94m (the exact figure has changed over time; in 2010 it was $60m). There are, however, exemptions that tech giants may have used to make larger acquisitions without reporting them.

As a result, dozens and possibly hundreds of market-altering purchases have never been made public – and that’s how the tech giants like it. They will often refuse to even acknowledge if they have bought a company. Many of the deals come with a non-compete clause, Simons noted, pointing to possible market interference.

[…]

The investigation could result in a change to the current rules on reporting acquisitions, the regulator noted – something that would not require Congressional authority. It also dismissed concerns that the tech giants could question the FTC’s authority to even issue such orders – something that AT&T successfully did during a five-year legal battle over misleading consumers – saying that it “does not expect any meaningful challenge” to the orders.

The regulator even suggested that if it finds anti-competitive behavior as a result of its information requests it could issue an order in future that would require tech giants to provide full details of any and all future acquisitions.

Judging by the impact of the announcement on the companies’ stock prices, the FTC investigation is only expected to impact Facebook – no doubt because the agency made it clear that it now views user data as a competitive asset.

Source: Oh good, the FTC has discovered acqui-hires… American watchdog to probe decade of Big Tech takeovers • The Register

Pricing is being tweaked upwards where software is licensed on a per CPU basis. If the chip has more than 32 cores like, say, a 64 core AMD EPYC, then users will need to fork out for two CPU licences.

Both AMD and Intel will cheerfully sell punters chips with more than the requisite 32 cores, and utilising such chippery with the original per-CPU pricing was, in a very real way, a useful method of getting more bang for one’s buck from the software.

With Intel struggling to make enough of its high-end hardware to satisfy demand, AMD looked set to steal a march with the likes of the EPYC 7742. VMware’s pricing change will you make you think twice about the benefits of sticking a core-dense processor into a server with a view to keeping software costs down.

Virtzilla claims “the change moves VMware closer to the current software industry standard model of core-based pricing” and indeed, the likes of Microsoft (PDF) and Oracle (PDF) both use core-based pricing these days, although even the most determined apologist would struggle to suggest the move is aimed at anything other than boosting the bottom line.

Naturally, observers have been less than impressed by the move.

Source: Virtualization juggernaut VMware hits the CPU turbo button for licensing costs • The Register

The Mozilla Foundation announced today that it was moving the Thunderbird email client to a new subsidiary named the MZLA Technologies Corporation.

Mozilla said that Thunderbird will continue to remain free and open source, but by moving the project away from its foundation into a corporate entity they will be able to monetize the product and pay for its development easier than before.

Currently, Thunderbird is primarily being kept alive through charitable donations from the product’s userbase.

“Moving to MZLA Technologies Corporation will not only allow the Thunderbird project more flexibility and agility, but will also allow us to explore offering our users products and services that were not possible under the Mozilla Foundation,” said Philipp Kewisch, Mozilla Product Manager.

“The move will allow the project to collect revenue through partnerships and non-charitable donations, which in turn can be used to cover the costs of new products and services,” Kewisch added.

Source: Mozilla moves to monetize Thunderbird, transfers project to new subsidiary | ZDNet

Count GE in on the “screw your customers” bandwagon. Twitter user @ShaneMorris tweeted: “My fridge has an RFID chip in the water filter, which means the generic water filter I ordered for $19 doesn’t work. My fridge will literally not dispense ice, or water. I have to pay General Electric $55 for a water filter from them.” Fortunately, there appears to be a way to hack them to work: How to Hack RWPFE Water Filters for Your GE Fridge. Hacks aside, count me out from ever buying another GE product if it includes anti-customer “features” like these. “The difference between RWPF and RPWFE is that the RPWFE has a freaking RFID chip on it,” writes Jack Busch from groovyPost. “The fridge reads the RFID chip off your filter, and if your filter is either older than 6 months or not a genuine GE RPWFE filter, it’s all ‘I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t dispense any water for you right now.’ Now, to be fair, GE does give you a bypass cartridge that lets you get unfiltered water for free (you didn’t throw that thing away, did you?). But come on…”

Jack proceeds to explain how you can pop off the filter bypass and “try taping the thing directly into your fridge where it would normally meet up when the filter is install.” If you’re able to get it in just the right spot, “you’re set for life,” says Jack. Alternatively, “you can tape it onto the front of an expired RPWFE GE water filter, install it backward, and then keep using it (again, not recommended for too much longer than six months). Or, you can tape it to the corresponding spot on a generic filter and reinstall it.”

Source: GE Fridges Won’t Dispense Ice Or Water Unless Your Water Filter ‘Authenticates’ Via RFID Chip – Slashdot

It’s no secret that Opera isn’t doing so well in the era of Chrome dominance. According to a report published by Hindenburg Research, the company’s losses in browser revenue have apparently led it to create multiple loan apps with short payment windows and interest rates of ~365-876%, which are in violation of new Play Store rules Google enacted last year.

You may recall that Opera became a public company in mid-2017, shortly after it was purchased by a China-based investor group. Since then, Opera’s market share has continued to fall, due to the increasing dominance of Chrome. As a result, Opera decided to pivot to predatory short-term lending in Africa and Asia across four apps: OKash and OPesa in Kenya, CashBean in India, and OPay in Nigeria.

The apps have apparently remained available in the Play Store (except OPesa, which seems to be gone) by advertising different loan rates in the app description than users actually receive. For example, the listing for OKash stated its loans range from 91-365 days (the page now says 61-365 days), but an email response from the company stated it only offered loans from 15-29 days — significantly lower than the 60-day minimum enforced by Google. All of Opera’s other apps were also found to be in violation to varying extents.

If you think that’s bad, then buckle in! According to Play Store reviews, the OKash and OPesa apps sent text messages or calls to people in the user’s contacts when payments were late, threatening to take legal action or place the borrower on a credit blacklist. A former employee told Hindenburg Research that this practice ended last year “because it was said it was illegal.” That’s probably a good reason to stop doing something, right?

Play Store reviews on OKash

Unfortunately for Opera, scamming low-income people isn’t helping the company’s financial situation. With all apps in violation of Play Store policies (and one already removed from the store), Opera’s primary means of income could very well disappear, and Hindenburg Research found evidence of investor money possibly being redirected to other companies and people:

1. $9.5 million of cash went toward an entity that appears to have been owned 100% by Opera’s Chairman/CEO, despite company disclosures suggesting otherwise. Ostensibly, the reason for the payment was to ‘purchase’ a business that was already funded and operated by Opera. To us, this transaction simply looks like a cash withdrawal.

2. $30 million of cash went into a karaoke app business owned by Opera’s Chairman/CEO, days before the arrest of a key business partner.

3. $31+ million of cash was doled out for “marketing expenses and prepayments” to an antivirus software company controlled by an Opera director and influenced by Opera’s Chairman/CEO. The antivirus company has no other known marketing clients, but is paid to help Opera with Google and Facebook ads and other marketing services. (Note: Most firms use a marketing agency for help with marketing needs.)

Since the report was released on January 16th, Opera’s stock price has dropped from ~$9 to $7.15 after hours (as of the time of writing).

You can read the full report at the link below. In the meantime, it might be a good idea to uninstall any Opera-owned apps — they might start sending texts to your friends about your browsing habits.

• Source:
• Hindenburg Research

Source: Opera reportedly has multiple predatory loan apps in the Play Store with interest rates of up to 876%

Amazon has a “bullying” problem.

So insisted PopSockets CEO and inventor David Barnett today while describing his company’s relationship with the e-commerce and logistics giant. Barnett was addressing members of the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law and, over the course of the hearing, laid out how the Jeff Bezos-helmed corporate behemoth had pressured his smartphone accessory company in a manner best described as incredibly shady.

Barnett was joined by executives from Sonos, Basecamp, and Tile, who all took turns airing a list of grievances against major tech players such as Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google. They all recounted, in manners specific to their respective companies, how the major tech players have used their market dominance to squeeze smaller competitors in allegedly anticompetitive ways.

The CEO of PopSockets, however, appeared to have a personal beef with Jeff Bezos (which he pronounced “Bey-zoo”).

“Multiple times we discovered that Amazon itself had sourced counterfeit product and was selling it alongside our own product,” he noted.

Barnett, under oath, told the gathered members of the House that Amazon initially played nice only to drop the hammer when it believed no one was watching. After agreeing to a written contract stipulating a price at which PopSockets would be sold on Amazon, the e-commerce giant would then allegedly unilaterally lower the price and demand that PopSockets make up the difference.

Colorado Congressman Ed Perlmutter asked Barnett how Amazon could “ignore the contract that [PopSockets] entered into and just say, ‘Sorry, that was our contract, but you got to lower your price.'”

Barnett didn’t mince words.

“With coercive tactics, basically,” he replied. “And these are tactics that are mainly executed by phone. It’s one of the strangest relationships I’ve ever had with a retailer.”

Barnett emphasized that, on paper, the contract “appears to be negotiated in good faith.”

However, he claimed, this is followed by “… frequent phone calls. And on the phone calls we get what I might call bullying with a smile. Very friendly people that we deal with who say, ‘By the way, we dropped the price of X product last week. We need you to pay for it.'”

Barnett said he would push back and that’s when “the threats come.”

He asserted that Amazon representatives would tell him over the phone: “If we don’t get it, then we’re going to source product from the gray market.”

In other words, as with so many things Amazon, it’s either play ball or get bent according to Barnett.

An Amazon spokesperson reached for comment, unsurprisingly, framed the issue differently.

“We sought to continue working with PopSockets as a vendor to ensure that we could provide competitive prices, availability, broad selection and fast delivery for those products to our customers,” read the statement in part. “Like any brand, however, PopSockets is free to choose which retailers it supplies and chose to stop selling directly through Amazon.”

Essentially, in Amazon’s view, PopSockets chose to get bent. We should all be so lucky to be offered such a choice.

Source: PopSockets CEO calls out Amazon’s ‘bullying with a smile’ tactics

In an internal memo, Mozilla chairwoman and interim CEO Mitchell Baker specifically mentions the slow rollout of the organization’s new revenue-generating products as the reason for why it needed to take this action. The overall number may still be higher, though, as Mozilla is still looking into how this decision will affect workers in the U.K. and France. In 2018, Mozilla Corporation (as opposed to the much smaller Mozilla Foundation) said it had about 1,000 employees worldwide.

“You may recall that we expected to be earning revenue in 2019 and 2020 from new subscription products as well as higher revenue from sources outside of search. This did not happen,” Baker writes in her memo. “Our 2019 plan underestimated how long it would take to build and ship new, revenue-generating products. Given that, and all we learned in 2019 about the pace of innovation, we decided to take a more conservative approach to projecting our revenue for 2020. We also agreed to a principle of living within our means, of not spending more than we earn for the foreseeable future.”

Source: Mozilla lays off 70 as it waits for new products to generate revenue | TechCrunch

Time to donate!