The brief was actually filed back in June, and I found a better, watermark-free copy of it here on the Web site of the Winklevoss lawyers. Last night I took the time to read it in full, and it was surprisingly not boring.

Perhaps the most revelatory thing in the Facebook filing is that Facebook’s lawyers seem to be having fun with the case. Their writing is laden with imagery and over-the-top exasperation with the Winklevii’s allegedly poorly formed legal arguments. Here’s the dramatic intro to the brief:

This appeal arises from the settlement of rancorous litigation on two coasts. On one side were Appellees Facebook, Inc. and its founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. On the other side were the Appellants, who founded a failing competitor of Facebook’s called ConnectU. The CU Founders claimed that they had the idea for Facebook first, and Facebook stole their idea. Facebook denied those claims and, for its part, accused ConnectU and its Founders of unlawfully infiltrating its systems, stealing millions of email addresses, and then spamming them. During a global mediation, the parties signed a “Term Sheet and Settlement Agreement.” In the interest of achieving litigation peace, Facebook agreed to purchase ConnectU for [redacted] dollars and [redacted] shares of Facebook stock, one of the hottest startups in the world. Surrounded by a bevy of lawyers, the CU Founders signed the deal. Then they suffered a bout of settlers’ remorse. They ask this Court to relieve them of the deal they struck to plunge back into scorched-earth litigation.

Besides the writing, the other thing that’s interesting is the information about the terms of the relationship between Facebook and ConnectU. While the story has been simplified into a Hollywood-style betrayal as portrayed in “The Social Network,” the outcome of Zuckerberg and the Winklevii’s legal mediation is much less widely reported.

As part of its settlement with the Winklevoss twins, Facebook agreed to acquire their social network ConnectU (which they eventually did find someone to build), and has been “operating” it since Dec. 2008, the filing says (the site itself is offline).

Facebook contends that this earlier agreement to buy ConnectU was final, while the Winklevii are calling it a draft (their co-founder Divya Narendra has publicly said he’s moved past the Zuckerberg vendetta, though he’s mentioned in the filings as well).

The settlement came after closed-door professional mediation in February 2008. Facebook says it’s outraged that the Winklevii and their lawyers are bringing conversations from mediation back into the appeal, because all involved were sworn to confidentiality.

(You can also read the ConnectU appeal brief for the case to which Facebook was responding. However the bits from the mediation that were supposed to be confidential have been blacked out.)

But after the settlement, ConnectU came back to the table asking for its share to be revalued. It had originally negotiated using a publicly reported valuation from when Microsoft invested in Facebook, rather than an internal valuation from around the same time that would have priced the shares much lower ($8.88 versus $35.90). A revaluation of the shares to a smaller amount would give the twins a larger stake in the company.

And also, the Winklevii wanted the transaction to be labeled a merger instead of an acquisition so they could avoid paying some taxes on it.

Facebook replied in the June brief, again in remarkably florid fashion:

“First, the CU Founders try to leave this Court with the impression that the only valuation figure they knew was the $15 billion figure from the Microsoft press release, and that they, therefore, had reason to enshrine it as gospel. They also portray the one 409A valuation on which they rely here as some seismic event in the life of the company, as if an unexpected bolt of lightning from on high emblazoned $8.88 onto a couple of tablets. Both the impressions are false.”

Facebook, by the way, to add insult to injury, says the internal valuation of its shares at the time of the Microsoft investment was actually even lower than the Winklevoss lawyers are arguing: Six days before the Microsoft transaction, Facebook had filed a document valuing employee stock options at just $6.61.

The attorney who signed the Facebook brief is Monte Cooper of Orrick, an intellectual property specialist. I hope he also writes novels in his spare time.

Please see the disclosure about Facebook in my ethics statement.

Viacom’s filing runs 72 pages, but here’s the gist: It argues that if the appeals court lets the lower ruling stand, then it will “radically transform the functioning of the copyright system and severely impair, if not completely destroy, the value of many copyrighted creations.”

Google’s response: “We regret that Viacom continues to drag out this case. The court here, like every other court to have considered the issue, correctly ruled that the law protects online services like YouTube, which remove content when notified by the copyright holder that it is unauthorized. We will strongly defend the court’s decision on appeal.”

youtube appeal

Still, today’s news is a decisive, clear-cut victory for the giant video site. So you can understand why YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley wanted to perform a little victory dance this evening, via Twitter:

If you’ve spent any time at all on YouTube–or on the Internet, for that matter–you can probably guess where that link brought you:

Equal time! Here’s a less ebullient response from Viacom (VIA), via chief lawyer Michael Fricklas:

We are disappointed with the judge’s ruling, but confident we will win on appeal.

Copyright protection is essential to the survival of creative industries. It is and should be illegal for companies to build their businesses with creative material they have stolen from others. Without this protection, investment in the development of art and entertainment would be discouraged, and the many artists and producers who devote their lives to creating it would be hurt. Copyright protection is also critical to the web–because consumers love professional content and because legitimate websites shouldn’t have to compete with pirates.

YouTube and Google demonstrated that required tools to limit piracy aren’t impossible to find or even that difficult to implement–they fixed the problem of rampant piracy on YouTube after Viacom filed this lawsuit.

Before that, however, YouTube and Google stole hundreds of thousands of video clips from artists and content creators, including Viacom, building a substantial business that was sold for billions of dollars. We believe that should not be allowed by law or common sense.

This case has always been about whether intentional theft of copyrighted works is permitted under existing law and we always knew that the critical underlying issue would need to be addressed by courts at the appellate levels. Today’s decision accelerates our opportunity to do so.

You can read all of U.S. District Court Judge Louis Stanton’s decision at the bottom of the post, where I’ve embedded the ruling. Short version: Stanton buys Google’s longstanding argument–that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act protects YouTube from Viacom’s claims. And he seems to agree with Google (GOOG) on almost every point. There’s very little in his ruling that Viacom (VIA) will be happy about.

Even though YouTube and Google executives knew the site had plenty of clips that violated copyright, “mere knowledge of prevalence of such activity in general is not enough” to support Viacom’s claims, Stanton wrote in a 35-page decision.

That’s because the DMCA, signed into law early-on in the first Web boom in 1998, grants “safe harbor” to service providers that don’t know about specific copyright violations and that fix copyright violations when they learn about them. Since YouTube relies on users to upload clips to the service and takes down clips if copyright holders complain, it’s in the clear, Stanton says.

If the ruling holds up, it’s a big blow to traditional copyright laws. Or spun another way, it’s a huge victory for technology companies using the DMCA as a defense.

Google’s statement:

Today, the court granted our motion for summary judgment in Viacom’s lawsuit with YouTube. This means that the court has decided that YouTube is protected by the safe harbor of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) against claims of copyright infringement. The decision follows established judicial consensus that online services like YouTube are protected when they work cooperatively with copyright holders to help them manage their rights online.

This is an important victory not just for us, but also for the billions of people around the world who use the web to communicate and share experiences with each other. We’re excited about this decision and look forward to renewing our focus on supporting the incredible variety of ideas and expression that billions of people post and watch on YouTube every day around the world.

Viacom’s statement:

We believe that this ruling by the lower court is fundamentally flawed and contrary to the language of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the intent of Congress, and the views of the Supreme Court as expressed in its most recent decisions. We intend to seek to have these issues before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as soon as possible. After years of delay, this decision gives us the opportunity to have the Appellate Court address these critical issues on an accelerated basis. We look forward to the next stage of the process.

So what about all of those interesting and entertaining documents both sides filed in the three-year suit and released to the public earlier this year? As I argued earlier, the bulk of them weren’t really relevant at all, and Stanton spends almost no time discussing them.

One worthwhile exception: He does use one email from Viacom attorney Michael Fricklas to help bat away the network’s complaint that YouTube was the equivalent of Grokster, the file-sharing network beaten down in a 2005 Supreme Court decision.

“The difference between YouTube’s behavior and Grokster’s staggering,” Fricklas wrote in a 2006 email. And Stanton agrees.

msj_decision

Oh, there’s no question in the often paranoid mind of BoomTown that Google is one scary company, mostly due to its huge market share in search across the globe.

Check out this eye-popping chart below from a story in The Wall Street Journal today on this very subject, for example, if you care to share my wariness.

Thus, there is no doubt that the preliminary scrutiny over antitrust complaints the company is getting from the European Commission, which Google (GOOG) has forcefully denied, is not untoward, even if those complaints have been leveled by companies affiliated with archrival Microsoft (MSFT).

There will be more to come, of course, as Google’s growing power is targeted by those interested in stopping its growth–both those with pure motives and not-so-pure.

But no matter how you slice the monopolistic pie, Google most certainly did not deserve, nor should anyone tolerate, the conviction in Italy of three of its execs on privacy violations.

A judge in Milan said the trio had not complied with Italian law because they allowed a disparaging video of a boy with Down Syndrome being harassed by other teens to be posted on the company’s former Google Video site, even though it was quickly yanked,

An appeal is already in the works, which is a good thing since it’s hard to imagine how such a ruling will stand and how any company can police itself so stringently given the mass of user-generated content.

While every online company must have strict rules to prevent such abuses, this case is a little like blaming the telephone company if one gets an abusive call.

And while Google most certainly deserves some of the legal attention it is getting, this ruling should make every U.S. Internet firm–including Microsoft–scared not of Google’s frighteningly powerful search algorithm, but of Italy’s horrifyingly idiotic legal system.

Italian-Americans–of which I am one–or anyone else can gripe all they want about “The Situation.”

But–make no mistake–this is the real situation.

In China, the search giant is battling hackers and the government, who may be one and the same. In Europe, the company is being hauled in front of an antitrust review. And Italy? Total disaster.

Yesterday, an Italian court convicted three Google (GOOG) executives of privacy violations in a case that stems from a clip uploaded to Google Video in 2006. The executives, who include former CFO George Reyes, have been sentenced to six-month prison sentences.

And that verdict follows a December ruling whereby an Italian court found the company guilty of copyright violations on YouTube, the video site it bought in 2006. Mediaset, the broadcaster that brought the suit–and which is controlled by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi–is looking for more than $730 million in damages.

Google has responded to the video convictions with an outraged blog post. Note that the language is more forceful than the company used to describe its China problem. But also note that the company isn’t threatening to pull out of Italy altogether. Maybe it should.

Serious threat to the web in Italy
2/24/2010 01:57:00 AM
In late 2006, students at a school in Turin, Italy filmed and then uploaded a video to Google Video that showed them bullying an autistic schoolmate. The video was totally reprehensible and we took it down within hours of being notified by the Italian police. We also worked with the local police to help identify the person responsible for uploading it and she was subsequently sentenced to 10 months community service by a court in Turin, as were several other classmates who were also involved. In these rare but unpleasant cases, that’s where our involvement would normally end.

But in this instance, a public prosecutor in Milan decided to indict four Google employees–David Drummond, Arvind Desikan, Peter Fleischer and George Reyes (who left the company in 2008). The charges brought against them were criminal defamation and a failure to comply with the Italian privacy code. To be clear, none of the four Googlers charged had anything to do with this video. They did not appear in it, film it, upload it or review it. None of them know the people involved or were even aware of the video’s existence until after it was removed.

Nevertheless, a judge in Milan today convicted 3 of the 4 defendants–David Drummond, Peter Fleischer and George Reyes–for failure to comply with the Italian privacy code. All 4 were found not guilty of criminal defamation. In essence this ruling means that employees of hosting platforms like Google Video are criminally responsible for content that users upload. We will appeal this astonishing decision because the Google employees on trial had nothing to do with the video in question. Throughout this long process, they have displayed admirable grace and fortitude. It is outrageous that they have been subjected to a trial at all.

But we are deeply troubled by this conviction for another equally important reason. It attacks the very principles of freedom on which the Internet is built. Common sense dictates that only the person who films and uploads a video to a hosting platform could take the steps necessary to protect the privacy and obtain the consent of the people they are filming. European Union law was drafted specifically to give hosting providers a safe harbor from liability so long as they remove illegal content once they are notified of its existence. The belief, rightly in our opinion, was that a notice and take down regime of this kind would help creativity flourish and support free speech while protecting personal privacy. If that principle is swept aside and sites like Blogger, YouTube and indeed every social network and any community bulletin board, are held responsible for vetting every single piece of content that is uploaded to them–every piece of text, every photo, every file, every video–then the Web as we know it will cease to exist, and many of the economic, social, political and technological benefits it brings could disappear.

These are important points of principle, which is why we and our employees will vigorously appeal this decision.

Posted by Matt Sucherman, VP and Deputy General Counsel–Europe, Middle East and Africa

“The Apple lawsuit is a part of the Company’s strategy for pursuing its patent infringement claims relating to its Predictive Snooping technology. Consequently, the outcome of the Apple case, and any subsequent appeal, will play a role in the Company’s strategy for pursuing its patent infringement claims and the Company’s ability to realize licensing revenue from its Predictive Snoop patents. There can be no assurance of the extent to which the outcome of these rulings will lead to positive results in the Apple case or the Company’s overall licensing strategy.”

– OPTi statement on Apple litigation, April 23, 2009

If OPTi’s intellectual property lawsuit against Apple is truly the foundation of the company’s licensing strategy, then OPTi best prepare for its strategy to be shaken. Apple is appealing a recent court decision that found it guilty of infringing OPTi’s patents, and the $21.7 million in damages and prejudgment interest that accompanied it.

Apple (AAPL) has argued throughout the case that the OPTi patent at issue–U.S. Patent 6,405,291, “Predictive snooping of cache memory for master-initiated accesses–should be declared invalid, if not because of prior art, then because it fails the obviousness test. Presumably, this is the tack Apple will take in the appeal as well, perhaps with greater success. If not, well, $21.7 million is a near-pittance for a company with some $30 billion in the bank.

“Sun Microsystems’ financial position has become more precarious and the commission’s inquiry has continued,” the letter states. “Some have raised concerns over the company’s ability to continue to employ its thousands of workers. Accordingly, we respectfully request the European Commission complete its investigation of this transaction as quickly as possible.”

An earnest (and surprising) appeal. But it’s hard to see it going over well with the EC, which issued a formal objection to the deal Nov. 9 and has been carping about Oracle’s (ORCL) lack of cooperation in its investigation for months now.

Meanwhile, Sun (JAVA), which reported a net loss of $2.2 billion for its 2009 fiscal year, compared with a net loss of $403 million for 2008, continues to lose about $100 million per month as it waits for the deal to close.

Below, the senators’ letter in full:

Chargé d’Affaires Angelos Pangratis 
Acting Head of Delegation
Delegation of the European Commission to the United States
2300 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
 
Dear Chargé d’Affaires Pangratis:
 
As fellow government officials committed to the principle that competition is the cornerstone of healthy economic growth, we would like to take this opportunity to share our thoughts with you as to the proposed acquisition of Sun Microsystems, Inc. by Oracle Corporation. In addition, due to Sun Microsystems’ deteriorating financial condition and the possible negative effect on employment of the company’s workforce, we respectfully request the European Commission expedite the completion of its investigation into this transaction. 
 
The United States Department of Justice, after an intensive investigation, closed its inquiry into this transaction without taking any action. In fact, the Justice Department did not find documentary evidence that this acquisition would harm competition. We recognize that the European Commission has a sovereign right to thoroughly investigate transactions where corporations utilize the European Union’s marketplace. Further, it is our understanding the Commission is concerned about competition in the database software market.  However, we have been informed by Sun Microsystems that their subsidiary, which competes in this specific market, generates only €17 million in revenue and that the same market has competitors with capitalizations of tens of billions of Euros. 
 
Unfortunately, Sun Microsystems’ financial position has become more precarious and the Commission’s inquiry has continued. Some have raised concerns over the company’s ability to continue to employ its thousands of workers. Accordingly, we respectfully request the European Commission complete its investigation of this transaction as quickly as possible.   
 
Thank you for your attention to this matter.

A Chinese court has ordered the software giant to stop producing and selling versions of its Windows OS that include Chinese fonts developed by a local software company. Microsoft’s (MSFT) use of two Chinese fonts developed by Zhongyi Electronic, a Beijing-based software company, was not covered by the licensing agreement between the two, the court found, and therefore infringed on Zhongyi’s rights. And so Microsoft must pull from the shelves Chinese language editions of Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows Server 2003.

“By winning this case against an internationally well-known company like Microsoft, it shows that China, although still a developing country, is taking positive steps to protect intellectual property rights,” an attorney for Zhongyi Electronic told Reuters.

Microsoft, for its part, insists its agreement with Zhongyi covered its use of the fonts at issue and plans to appeal the decision. “Microsoft respects intellectual property rights,” the company said in a statement. “We use third party IPs only when we have a legitimate right to do so.”

And if Microsoft should fail in its appeal? Well, piracy is so rampant in China, a court order preventing the company from selling certain versions of Windows isn’t exactly going to hamstring Microsoft’s business. “The majority of operating systems in the market today are illegal copies, and the ones that are Zhongyi-related have an even smaller share of the market,” Analysys International analyst Edward Yu explains. “So I don’t think it will have much impact on Microsoft’s business.”

RealNetworks just lobbed its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals in the case revolving around its DVD-copying software, RealDVD.

A U.S. District judge issued a preliminary injunction against RealNetworks (RNWK) in August to stop sales, and renewed it in October.

In a typical Hollywood move, the Motion Picture Association of America said the software, which allows copying of DVDs, violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

In the appeal, RealNetworks said the judge was using the wrong law, that the software was not causing damage to the studios and that the technology is in the public interest and constitutes fair use.

“The District Court committed multiple legal errors in granting Appellees’ motions for preliminary injuction,” reads the appeal.

But, check out the whole appeal and below it, a video interview with RealNetworks CEO Rob Glaser that BoomTown did when RealDVD was launched a little over a year ago:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20091110/the-judge-was-wrong-realnetworks-realdvd-appeal-document/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090916/the-ec-pay-intel%e2%80%99s-legal-expenses-uh-good-luck-with-that-one/ http://allthingsd.com/20090916/the-ec-pay-intel%e2%80%99s-legal-expenses-uh-good-luck-with-that-one/#comments Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:00:45 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=24838 “Manifestly disproportionate.”

That’s how Intel describes the record $1.45 billion antitrust fine levied against it by the European Union, one the company evidently believes was meted out in error.

In an appeal filed with the European Court of First Instance, Intel asks that the European Commission’s antitrust ruling against it be annulled on the grounds that the EC failed “to meet the required standard of proof.”

Seems the chip giant feels the Commission’s analysis of its discounts and rebate programs was too shoddy to be trusted–especially when it’s being used as justification for the largest single penalty imposed on a company for antitrust breaches in Europe.

“The Commission fails to prove that Intel engaged in a long-term strategy to foreclose the competitors,” Intel (INTC) argues in its appeal. “Such a finding is not supported by the evidence and is impossible to reconcile with the fragmented nature of the Commission’s allegations (in relation to both products covered and time period) in respect of each Intel customer….The applicant also submits that all or part of the Decision should be annulled on the basis that the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements during the administrative procedure, which materially infringed Intel’s rights of defence.”

Clearly, former Intel general counsel Bruce Sewell, who left the company to take a job with Apple (AAPL) Tuesday, was busy right up until the time he packed up his desk.

Anyway, Intel asks the court to annul “whole or in part” the EC’s ruling and, barring that, to at least annul or reduce the fine imposed. Finally, it would also like to see the EC ordered to pay its legal expenses.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090916/the-ec-pay-intel%e2%80%99s-legal-expenses-uh-good-luck-with-that-one/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090916/the-ec-pay-intel%e2%80%99s-legal-expenses-uh-good-luck-with-that-one-2/ http://allthingsd.com/20090916/the-ec-pay-intel%e2%80%99s-legal-expenses-uh-good-luck-with-that-one-2/#comments Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:00:45 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=24838 “Manifestly disproportionate.”

That’s how Intel describes the record $1.45 billion antitrust fine levied against it by the European Union, one the company evidently believes was meted out in error.

In an appeal filed with the European Court of First Instance, Intel asks that the European Commission’s antitrust ruling against it be annulled on the grounds that the EC failed “to meet the required standard of proof.”

Seems the chip giant feels the Commission’s analysis of its discounts and rebate programs was too shoddy to be trusted–especially when it’s being used as justification for the largest single penalty imposed on a company for antitrust breaches in Europe.

“The Commission fails to prove that Intel engaged in a long-term strategy to foreclose the competitors,” Intel (INTC) argues in its appeal. “Such a finding is not supported by the evidence and is impossible to reconcile with the fragmented nature of the Commission’s allegations (in relation to both products covered and time period) in respect of each Intel customer….The applicant also submits that all or part of the Decision should be annulled on the basis that the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements during the administrative procedure, which materially infringed Intel’s rights of defence.”

Clearly, former Intel general counsel Bruce Sewell, who left the company to take a job with Apple (AAPL) Tuesday, was busy right up until the time he packed up his desk.

Anyway, Intel asks the court to annul “whole or in part” the EC’s ruling and, barring that, to at least annul or reduce the fine imposed. Finally, it would also like to see the EC ordered to pay its legal expenses.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090916/the-ec-pay-intel%e2%80%99s-legal-expenses-uh-good-luck-with-that-one-2/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090914/universal-music-gets-slapped-in-court-what-does-that-mean-for-veoh-and-youtube/ http://allthingsd.com/20090914/universal-music-gets-slapped-in-court-what-does-that-mean-for-veoh-and-youtube/#comments Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:03:40 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=10935 Just how big a deal was a federal judge’s ruling Monday in the copyright-infringement fight between Veoh and Universal Music Group?

Depends on who you ask, of course.

Executives at Veoh say Judge A. Howard Matz has given them a new lease on life, and at least some of the company’s investors are doing some chest-beating. Universal, the world’s largest music label, says it’s confident it will win an appeal.

You can get the same split opinion by asking two different companies that happen to be locked in a similar fight. Executives at Google’s (GOOG) YouTube, which is trying to fend off a copyright suit filed by Viacom (VIA), say the Veoh ruling bolsters their case. You can guess what Viacom says.

The gist of the fight: Universal says Veoh didn’t try hard enough to keep illegally uploaded material off the video site; Veoh says it made a good-faith effort. Matz agreed with Veoh and tossed out Universal’s claims.

Even if you disregard the posturing, it’s fair to say there’s a genuine debate over the ruling’s meaning. Veoh, along with some of my bloggy colleagues, is treating the decision as the final word on Web copyright disputes, or at least those that involve the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

And Matz certainly slapped Universal around. But it’s worth noting that copyright owners have lost Web cases in the Ninth District before, but ultimately won on appeal. Ask Grokster, the now-defunct file-sharing network that dissolved after a 2005 Supreme Court ruling.

You can read all of Matz’s judgment at the bottom of this post. But this excerpt, in which he argues that simply having illegal material on your site isn’t a crime, and neither is knowing about it (at least, in a general sense), gives you a good idea of Matz’s thrust and tone:

No doubt it is common knowledge that most websites that allow users to contribute material contain infringing items. If such general awareness were enough to raise a “red flag,” the DMCA safe harbor would not serve its purpose of “facilitat[ing] the robust development and world-wide expansion of electronic commerce, communications, research, development, and education in the digital age,” and “balanc[ing] the interests of content owners, on-line and other service providers, and information users in a way that will foster the continued development of electronic commerce and the growth of the Internet.”

Legal debate aside, the ruling does give a practical benefit for Veoh. It allows the company to fetch a higher price on the auction block.

CEO Dmitry Shapiro has been shopping the site to bidders over the summer, and as of a few months ago, he was willing to accept less than the $70 million investors like Time Warner (TWX), Goldman Sachs (GS) and former Disney (DIS) CEO Michael Eisner have poured into the site.

Selling a Web video site in 2009 is a tough challenge without a handicap, but the lawsuit was a big one. It was a huge time-and-money suck–Veoh may have spent as much as $6 million fighting the case in the last two years–and more important, the unresolved case was a huge liability. Who wants to buy a lawsuit?

Now, Shapiro says, Veoh’s options include not selling at all. He insists that some of Veoh’s existing backers are willing to recapitalize the company and that new investors might join in as well.

I’ll take him at his word, but if I had to bet, I’d wager that Veoh ends up getting acquired sooner than later. Maybe quite soon–the company has a board meeting today.

Wonder what they’ll talk about?

VEOH –

Still here? How about that? You get a bonus video! (But be warned: Pacino chews up a lot of scenery here, and there is some impassioned cursing.)

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090914/universal-music-gets-slapped-in-court-what-does-that-mean-for-veoh-and-youtube/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090722/apple-defies-recession/ http://allthingsd.com/20090722/apple-defies-recession/#comments Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:00:08 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=21914

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090722/apple-defies-recession/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090702/tivo-off-appeals-court-stays-ruling-vs-echostar-dish/ http://allthingsd.com/20090702/tivo-off-appeals-court-stays-ruling-vs-echostar-dish/#comments Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:50:47 +0000 Eric Savitz http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=13216 TiVo (TIVO) shares this morning are heading lower after the company said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has granted a request by EchoStar (SATS) to stay a contempt order imposed by a lower court pending the outcome of EchoStar’s appeal in the the patent dispute between the two companies.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090702/tivo-off-appeals-court-stays-ruling-vs-echostar-dish/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090513/european-commission-overclocks-intel-antitrust-fine/ http://allthingsd.com/20090513/european-commission-overclocks-intel-antitrust-fine/#comments Wed, 13 May 2009 20:29:20 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=17624

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090513/european-commission-overclocks-intel-antitrust-fine/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090513/eu-overclocks-intel-antitrust-fine/ http://allthingsd.com/20090513/eu-overclocks-intel-antitrust-fine/#comments Wed, 13 May 2009 10:59:40 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=17563 Ouch.

European regulators slapped Intel with an antitrust fine and, as expected, it’s a large one–a record $1.45 billion, which dwarfs even the $1.2 billion fine levied against Microsoft in 2008. The largest ever assessed for monopoly abuse, the fine follows charges that Intel (INTC) abused its market dominance by illegally inducing PC manufacturers to use its chips over those of rival AMD (AMD).

“The Commission finds that Intel did not compete fairly, frustrating innovation and reducing consumer welfare in the process,” Neelie Kroes, the European Commissioner for Competition Policy, said at a news conference announcing the fine. “Given that Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for over five years, the size of the fine should come as no surprise.”

And after all, it could have been worse. The $1.45 billion assessment is quite a bit less than the maximum fine the EC could have levied–10 percent of a company’s annual revenue. Given that Intel made $37.6 billion in 2008, the EC could have slapped it with a penalty of $4 billion.

Intel denied any wrongdoing and said it would appeal. “Intel takes strong exception to this decision,” CEO Paul Otellini said in a statement released immediately after the announcement. “We believe the decision is wrong and ignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor marketplace–characterized by constant innovation, improved product performance and lower prices. There has been absolutely zero harm to consumers. Intel will appeal. We do not believe our practices violated European law. The natural result of a competitive market with only two major suppliers is that when one company wins sales, the other does not.”

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090513/eu-overclocks-intel-antitrust-fine/feed/ 1 http://allthingsd.com/20090513/eu-overclocks-intel-antitrust-fine-2/ http://allthingsd.com/20090513/eu-overclocks-intel-antitrust-fine-2/#comments Wed, 13 May 2009 10:59:40 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=17563 Ouch.

European regulators slapped Intel with an antitrust fine and, as expected, it’s a large one–a record $1.45 billion, which dwarfs even the $1.2 billion fine levied against Microsoft in 2008. The largest ever assessed for monopoly abuse, the fine follows charges that Intel (INTC) abused its market dominance by illegally inducing PC manufacturers to use its chips over those of rival AMD (AMD).

“The Commission finds that Intel did not compete fairly, frustrating innovation and reducing consumer welfare in the process,” Neelie Kroes, the European Commissioner for Competition Policy, said at a news conference announcing the fine. “Given that Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for over five years, the size of the fine should come as no surprise.”

And after all, it could have been worse. The $1.45 billion assessment is quite a bit less than the maximum fine the EC could have levied–10 percent of a company’s annual revenue. Given that Intel made $37.6 billion in 2008, the EC could have slapped it with a penalty of $4 billion.

Intel denied any wrongdoing and said it would appeal. “Intel takes strong exception to this decision,” CEO Paul Otellini said in a statement released immediately after the announcement. “We believe the decision is wrong and ignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor marketplace–characterized by constant innovation, improved product performance and lower prices. There has been absolutely zero harm to consumers. Intel will appeal. We do not believe our practices violated European law. The natural result of a competitive market with only two major suppliers is that when one company wins sales, the other does not.”

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090513/eu-overclocks-intel-antitrust-fine-2/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20080905/comcasts-courtroom-drama/ http://allthingsd.com/20080905/comcasts-courtroom-drama/#comments Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:00:53 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=4554

[ See post to watch video ]

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20080905/comcasts-courtroom-drama/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20080905/comcasts-courtroom-drama-2/ http://allthingsd.com/20080905/comcasts-courtroom-drama-2/#comments Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:00:53 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=4554

[ See post to watch video ]

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20080905/comcasts-courtroom-drama-2/feed/ 0