Google, a Silicon Valley giant that built its business on Web services, startled the tech industry last August by saying it would buy the company, a much older, Illinois-based maker of mobile devices and other hardware.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The review by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or Finra, is at an early stage, the person said. It follows unusually heavy trading in shares of the online-coupon company in the run-up to its release of strong financial results.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Approval by the European Commission, the European Union’s executive arm, would represent a victory for Sony, removing the possibility of a longer review of the deal’s antitrust implications. Such a review could add several months to the process.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The regulator’s probe into the popular online-coupon company is at a preliminary stage and the SEC hasn’t yet decided whether to launch a formal investigation into the matter, the person said.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The provision, part of the bill passed by Congress and expected to be signed by President Barack Obama this week, would enable companies to submit confidential drafts of their initial-public-offering documents to the Securities and Exchange Commission before they file publicly.

Critics say that measure would allow a company like Groupon, which had well-publicized disagreements with the SEC over its accounting last year, to resolve such issues under the radar, without investors learning of them until later although still before any IPO.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The investigations — which span U.S. federal and state agencies, as well as a pan-European effort led by France — could embroil Google in years of legal battles and result in hefty fines for privacy violations. The Journal in February reported that Google was using special computer code to install tiny tracking files, or “cookies,” on some people’s computers, iPhones and iPads, even if the devices were set to block this kind of tracking.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

But not so fast. Before we can get there, we need to review some history, then engage in some speculation.

First, the past: Way, way back in 2000, EMI was supposed to merge with Warner Music Group. But the deal, which would have created a company that controlled 25 percent of the world’s music market, didn’t fly with European regulators.

And since Universal is the world’s biggest music label, and the new combination will create a company with about 40 percent of the world’s music market, you’d think antitrust types would have a problem with this one, too. (Maybe even in the U.S., which has usually let most industries consolidate, but recently perked up when it came to AT&T’s proposed T-Mobile deal.)

Bear in mind that back in 2000, there were five major music labels. Since then Sony swallowed up BMG, so we’re down to four. And Universal wants to shrink it down to three.

Universal’s answer, of course, will be that today’s music business looks nothing like it did 11 years ago when Britney Spears was selling millions of CDs, Napster was a novelty, and Apple’s iTunes store didn’t exist. Most important: Back then, music sales were a $37 billion business. By the end of last year, that number was down to $16 billion.

But simply arguing that the pie is smaller won’t convince regulators. If Universal is really going to get this deal done, it’s almost certainly going to sell off some pieces, particularly in markets like Germany and France, where a combined EMI/UMG could end up with something like 80 percent of the music market.

I think it will also work very hard to convince people that even the world’s biggest music label doesn’t have any power when it comes to Apple, which controls the world’s digital music market.

That part won’t be that hard, because it’s at least partly true. But it will still be interesting to see Universal, which has longstanding ties to Apple, go out of its way to publicly complain about the relationship, without actually straining it for real.

And in any case we’re going to have quite some time to watch this one develop. EMI CEO Roger Faxon told his staff yesterday that approvals, etc., for the split-up could go “well past” March 31, 2012, when EMI’s fiscal year ends. Music industry folks assume that a realistic timetable would be closer to 12 months from now.

[Image via Jason Mrachina]

As expected, the European Commission approved Microsoft’s $8.5 billion acquisition of Skype late last week.

Next, the deal for the popular Internet communications company — which had previously been cleared by U.S. regulators — is likely to officially close later this week (paperwork!), said several sources close to the situation.

Now, of course, comes the hard part — which is whether Microsoft can successfully integrate the more nimble Skype into the belly of the software beast and allow it to thrive.

Some key questions:

How smoothly can Microsoft integrate Skype into its existing products, such as its unified communications platform, Outlook mail and Hotmail, Office, Messenger and Xbox Live? And, perhaps most of all, Windows Phone devices?

That said, will Skype also get to do what it needs for its own success beyond Microsoft? That includes working with mobile rivals Apple and Google, who now dominate the smartphone market, as well as many others. It has already managed to buy GroupMe group messaging start-up for $85 million, just months after its own acquisition in May.

And can the division — which will be led by Tony Bates, Skype’s CEO and now a Microsoft president — operate successfully located mostly away from the power center of Redmond, Wash.? Skype has a substantial office in Silicon Valley, as well as key engineering units in Estonia and Stockholm.

In that vein, will Microsoft be able to hold on to new talent like Bates and Skype’s geek squad, all of whom have substantial choices elsewhere? Like a lot of large tech companies, Microsoft is not known for being able to hold on to those who come in from the outside, in large part due to its insular culture of longtime execs.

In other words, how big a welcome will Microsoft’s other powerful presidents — such as Windows division head Steven Sinofsky — give Bates and company?

A November deadline is approaching for federal regulators to finish their interference tests, raising the stakes for a project already confronting financial hurdles and political resistance.

Amid complaints by GPS users, company officials say they realize the bar will be high for the start-up to show its network won’t disrupt other traffic.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

As reverse termination fees go, this one is massive. According to Bloomberg, it’s about 26 percent of the transaction’s enterprise value and more than six times the typical termination fee, which tends to be about 3.8 percent of the value of the deal to which it will be applied.

Why such a large fee? Presumably, Motorola Mobility demanded it out of concern that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission — which is already investigating several aspects of Google’s business — will hold up the deal or refuse to approve it.

Related posts

• Google: We’re Spending $12.5 Billion on Motorola to ‘Protect’ Android
• Motoogle: BOOM! The Mobile Business Just Got Completely Blown Up
• Google’s Motorola Deal Will Spur Antitrust Regulators to Action
• Watch Google Android Kingpin — and Motorola Acquirer — Andy Rubin Unplugged (Video)
• Defense Spending: Google Arms Itself With Moto Patents
• Is Google’s Motorola Deal the Break That Windows Phone Needed?
• Should Google Keep Motorola’s Patents and Sell Off the Hardware Business?
• Motorola Could Get Google Closer to Your Living Room — If the Cable Guys Play Along
• U.S. Carriers Silent on Motoroogle, but France Telecom Gives It a Thumbs Up
• Google-Motorola Deal Includes $2.5 Billion Reverse Termination Fee
• Google Can’t Say Hello To Hulu Now. (Can It?)
• More Google news
• More Android news
• More Motorola Mobility news

Here’s a handy helper for those following the fate of the Hulu premium online video service, whose noisy efforts to sell itself have gotten a lot of attention of late:

“In preliminary talks” = “hawking itself to one of a half dozen big moneybag tech companies who will visit with Hulu’s bankers and management to see its presentation at Morgan Stanley’s office in Century City in Los Angeles.”

Last Friday, for example, that meant a look-see for Microsoft execs, to show the software giant the story of how paying top dollar for the popular Hulu would be a great investment.

This week, sources said, Yahoo will get the expected gander at the books too, among the other companies targeted by Hulu as part of a sales process in its very early stages.

Among those companies on the short list, sources said, along with Microsoft and Yahoo are: Google, Verizon, AT&T and Amazon.

None of these should come as a surprise, since they all have a big interest in the digital distribution of content business.

Google is perhaps the most interesting and difficult of the group, due to both its massive YouTube unit and the even more massive interest by government regulators about its disturbing massiveness.

Amazon is the company that seems most suited as a Hulu buyer, since it already makes its business selling and distributing content. In addition, Hulu CEO Jason Kilar was a former exec — bringing a certain level of familiarity and presumably much less of the grumpy disgruntlement that he experienced with Hulu’s current media giant owners.

Microsoft seems like the longest shot and least enthusiastic, although it certainly could afford it.

As for Yahoo: Good lord, it needs something sexy to tell weary investors.

Not in the initial round, but other possible acquirers Hulu is targeting: Facebook, Netflix, Samsung and Liberty Media.

And definitely not among those kicking the tires: Disney, News Corp. and Comcast, the trio of partners who own Hulu, along with Providence Equity Partners.

The big question, of course, is whether media-focused Apple — a notorious buyer of almost nothing — would be interested in Hulu.

These blind dates with the best possible buyers will presumably give each insight into Hulu’s business and give Hulu information on what they are looking for.

Sources who have heard the pitch said Hulu is positioning itself as an inevitable competitor to cable, which seems an odd position to take, unless it can get regular access to the kind of top-drawer content that consumers want.

And that will be the most important issue for anyone buying Hulu: The time and terms of rights to the television and movie content on the site, which has been a critical part of its success.

Buyers I have interviewed said Hulu has to offer at least an 18-month license for its content and a pile of rights to hit shows to differentiate itself from competitors.

As Peter Kafka wrote, Hulu buyers would indeed get exclusive content, but with strings attached.

He also noted that the latest content licenses for Hulu’s owner/partners — Disney’s ABC and News Corp.’s Fox — have recently been completed, deals that will stay intact if Hulu is sold.

Unlike Netflix, which has had to pay top dollar for a small pile of premium content while deftly using a large archive of older content to attract subscribers, Hulu’s success has had a lot to do with more access to popular current shows offered by its media giant owners.

Those shows include TV hits such as “The Office” and “Glee.”

That access has become a point of contention with those owners, who have differed with Hulu management about what comes next for the mostly advertising-supported site, even though its slick product has been a clear hit with consumers.

Of course, some speculate that Hulu might not sell at all, just as it never went public as it had said it might do previously. In that case, it will be interesting to see what will become of Hulu once the music stops.

(And, if anyone would like to email me the Hulu presentation or notes on it, please do, so I can formulate a bid myself!)

But, until this deal churns slowly, leakily and loudly forward — let’s enjoy some apt Hulu content. As usual, the fun version of ABBA’s “Dancing Queen” by the kids from “Glee” was not available on the site.

Thus, I selected frequent “Glee” guest star Gwyneth Paltrow belting out Joan Jett’s “Do You Wanna Touch Me” on the show, as a good alternate metaphor for the sales process:

While LightSquared and the GPS industry agree that the tests showed interference, the two sides will disagree on whether the problem can be solved with filters or other technical fixes, according to several people with knowledge of the pending report.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The Federal Communications Commission’s latest assessment of competition in the wireless industry is likely to be closely read by industry observers hoping to find clues as to how the agency will rule on AT&T Inc.’s proposed $39 billion deal to acquire T-Mobile USA from Deutsche Telekom AG. The FCC and the Justice Department are reviewing the deal.

The FCC’s annual report on competition in the wireless industry, which could be released next month, is expected to conclude–as it did last year–that the wireless-phone market has grown more concentrated over the years. But the agency will remain neutral on whether the wireless industry is competitive, sources said.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

But Facebook is still trying to find a path to Washington, where the company has only a fledgling lobbying operation, even though it finds its privacy policies under increasing scrutiny and is trying to navigate a politically sensitive expansion into China.

In seven years, Facebook has risen from a tiny start-up to an Internet power with a potential market value estimated at more than $50 billion. Now an online forum with more than 600 million users, Facebook faces growing pressure from lawmakers and regulators concerned about the way it uses personal information shared by its users.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

The review by the Securities and Exchange Commission, disclosed in a letter to a lawmaker, could fuel the fast-growing market in private shares of technology firms such as Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc. and Zynga Inc. The steps under consideration would help such privately held companies raise more money without incurring the increased reporting and other requirements of becoming a public company.

According to the letter and people familiar with the matter, the likely changes would include raising from 499 the number of shareholders private companies can have without being required to open their books, and also making it easier for such companies to publicize share offerings.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

“We anticipate there will be some markets we will have to divest,” Mr. Stephenson said in an interview.

AT&T’s proposed plan to buy T-Mobile from Deutsche Telekom AG for $39 billion is expected to face heavy scrutiny from regulators and opposition from consumer-advocacy groups and competitors. Rivals Sprint Nextel Corp. and Clearwire Corp. have already been vocal about the harmful impact from the deal.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

According to these sources, the Department of Justice–which has been investigating the deal for the past eight months–and the search giant appear to be on the cusp of coming to terms over government approval of the merger.

To be sure, nothing is certain, and negotiations could always break down.

Still, if approved, these sources added, any deal would be contingent upon Google agreeing to several conditions, some of which the Silicon Valley search giant has already conceded.

For instance, Google has said from the start that it will continue to honor all existing agreements with ITA’s existing partners and also would continue to license data to new partners.

A lot rides on keeping those promises.

ITA is a Boston-based software company which dominates the organizing of airline data, including flight times, availability and prices.

Google says by acquiring ITA it will try to improve travel-related search since it is among its highest-volume queries it receives.

It says its goal is to refer people quickly to a site where flights can be purchased, and doesn’t have plans to sell flights itself.

In February, the American Antitrust Institute voiced concerns about Google’s acquisition of ITA, urging regulators to take a close look because a deal of this nature could create “unregulatable monopoly.”

Many other companies spoke up to oppose the deal, including Microsoft’s Bing, Kayak.com and Expedia.com. FairSearch.org has also been particularly vocal, as well as Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, who chairs the antitrust committee of the National Association of Attorneys General.

Short of blocking the merger, what would be acceptable terms for these critics might include continued oversight of the company’s conduct for a certain period of time.

In other words, to make sure it keeps its promise to play nice.

Microsoft’s decision to include the tool in Internet Explorer 9 means Google Inc. and Apple Inc. are the only big providers of browsers that haven’t yet declared their support for a do-no-track system in their products. In January, Mozilla Corp. said it would include a do-not-track feature in an upcoming version of its Firefox browser. Internet Explorer is the most widely used browser.

The moves by Microsoft and Mozilla reflect an unusually fast adoption of an idea—the do-not-track system—that was first officially proposed by the Federal Trade Commission only three months ago. It highlights the pressure the industry faces to provide people with a way to control how they are tracked and targeted online, as lawmakers and regulators threaten to rein in the practice.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

The Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission’s interest in Apple’s new subscription service is at a preliminary stage, and might not develop into either a formal investigation or any action against the company. But it comes as Apple has attracted growing antitrust scrutiny in the U.S. and Europe.

A spokeswoman for the European Commission, the European Union’s executive arm, said Thursday that the commission was aware of the new subscription service and was “carefully monitoring the situation.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Bloomberg reported today that agency staffers are preparing documents for use in a possible case against Google, but a decision on whether or not to bring a case hasn’t been made. Google–clearly eager to get the deal closed, as it has been six months since it first moved to acquire ITA in July–invoked a federal law that gives the government 30 days to rule thumbs up or thumbs down.

Since then numerous companies, as varied as Microsoft, Expedia and Travelocity, have opposed the deal and formed a coalition called Fairsearch.org to air concerns that Google could stop other companies that depend on ITA’s technology from using it, though Google has said it will continue to offer licenses after the deal closes. Orbitz Worldwide supports is neutral on the deal.

Even those who are voting in favor are doing so holding their noses. Of the five voting members of the commission, only one, Democrat Michael Copps, had been considered remotely likely to vote with the two Republicans who had pledged to vote against it. When he announced he would vote in favor yesterday he said he was doing so with reservations.

Republicans, both on the commission and in Congress, sense an opportunity, the size of which you can discern by the size of the headlines topping the Drudge Report during the last few days. Genachowski is being portrayed in 80-point type as the villain “Julius Seizure” out to ruin the freewheeling Internet by shackling it with a list of bureaucratic rules and regulations. The irony is that the current proposal on the table is a dramatic step back from a far more ominous one: Immediately after losing a court case brought by the cable company Comcast over the extent of its legal authority to regulate the Internet, Genachowski considered reclassifying the Internet under the FCC’s Title II authority, which governs regulation of the phone system. This was an extreme response, thankfully abandoned, that would have certainly warranted the nickname. The current proposal is by no stretch of argument so extreme that it amounts to a seizure.

But rules they are, and no one likes new rules where none existed before, least of all multibillion dollar corporations like Comcast and Verizon. Having established in the courts that they have the right to control the use of certain applications that impact the performance of their network–or, more precisely, the fact that the FCC has no legal authority to tell them not to exercise such control–they’re now going to be required to disclose how and why they exercise such controls.

The rules allow for “reasonable network management” by service providers, which is a squishy phrase. Internet companies like Amazon and Skype, which aren’t service providers themselves, argue that the new rules are weak and don’t protect them from service providers that may “reasonably manage” their products and services out of existence. Get your stopwatches ready, because there will almost certainly be several lawsuits over what constitutes “reasonable network management.”

The scenario is easy to imagine: Embittered broadband customers band together in a class-action lawsuit complaining that their provider refuses to allow them to experience the latest video streaming or video chat application. They argue that the provider favors another inferior application that it happens to own. The provider argues that it’s only engaging in “reasonable network management” allowed under FCC rules, leaving judges to tease out what that means. Lawyers are probably already shining up their Ferragamos as they polish their legal briefs.

These cases are already appearing. Comcast and Level 3 Communications are sparring over the terms under which Comcast conveys to its customers video streaming traffic sent by Level 3 associated with its relationship with Netflix. Level 3 has turned to the FCC and the U.S. Department of Justice at a delicate time for Comcast: It wants federal approval for its takeover of NBC Universal, and wants it now.

The FCC’s new rules, rightly or wrongly, make Comcast and companies like it more vulnerable to similar threats by regulators in response to actions taken in their own reasonable self-interest. Until today, this sort of dispute between companies would normally be worked out by negotiators in private, not regulators on the public dime. No matter whose side you tend to favor, the prospect of government gumming up the work with endless busywork isn’t a happy side effect.

The rules themselves may also be challenged. There’s still a huge question–as FCC commissioners Meredith Atwell Baker and Robert McDowell have both argued in recent newspaper op-eds (one in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, the other in today’s Washington Post)– about the FCC’s legal authority over the Internet. House Republicans are already making noise about jumping into the policy fray, and another court challenge is probably likely.

The one overarching mission concerning the Internet that the FCC can undertake with some measure of agreement is that of widening the availability of the network to places it doesn’t adequately reach and to people who don’t have broadband access for economic or other reasons. In an age where so much of daily public business–from applying for a job to becoming an informed voter in the presidential election–all but requires a broadband link, far too many remote and rural areas are the victim of market forces where the investment to build infrastructure in sparsely populated areas outweighs the potential for a reasonable return.

Genachowski has argued that by adapting the Universal Service Fund (which helped the telephone network penetrate these same underserved areas) for broadband, providers could get this otherwise impossible job accomplished. Extending broadband availability was one of President Obama’s campaign promises, but the $7.8 billion in federal stimulus funds awarded under the auspices of the National Telecommunications and Infrastructure Administration and the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service have not and will not make a significant dent in the problem.

Why not focus on what is clearly the more important problem and without question in the national interest, and leave the finer points of how service providers and Web companies carry content to sort themselves out? Like it or not, a new, more legally complicated Internet is here.

The issue gets to the heart of a longstanding argument: Who should pay for the Internet? That debate is getting more pointed as a flood of video drives up the volume of traffic that companies such as Comcast Corp. must carry.

On Monday, Level 3 Communications Inc.–an Internet network operator that recently announced a deal to help Netflix Inc. stream and store its online movies and TV shows–complained that Comcast has slapped it with a new charge to deliver that video to customers.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Level 3 Communications Inc., which this month unveiled a deal to help Netflix store and stream its movies, accused Comcast of imposing new fees for delivering videos and other content to the cable giant’s customers. Comcast quickly fired back that Level 3 was seeking to burden it with extra Internet traffic without compensation.

The dispute fans the flames of the so-called net neutrality debate over how to handle Internet traffic. Federal regulators, who have yet to adopt rules that require Internet service providers to treat similar types of traffic equally, are set to decide this week whether to vote soon on proposed new guidelines.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »