text:
stories filed under: "breach of contract"
Parler's Laughably Bad Antitrust Lawsuit Against Amazon
from the i-mean,-what? dept
Wed, Jan 13th 2021 12:03pm — Mike Masnick
As you may have heard, over the weekend Amazon removed Parler from its AWS cloud hosting services, causing the website to shut down. I've been working on a longer piece about all of this, but in the meantime, I did want to write about the laughably bad antitrust lawsuit that Parler filed against Amazon in response. Notably, this came just days after Parler's CEO claims that his own lawyers quit (would these be the same "lawyers" who stupidly advised that the company doesn't need Section 230?). Instead, they found a small time independent practitioner who doesn't even have a website* to file what may be the silliest antitrust lawsuit I've seen in a long time. It's so bad that by the end of it, Parler may very well be paying Amazon a lot of money.
There are so many other things I'd rather be writing about, so I'll just highlight a few of the problems with Parler's very bad, no good, horrible, stupidly ridiculous lawsuit. If you want more, I recommend reading Twitter threads by Akiva Cohen or Neil Chilson or Berin Szoka or basically any lawyer with any amount of basic knowledge of antitrust law. The lawsuit is dumb and bad and it's going to do more harm to Parler than good.
The key part of the lawsuit is that Parler, without evidence, claims that Amazon had "political animus" against it, and that it conspired with Twitter to shut down a competitor. It provides no proof of either thing, and... even if it did show proof of political animus, that's... not against the law. And that's kind of a big deal. They're basically saying it's an antitrust violation to dislike Parler. Which it's not. But even if it were, they are simply making up false reasons for why AWS booted Parler.
AWS's decision to effectively terminate Parler's account is apparently motivated by political animus. It is also apparently designed to reduce competition in the microblogging services market to the benefit of Twitter.
I mean, even just this paragraph makes no sense. You may have noticed that Amazon and Twitter are different companies. The complaint is against Amazon. Amazon doesn't compete with Parler. None of this makes any sense. The next paragraph demonstrates how rushed and stupid and bad this lawsuit is:
Thus, AWS is violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act in combination with Defendant Twitter. AWS is also breaching it contract with Parler, which requires AWS to provide Parler with a thirty-day notice before terminating service, rather than the less than thirty-hour notice AWS actually provided. Finally, AWS is committing intentional interference with prospective economic advantage given the millions of users expected to sign up in the near future
With Defendant Twitter? Let's scroll back up and look at the caption again:
There's only one defendant. And it's not Twitter.
The complaint goes on and on about how there's also bad stuff on Twitter, as if somehow that makes it wrong for AWS to be upset about Parler. But... Parler's whole entire claim to fame is that it moderates differently than Twitter, so claiming that there's the same stuff on Twitter is meaningless. Even worse, the example that Parler uses of how Twitter and Parler have similar content is around people suggesting that political officials including Congressional Representatives, Senators, and VP Mike Pence should be hanged. But the evidence that Parler itself provides undermines its own case, and in some cases directly contrasts its own claims. That's not just bad lawyering, that's legal malpractice.
Here is what Parler says:
What is more, by pulling the plug on Parler but leaving Twitter alone despite identical conduct by users on both sites, AWS reveals that its expressed reasons for suspending Parler's account are but pretext. In its note announcing the pending termination of Parler's service, AWS alleged that "[o]ver the past several weeks, we've reported 98 examples to Parler of posts that clearly encourage and incite violence." Exhibit A. AWS provide a few examples, including one that stated, "How bout make them hang?", followed by a series of hashtags, including "#fu-- mikepence."...
AWS further stated to Parler that the "violent content on your website . . . violates our terms." Id. Because, AWS declared, "we cannot provide services to a customer that is unable to effectively identify and remove content that encourages or incites violence against others," AWS announced the pending termination of Parler's account.
However, the day before, on Friday, one of the top trends on Twitter was "Hang Mike Pence," with over 14,000 tweets. See Peter Aitken, 'Hang Mike Pence' Trends on Twitter After Platform Suspends Trump for Risk of 'Incitement of Violence', Fox News (Jan. 9, 2021), https://www.foxnews.com/politics/twittertrending-hang-mike-pence. And earlier last week, a Los Angeles Times columnist observed that Twitter and other social media platforms are partly culpable for the Capital Hill riot, by allowing rioters to communicate and rile each other up. See Erika D. Smith, How Twitter, Facebook are Partly Culpable for Trump DC Riot, LA Times (Jan. 6, 2021), https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-01-06/howtwitter-facebook-partly-culpable-trump-dc-riot-capitol. Yet these equivalent, if not greater, violations of AWS's terms of service by Twitter have apparently been ignored by AWS
This leaves out some fairly important context. For one, the "Hang Mike Pence" trend was driven mainly by people calling out the insurrectionists who were saying that -- and which Twitter very quickly removed under their content moderation practices. Parler, on the other hand, made it clear that it was still trying to figure out how to moderate, and hoped to rely on volunteers. That's in Parler's evidence. That it didn't have a real plan in place yet. And that is why Amazon kicked it off.
On top of that, Parler's lawsuit claims that AWS needed to give it 30 days notice, but really only gave it a couple of days. Yet, in the evidence that Parler itself provides, Amazon mentions to Parler's policy chief that it has been sending dozens of examples of content that violate its policy for several weeks.
Amazon, for its part, appears to have not even waited to be served by Parler, but hit back hard with a very damning response to Parler that just dismantles Parler's argument bit by bit in fairly explicit terms.
This case is not about suppressing speech or stifling viewpoints. It is not about a conspiracy to restrain trade. Instead, this case is about Parler's demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services ("AWS") content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens. There is no legal basis in AWS's customer agreements or otherwise to compel AWS to host content of this nature. AWS notified Parler repeatedly that its content violated the parties' agreement, requested removal, and reviewed Parler's plan to address the problem, only to determine that Parler was both unwilling and unable to do so. AWS suspended Parler's account as a last resort to prevent further access to such content, including plans for violence to disrupt the impending Presidential transition.
As Amazon says, the antitrust claims are obviously silly, but even the breach of contract claims are ridiculous because if anyone breached the contract, it was Parler:
Despite Parler's rhetoric, its lawsuit is no more than a meritless claim for breach of contract. But the facts are unequivocal: If there is any breach, it is Parler's demonstrated failure and inability to identify and remove such content. AWS was well within its rights to suspend Parler immediately for those failures. Parler also cannot hold AWS liable in tort for enforcing the agreement's express terms. And there is no antitrust claim where, as here, Parler cannot plausibly plead an agreement to cause it harm and the complained-of conduct is undeniably compatible with a legitimate purpose.
Compelling AWS to host content that plans, encourages, and incites violence would be unprecedented. Parler has no likelihood of prevailing on the merits, and the balance of equities and public interest strongly tip against an injunction. The motion for a temporary restraining order should be denied.
In the Amazon filing, the company notes that it began sending breach reports to Parler in November of last year and detailed the nature of the content that it was concerned about, often directly calling for violence. They include a ton of screenshots of the kind of violent speech that was on Parler, that goes way beyond what you'd see on other platforms, and which other platforms would remove.
Amazon also notes that the exhibit is only a small sampling:
The content AWS provided to Parler is merely representative of volumes of content that poses a security risk and harms others, in direct violation of the AUP. See id. Exs. E-F (examples). That content includes, but is not limited to, calls for violence against a wide range of individuals, including elected officials, law enforcement officers, and teachers. People have acted on these calls: Parler was used to incite, organize, and coordinate the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. See Doran Decl. Exs. F-G. AWS reported to Parler, over many weeks, dozens of examples of content that encouraged violence, including calls to hang public officials, kill Black and Jewish people, and shoot police officers in the head. Executive 2 Decl. Exs. D-F. Parler systematically failed to "suspend access" to this content, much less to do so immediately, and demonstrated that it has no effective process in place to ensure future compliance.3 Executive 2 Decl. 7. Parler itself has admitted it has a backlog of 26,000 reports of content that violates its (minimal) community standards that it had not yet reviewed. Id. Parler's own failures left AWS little choice but to suspend Parler's account.
As for Amazon treating Twitter differently? Turns out (beyond everything I mentioned above) there's a bigger problem: Twitter doesn't use AWS:
Parler's Complaint is replete with insinuations that AWS had equal grounds to suspend Twitter's account and thus discriminated against Parler. For example, Parler cites the hashtag "#hangmikepence," which briefly trended on Twitter. ... But AWS does not host Twitter's feed, so of course it could not have suspended access to Twitter's content.
Finally, Amazon notes that Section 230 also protects its practices here:
In addition to their facial deficiencies, Parler's interference and antitrust claims also fail under Section 230(c)(2) of the Communications Decency Act. Under that statute, the provider of an "interactive computer service" is immune for acting in good faith to restrict access to material that is excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.
This is actually interesting, in that rather than using 230(c)(1) like nearly every case, Amazon recognizes this is one of those rare (c)(2) cases, giving it the right to restrict access to violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable content. This part of the law is rarely tested, as (c)(1) handles most moderation claims, but probably doesn't fit here, given the fact that Amazon was denying overall service to Parler, not just moderating specific speech.
Parler's going to lose this lawsuit. And it's going to lose badly.
* In a very, very strange set of circumstances, there is another lawyer with the identical name, David J. Groesbeck, (including middle initial) who is a patent lawyer, also based in Washington state and registered to practice in NY, but they are different, and the patent lawyer (who does have a website) had to put a notice on his website saying he's not the same David J. Groesbeck who has Parler for a client, and giving that lawyer's phone number, since he's being inundated with calls, yelling at him for representing Parler.
Filed Under: antitrust, aws, breach of contract, social media
Companies: amazon, parler, twitter
Is Devin Nunes' Lawyer Using Questionable Subpoenas In An Unrelated Case To Seek Info On Satirical @DevinCow Account?
from the what-a-bizarre-case dept
Mon, Jan 27th 2020 11:57am — Mike Masnick
Buckle up, because here's a wild one. Over the weekend, a ton of people sent me a tweet from "The Sparrow Project" that many people took to mean that Rep. Devin Nunes -- the Congressional Representative who spent much of 2019 filing highly questionable SLAPP suits against news organizations, journalists, political operatives, critics, and, most famously, a satirical internet cow -- has issued a highly questionable subpoena for The Sparrow Project's private Twitter DMs.
Welp. I just received a letter from Twitter's legal team notifying me that Devin Nunes' attorney Steven S. Biss has subpoenaed Twitter for my DMs.
If any attorneys out there want to help me file a motion to quash I'll buy you a vegan doughnut.
How's your Friday going?
— The Sparrow Project (@sparrowmedia) January 25, 2020
However, while that tweet may have implied it was Nunes, it is not. The case merely involves Nunes' lawyer, Steven Biss, who is the lawyer in a separate case. But there are many oddities involved in this subpoena -- and Nunes' cases may be tangentially connected in a manner that seems to raise more questions about Biss' legal strategy. Before we go any further, however, I will say that the case that the subpoena comes from is a messy one. I am not going to go into all of the background here -- hopefully just enough to understand the nature of this subpoena -- but I will note that there are many people on both sides of this case who seem to feel fairly confident about what happened between two people, when the truth is only those two people know what really happened, so I will not take any position on the specific claims underlying the two cases at issue. There are also a bunch of people floating trollish conspiracy theories -- again, on both sides -- and if you want to waste a lot of time around a lot of nonsense, there are some rabbit holes to go down, most of which will frustrate and confuse you. I don't recommend that.
The case stems from accusations that lawyer Jesselyn Radack, who has represented Ed Snowden and other whistleblowers, made regarding Trevor FitzGibbon, who ran a PR firm that represented Wikileaks, Chelsea Manning, The Intercept and some other well known organizations. In 2015, FitzGibbon's PR firm shut down following allegations of sexual harassment and assault. In 2018, after it was reported that no criminal charges would be brought against FitzGibbon, he (with Biss as his attorney) sued Radack, claiming she defamed him in saying that he sexually assaulted her. You can read the (redacted) amended complaint and follow the rest of the docket, but it gets pretty salacious and a lot of accusations are thrown back and forth and you don't really need to know those details to understand the issue we're discussing here, so I won't point you directly to them.
What matters in this instance is that after a fairly contentious process, the two parties settled in May of last year. It is also at least worth noting that the court held Radack in contempt, which highlights at least some of the contentiousness of the proceedings. Separately, because the original complaint (which was later sealed in part because of this) in the original case apparently included somewhat revealing photos that FitzGibbon claimed Radack had sent him (part of his effort to show whatever relationship they had was consensual), Radack separately sued FitzGibbon, claiming that his filing violated Virginia's revenge porn law.
A month after FitzGibbon's first case against Radack was settled, he sued Radack again, claiming that (among other things) she had breached the settlement agreement from the original case, and tacking on new defamation claims. The original settlement agreement appears to have included clauses saying that they wouldn't talk about each other on social media, and also that they wouldn't "direct, request, encourage, entice, procure or otherwise cause any third party..." to post on social media about the other.
In the new case, FitzGibbon (again using Biss as his lawyer), alleges that Radack did use social media to talk about FitzGibbon, and suggests that since many others, including followers of Radack, have tweeted about him, it violates the clause not to encourage (etc.) others to do so. This starts with Radack's very first tweet after settling the case, in which she (as per the settlement) posted a short tweet noting that the original case had been settled and she wanted to "retract and withdraw every allegation and statement I have ever made against Trevor Fitzgibbon." Some supporters of Radack responded to that tweet with statements against FitzGibbon, which the lawsuit argues breaches the settlement agreement.
It also highlights a bunch of other tweets by Radack, some of which it claims are defamatory, even though they seem quite general, don't mention FitzGibbon, and could easily be about someone else entirely. Just a few examples of tweets called out in this follow up lawsuit that seem like a huge stretch:
It seems pretty difficult to argue that those either breach the agreement or that they are defamatory towards FitzGibbon. The complaint does go on to assert "common law conspiracy" claims because other accounts started tweeting things about FitzGibbon that might reach the level of defamation. I won't repost them here, but those tweets do make direct claims about FitzGibbon, and if they are false, and were posted with knowledge of their falsity, might possibly qualify as defamation. Of course, the knowledge of their falsity or making the statements with "reckless disregard for the truth" (the standard for actual malice necessary to make a defamation claim) seem like a pretty high bar that would be difficult to reach.
Radack has asked the judge to dismiss much of the case on jurisdictional grounds and for failure to state a claim (basically saying that even if everything claimed is true, it still doesn't violate the law). Frankly, I find that her argument for the 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim is pretty convincing, and FitzGibbon/Biss' opposition motion to be pretty weak. It spends a lot of time arguing why there are some cases where opinion can be defamatory, and then highlights how some of the tweets from other people appear to be defamatory, but makes little effort to show how that makes her statements defamatory.
And that finally brings us around to the tweet at the top that is the reason for this post. If Biss could show that Radack did, in fact, communicate with others to make public statements about FitzGibbon, then at the very least you could argue that it was a breach of the settlement agreement. And, thus, one could make an argument that there are some reasonable situations in which such communications could be subpoenaed as part of the discovery process, to determine whether or not Radack had, in fact, breached the contract, and somehow encouraged others to say things publicly about FitzGibbon.
But, that possibility of situations existing where it might make sense to seek discovery of such communications is about as far as I'll go in giving Biss any credit here. Because almost every other part of what's been made public so far is problematic. First of all, the subpoena is to Twitter, and not to the individuals involved in any communications:
That's a problem on multiple levels, including that the Stored Communications Act literally forbids this kind of subpoena. While most people know of the SCA as it concerns government requests for communications, it also bars internet service providers from revealing content information to private actors in civil suits. So, even if there were legit reasons to seek these communications, sending a subpoena to Twitter is not how this should be done.
But the more concerning part is that the subpoena targets the communications of 21 different Twitter accounts, and many of them claim to have no connection at all to Radack, and at least two of the accounts in the subpoena that have no known connection to Radack are connected to Nunes' lawsuits. Specifically, the subpoena seeks communications from the now famous @DevinCow account, as well as political strategist @AdamParkhomenko, who was subpoenaed in one of the Nunes' cases, and who made some news by filing quite a motion to quash in that lawsuit.
Biss and Fitzgibbon's abusive targeting of Radack is compounded by their abuse of the discovery process which they've turned into a dragnet of influencers with no connection to Radack like @DevinCow, @RVAwonk, @AdamParkhomenko, @jimmysllama and @charliearchy (redactions by me). pic.twitter.com/nZPC8Gl223
So.... what the hell are they doing in this subpoena on a totally unrelated lawsuit? As far as I can tell in going through the dockets of both cases: absolutely nothing. Perhaps there's some reason for it somewhere, but in looking through everything I can find no clear connection. Radack and Parkhomenko, for example, seemed to only start communicating after she alerted Parkhomenko to the existence of what appears to be this same subpoena on Christmas. Radack's tweet at the time went mostly unnoticed, though Adam did respond over a week later to her. As for the DevinCow account, there appears to be absolutely no obvious or public connection between Radack and DevinCow, and no reason to include that account here. Indeed, in responding to a question from myself, DevinCow told me that it has "no connection" to Radack and is "not even sure what is behind all of this craziness."
Based on that, it's extremely unclear why those two accounts (and possibly others) are included in the subpoena. And, given that the identity of DevinCow, in particular, is so important in Nunes' case, you can see how the inclusion of that account and some others may raise some eyebrows about just what is going on here. So, while many people may have misinterpreted the original Sparrow Project tweet to suggest it involved a Nunes case, the subpoena in question is technically from a totally different case, not officially involving Nunes. It's just the same lawyer for both cases. But, it should raise some serious questions as to why the (mis-targeted) subpoena in the Radack case is being used to target communications that appear unrelated to the Radack case, but potentially of significant interest to a totally different case involving the same lawyer.
Filed Under: adam parkhomenko, breach of contract, communications, defamation, devin nunes, devincow, direct messages, free speech, jesselyn radack, sca, steven biss, stored communications act, subpoenas, the sparrow project, trevor fitzgibbon
Companies: twitter
Company Sues Blackhat Because People Mocked Their Sponsored Presentation And Called It Snake Oil
from the good-luck-there dept
Mon, Aug 26th 2019 10:45am — Mike Masnick
Sean Gallagher, over at Ars Technica, has a story about yet another bizarre lawsuit. A company called Crown Sterling, which claims it's disrupting the entire encryption business, is suing the Black Hat conference organizers after it paid $115,000 to be a "gold sponsor," only to find their presentation widely mocked. You can read the complaint here. It's quite something.
Gallagher's article does a nice job summing up the presentation and the background in a single paragraph:
Grant's presentation, entitled "Discovery of Quasi-Prime Numbers: What Does this Mean for Encryption," was based on a paper called "Accurate and Infinite Prime Prediction from a Novel Quasi-PrimeAnalytical Methodology." That work was published in March of 2019 through Cornell University's arXiv.org by Grant's co-author Talal Ghannam—a physicist who has self-published a book called The Mystery of Numbers: Revealed through their Digital Root as well as a comic book called The Chronicles of Maroof the Knight: The Byzantine. The paper, a slim five pages, focuses on the use of digital root analysis (a type of calculation that has been used in occult numerology) to rapidly identify prime numbers and a sort of multiplication table for factoring primes.
Even from that description, you might be rolling your eyes. There's also a response paper from Mark Carney from the University of Leeds who basically debunks many of the claims in Grant's paper. The summary is pretty straightforward:
A recent publication by Grant et al. [2] has revealed some innovations with respect to the checking and generation of prime numbers with which to crack cryptographic keys. We argue that their method is minimal, and go on to prove some general cases of the mathematics they present - specifically refuting two of their claims. We also present more computationally efficient methods, and use these as a spring board to refute the existence of any practical efficiency improvements coming from this methodology.
Some, of course, were a bit less academic in their criticism, speaking out against the presentation on Twitter and heckling Grant during the presentation itself. PC Mag published an article quoting a cryptography expert who said it had "all the signs of 'snake oil' crypto." That's from Jean-Phillippe Aumasson. He also noted:
"The content of the paper and the so-called discoveries are either 1) obvious, well-known mathematical properties that any high school student would easily find, or 2) plain wrong."
Aumasson also had quite the Twitter thread going during the talk.
Either way, all of this resulted in Crown Sterling suing Black Hat. According to the lawsuit, part of paying Black Hat $115,000 to get a "sponsored talk" slot also meant people aren't supposed to criticize them:
In the face of all of this, Black Hat USA, as the Black Hat conference organizer and party with whom Crown Sterling entered the Sponsorship Agreement, had an obligation both to conference attendees and to Crown Sterling to ensure that Crown Sterling, as a participant and a sponsor, was treated only with respect and dignity. Black Hat USA also had an obligation to provide Crown Sterling the benefit of its bargain, which was to be able to use its exhibitor booth and its sponsored session as means to invite fair, open, considerate and non-abusive dialog regarding its technology breakthrough, and to attract prospective clients, collaborators and business partners.
Good luck with that theory.
There may be a slightly stronger argument that Black Hat then did breach its contract by removing any mention of Crown Sterling from its website and then refusing to return the sponsorship money. That... gets a bit more iffy. There is some issue here in that Black Hat probably should review its sponsors a bit more carefully. And, if it's going to recognize that it was had and pull a sponsor's name off the website, it does seem like perhaps they should have given some money back. But, the flip side to that is that, until Black Hat realized what was going on, Crown Sterling appeared to get what it paid for -- a booth, promotion, and a speaking slot. It's only after all of that when Black Hat removed their name from the site.
Crown Sterling never could have anticipated what happened instead: Black Hat USA itself, rather than enforcing its own Black Hat protocol and Code of Conduct, and rather than renouncing the abusive conduct and demanding civility and decorum, instead made good on that detractor's threat to "take Crown Sterling down" by publicly stating that it had taken down Crown Sterling's presentation materials from its event website. In fact, this statement was false. Black Hat USA had never posted the Crown Sterling materials on its website, and presumably did not know its contents when it subsequently purported to have screened them after the fact, and based on this screening which never occurred, taken them down. What Black Hat USA did do, however, is take down any mention of Crown Sterling's participation in the event from its website, essentially disavowing their presence and vitiating the very essence of the Sponsorship Agreement.
But... even that seems weak. As does arguing that Black Hat telling the press about this decision is somehow defamatory. That ain't how defamation works, guys.
Black Hat also sided with the detractors in the most public of ways, providing a statement for the very PC Magazine article that served as a mouthpiece for those conference detractors. In its statement, Black Hat USA confirmed that it would take down Crown Sterling's content from its website, and it disavowed Crown Sterling as a sponsor. By doing so, Black Hat USA unfairly and inappropriately placed its imprimatur on the abusive sponsored session disruption and the defamatory smear campaign that followed shortly thereafter.
Notably, the lawsuit itself is not for defamation -- just breach of contract and breach of "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing." It seems likely that this lawsuit is a long shot for a variety of reasons. But, it also isn't going to do much to improve Crown Sterling's reputation among cryptographers.
Filed Under: breach of contract, encryption, prime numbers, robert grant
Companies: black hat, crown sterling
Irony: Sony Pictures Sued For Failing To Stop Piracy
from the shoes-on-the-other-foot dept
Fri, Jul 29th 2016 11:43am — Mike Masnick
For many years now, the MPAA and the various studios that make it up have filed various lawsuits against various internet platforms for not waving a magic wand and making piracy disappear. This also appears to be their big complaint against Google, which has bent over backwards trying to appease the industry and it's still not enough (of course, that may be because what the industry really wants from Google is money, not stopping piracy). But now the shoe is somewhat on the other foot as Sony Pictures is being sued for failing to stop piracy. Really.
The case stems from the infamous Sony hack from a year and a half ago, where all of Sony Pictures' emails were released onto the internet. Possibility Pictures is suing Sony claiming the hack created a breach of contract in its failure to stop piracy of its film, To Write Love On Her Arms (TWLOHA), a 2012 movie starring Kat Dennings, based on the true story of the struggles a woman went through leading to the founding of her charity (which goes by the same name as the movie). While most people focus on the emails from the hack, it should be noted that before those emails were released, the hackers released some pre-release films... including TWLOHA. And that, Possibility claims, is a breach of Sony's contract.
Reading through the full filing, the key breach appears to be of Section 16.7 of the contract, which includes an "anti-piracy authorization" stating:
So that's kind of amusing, since the clause is clearly designed to give Sony the power to send out threat letters and takedowns and use DRM and other such stuff -- but Possibility is basically turning it around on Sony and arguing that its failure to stop piracy shows that it did not use "appropriate technical measures." I'm not sure a court will go for this kind of judo move in flipping the anti-piracy authorization clause around to suggest that it puts certain contractual requirements on Sony Pictures, rather than simply authorizing it to do certain things as the language is clearly designed to do.
The lawsuit goes on and on about all of the great marketing plans Possibility had for the film (Justin Bieber's mother was going to tweet about it!), but apparently that was all ruined when the hackers, whoever they were, leaked the film. It also highlights Sony's earlier security problems, focused on the famed PSN hack, even though that's an entirely separate subsidiary from Sony Pictures. And then it spends a lot of time pointing to reporters who pointed out that Sony Pictures' computer security was abysmal. That's true... but it's not clear that's against the law. Basically, this lawsuit is mostly "Sony incompetent" and then "because of that our contract was breached."
Possibility then tries to show damages from the leak of the film.
The direct and proximate result of the foreseeable and avoidable Data Breach just four months prior SPWA's planned release of the Picture was an extreme dilution of the otherwise viable market for Plaintiff's Picture. The November 2014 Data Breach resulted in the unauthorized release of the Picture on multiple sites worldwide and destroyed the audience demand for the Picture. Following the Data Breach and worldwide pirated release of the Picture, SPWA abandoned the social marketing plans and lost all interest in promoting and marketing the Picture since it was otherwise available for free as a result of its failure to maintain adequate security of the Network. As an isolated sample of the damage caused the anticipated video-on-demand ("VOD") revenue stream of the Picture, note that in the first six days alone following the Data Breach, the stolen Picture master was downloaded-for-free a reported 19,949 times (an average rate of over 3300 illegal, revenue-free downloads per day).
So... a few things on this. First, downloads don't equate to lost sales, generally speaking, so the attempt to suggest that here without further evidence is pretty silly. Second, less than 20,000 downloads is... kinda weak. It certainly suggests there wasn't much interest in the film in the first place. Third, the idea that there's no market for a movie that's available for free online is easily debunked by the numerous movies that do quite well at the box office and in the home video market despite also being pirated online.
However, the more interesting bit is that this puts Sony Pictures in the fairly awkward position of potentially having to argue that piracy isn't really that damaging to a picture. I'm guessing that Sony Pictures and the MPAA want no part of that argument ever being filed in a court, because it will boomerang back to hurt them.
Either way, the filmmakers are demanding almost $9 million:
The amount of that revenue for which we seek payment, less amounts paid to date, is $8,738,331...
For a movie that not that many people seemed interested in?
Separately, Possibility notes that Sony pointed out that there's a binding arbitration clause in their contract, and Sony has already said that if there's a dispute it must be handled by such an arbitration setup. Possibility tries to get around this, but (unfortunately!) courts have tended to accept these binding arbitration clauses as valid.
If I had to put odds on it, I wouldn't give this lawsuit much of a chance of surviving. The attempt to turn an anti-piracy authorization clause into some sort of requirement to block piracy is a massive stretch. The mandatory arbitration clause is also a problem. Plus, the overall lawsuit is pretty weak. The claim itself is not very well backed up. Chances are Sony can get this tossed out quickly -- but it will be amusing to see if it has to argue that piracy isn't really that damaging. That would be fun.
Filed Under: breach of contract, lawsuit, movies, piracy, sony hack, to write love on her arms
Companies: possibility pictures, sony, sony pictures
Another Bad Ruling In California Threatens To Massively Undermine Section 230 By Exempting Publicity Rights
from the this-is-bad dept
Mon, Jun 6th 2016 10:38am — Mike Masnick
What a week. Just a few days after we wrote about a dangerous ruling in a federal appeals court in California concerning a way to get around Section 230 of the CDA, now we have another problematic CDA 230 ruling from California in the form of a ruling from San Mateo Superior Court judge, Donald Ayoob, that has the potential to do a lot of damage to Section 230 as well as anti-SLAPP efforts in California. Paul Levy has a very detailed post about the case, but we'll try and do a summary here.
The case involves Jason Cross, a "country rap" musician who performs under the name Mikel Knight, who has apparently made a name for himself through a highly aggressive "street team" operation that basically travels around in vans pushing people to buy Knight's CDs -- and there are plenty of accusations of sketchy behavior around how those street teams operate, and how Cross treats the people who work for him. Apparently, Cross was not happy with a Facebook group entitled "Families Against Mike Knight and the MDRST" (MDRST standing for Maverick Dirt Road Street Team, which is what Cross calls the street team). He then used a court in Tennessee to try to get Facebook to identify who was behind the group, and then demanded that the page be taken down. That effort is still ongoing, but has been temporarily postponed, while he then filed a separate lawsuit in California against Facebook and whoever is behind that group, a variety of things, including breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, negligent interference with prospective economic relations, unfair business practices and various publicity rights violations. Oddly, as Levy points out in his post, despite listing John Does as defendants, the complaint doesn't describe anything anyone did other than Facebook. However, as part of the discovery process, Cross did (of course!) ask Facebook to identify the people behind the group criticizing him.
Facebook, quite reasonably, asked the court to dismiss the case under California's anti-SLAPP law and pointed to Section 230 for an explanation of why it's immune. The ruling, unfortunately, is very, very confused. It grants some of Facebook's request, saying that Facebook didn't breach any agreement in failing to remove the group, but refuses to dismiss the publicity rights claims, stating that publicity rights are "intellectual property" and intellectual property is not covered by Section 230. The first half of the ruling does note that Facebook is not liable for the regular content on those pages and thus it was under no obligation to take them down, but then goes off the rails on the publicity rights claim.
You might wonder where there's a publicity rights claim in any of this, but it appears that Cross is arguing that because the group (a) uses images of himself (as Mikel Knight) and (b) Facebook puts ads on those pages, that this is an abuse of his publicity rights for commercial advantage. Really.
Here, it is alleged that Facebook had knowledge since October 2014 that pages using Knight's likeness and identity were being created on its site.... Knight states that he did not consent to these pages or the advertising Facebook placed on them.... Facebook's financial performance is based on its user base; accordingly, Facebook' s alleged use of Knight's image on the unauthorized pages generates advertising revenue for the company.... Knight states that Facebook's unauthorized use of his image has resulted in substantial harm.... Accordingly, Plaintiffs have shown a probability of prevailing on their rights of publicity claims. Because the Sixth Cause of Action is a derivative claim that may arise from either or both the Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action, here to Plaintiffs have shown a probability of prevailing.
This seems wrong on a number of different accounts. First, and most importantly, how the hell is this a legitimate publicity rights claim? Publicity rights are supposed to be about stopping companies from using an image of a famous person in a manner that suggests endorsement when the person did no such thing. It's a very, very twisted (and incorrect) notion to argue that because Facebook has some ads on the same page as a group that complains about Cross/Knight that it's violating his publicity rights. As Levy notes in his post:
If this ruling is upheld, it will blow a gaping hole in the immunity provided by section 230. Plaintiffs who are unhappy about being criticized on any platform provided by an online service provider will be able to force the removal of those materials, and without even showing that there is anything false or otherwise tortious about the criticism – all they will have to argue is that they did not give permission for the use of their names or images in the criticism and that will be enough to make out a viable legal claim against the hosting company.
That's frightening. But, as Levy also notes, this seems to clearly be a misreading of the law:
...it simply cannot be the case that a violation of the right of publicity can be found whenever someone talks about a celebrity and thereby makes a profit. People Magazine and the National Enquirer, for example, and a variety of other publications make their money writing about individuals about whom the public has an insatiable appetite for information, but they do not require the celebrities' permission to write about them. Indeed, to the extent that the right of publicity is analogous to trademark rights, it applies when a use of the celebrity's name and likeness creates a likelihood that consumers will believe that the celebrity has endorsed the company that used the name and likeness (analogous to the "likelihood of confusion" requirement).
The judge here is just confused.
Second, there's the question of whether or not CDA 230 should or should not apply to publicity rights claims. It is true that CDA 230 explicitly carves out "intellectual property," but as Levy notes, there's some debate as to whether or not that applies just to federal IP laws or if it also covers state ones. Publicity rights are a purely state law concept. Of course, I think the argument could go even further, and it could be claimed that publicity rights shouldn't even be considered intellectual property in the first place. I already have issues with lumping copyright and patents together with trademarks as "intellectual property." But adding amorphous and ever changing publicity rights into the same bucket is problematic as well. There is no official definition of what counts as "intellectual property." This is, perhaps, more of a problem in that CDA 230 should have never created such a broad carveout (or should have at least specified "copyright" or whatever), but stretching the exemption to cover publicity rights is dangerous -- especially when courts like this one seem so confused about what's actually covered by publicity rights.
Levy also notes that there's a First Amendment issue behind all of this, in that it's pretty clear that Cross is seeking to suppress people saying things about him that he doesn't like. Levy -- who has been investigating this case to see if his organization, Public Citizen, should get involved (and his post details talking to a number of people who used to be a part of Cross's "street team") -- notes that he's intending to file an amicus brief in Facebook's inevitable appeal.
Either way, it's unfortunate that a judge would get such issues so incredibly wrong in a manner that could have a serious impact on free expression. Hopefully, the ruling is quickly reversed on appeal.
Filed Under: anti-slapp, breach of contract, california, cda 230, defamation, jason cross, mikel knight, publicity rights, tennessee
Companies: facebook, maverick dirt road street team
Donald Trump's Lawsuit Against Univision Is Absolutely Hilarious
from the yes-we'll-add-the-obligatory-xkcd dept
Wed, Jul 1st 2015 9:32am — Mike Masnick
Donald Trump seems to be showing off what would happen if your prototypical internet troll had way too much money at his disposal. As you may have heard, he's putting on a big show of "running" for President, though as many have recognized, the move appears to be a hell of a lot more about getting himself publicity (thankfully, at least some news organizations are properly categorizing stories about Trump as entertainment rather than politics). Of course, the plan to get more attention may be backfiring somewhat, as some of the ridiculous comments he's made "on the campaign" are coming back to bite him -- including Univision cutting ties with him over the Miss USA telecast and NBC dumping both the pageants and his Apprentice series (that thing is still on?).
In response, Trump has filed what has to be one of the funniest lawsuits we've seen in a long time against Univision over the cancelled deal. It honestly reads like one of those nutty conspiracy theory lawsuits we see all the time, often filed pro se. You'd think that Trump would have trouble finding lawyers willing to file nuttiness on his behalf, but apparently there's always someone. It even resorts to the worst trolling tactic of internet commenters: complaining that his "First Amendment rights" are being violated because Univision dropped him. And it all involves a conspiracy involving Hillary Clinton. Seriously.
While Univision has claimed in the media that its decision to cut ties with MUO came in response to certain comments by Mr. Trump during a June 16, 2015 campaign speech announcing his candidacy for President of the United States, the decision was, in reality, a thinly veiled attempt by Univision, a privately held company principally owned by longtime Clinton Foundation donor and current Hillary Clinton fundraiser, Haim Saban, to suppress Mr. Trump's freedom of speech under the First Amendment as he begins to campaign for the nation's presidency and, in recent weeks, has dramatically risen in the polls while expressing critical views of Mrs. Clinton. Little else can explain Univision's decision to not only abandon its contractual relationship with MUO, but also, upon information and belief, pressure NBC to follow suit and cut longstanding ties with Plaintiffs nearly two weeks after the statements were made.
First of all, as all of you (minus a few trolls) are currently screaming right now, no the First Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with this. We'll let the obligatory xkcd explain: The statement is also entirely superfluous to the lawsuit as well, as none of the actual legal claims have anything to do with his First Amendment rights. Apparently Trump could get the lawyers to throw that bit into the description of the case, but when it came time to make actual claims, even the lawyers wouldn't go so far as to make a First Amendment claim.
Also, "little else can explain?" Really? Actually, there are tons of other explanations, with many of them being a hell of a lot more plausible than any fear of Trump being a legitimate contender for the White House -- for example, the actually stated reason that Trump out and out offended the entire country of Mexico with some ridiculous statements.
Next up in the internet troll playbook, we have the ridiculous claim of "defamation" over statements that the person doesn't like, but which are clearly statements of opinion, rather than fact:
In a move which can only be described as both tasteless and defamatory, on June 25, 2015, Mr. Ciurana, Univision's President of Programing and Content, then posted a photo on his official Univision Instagram account comparing Mr. Trump to Dylann Roof, the 21 year old who was recently arrested in the murder of nine (9) African-Americans attending bible study at a church in Charleston, South Carolina, one of the worst hate crimes to ever take place on U.S. soil. While Mr. Cuirana would later remove the defamatory post, the damage was already done: almost immediately, Mr. Ciurana's post was picked up by the media and became the subject of hundreds, if not thousands, of press articles, yet another example of Univision's dubious efforts to create a false narrative in an attempt to upset Mr. Trump's longstanding personal and business relationship with the Hispanic community.
If you're curious, here's the Instagram that Alberto Ciurana put up: It's pretty clearly a somewhat weak attempt at humor, mocking the hair cuts of Trump and Roof. Tasteless? Perhaps, but there's no law requiring anyone to be tasteful in their internet jokes. Defamatory? Not in any way, shape or form. Not even close. And yet, unlike the non sequitur (and incorrect) First Amendment claims earlier, the lawsuit actually does claim defamation.
It's entirely possible that there are legitimate issues concerning breach of contract here, but even most of that seems like a stretch. Because Univision didn't just cut ties with Trump, it actually agreed to pay the full licensing amounts it promised for the next five years (totaling $13.5 million). In other words, Trump actually didn't lose any direct money from this, because Univision paid up (and, in theory, he could try to license it to someone else, though I'm not sure who would want to pay at this point). But Trump is -- hilariously -- claiming damages of $500 million because now people won't see the pageants.
Of course, Trump's own arguments undermine his arguments (because of course they do). The lawsuit repeatedly brags that there was a bidding war earlier this year, in which Univision emerged victorious. Thus, at least a few months ago, other TV media properties wished to broadcast the pageants. If it was true that this was all just a grand conspiracy by Hillary Clinton supporter Saban, then you'd think that Trump could simply move on to whoever else was in that bidding war (while keeping all the money that Univision paid him anyway!). But, of course, if the real reason for the cancellation was because of Trump's comments about Mexico and the concern about how Spanish-speaking audiences felt about that -- well, then Trump wouldn't be able to find that alternative.
The lawsuit is then equally hilarious in arguing that it can't possibly be Trump's offensive comments about Mexico because Trump has said the same offensive crap many times before. That seems like an odd thing to argue in such a lawsuit, but it's what Trump's lawyers have chosen to claim:
In reality, however, Mr. Trump's calls for immigration reform, particularly with respect to the U.S.-Mexican border, were nothing new. Indeed, for over a decade, Mr. Trump had, in numerous television and news interviews, consistently voiced his concerns regarding the influx of illegal immigrants pouring into the United States across the Mexican border and the crime that has resulted therefrom, views which were widely reported by every major media outlet, including, both Univision and NBC.
As Mr. Trump explained in an interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly on March 30, 2011, "[t]hey're coming over, and they're climbing over a fence, and there's nobody within 10 miles -- and they're selling drugs all over the place, they're killing people all over the place -- and we're not doing anything about it."
Indeed. It may be true that Trump has said offensive things in the past, but that doesn't mean that Univision can't later decide that the greater attention paid to his more recent offensive comments are such that it no longer wishes to do business with him. There's no rule anywhere that says, "Well, if you didn't complain four years ago when I said some stupid shit, you can't complaint now!" Even if it's true that Univision is only making this decision because Trump's comments went a bit viral, that's Univision's decision to make, and his previous comments are completely meaningless.
Frankly, this lawsuit is absolutely hilarious. The chances of it going anywhere are pretty slim. The First Amendment arguments are ridiculous, but meaningless, as there's no actual legal claim there. The defamation claims are going to get laughed out of court. The whole thing is fairly hilarious, and fits in with the designation of Trump as "entertainment" rather than anything even remotely serious.
Filed Under: breach of contract, contracts, defamation, donald trump, first amendment, free speech
Companies: nbc, univision
Yelp Sues Law Firm For Posting Fake Reviews
from the be-careful-what-you-review dept
Mon, Sep 9th 2013 12:44pm — Mike Masnick
Fake reviews online are something many people have just come to expect. Just recently we discussed an example of where it was obvious there were a ton of fake reviews on Amazon.com. Many sites that include user reviews work pretty hard to scrub the obviously fake ones, but it appears Yelp has taken that to a new level, deciding to sue a law firm for posting fake reviews. It should be noted that this same law firm, McMillan Group, previously had sued Yelp, claiming that it had been "coerced" into buying ads to get favorable reviews, so you could argue that there's a reason this particular firm was targeted. But, either way, it raises some fairly interesting legal questions.
Specifically, Yelp is arguing that when McMillan employees created fake accounts in order to post bogus positive reviews for their own firm, they violated the terms of service of the site. Thankfully, (unlike Craigslist), Yelp doesn't try to argue that violating the TOS is a CFAA violation. Instead, the lawsuit focuses on some specific charges including breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, unfair competition and false advertising.
The filing details, rather comprehensively, how over a period of a few months, it appears that employees at the firm created accounts and immediately posted positive reviews of the firm, sometimes claiming things that are unlikely to be true. For example, certain users claim to be clients of the firm, which focuses on bankruptcy law, and then point out that the individuals in question have never filed for bankruptcy. There's also an amusing bit in which four accounts are created, one after the other, from a McMillan IP address, each leaving very positive reviews within minutes of creation, then logging out right before another account is created. And, of course, none of those accounts ever logged back in. Oh, and two of the accounts created one after the other started their posts with the identical sentence, including a typo:
They promissed [sic] me a fresh start through a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and I got it.
Same exact sentence in both, one posted right after the other, but with different names and different accounts. Throughout the filing, you realize that these attempts to fake reviews are so hamhanded, that they were clearly done by someone who has no idea how to cover their own tracks. There were lots of cases of using the same IP address which was already associated with the company. In another case, the same email address is used for multiple accounts. It's as if they don't realize that Yelp can check these things.
No matter what, this should be an interesting lawsuit. While it does seem pretty clear that Yelp has caught this firm red-handed writing fake reviews, there are some pretty big questions as to whether or not that's actually a legal offense for the courts to sort out. There's a part of me that thinks that Yelp has every right to take action on its own site against those reviews and reviewers -- such as deleting the reviews and banning the reviewers -- but making the legal claims stick feels like a pretty big stretch. Also, some of the reviews they complain about don't even seem that questionable -- such as the so-called "circle of local lawyers" in San Diego who all reviewed each other. In some cases, those reviews just say things about how they recommend their own clients to those other lawyers when an issue comes up (such as bankruptcy) that another lawyer specializes in. That may actually be completely accurate.
There may be something to the fact that lawyer advertisements tend to be much more heavily regulated, so I could see a potential issue with false advertising, but I'm not sure that that's an issue for Yelp to take up directly, rather than whoever's in charge of making sure lawyers are advertising within the limitations of existing regulations. There's also some potential argument that a customer of the law firm could have standing to argue that they were harmed after believing fake reviews (though, even that's a stretch), but to argue that Yelp itself is harmed is, again, a bigger stretch (not impossible, but not a slam dunk).
None of this is a defense of the actions of whoever wrote those reviews, as it appears there's fairly strong evidence that the reviews are faked, I'm just not convinced that means it violates the law.
Filed Under: breach of contract, fake reviews, false advertising, law firms, reviews
Companies: mcmillan group, yelp
Sorry, Having IMDB Accurately List Your Age Doesn't Entitle You To A Million Dollars
from the be-careful-what-you-ask-for... dept
Mon, Apr 15th 2013 7:57am — Tim Cushing
Junie Hoang has lost her lawsuit against IMDb. She sued the online database for "breach of contract" after it replaced her fake birthdate (1978) with her real one (1971). The case had a few twists and turns, most of them "wrong ways" and "dead ends."
Claiming the posting of her real birthdate to be an invasion of privacy, Hoang first pursued this suit anonymously for fear of being tossed aside by Hollywood's ageist tendencies. Unfortunately for Hoang, Judge Marsha J. Peschman told her she'd have to reveal her name to proceed with the lawsuit, finding Hoang's worries of industry blacklisting not sufficient enough to justify continued anonymity.
Now, while Hoang claimed revealing her birthdate was an invasion of privacy, she sued IMDb for breach of contract. Here's how this all went down.
Hoang signed up for a subscription service with the website called IMDb Pro... She said she initially listed a false birth year - 1978, instead of 1971 - because she usually plays characters younger than she is.
But eventually, she moved from her hometown of Houston, Texas, to the more competitive entertainment market of Los Angeles, and as what would have been her fake 30th birthday approached, she decided she didn't want any age listed on her profile.
IMDb refused to remove the age listed unless she could provide evidence that it was incorrect. She asked the company to check its records to see if it had any information that would substantiate that age.
The company did so - using her account information to find her real name, and then using her real name to conduct a public records search and discover her true age. IMDb posted her real age on her profile, over her objections.
In essence, Hoang sued IMDb for doing exactly what she asked it to do -- verify her age. She claimed this investigative work violated IMDb's privacy policy. IMDb disagreed with this assessment (along with pretty much every other claim), stating the privacy policy is in place to protect actors' contact info -- not their date of birth, and that listing the date of birth was its First Amendment right.
Hoang was seeking $1 million in damages for harm done to her career by having her real age outed. The jury was not convinced by Hoang's less-than-stellar case, as IMDb noted in its post-trial filing.
"Hoang did not present any testimony, documents, or other evidence supporting her damages allegations of lost income and profits. Neither Hoang nor her agent Joe Kolkowitz—her only two witnesses on damages—offered any testimony about future damages, and neither offered competent testimony on which a reasonable jury could base an award of damages for acting jobs allegedly lost to date."
Perhaps her career to date made it difficult to prove a tremendous upside was being destroyed by IMDb's callous recordkeeping. As was noted earlier here at Techdirt, she has made an appearance in Penn & Teller's Bullshit! This is in addition to roles in Gingerdead Man 3: Saturday Night Cleaver and Hoodrats 2: Hoodrat Warriors.
Of course, it isn't over until the last appeal has been exhausted and Hoang announced (pretty much as soon as the verdict was read) she will be appealing the decision. She still believes it's unfair that IMDb lists birth dates for actors and actresses and makes it harder for those of a certain age to land roles. She points out that it's illegal for employers to ask interviewees how old they are, but IMDb's listings save those in casting the trouble of skirting the law.
Whether or not another court will find this argument worth $1 million remains to be seen, especially considering Hoang's career arc to this point. She and her agent didn't seem to be too persuasive the first time around and unless they've got something more compelling than "Hollywood is ageist," this appeal will likely fail.
Filed Under: age, breach of contract, imdb, junie hoang, privacy
Companies: amazon, imdb
Rackspace Sues Famed Patent Troll For Breach Of Contract
from the not-for-the-first-time dept
Fri, Apr 12th 2013 9:45am — Mike Masnick
Well, well. Rackspace, who has been successfully fighting back against a bunch of patent trolls lately, is fighting back again, and this time they're taking on one of the more notorious patent trolls out there: Erich Spangenberg. Rackspace explains a bunch of the details on their site, though it helps to know a bit of the background. While some of the reporting out there suggests that Rackspace's reference to "the most notorious patent troll" is about the company Parallel Iron, it's really Spangenberg who is the target.
First, some background. Spangenberg has built up quite a business for himself by buying up awful patents and suing tons of companies, often getting them to pay up. He's claimed in the past that he likes to sue first and ask questions later. He famously got in trouble a few years back for shuffling some of his patents around and suing Daimler Chrysler twice over the same patent even though the company had settled the original lawsuit and licensed the patent. That didn't go well for Spangenberg, as he was told to pay $4 million. Remember that story, because it seems like Spangenberg's apparent sloppiness in actually living up to the terms of deals he signs may be part of why he's likely to be on the hook against Rackspace.
The other time we wrote about one of Spangenberg's schemes failing massively was when he used one of his many shell companies, IP Nav, to demand a license from Renaissance Learning. Except that IP Nav wasn't the patent holder, but claimed to be "representing" the patent holder, and then it refused to tell Renaissance how they were infringing or even what the patent was unless the company agreed to sign a total gag order, such that they couldn't talk at all about whatever came from the discussions. Renaissance, smartly, went to court instead, issued a subpoena demanding Spangenberg identify the patent and the patent holder, and then sought declaratory judgment that it did not infringe. The court sided -- strongly -- with Renaissance, and smacked Spangenberg down a bit for his actions.
Some might look at the silky wording of IP Nav's letter to Renaissance and see a close question; this court, however, sees an unmistakable and intentional warning shot across the bow. The actual message is pellucid to any patent litigator, so that IP Nav's use of apophasis is disingenuous and unavailing. Remember Mark Antony's funeral oration in Julius Caesar? That's how an experienced business executive or lawyer would view IP Nav's assertions that "we are focused on addressing these issues without the need for costly and protracted litigation" and "our client's preferred approach is to conclude licensing discussions without resorting to litigation. We hope you share this objective." The implied "or else!" oozes from this letter like lye from lutefisk. To paraphrase an observation attributed to Anton Chekhov, you don't hang a gun over the mantle in Act I unless someone is going to fire it in Act III.
Not surprisingly, this wasn't the only time that IP Nav and Spangenberg tried these kinds of tactics. Rackspace recounts a similar approach from IP Nav:
Our dealings with this particular troll reach back to December 2010 when IP Navigation Group (IP Nav), as agent for a supposedly secret patent owner, now known as Parallel Iron, accused Rackspace of patent infringement. IP Nav told us that they could not divulge the details of their infringement claims – not even the patent numbers or the patent owner – unless we entered into a "forbearance agreement" – basically, an agreement that we would not sue them. IP Nav was worried that as soon as we found out what their patents and claims actually were, Rackspace would sue to invalidate their patents or for a declaration that Rackspace does not infringe.
Rackspace pushed back against this, and instead "negotiated a mutual forbearance agreement that required either party to give 30 days' notice before bringing suit."
Since then, Parallel Iron has become a popular name in patent trolling circles, suing a ton of companies for their choice of file systems. They basically claim that the super popular Hadoop file system violates their patents, which seems incredibly dubious. Parallel Iron has already shifted around what patents it's suing over, as earlier cases got dismissed due to another mistake by Parallel Iron. As Rackspace's lawsuit explains:
Unfortunately, the lawsuits filed on the '565 patent were just part of the pattern of misconduct by Parallel Iron and IPNav. Parallel Iron-Texas did not have standing to sue because the '565 patent was not enforceable by Parallel Iron- Texas. The '565 patent was subject to a terminal disclaimer, requiring that the '565 patent be commonly owned with an earlier patent. Unaware that Parallel Iron- Texas had no right to enforce the '565 patent, many of Parallel Iron-Texas's targets settled out to avoid the high cost of litigation. But when one of the targets discovered the lawsuit's fatal defect, Parallel Iron-Texas immediately dismissed all but one of the remaining defendants (the last defendant, EMC, was not dismissed until July 2012).
However, the new version of Parallel Iron has filed nearly two dozen new lawsuits over the past few months making similar claims using other patents, and finally got around to suing Rackspace in one of these rounds. But, apparently someone forgot about that agreement that Rackspace had signed with IP Nav a couple years ago, and did not give Rackspace the 30 days notice. So, not only is Rackspace seeking declaratory judgment that it does not infringe, but it's also going after IP Nav for breach of contract.
Each party agreed "that it [would] not bring litigation against the other Party from the date of execution of [the Forbearance Agreement] until 30 days after either Party provides written notice to the other Party that discussions between the Parties have ended." Parallel Iron provided no such notice, yet sued Rackspace in Delaware. Thus, it breached essentially the only covenant of the contract.
Parallel Iron's premature lawsuit amounts to a material breach of the Forbearance Agreement. Rackspace has been completely deprived of the benefit of the Forbearance Agreement. Rackspace cannot be adequately compensated for Parallel Iron's breach. Parallel Iron cannot cure its breach. Parallel Iron's behavior—breaching the only covenant of the contract—cannot be said to comport with the standards of good faith and fair dealing.
IPNav—in addition to Parallel Iron—is liable on the Forbearance Agreement because it was the agent to an unidentified principal. The Forbearance Agreement did not contain any language releasing IPNav from liability.
Rackspace also notes that it "has been forced to expend time and money to defend" this "wrongfully brought" lawsuit, suggesting they're going to seek attorneys' fees as well.
Filed Under: breach of contract, erich spangenberg, patent trolls, patents
Companies: ip nav, parallel iron, rackspace
Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Instagram Because People Still Don't Like Its Terms Of Service
from the and-some-class-action-lawyers-want-to-get-rich dept
Wed, Dec 26th 2012 5:44am — Mike Masnick
We've discussed plenty of times how class action lawsuits too often are about nothing more than some lawyers shaking down a company, hoping for a "settlement" in which the lawyers make out with millions while the "class" they represents gets very little, if anything. Yes, the class action system serves a purpose, but it seems like it's way too easily abused. Any time anyone gets upset about anything you can expect a class action lawsuit to be filed within days. Indeed, you may recall last week there was a but of a hubbub around Instagram's planned new terms of service, which really didn't say anything that new or surprising, but the online world ran with it in full outrage mode. In response, Instagram agreed to change the new terms and eventually agreed to keep much of the existing terms of service in place.
However, it appears that wasn't enough to satisfy some class action lawyers, who quickly whipped together an angry lawsuit about how awful (just awful!) Instagram's terms of service are. You can read the full complaint here and try not to laugh as the lawyers try to come up with any theory under the sun as to why the terms are somehow breaking the law. The lawyers are arguing that a small change in the standard boilerplate language used by nearly every single service online is some sort of breach of an "implied contract."
They also argue that merely putting into the terms the idea that you agree to allow them to use a photo in association with an advertisement constitutes a violation of California's publicity rights law. That's somewhat insane. The way you get around violating a publicity rights claim is to get people to license their works, and now these lawyers are arguing that in trying to get Instagram users to licenses their works, that alone violates the publicity rights law? Really? That's like saying that it's illegal for you to enter my house without signing a contract, but the second you ask for the contract, that's considered trespassing.
In the end, it's difficult to see what actual damage they'll show has occurred here. And there's a simple existing solution: if you don't like the terms, don't use the service. This isn't complicated.
Filed Under: breach of contract, class action, class action lawsuit, terms of service
Companies: facebook, instagram
Older Stories >>


text:
Version: 8 Revision Date: 11/30/2018
Purified anti-Tau, 189-195 Antibody (Previously Covance catalog# MMS-5017)
Antigen Details
Related Pages & Pathways
Concentration & Expiration Lookup
39E10 (See other available formats)
Microtubule-associated protein tau, PHF-tau, Paired Helical Filament tau
Covance Catalog# MMS-5017
Mouse IgG1, κ
Ave. Rating
Western blot of purified anti-Tau, 189-195 antibody (clone 39E10). Lane 1: Molecular weight marker; Lane 2: 20 µg of normal human brain lysate; Lane 3: 20 µg of mouse brain lysate; Lane 4: 20 µg of rat brain lysate; Lane 5: 0.1 µg of recombinant human Tau protein ladder. The blot was incubated with 1 µg/mL of the primary antibody overnight at 4°C, followed by incubation with HRP labeled goat anti-mouse IgG (Cat. No. 405306). Enhanced chemiluminescence was used as the detection system.
Compare all formats
Quantity Avail.
Input string was not in a correct format.
814302 25 µl 76€
Need larger quantities of this item?
814301 100 µl 187€
Tau protein promotes microtubule assembly and stability. Tau is abundant in neurons of the central nervous system, and is expressed at low levels in astrocytes and oligodendrocytes. Abnormal hyper-phosphorylation, aggregation, and toxic gain of function of tau is associated with several neurological disorders, including Alzheimer's disease (AD). The major building block of neurofibrillary lesions in AD brains consists of paired helical filaments (PHFs) of abnormally hyperphosphorylated tau. Six isoforms of tau are generated by alternative splicing of the MAPT gene. These isoforms are distinguished by the number of tubulin binding domains, 3 (3R) or 4 (4R), in the C-terminal of the protein and by one (1N), two (2N), or no (0N) inserts in the N-terminal domain. Tau isoforms are differentially expressed during development.
Technical Data Sheet (pdf)
Human, Mouse, Rat
This monoclonal antibody was raised against full-length human tau.
Phosphate-buffered solution (no preservatives or carrier proteins).
The antibody was purified by affinity chromatography.
1.0 mg/ml
The antibody solution should be stored undiluted between 2°C and 8°C. Please note the storage condition for this antibody has been changed from -20°C to between 2°C and 8°C. You can also check your vial or your CoA to find the most accurate storage condition for this antibody.
WB - Quality tested
Recommended Usage
Each lot of this antibody is quality control tested by Western blotting. For Western blotting, the suggested use of this reagent is 1.0 - 10 µg per ml. It is recommended that the reagent be titrated for optimal performance for each application.
This antibody is effective in immunoblotting (WB).
BioLegend is the Exclusive Provider of this Antibody Product
Michalski V, et.al. Neurobiol Aging. 2015. 36(12):3131. (WB) PubMed
RRID
AB_2715844 (BioLegend Cat. No. 814302)
Unmodified Tau isoforms have an apparent molecular weight ranging from 33-79 kD. Additional high and low molecular weight Tau species have been observed in brain tissues.
Tissue distribution: Central nervous system, peripheral ganglia and nerves, kidney, skeletal, and heart muscle.
Cellular distribution: Cytoskeleton, nucleus, plasma membrane, and cytosol.
Tau promotes microtubule assembly and stability. The short tau isoforms allow plasticity of the cytoskeleton whereas the longer isoforms may preferentially play a role in its stabilization.
Tau interacts with: Sequestosome-1, Peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase FKBP4, Casein kinase I isoform delta, Serine/threonine-protein kinase Sgk1, Laforin, and alpha-synuclein.
Cell Biology, Neurodegeneration, Neuroscience, Protein Misfolding and Aggregation
Antigen References
1. Meredith JE Jr, et al. 2013. PLoS One. 8(10): e76523. PubMed
2. Goodall CA, et al. 2006. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 77(1): 89. PubMed
3. Wang Y, Mandelkow E. 2016. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 17(1):5-21. PubMed
4137 View all products for this Gene ID
View information about Tau 189-195 on UniProt.org
14-3-3 Induced Intracellular Signaling
Multicolor Staining Guide
Fluorescence Spectra Analyzer
Fluorophore Brightness Index
Fluorophore Equivalency Tool
Flow Cytometry Mobile Application
Fluorescence Spectra Analyzer Mobile Application
There are no FAQs for this product.
View All Tau, 189-195 Reagents Request Custom Conjugation
Lot #:
Go To Top Version: 8 Revision Date: 11/30/2018
For research use only. Not for diagnostic use. Not for resale. BioLegend will not be held responsible for patent infringement or other violations that may occur with the use of our products.
*These products may be covered by one or more Limited Use Label Licenses (see the BioLegend Catalog or our website, www.biolegend.com/ordering#license). BioLegend products may not be transferred to third parties, resold, modified for resale, or used to manufacture commercial products, reverse engineer functionally similar materials, or to provide a service to third parties without written approval of BioLegend. By use of these products you accept the terms and conditions of all applicable Limited Use Label Licenses. Unless otherwise indicated, these products are for research use only and are not intended for human or animal diagnostic, therapeutic or commercial use.
BioLegend Inc., 8999 BioLegend Way, San Diego, CA 92121 www.biolegend.com
Toll-Free Phone: 1-877-Bio-Legend (246-5343) Phone: (858) 768-5800 Fax: (877) 455-9587
Compare Data Across All Formats
This data display is provided for general comparisons between formats.
Your actual data may vary due to variations in samples, target cells, instruments and their settings, staining conditions, and other factors.
If you need assistance with selecting the best format contact our expert technical support team.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: I can't display Classwizard anymore in MFC project in VS 2019 My project started out years ago. Now using VS 2019.
Whilst I can right-click and add event handlers (since it uses a new VS wizard), and I can right-click the class and add generic variables (since it uses a new VS wizard) I can't display class wizard any more:

I have tried cleaning the project and tried renaming my folder.
It refuses to display and shows that message:

Value does not fall within the expected range.

The other error message that shows is:

The parameter is incorrect. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x80070075 (E_INVALIDARG))

This means it is very hard for me to attach new variables to new controls on dialog resources.
I have researched this issue and can't find a solution that works for my 2019 MFC project.
Update
I tried using the Visual Studio Installer and Repair and that did not resolve the issue.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Apple is all set to launch the new iOS version next week. Although the OS is expected to have some great features and define new rules. Today in this article we are going to have a look on six features that is going to come on your iPhone and iPad before WWDC 17.
It's been six years since Apple first launched its virtual assistant, and at the time it was ahead of the game. But in the subsequent years, it's seen more competition from the likes of Amazon's Alexa, Microsoft's Cortana and Google's Assistant. Back in 2015, Apple purchased the U.K.-based VocalIQ, which was working on improved natural language technology. Since then, reports have a number of its former engineers working out of a Cambridge Apple office. In theory, this means the company might be aiming to pump up Siri's ability to communicate more naturally, which, in combination with Apple's heavy investments in machine learning, could make the virtual assistant more powerful than ever, able to handle complex queries in a single bound.
For years, FaceTime has been a two-way street (unless, of course, you have the whole family crowded around a single iPhone). But one rumor posted at an Israeli tech blog suggests that the ability to have multiple parties involved in a call, similar to other video-calling services such as Skype, could be included in iOS 11. Speculation is that it could accommodate up to five participants and be integrated with iMessage.
After a major jump in capabilities with iOS 9, Apple's tablet was largely ignored during last year's iOS 10 update. As such, some of the features first introduced in iOS 9 have begun to feel a bit long in the tooth, such as the overcrowded and clumsy application picker for Split Screen mode. It seems likely Apple will spend at least some time discussing iPad-specific improvements for iOS 11, even if we don't get everything hoped for by ardent iPad fans. Some have speculated that perhaps Shared iPad, the multiple account systems for iPads that are only available in Education environments, will finally be available for all users.
Inquisitive developers poking around in Apple's macOS-based Simulator uncovered evidence that a "dark mode" for iOS that makes text easier to read in low-light settings actually exists in current versions of the operating system. There's just no way to activate it. It's certainly possible that Apple will offer such a feature in iOS 11 — after all, it launched a similar option for Apple TV last year.
Apple's been playing second fiddle to Google Maps ever since it ditched the Mountain View, California, company for its own in-house mapping solution back in iOS 6. But Apple has been steadily improving its mapping solution with each version of iOS. The company's also been buying up firms developing mapping technology, and it's possible that some of those features — indoor mapping and navigation, for example, and deploying drones for faster updating of maps — will finally see the light of day in iOS 11.


text:
Q: Whatsapp .crypt7 decrypt Whatsapp is change the message db to .crypt 7, and now my little app that written in c# not working now (i have a little app for myself for viewing my history chats) because it written for old crypt db of whatsapp.
Now, i see that whatsapp is useing new crypt - .crypt7 - what is it? and how i can convert it? i see also have there local key for decrypt? how i can use it with my little c# for decrypt and read it?
Thanks!

A: You have to get encryption key. if you have root, you can copy /data/data/com.whatsapp/files/key here. As far as i know whatsapp using "aes" for encryption.


text:
Pensions Under Attack in America?
By Leo Kolivakis July 15, 2012
Mark Vorpahl, a union steward, social justice activist, and writer for Workers' Action, wrote an article for the Center of Research on Globalization, Pensions Under Attack in America:
On Friday, July 6, President Obama signed into law a bill that would renew transportation programs and extend low interest rates on student loans for one year. While this minimal gesture resulted in, no doubt, sighs of relief from those burdened by student debt, tucked away within the bill's pages was a little-noticed proposal to further erode the funding of workers' pensions. The bill was a brilliant sleight of hand where what it appeared to be giving with one hand distracted the public from what it was taking away with the other.
Aside from the more publicly known parts of this bill, it also reduced the amount that corporations pay into an already grossly underfunded pension system. The way it achieved this is with a complex equation factoring in interest rates, changes in how businesses calculate what they must contribute to retirement premiums, and how these contributions are tax deductible. The end result of this opaque process of number crunching is that, according to the Society of Actuaries, employer pension contributions will be reduced overall from a mandatory $80 billion to $45 billion this year alone. Next year this amount will be slashed by $73 billion.
While the amount of company pension contributions would increase afterwards, there is no guarantee that this can be counted on to make up for the short-term cuts. Without a fundamental change in the political climate, it can be assumed that this distant increase will be reversed.
Some have said that these employer pension payment deductions will not amount to much given the $1.9 trillion employers have already invested into these plans over the decades. Yet the political importance of this bill cannot be calculated by arithmetic alone.
It is another example of a pattern of how politicians have enabled corporations to minimize their responsibility towards their employees' pensions to the point where the entire system is in danger and the dream of a comfortable retirement is approaching collapse.
How far has the pension system fallen into disrepair? According to The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC), the quasi-government agency responsible for retirement funds, the public employees pension was being funded at 103 percent in 1999. The pension funds for the private sector were likewise robust.
By 2008, according to the Pew Center, the public sector pensions were short $452 billion. By 2009 the PBGC reported a funding shortfall of $355 billion and a shortfall of $407 billion for "single employer pensions."
Why this dramatic change? The corporations, their politicians, and media lay the blame on growing pension costs (though many have been frozen) and an increased number of workers retiring. This is turning the reasons behind the pension system's shortfall on its head. Fundamentally, the reason for the growing threats to retirement is corporate greed, backed up by their political power, as well as the effects of the economic crisis.
There are numerous examples of how big business and their two parties, the Democrats and Republicans, have colluded to erode their legal responsibility to fund pensions.
The Pension Protection Act of 2006 enabled pension funds to partner with high-risk speculators, resulting in massive loses to the system in 2008-2010. Corporations have been allowed to declare phony bankruptcies in order to dump their pensions on the PBGC. They are also allowed to divert funds that should go into pension funds towards covering health care costs as well as buying back company stocks and making dividend payouts to stockholders. The list could go on for the ways the political system lets the corporations off the hook at the cost of threatening workers' retirement. The effect of these measures is to starve the pension system in order to fatten corporate profits.
In addition, the Great Recession has also had a debilitating effect on pension funding. A jobless recovery means fewer workers able to contribute. If corporations were adequately taxed on the trillions they are hoarding to finance a real jobs program, this would not be a problem. Instead, the corporations and their politicians are pursuing the opposite course. They are using the bad economy to justify making the problem worse by cutting away at company obligations to their workers and their pensions.
The provision of the bill Obama signed into law on July 6th regarding pension funding demonstrates the bipartisan priorities geared towards benefiting corporations at the expense of workers. The public justification for this scheme is that the economy is bad and it wouldn't help workers if these companies went broke as a result of trying to cover the pension shortfalls.
This is a variation of the same line of argument used to justify all austerity measures. Playing on the assumption of common cause between the economic elite and workers, corporations plead poverty and sermonize on the need for "shared sacrifice." The truth, however, is that big business isn't broke. There is plenty of money to assure a comfortable retirement for all workers, not to mention universal health care, social security, and full employment. The problem isn't fiscal, it's political. The corporations do not want to pay their fair share, and they own the political system.
Solutions to the pension crisis will not be found within the Democratic or Republican Parties. It will take the force of an independent social movement to make the rich pay. Such a social movement could start with the demands of "Jobs - Not Cuts" "Tax the Rich." From this starting point, it could mature to take on other issues that unite workers such as a solution to the pension crisis.
What kind of solution could be proposed?
A demand that a mass movement can get behind. In order for this to happen the demand would have to solve the crisis, be easily understood to inspire, and make a clear demarcation between the interests of the 99% and 1%.
To do this a social movement around the pension crisis should call on the federal government to takeover pensions with a heavy tax on corporations that would ensure that they are fully funded and fine those who have willfully failed to properly pay into their pension funds. Then we could demand that Social Security be strengthened so that it could gradually replace the precarious pensions offered in both the public and private sectors.
But demands around pensions should be linked to the more immediately pressing demand for most workers, namely a massive jobs creation program. In this way working people will be united and in a position to mount a massive campaign.
Earlier this week, I covered the topic of why this new pension law is worrisome as it will only accelerate the inexorable trend toward pension poverty. Democrats and Republicans are united when it comes to bipartisan pandering toward their corporate masters. President Obama basically 'pulled a Mitt Romney' and not one major news channel reported on this bill.
But while I agree with Mark Vorpahl that pensions are under attack in America and elsewhere, I disagree with his solution which is basically to tax the rich to create jobs. There is no doubt in my mind that America's middle class has been decimated and that the real crisis is lack of good jobs, not debt, but taxing the rich to create jobs is not a long-term solution to this jobs crisis.
Look, serious economists have weighed in on the topic of tax fairness in the United States. I think it's fair to say that the uber rich (say, net wealth of $100 million and more) don't pay their fair share of taxes but this isn't the cause or solution to the jobs crisis. And unless you fix the jobs crisis, you will never repair the ongoing slaughter of public and private pensions.
Having said this, in order to address the pathetic state of state pension funds, America needs a wholesale pension reform which includes compromises at the state, federal and union level. Now more than ever, politicians need to sit down and bolster, not weaken, public pensions.
The first order of business is to radically change the governance underlying these public funds. They need to be supervised by an independent, qualified investment board and managed by well paid, competent money managers. In short, they need to be a lot more transparent and their managers and board must be held accountable for poor decisions leading to poor performance.
Cutting public pensions and shifting everyone to 'low-cost' defined-contribution plans isn't a solution to the pension crisis. It's actually stupid public policy because it will drastically raise social welfare costs, imposing a heavy tax bill on future generations.
But again, unless the jobs crisis in America, Europe and elsewhere is addressed in a meaningful way, all the discussion on fixing pensions is meaningless. Without good solid jobs, there will be no pensions to talk about, only the distant sound of tumbrils.
Let me end by stating that we're at an important inflection point in financial capitalism. My message to banksters, hedge fund/ private equity titans, and corporate cronies making obscene compensation, enjoy the moment because the good times are not here to last.
Importantly, if the power elite do not understand the Hegelian Dialect that is shaping perceptions out there, their fate is sealed.
On that somewhat Marxist note, will leave you with a couple of clips that highlight the crisis in America. CNN reported on how firelighters, police and other city workers have seen dramatic pay cuts in cash-strapped Scranton, Pennsylvania. Something is awfully wrong with a system that bails out banksters and corporate cronies while paying cops, firefighters and city workers minimum wage.
Singapore's GIC Raising Cash to Crisis Levels?
Simple Truth #6: Is Consolidation Feasible?
A Market-Friendly Debt Buyback?
The Biology of Boom and Bust?
Seven Truths About Public Employee Pensions?
Can Japan's GPIF Solve its Funding Problems?
Dangerous Dynamic Or Big Buying Opportunity?
When Pension Myths Confront Reality?
Coalition in Pension Fees Clampdown?
America's 401(k) Nightmare?
Will RICO Suits Break the Banking Mafia?
PSP Investments Gains 3% in Fiscal Year 2012
American Funds Can Learn From Canada?
Irresistible Pool of Money Running Dry?
CalPERS, CalSTRS Report Paltry Returns
KRS Responds on Currency Hedging Program
The Distant Sound of Tumbrils?
Private Equity Giants Adapting to New Normal?
Are Hedge Funds Burning Investors?
US Board Stokes Hot Pension Debate?
US Pension Law Causes New Worries?
A Hedge Fund's Lesson in Volatility?
Steve Keen's Private Debt Jubilee?
Hedge Funds Fail to Wow in First Half?
Will Companies Offload Pension Risk?
Will Pension Woes Unleash a Muni Debt Crisis?
AIMCo Returns 7.4% in Fiscal 2012
Who Was The Real Victor in Brussels?
The Rise and Fall of Hedge Fund Titans?


Tasks and Channels for lgd chalice 45% off sitewide + free return w/ $6 – How to Exchange Bitcoin in USA?
door and windows, trump coin price 591 million up 654% from NineMonths – 2006 of $4. Cryptocurrency: Bitcoin Exchange to Different Fiat Money Comparison so we recommend you register in advance.


In vertical applications, the calculation is as follows (where S is the minimum object sensitivity resolution of the light curtain): D pf 3. 4 x (S 7) Therefore, a light curtain with 14 mm resolution (finger detection) has a D pf of 23. 8 mm (about an inch).
The depth penetration factor compensates for varying object sensitivities of electrooptical presence sensing devices. Accurate calculation of the minimum safe mounting distance for many safeguarding devices can ensure the safety of personnel while conserving floor space and maximizing throughput.
Pilli2,I like tribute.If you upload it,I will watch it.But I'm sorry,I don't give my e-mail address.


We have made our new patient forms available to you as Adobe Acrobat files. For your convenience, we recommend printing and completing these forms at home.
Please remember to bring your completed forms with you for your first appointment. If you have any problem getting these files to print properly, please call our East Wenatchee dental office and we will gladly send or fax them to you.


The London Sale was 84 percent sold by lot and garnered a total of $6.1 million (GBP 3.7 million).
Christie's New York Jewels auction, which was held on June 11, 2009, garnered $11,367,875. The sale was 91 percent sold by lot and 86 percent sold by value. London: The top lot was a 44.14-carat circular-cut, fancy yellow, SI1 diamond set in an art deco mount, which fetched $865,324, or $19,600 per carat. A 10.09-carat, cushion-shaped, F, VS2 diamond sold to an Asian private for $414,064, and a 4.99-carat brilliant-cut, F,VS2 diamond sold to a member of the U.S. trade for $135,460.
New York: Christie's New York Jewels auction, which was held on June 11, 2009, garnered $11,367,875. The sale was 91 percent sold by lot and 86 percent sold by value. The top lot of the day, which sold to an anonymous bidder, was a 6.29-carat, pear-shaped, internally flawless, fancy intense blue diamond, which sold for $3,554,500, or $565,000 per carat — at the lower end of Christie's presale estimate of between $3.3 million and $5.5 million.


text:
Building a website for Tim Bessell and Bessell Surfboards has been one of our favorite projects thus far! We really enjoyed collaborating with Tim and creating a product that is both beautiful and effective. This means that we needed to optimize for terms that Tim has legacy around and build a site that was easy for viewers to find their way through. Keeping it simple while still giving his work the spotlight it deserves is exactly what we pride ourselves on. Check it out, It's RAD!
Blog / Content Creation
Tim Bessell is a legendary Surfboard Shaper out of La Jolla, California. As an artist and a businessman, he wanted a beautiful website that was still both simple and functional for E-commerce. Most know Tim Bessell as surfer that has been making custom surfboards for over 20 years, but it is his art that is gaining him recognition and allowing him to fuse both together on projects like the Bessell + Warhol Project where he has a whole line of custom surfboards with licenced art from the late great Andy Warhol.
Tim said this about the project and Bell Digital:
"As an artist and a shaper, it is important that my work was represented perfectly and I could not be happier with the work Bell Digital did for me and my business."
Visit Bessell Surf


A closer look at the overall Anti-Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals And Cosmetics business scenario presented through self-explanatory charts, tables, and graphics images add greater value to the study.
New York, NY -- (SBWIRE) -- 10/11/2018 -- The latest market research report on Anti-Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals And Cosmetics market, samples and measures quality data on the overall business environment for the forecast period 2018-2025.Comprehensive data on growing investment pockets evaluated in the report on Anti-Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals And Cosmetics market are powered and backed by human answers. Comprehensive coverage of aspects such as market potential, size, share, and growth aims at creating an equation for profitability- whether stakeholders, business owners, and field marketing executives need to understand their market foothold and dynamics identify the white spaces or increase their yield. The broad scope of information on the current and future trends enable product owners to plan their growth such as the geography they should pursue and technology required for their success.
For further granularity, the study digs deep into aspects such as market segmentation, key driving forces, opportunities and threats for the forecast period of 2018-2025. To help business strategist strengthens their strategic planning and executes a plan to maintain and gain a competitive edge the research weighs up on buyer preferences, gross margin, profit and sale across different regions. Strong focus on financial competency, strengths, and weaknesses of the companies and recent acquisition and merger speaks a lot about the future adjacencies around the core business due to the on-going development in the Anti-Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals And Cosmetics market.
-	What will be the growth rate and the market size of the Anti-Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals And Cosmetics industry for the forecast period 2018-2025?
-	What are the major driving forces expected to impact the development of the Anti-Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals And Cosmetics market across different regions?
-	Who are the prominent market players making a mark in the Anti-Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals And Cosmetics market with their winning strategies?
-	What are the future opportunities in the Anti-Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals And Cosmetics market?
The report is distributed over 15 Chapters to display the analysis of the global Anti-Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals And Cosmetics market.
Chapter 13, 14 and 15 describe the value chain by focusing on the sales channel and the distributors, traders, dealers of the Coated Papers. The concluding chapter also includes research findings and conclusion.