http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/apple-ebook-ruling-93974.html

The U.S. government's victory over Apple in the e-books antitrust case sends a message to the tech industry, legal observers say: Even popular innovators can't run roughshod over antitrust laws.

In a court in New York, Apple had argued unsuccessfully that it was the classic outsider trying to break into and enliven what it saw as a stagnant digital books market dominated by Amazon.com.

But on Wednesday, a federal judge in New York rejected that view and evoked an earlier era of robber barons and monopolies, ruling that Apple had orchestrated a "horizontal price-fixing conspiracy" with five major publishers that resulted in increased digital book prices for consumers.

The decision is "an important touchstone," said Phil Weiser, dean of the University of Colorado Law School and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's antitrust division. "At times, tech companies want to take the position that they are a fast-moving industry and antitrust law is not an effective means of oversight. There is no technology industry exception."
Apple immediately vowed to appeal the decision.

"Apple did not conspire to fix e-book pricing, and we will continue to fight against these false accusations," said an Apple spokesman. "When we introduced the iBookstore in 2010, we gave customers more choice, injecting much-needed innovation and competition into the market, breaking Amazon's monopolistic grip on the publishing industry."

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote, in siding with the DOJ, found the price fixing wouldn't have succeeded "without the active facilitation and encouragement of Apple." The judge will order a trial on damages in a parallel complaint brought by 33 state attorneys general.

"This result is a victory for millions of consumers who choose to read books electronically," Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer said in a statement. "Companies cannot ignore the antitrust laws when they believe it is in their economic self-interest to do so. This decision by the court is a critical step in undoing the harm caused by Apple's illegal actions."
Some argued that in the Apple case, the DOJ overstepped.

"Just because the government could secure the verdict it won doesn't mean they should have sought it," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in a statement. "This case cried out for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion at the Department of Justice; unfortunately, there was none to be found."

Related Articles:
http://discussions.nokia.com/t5/Connectivity/How-to-avoid-Facebook-scams-Hass-Associates-Online-Cyber-Review/td-p/1783086
http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/hass-associates-hong-kong-cyber-bugs

The House of Representatives go for the second round of Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act as it passed legislation on Thursday. The newly granted powers are intended to stop computer security threats against a company's rights and property. But the definitions are broad and vague. The terms allow purposes such as guarding against "improper" information modification and ensuring "timely" access to information, functions that are not necessarily tied to attacks. Once handed over, the government is able to use this information for investigating crimes that are unrelated to the underlying security threat and, more broadly, for "national security" purposes, which is a poorly defined term that includes "threats to the United States, its people, property, or interests" and "any other matter bearing on United States national or homeland security." The bill's vague definitions like "cybersecurity purpose" and "cybersecurity system" also raise the frightening possibility of a company using aggressive countermeasures. If a company wants to combat a threat, it is empowered to use "cybersecurity systems" to identify and obtain "cyber threat information." But the bill does not define exactly how far a company can go, leaving it open to the possibility of abuse. The bill drew support from House Democrats, passing on a bipartisan vote of 288-127, although the White House repeated its veto threat on Tuesday if further civil liberties protections are not added. Some lawmakers and privacy activists worry that the legislation would allow the government to monitor citizens' private information and companies to misuse it. U.S. authorities have recently elevated the exposure to Internet hacks and theft of digital data to the list of top threats to national security and the economy. Though thousands of companies have long been losing data to hackers in China and elsewhere, the number of parties publicly admitting such loss has been

http://hassassociates-online.com/articles/2013/04/23/house-passes-cybersecurity-bill-as-privacy-concerns-linger/ The House of Representatives go for the second round of Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act as it passed legislation on Thursday. The newly granted powers are intended to stop computer security threats against a company's rights and property. But the definitions are broad and vague. The terms allow purposes such as guarding against "improper" information modification and ensuring "timely" access to information, functions that are not necessarily tied to attacks. Once handed over, the government is able to use this information for investigating crimes that are unrelated to the underlying security threat and, more broadly, for "national security" purposes, which is a poorly defined term that includes "threats to the United States, its people, property, or interests" and "any other matter bearing on United States national or homeland security." The bill's vague definitions like "cybersecurity purpose" and "cybersecurity system" also raise the frightening possibility of a company using aggressive countermeasures. If a company wants to combat a threat, it is empowered to use "cybersecurity systems" to identify and obtain "cyber threat information." But the bill does not define exactly how far a company can go, leaving it open to the possibility of abuse. The bill drew support from House Democrats, passing on a bipartisan vote of 288-127, although the White House repeated its veto threat on Tuesday if further civil liberties protections are not added. Some lawmakers and privacy activists worry that the legislation would allow the government to monitor citizens' private information and companies to misuse it. U.S. authorities have recently elevated the exposure to Internet hacks and theft of digital data to the list of top threats to national security and the economy. Though thousands of companies have