TechLuver.com

San Francisco, Calif — Feb 03, `08 — Yahoo! would consider a business alliance with Google as one way to rebuff a $44.6 billion takeover proposal by Microsoft, Reuters reported citing a source familiar with Yahoo’s strategy said on Sunday.

The report further said, “a second source close to Yahoo said it had received a procession of preliminary contacts by media, technology, telephone and financial companies. But the source said they were unaware whether any alternative bid was in the offing.

Few natural bidders exist beside Google that could engage in a bidding war, and Google would be unlikely to win approval from antitrust regulators, some Wall Street analysts said on Friday.

Yahoo!’s efforts to find an alternative bidder could simply be a measure to pressure Microsoft to boost its bid, which valued Yahoo at $44.6 billion when first announced on Friday.” More at Reuters.

In response to Google’s foul cry over Microsoft’s Yahoo! bid, Microsoft has released a statement from Bard Smith, General Counsel:

REDMOND, Wash — Feb 03, `08 — The combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! will create a more competitive marketplace by establishing a compelling number two competitor for Internet search and online advertising. The alternative scenarios only lead to less competition on the Internet.

Today, Google is the dominant search engine and advertising company on the Web. Google has amassed about 75 percent of paid search revenues worldwide and its share continues to grow. According to published reports, Google currently has more than 65 percent search query share in the U.S. and more than 85 percent in Europe. Microsoft and Yahoo! on the other hand have roughly 30 percent combined in the U.S. and approximately 10 percent combined in Europe.

Microsoft is committed to openness, innovation, and the protection of privacy on the Internet. We believe that the combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! will advance these goals. More at Microsoft.

Feb 03, `08 — In a statement released today on Google’s press center, Mr. David Drummond, Google’s Senior Vice President, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer cries foul over Microsoft’s Yahoo! bid.

Mr. David Drummond in his rude and venomous language falsely accuses Microsoft of making ” hostile bid ”. He says, “So Microsoft’s hostile bid for Yahoo! raises troubling questions. This is about more than simply a financial transaction, one company taking over another.”

Now Mr. Drummond do you even know or have any remote idea how many take overs Google have made in last five years or so ??

He also says, “Users benefit from constant innovation. It’s what makes the Internet such an exciting place.”

Mr. Drummond do you actually mean supporting rampant piracy through YouTube, when you say “Users benefit from constant innovation” ??

Do you even have any remote idea of how many pirated videos of Movies, TV Shows, Dramas, Music Videos, etc are being hosted at any given moment ??

Mr. Drummond further goes on to say, “This hostile bid was announced on Friday so there is plenty of time for these questions to be thoroughly addressed.”

Mr. Drummond when even Yahoo! in its official response refers to Microsoft’s proposal as “an unsolicited proposal”, who are you in the world to refer that proposal as “hostile” ??

And Mr. Drummond when you say, “It’s about preserving the underlying principles of the Internet: openness and innovation”, do you actually mean that buying DoubleClick despite the immense privacy concerns from within the US and from Europe ??

If Google were to believe in its well publicized but never implemented ideology of ” Do NO Evil ” then Mr. Drummond why in the world Google needed to buy YouTube or DoubleClick? Google was already making tons of millions anyway… Google could have let YouTube / DoubleClick make money for themselves or let some one else buy ‘em (of course you would have stopped Microsoft from buying any of ‘em either, right?)

So Mr. Drummond before making entirely false claims using rude and venomous language, it would have been better if you have just took a little look at Google’s own past 10 years.

Or may be fear of loosing monopoly and loosing world dominance makes you speak highly rude & venomous language along with highly exaggerated claims and false acquisitions ??

Google’s statement on Microsoft’s bid for Yahoo!

At Last !!!  Finally StopBadware.org brought the Real Malware, RealPlayer from RealNetworks, to the light of the day.

StopBadware has brought just some of the bad practises out in the open, while you can find about it in much more details in reader comments I’ve found on highly recognized technology sites like CNET’s News.com, tehRegister.co.uk and PCWorld.com, posted by their tech savvy readers.

Just in case, if you are wondering who / what is this StopBadware.org ?
Stopbadware, an industry-academia group designed to raise public awareness about software that violates fair information and privacy practices, is a collaboration between Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society and Oxford University’s Oxford Internet Institute, with support from companies like Google, Lenovo, and Sun Microsystems.

Cambridge, MA — StopBadware.org, the consumer protection initiative developed to combat badware, on Jan 31, released an alert about RealNetworks Inc.’s RealPlayer software application.

The group found RealPlayer version 10.5 to be badware because of inadequate disclosure of advertising behavior and RealPlayer version 11 to be badware because it bundles an additional application without disclosure.

RealPlayer 11 is the current version of the application, offered on Real (dot) com as an internet video and multimedia player. RealPlayer 10.5 is an older version which is still widely distributed through such sites as BBC Radio and through the Firefox web browser’s “missing plug-in” capability.

The report highlights two areas of concern:
• The Software does not fully, accurately, clearly, and conspicuously disclose the principal and significant features and functionality of the application prior to installation - The advertising software bundled with RealPlayer is misleadingly called a ‘message center’, and is described incompletely and inconspicuously in the EULA as software designed to provide useful software updates. When RealPlayer 10.5 is installed, the advertising features of this ‘message center’ are enabled by default for users who choose not to register their personal information with RealNetworks after the software is installed.
• Software installs deceptively - RealPlayer 11 does not disclose that it installs Rhapsody Player Engine, and does not remove this software when RealPlayer is uninstalled. Users are not informed by the installer or uninstaller of the connection between RealNetworks and Rhapsody Player Engine.

“Software producers have a responsibility to inform users, clearly and unambiguously, about what software will be installed on their computers and what it will do,” said Maxim Weinstein, manager of StopBadware.org at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School. “RealNetworks does not allow users to make an informed choice about how their computers will be used. We hope to see a new version of RealPlayer soon that addresses these
concerns.” More at StopBadware.org (in pdf).

According to StopBadware.org’s definition of badware it is “malicious software that tracks your moves online and feeds that information back to shady marketing groups so that they can ambush you with targeted ads.”

Here are some of the reader comments I’ve found on PC world in response to their article on the issue:
User “Yert” writes at January 31, 2008 8:59 PM PT
“About freaking time. Real Player is the worst media software ever. And its competitors have DRM systems in place!

Seriously though, I don’t use Real Player, and uninstall it whenever I am authorized. It is not safe, not sane, and bloated, even compared to iTunes. Real Player should have lost the EU judgement on the fact that their product sucks!”

User “OnlineSolutions” writes at February 03, 2008  6:55 AM PT
“I installed RealPlayer’s suite once as an experiment and signed up to Rhapsody for their 30 day trial. I immediately changed my mind, but was unable to cancel using their website. They required a phone call to cancel, but the 800 number they gave didn’t work. After repeated emails and phone call attempts, I had to change my credit card number to stop the $19 / month in charges that had continued for 6 months. These people are either incompetent or crooks.”

Reader comments on CNET’s News.com:
Reader “GermanVermin” writes:
“realplayer sucks: Yeah. I have always hated realplayer. its chock full of advertisements, a pain to install, and runs background and startup services that slow down your computer. For an official client of a common propreitary video codec, RealPlayer should be more professional.

Use RealAlternative instead, it allows you to play realplayer videos inside of windows media player.”

Reader “MadLyb” writes:
“What a surprise: I stopped using RealPlayer years ago because of their intrusive software and policies. I’m surpised it took this long for someone to ding them.”

Reader “Electric.81″ writes:
“Real Player: Real Player is a piece of ‘crapolla’ and always has been since day one….now they’ve been caught with thier hand in the ‘cookie jar’ ;>) ”

Reader comments I’ve found on theRegister.co.uk:
Reader “Kev K” writes:
“Real Player & Quicktime both suck : QT lite and Real Alternative from free-codecs.com do the job very nicely for me without the bloat or constant nagging.”

Reader “Anonymous” writes:
“It’s been 3 years: since I stopped using this shyteware, just because of this annoying ODRealSched process of theirs that was getting reactivated once in a while despite I deleted it and removed any link to it.

How come you can trust such a company. Good thing they are named and shamed. At last !!!! ”

Reader “Robert Moore” writes:
“Die RealPlayer die!!! : I have come to accept that most media players (In windows) are resource hogs these days, but Real takes it to a whole new level.

I used to work for a retailer, in their service center, and I would regularly get in computers that the complaint was “Choppy DVD playback” or words to that effect. In most cases a quick uninstall of RealPlayer would fix it right up. Only PH would be foolish enought to install RealPlayer.”

Excerpts from the reader janimal’s comment:
“Real Malware: Have you ever read the Real license?? I’m pretty sure satan was involved because, it goes way beyond the usual accepted rights buggery and weasleness of the standard software license.

Happily if you want to view RM files these days (thanks for the access BBC bastards . I complain to them regularly about Real software) you can use Real Alternative avalable here..

http://codecguide.com/about_real.htm

I choose thumbs up because that’s what Real like to put up people’s bottoms.”

Finally, I never get that, when there are choices of free Windows Media Player 11 and Open Sourced VLC Media Player, why in the world any one need to use RealPlayer? Ok how to play the contents that are available only in Real Media ? I just never play those files

Feb 03, `08 — Nicki Dugan on Yahoo’s Corporate Blog ( Yodel Anecdotal ) said that, “process like this is fluid and can take quite a bit of time” to weigh its strategic options, including keeping the company independent, following Microsoft’s $44.6 billion offer to buy the company.

Here is the complete posting:

Our response to Microsoft’s proposal

Posted February 1st, 2008 at 1:11 pm by Nicki Dugan, Blog Editor

Number of Comments 17 Comments / Filed in: Trends & News

As I’m sure you’ve heard by now, Microsoft made an unsolicited proposal to acquire Yahoo! yesterday evening. Since then, we’ve gotten quite a number of questions about what this means for Yahoo!. Right now our board of directors is evaluating the proposal and looking at all of our strategic alternatives, including maintaining Yahoo! as an independent company.

A review process like this is fluid and can take quite a bit of time, so while there’s not much we can say right now, we did want to refer you to this brief FAQ for more information.

Nicki Dugan
Blog Editor

Tagged: microsoft, news

In a media response to a frequently asked question about whether Yahoo would seek proposals from other companies, Yahoo! press room said it was going to evaluate all options.

Yahoo!’s Media Response:

FAQ: Unsolicited Proposal From Microsoft

Q1. How is Yahoo! responding to Microsoft’s proposal?
The Yahoo! Board is undertaking a deliberate review process. They’re going to take time to thoroughly evaluate the proposal in the context of Yahoo!’s strategic plans. This will include evaluating all of the Company’s strategic alternatives – including maintaining Yahoo! as an independent company. That process will take some time, but the Board will ultimately pursue the option that it believes can best maximize value for our shareholders.

Q2. How long will the Board’s review process take?
A review process like this is fluid, and it can take quite a bit of time.

Q3. Will the Board seek proposals from any other companies?
The Board is going to evaluate all of Yahoo!’s strategic alternatives and pursue the option that it believes can best maximize value for our shareholders.

Q4. What would a deal like this mean for Yahoo!’s users, advertisers, publishers, partners and people?
Yahoo!’s Board is going to evaluate all aspects of this proposal carefully and promptly in the context of the company’s strategic plans and alternatives. So it wouldn’t be appropriate to speculate about the potential benefits or challenges of a deal. But the review process that’s underway won’t have any impact on our efforts to deliver value to all of our users, advertisers, publishers and partners – as well as new and exciting opportunities to our employees.

Citing analysts, Reuters reported that, “Comcast Corp, Viacom Inc and General Electric Co among possible bidders, although they also said few companies had the balance sheet to compete with Microsoft or were as natural a fit for Yahoo.”

More at Yahoo! here and here.

Below is the text of the letter that Microsoft sent to Yahoo!’s Board of Directors:

January 31, 2008

Board of Directors
Yahoo! Inc.
701 First Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Attention: Roy Bostock, Chairman
Attention: Jerry Yang, Chief Executive Officer

Dear Members of the Board:

I am writing on behalf of the Board of Directors of Microsoft to make a proposal for a business combination of Microsoft and Yahoo!. Under our proposal, Microsoft would acquire all of the outstanding shares of Yahoo! common stock for per share consideration of $31 based on Microsoft’s closing share price on January 31, 2008, payable in the form of $31 in cash or 0.9509 of a share of Microsoft common stock. Microsoft would provide each Yahoo! shareholder with the ability to choose whether to receive the consideration in cash or Microsoft common stock, subject to pro-ration so that in the aggregate one-half of the Yahoo! common shares will be exchanged for shares of Microsoft common stock and one-half of the Yahoo! common shares will be converted into the right to receive cash. Our proposal is not subject to any financing condition.

Our proposal represents a 62% premium above the closing price of Yahoo! common stock of $19.18 on January 31, 2008. The implied premium for the operating assets of the company clearly is considerably greater when adjusted for the minority, non-controlled assets and cash. By whatever financial measure you use - EBITDA, free cash flow, operating cash flow, net income, or analyst target prices - this proposal represents a compelling value realization event for your shareholders.

We believe that Microsoft common stock represents a very attractive investment opportunity for Yahoo!’s shareholders. Microsoft has generated revenue growth of 15%, earnings growth of 26%, and a return on equity of 35% on average for the last three years. Microsoft’s share price has generated shareholder returns of 8% during the last one year period and 28% during the last three year period, significantly outperforming the S&P 500. It is our view that Microsoft has significant potential upside given the continued solid growth in our core businesses, the recent launch of Windows Vista, and other strategic initiatives.

Microsoft’s consistent belief has been that the combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! clearly represents the best way to deliver maximum value to our respective shareholders, as well as create a more efficient and competitive company that would provide greater value and service to our customers. In late 2006 and early 2007, we jointly explored a broad range of ways in which our two companies might work together. These discussions were based on a vision that the online businesses of Microsoft and Yahoo! should be aligned in some way to create a more effective competitor in the online marketplace. We discussed a number of alternatives ranging from commercial partnerships to a merger proposal, which you rejected. While a commercial partnership may have made sense at one time, Microsoft believes that the only alternative now is the combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! that we are proposing.

In February 2007, I received a letter from your Chairman indicating the view of the Yahoo! Board that “now is not the right time from the perspective of our shareholders to enter into discussions regarding an acquisition transaction.” According to that letter, the principal reason for this view was the Yahoo! Board’s confidence in the “potential upside” if management successfully executed on a reformulated strategy based on certain operational initiatives, such as Project Panama, and a significant organizational realignment. A year has gone by, and the competitive situation has not improved.

While online advertising growth continues, there are significant benefits of scale in advertising platform economics, in capital costs for search index build-out, and in research and development, making this a time of industry consolidation and convergence. Today, the market is increasingly dominated by one player who is consolidating its dominance through acquisition. Together, Microsoft and Yahoo! can offer a credible alternative for consumers, advertisers, and publishers. Synergies of this combination fall into four areas:

Scale economics: This combination enables synergies related to scale economics of the advertising platform where today there is only one competitor at scale. This includes synergies across both search and non-search related advertising that will strengthen the value proposition to both advertisers and publishers. Additionally, the combination allows us to consolidate capital spending.

Expanded R&D capacity: The combined talent of our engineering resources can be focused on R&D priorities such as a single search index and single advertising platform. Together we can unleash new levels of innovation, delivering enhanced user experiences, breakthroughs in search, and new advertising platform capabilities. Many of these breakthroughs are a function of an engineering scale that today neither of our companies has on its own.

Operational efficiencies: Eliminating redundant infrastructure and duplicative operating costs will improve the financial performance of the combined entity.

Emerging user experiences: Our combined ability to focus engineering resources that drive innovation in emerging scenarios such as video, mobile services, online commerce, social media, and social platforms is greatly enhanced.

We would value the opportunity to further discuss with you how to optimize the integration of our respective businesses to create a leading global technology company with exceptional display and search advertising capabilities. You should also be aware that we intend to offer significant retention packages to your engineers, key leaders and employees across all disciplines.

We have dedicated considerable time and resources to an analysis of a potential transaction and are confident that the combination will receive all necessary regulatory approvals. We look forward to discussing this with you, and both our internal legal team and outside counsel are available to meet with your counsel at their earliest convenience.

Our proposal is subject to the negotiation of a definitive merger agreement and our having the opportunity to conduct certain limited and confirmatory due diligence. In addition, because a portion of the aggregate merger consideration would consist of Microsoft common stock, we would provide Yahoo! the opportunity to conduct appropriate limited due diligence with respect to Microsoft. We are prepared to deliver a draft merger agreement to you and begin discussions immediately.

In light of the significance of this proposal to your shareholders and ours, as well as the potential for selective disclosures, our intention is to publicly release the text of this letter tomorrow morning.

Due to the importance of these discussions and the value represented by our proposal, we expect the Yahoo! Board to engage in a full review of our proposal. My leadership team and I would be happy to make ourselves available to meet with you and your Board at your earliest convenience. Depending on the nature of your response, Microsoft reserves the right to pursue all necessary steps to ensure that Yahoo!’s shareholders are provided with the opportunity to realize the value inherent in our proposal.

We believe this proposal represents a unique opportunity to create significant value for Yahoo!’s shareholders and employees, and the combined company will be better positioned to provide an enhanced value proposition to users and advertisers. We hope that you and your Board share our enthusiasm, and we look forward to a prompt and favorable reply.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Steven A. Ballmer

Steven A. Ballmer

Chief Executive Officer

Microsoft Corporation

More at Microsoft.

WASHINGTON — Feb 01, `08 — US and European antitrust regulators aren’t likely to prevent Microsoft from buying Yahoo, analysts said Friday, though scrutiny of the deal could drag on for months, the AP reported.

A major factor weighing in Microsoft’s favor, analysts said, is Google’s dominance in the online search and advertising businesses — the two areas regulators are likely to focus on when weighing market power issues raised by the nearly $45 billion unsolicited bid.

The Justice Department said it is “interested” in reviewing competition issues raised by Microsoft’s surprise offer. The Federal Trade Commission and European Union officials declined to comment. If the deal goes through, analysts expect Congress and European regulators to review the combined company’s increased competitive edge.

“I don’t see this just sailing through, regulators will look at it,” Ted Henneberry of the London law firm Heller Ehrman said. But even after a review that could take up to six months, he said a Microsoft-Yahoo combination isn’t likely to be stopped because the new entity’s share of the online ad space would still be dwarfed by Google, which already controls nearly 60 percent of the U.S. search market.

“The fact that Google dominates this business will be a big factor in (Microsoft’s) favor in trying to get this approved by the regulators,” said Keith Hylton, a professor of antitrust law at Boston University. More at AP.

San Francisco, CA — Feb 01, `08 — Microsoft made an unsolicited $44.6 billion cash and stock bid for Yahoo late Thursday, a deal that could shake up the competitive and lucrative market for online advertising.

The surprise offer of $31 per share, which represents a 62% premium from where Yahoo stock closed on Thursday, made late Thursday and announced Friday, seizes on Yahoo’s weakness while Microsoft tries to muscle up in a high-stakes battle with Google likely to define the technology landscape for years to come. Shares of Yahoo shot up 50% at the start of trading Friday, while shares of Dow component Microsoft tumbled about 5%.

In a statement Friday, Yahoo said it will “carefully and promptly” study Microsoft’s bid.

With its profits steadily sliding, Yahoo’s stock slipped to a four-year low earlier this week and a new management team has been trying to steer a turnaround but sees more turbulence through 2008.

In conference call Friday morning, Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer indicated he won’t take no for an answer after Yahoo rebuffed takeover overtures a year ago.

“This is a decision we have — and I have — thought long and hard about,” Ballmer said. “We are confident it’s the right path for Microsoft and Yahoo.”

Besides the question of Yahoo’s acceptance, Microsoft’s bid also faces regulatory scrutiny in Washington and Europe. On Friday, the Justice Department said it is “interested” in reviewing antitrust issues. European Union officials declined to comment.

If the deal is consummated, it would be by far the largest acquisition in Microsoft’s history, eclipsing last year’s $6 billion purchase of online ad service aQuantive.

Microsoft publicly disclosed its cash-and-stock offer in hopes of rallying support from Yahoo’s shareholders, making it more difficult for Yahoo’s board to turn down the bid.

Microsoft’s previous offer was rebuffed by Terry Semel, who stepped aside last year as chief executive under shareholder pressure.

Microsoft sent its latest takeover offer to Yahoo late Thursday, shortly after Semel resigned as the company’s chairman. The letter is addressed to Semel’s successors, new Chairman Roy Bostock and the current CEO, co-founder Jerry Yang, who is one of Yahoo’s largest shareholders.

In a prepared statement, Yahoo said its board “will evaluate this proposal carefully and promptly in the context of Yahoo’s strategic plans and pursue the best course of action to maximize long-term value for shareholders.”

“We are very, very confident this is the right path for Microsoft and for Yahoo,” he said.

Microsoft hopes to close the deal by the end of the year. Ballmer said that Microsoft has been in “off and on” talks with Yahoo for 18 months and said he called Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang Thursday night to tell him the bid was coming.

A Microsoft-Yahoo combination would create a powerful number two player in the online search business, which Google commands. The leading search engine reigns over 58.4% of the U.S. search market, while Yahoo has 22.9% and Microsoft’s share is just 9.8%, according to comScore, a research firm that tracks Internet traffic.

A Google spokesman, Matt Furman, declined to comment on Microsoft’s move on Yahoo. “It would be premature to comment at this point,” he said.

Dec 25, `07 — BBC News is reporting on British Airways being accused of colluding in setting prices of fuel surcharges and other levies in the provision of air freight services.

“BA confirmed it received a letter of complaint from European Union regulators, alleging that it was part of a suspected air freight cartel. The complaints were also sent to Germany’s Lufthansa, Air France-KLM and Scandinavia’s SAS. The airlines have the right to respond, but if found guilty, they face fines.

The European Commission that it had sent official letters, known as statements of objection, to a number of air freight firms, concerning “violation of EU rules on restrictive business practices”.

Officials did not name the specific airlines involved, but BA, Air France-KLM and SAS confirmed they had each received the European Commission letter.” More at BBCNews.

Brussels — On Thursday, Dec 20, the Protocol Freedom Information Foundation (PFIF), a non-profit organization created by the Software Freedom Law Center, signed an agreement with Microsoft to receive the protocol documentation needed to fully interoperate with the Microsoft Windows workgroup server products and to make them available to Free Software projects such as Samba.

Microsoft was required to make this information available to competitors as part of the European Commission March 24th 2004 Decision in the antitrust lawsuit, after losing their appeal against that decision on September 17th 2007.

After paying Microsoft a one-time sum of 10,000 Euros, the PFIF will make available to the Samba Team under non-disclosure terms the documentation needed for implementation of all of the workgroup server protocols covered by the EU decision.

Although the documentation itself will be held in confidence by the PFIF and Samba Team engineers, the agreement allows the publication of the source code of the implementation of these protocols without any further restrictions. This is fully compatible with versions two and three of the GNU General Public License (GPL). Samba is published under the GNU GPL which is the most widely used of all Free Software licenses. In addition it allows discussion of the protocol information amongst implementers which will aid technical cooperation between engineers.

Under the agreement, Microsoft is required to make available and keep current a list of patent numbers it believes are related to the Microsoft implementation of the workgroup server protocols, without granting an implicit patent license to any Free Software implementation.

No per-copy royalties are required from the PFIF, Samba developers, third party vendors or users and no acknowledgement of any patent infringement by Free Software implementations is expressed or implied in the agreement. More at Samba.

Brussels — Dec 21, `07 — The European Commission said on Friday it has contacted a number of companies regarding their alleged participation in an air freight cartel.

The European Commission can confirm that a Statement of Objections has been sent to a number of companies, concerning their alleged participation in a cartel in the provision of airfreight services, in violation of EU rules on restrictive business practices (Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area).

Procedural background

A Statement of Objections is a formal step in Commission antitrust investigations in which the Commission informs the parties concerned in writing of the objections raised against them. The addressee of a Statement of Objections can reply in writing to the Statement of Objections, setting out all facts known to it which are relevant to its defense against the objections raised by the Commission. The party may also request an oral hearing to present its comments on the case.

The Commission may then take a decision on whether conduct addressed in the Statement of Objections is compatible or not with the EC Treaty’s antitrust rules. Sending a Statement of Objections does not prejudge the final outcome of the procedure. More at European Commission.

It named no companies in the statement but Scandinavian airline SAS said earlier on Friday it had received a statement of objections accusing the airline’s cargo unit of breaking competition rules.

“SAS Group confirms that it has received a Statement of Objections from the European Commission within the framework of an industry-wide investigation of the air cargo sector, involving a large number of cargo companies and air carriers, including SAS Cargo.

In the Statement of Objections the EU Commission alleges that certain investigated practices in the air cargo sector constitute infringements of EC competition rules. SAS Group intends to review the Statement of Objections immediately and will also have to review the underlying documentation as soon as it has received access to the Commission’s comprehensive investigation file. Therefore SAS cannot comment on the alleged irregularities until this review has been completed.” More at SAS.

WASHINGTON — Dec 20, `07 — The Federal Trade Commission on Thursday approved Google’s $3.1 billion purchase of advertising rival DoubleClick, saying the deal would not substantially lessen competition.

The deal, which combines Google’s dominance in pay-per-click Internet advertising with DoubleClick’s market-leading position in flashier display ads, is also being scrutinized by European antitrust officials.

In a 4-1 vote, the FTC decided to end its eight-month investigation of the transaction.

Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour dissented and issued a separate statement expressing reservations, arguing that the deal “may substantially lessen competition.”

She said the takeover “will affect the evolution of the entire online advertising market” as this evolves and have wide-ranging implications for consumers. “The transaction will combine not only the two firms’ products and services, but also their vast troves of data about consumer behavior on the Internet,” she said.

European antitrust authorities are expected to rule on the deal sometime next year. The European Commission last month launched a probe and said the merger “would raise competition concerns.” The European Commission declined to comment on the FTC’s decision, spokesman Jonathan Todd said.

Microsoft and other critics argue the deal would enable Google to dominate two aspects of the Internet advertising market — ad sales and ad-serving tools.

The FTC said in a report on its investigation that both the online ad sales and ad-serving markets have numerous competitors, several of which have been bolstered by recent acquisitions.

Those include Microsoft’s $6 billion purchase of DoubleClick rival aQuantive, the acquisition of online advertising provider Tacoda by Time Warner’s AOL, and Yahoo’s purchase of Internet advertising exchange Right Media for $680 million.

Other competitors include ValueClick and 24/7 Real Media, which was purchased by London-based advertising giant WPP Group PLC for $649 million in May, the FTC said.

Privacy advocates say the combined company will have access to a huge amount of data on individual Web-surfing habits. The FTC said it lacked the legal authority to block the deal on any grounds except on antitrust matters.

However, in an apparent nod to these concerns, the FTC on Thursday proposed a set of privacy guidelines for the online advertising industry, describing them as something that “clearly transcend” the Google-DoubleClick deal. It remains to be seen how such guidelines would be enforced.

Google has a dominant position in pay-per-click ads, which are based on a computer user’s searches. Its ads are usually in the form of text and are shown on the right-hand side of the screen.

DoubleClick is a market leader in the display ads preferred by many corporate advertisers. More at FTC.

Waterloo, Belgium and Purchase, NY — Dec 19, `07 — MasterCard Europe said that it will appeal to the European Court of First Instance today’s decision by the European Commission regarding MasterCard Europe’s default cross-border interchange fees.

The Commission’s Order requires the company, among other things, to “repeal [its] Intra-EEA fallback interchange fees, as well as [its] SEPA/Intra-Eurozone interchange fees” within six months. The Order applies only to “interchange fees for MasterCard branded consumer credit and charge cards and for MasterCard or Maestro branded debit cards”.

MasterCard Europe believes that it has strong grounds for its appeal. While it will comply with the Commission’s Order, the company said that it is prepared to take action so that its payment products remain competitive and continue to benefit the millions of European cardholders who use and merchants that accept MasterCard and Maestro cards.

MasterCard Europe said its decision to appeal is based on its firm conviction that market forces, not regulation, should drive key decisions such as the setting of interchange fees and retailers’ choices over which forms of payment to accept. More at MasterCard.

Commission proposal to limit the CO2 emissions from cars to help fight climate change, reduce fuel costs and increase European competitiveness.

Brussels — Dec 19, `07 — The European Commission today proposed legislation to reduce the average CO2 emissions of new passenger cars to 120 grams per kilometre by 2012.

The proposed legislation is the cornerstone of the EU’s strategy to improve the fuel economy of cars, which account for about 12% of the European Union’s carbon emissions. The proposal further underlines the EU’s leadership and determination to deliver on its greenhouse gas commitments under the Kyoto Protocol and beyond.

President of the Commission José Manuel Barroso stated: “This proposal demonstrates that the European Union is committed to being a world leader in cutting CO2 emissions and the development of a low carbon economy. At the same time, we are committed to promote the competitiveness of our industry and its global technological leadership.”

Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: “The aim of the legislation is to reduce CO2 emissions from cars in order to help fight climate change. The legislation will also ensure important fuel savings which will translate into considerable benefits for consumers. Moreover, it will encourage the car industry to invest in new technologies and actively promote eco-innovation, which is a driver for more and high-quality jobs.”

Emissions reductions
The proposal will be a major step in lowering CO2 emissions in the EU. It will reduce the average emissions of CO2 from new passenger cars in the EU from around 160 grams per kilometre to 130 grams per kilometre in 2012 as part of the EU’s integrated approach to achieve overall 120 grams per kilometre. That will translate into a 19% reduction of CO2 emissions and will place the EU among the world leaders of fuel efficient cars.

How the legislation will work
The draft legislation defines a limit value curve of CO2 emissions allowed for new vehicles according to the mass of the vehicle. The curve is set in such a way that a fleet average of 130 grams of CO2 per kilometre is achieved. A manufacturer must ensure that by 2012 measured fleet average emissions are below the limit value curve, when all vehicles manufactured and registered in a given year by the manufacturer in question are taken into account.

This means that the level of emissions by heavier cars will have to be improved proportionately more than lighter cars compared to today. Manufacturers will still be able to make cars with emissions above the limit value curve provided these are balanced by cars which are below the curve as long as the fleet average remains at 130 grams.

The proposal will now be communicated to the Council and to the European Parliament as part of the co-decision legislative procedure. More at European Commission here and here.

Brussels — Dec 19, `07 –The European Commission has decided that MasterCard’s Multilateral Interchange Fees (MIF) for cross-border payment card transactions with MasterCard and Maestro branded debit and consumer credit cards in the European Economic Area (EEA) violate EC Treaty rules on restrictive business practices (Article 81).

The Commission concluded that MasterCard’s MIF, a charge levied on each payment at a retail outlet when the payment is processed, inflated the cost of card acceptance by retailers without leading to proven efficiencies.

MasterCard has six months to comply with the Commission’s order to withdraw the fees. If MasterCard fails to comply, the Commission may impose daily penalty payments of 3.5% of its daily global turnover in the preceding business year.

MIF are not illegal as such. However, a MIF in an open payment card scheme such as MasterCard’s is only compatible with EU competition rules if it contributes to technical and economic progress and benefits consumers. In the EU, over 23 billion payments, exceeding a value of €1350 billion, are made every year with payment cards.

Why does MasterCard’s MIF restrict competition under EC Treaty rules on restrictive business practices (Article 81 (1))?
MasterCard’s MIF is a mechanism that restricts price competition between acquiring banks by artificially inflating the basis on which these banks set their charges to merchants. A MIF effectively determines a floor under the merchant service charge and merchants are unable to negotiate a price below it. This can considerably inflate the costs of payment card usage at merchant outlets to the detriment of merchants and their customers. For instance, the Commission estimates that MasterCard’s MIF accounted for more than 70% of the merchant service charges for credit cards in Belgium (2002) and for approximately 60% of these charges in Italy (2003).

If MasterCard operated without a MIF, merchants would pay lower prices for accepting cards and, as a consequence, their customers should also incur lower costs for shopping at a merchant’s.

Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said: “Multilateral interchange fee agreements such as MasterCard’s inflate the cost of card acceptance by retailers. Consumers foot the bill, as they risk paying twice for payment cards: once through annual fees to their bank and a second time through inflated retail prices paid not only by card users but also by customers paying cash. The Commission will accept these fees only where they are clearly fostering innovation to the benefit of all users.”

More at the European Commission here and here.

BRUSSELS, Belgium — Dec 18, `07 — Software maker Platform Solutions has filed a complaint with the European Commission alleging that IBM abused its market dominance by refusing to share information related to its high- performance mainframe computers.

The complaint, filed on Oct 19, according to a European Commission spokesman Jonathan Todd, is the latest in an ongoing intellectual property dispute between privately held Platform Solutions and IBM Corp.

Platform Solutions alleges that IBM abused EU antitrust rules “by refusing to supply interface information relating to mainframe computers and refusing to license third parties,” Todd said.

IBM and Platform Solutions have sued each other in the US over related intellectual-property and antitrust issues. The EU filing follows a European court ruling in September upholding a decision against Microsoft that it abused its dominant position by failing to help competitors connect to the Windows operating system.

In December 2006, IBM sued Platform Solutions charging that the company, which manufactures software that can run on IBM’s high-end systems, violated patents IBM holds on some of its operating systems.

In January Platform Solutions filed its own US suit accusing IBM of refusing to supply its operating systems to customers who buy Platform Solutions’s IBM- compatible mainframe computer. Platform Solutions also accused IBM of “unreasonably discontinuing” its licensing of intellectual-property rights.

Geneva — Dec 17, `07 — The European Commission, in a blow to European online gaming companies, on Monday struck a deal for compensation from the United States over a US decision to close its gambling markets to foreign operators.

The EU and US agreed on a compensation package to be offered by the US in response to its withdrawal in WTO of GATS commitments on gambling and betting services, including on-line gambling. A bilateral agreement was signed in Geneva, which provides EU service suppliers with new trade opportunities in the US postal and courier, research and development, storage and warehouse sectors. The US also made concessions in the testing and analysis services sector.

The bilateral agreement follows negotiations initiated by the US on 8 May 2007, when the US announced its intention to withdraw its WTO commitments on gambling and betting services under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The GATS allows members to modify or withdraw commitments, provided that they negotiate offsetting compensation so that the overall level of its market access remains the same. The EU sought compensation to make up for the loss of trading opportunities in the US gambling sector, including the US internet gambling market.

Upon certification of the agreement by the WTO gambling services will no longer be covered by the US’ WTO commitments. The European Commission however will seek a non-discriminatory policy towards internet gambling in the US.

“While the US is free to decide how to best respond to legitimate public policy concerns relating to internet gambling, discrimination against EU or other foreign companies should be avoided” said Peter Power, EU Spokesman for Trade.

The postal and courier concessions will affect how Germany’s DHL, the express and logistics division of Deutsche Post World Net AG, competes with US-based companies FedEx and UPS, EU officials said. More at European Commission.

BALI, Indonesia — Dec 16, `07 — A UN Climate Change Conference adopted a plan to negotiate a new global warming pact on Saturday, Dec 15, after the United States suddenly reversed its opposition to a call by developing nations for technological help to battle rising temperatures.

The adoption came after marathon negotiations overnight, which first settled a battle between Europe and the U.S. over whether the document should mention specific goals for rich countries’ obligations to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The agreement launches a two-year negotiating process - the “Bali roadmap” - aiming to secure a binding deal at the 2009 UN summit in Denmark.

European and U.S. envoys dueled into the final hours of the two-week meeting over the EU’s proposal that the Bali mandate suggest an ambitious goal for cutting the emissions of industrial nations_ by 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

EU Welcomes Agreement

European Commission President José Manuel Barroso: “There is only one planet. Together, developed and developing countries can reach success.”

The European Union welcomes the agreement reached at the UN climate change conference in Bali to start formal negotiations on a climate regime for the post-2012 period and on a ‘Bali Roadmap’ that sets out an agenda for these negotiations.

The conference set an end-2009 deadline for completing the negotiations to allow time for governments to ratify and implement the future climate agreement by the end of 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period ends.

The decision explicitly acknowledges the findings of the recent scientific assessment by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and recognises that deep cuts in global emissions of greenhouse gases will be required to prevent global warming from reaching dangerous levels.

The conference also took important decisions on several other issues, including launching demonstration projects to reduce deforestation, finalising arrangements for a fund to help developing countries adapt to the impacts of climate change, and scaling up financing for transfer of technology to developing countries.

The Bali Roadmap

The conference agreed to launch formal negotiations among the 192 parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on action up to and beyond 2012. These formal negotiations replace a process of informal dialogue that has taken place over the past two years. They will involve the United States, which is a Party to the UNFCCC but not the Kyoto Protocol.

The decision to launch negotiations sets out a ‘roadmap’ to guide them which includes the key building blocks of a future agreement. These are: enhanced mitigation of climate change by limiting or reducing emissions; adaptation to climate change; action on technology development and transfer; and scaling up of finance and investment to support mitigation and adaptation. Four negotiating sessions are scheduled in 2008, starting in March or April.

The decision explicitly acknowledges the findings of the IPCC’s recent Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), emphasises the urgency of addressing climate change expressed in the report and recognises that deep cuts in global emissions will be required to reach the Convention’s objective of preventing dangerous levels of climate change.

In parallel with the negotiations under the climate change Convention, the 176 parties to the Kyoto Protocol will continue negotiations already under way on new post-2012 emissions targets for developed countries that are in the Protocol. For this negotiating ‘track’ the Bali conference agreed on an intensive work schedule for 2008 to accelerate progress.

A review of the Protocol at the next UN climate conference, in December 2008, will help to inform these negotiations on future commitments by developed countries.

The negotiations under both ‘tracks’ – Convention and Protocol - will be completed at the UN climate change conference to be held at the end of 2009 in Copenhagen. The EU and many other Parties insisted on this simultaneous deadline to ensure a coherent result.

More at UN Bali Reports,  EU.

WASHINGTON — Dec 14, ‘07 — The head of the Federal Trade Commission said Friday she won’t remove herself from an antitrust review of Google’s purchase of online advertising company DoubleClick, rebuffing requests from privacy groups opposed to the transaction.

Deborah Platt Majoras, chairwoman of the FTC, said she has reviewed a petition from the groups with the agency’s ethics official and other staff, and determined that “the relevant laws and rules…neither require nor support recusal.”

The Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Center for Digital Democracy said in a petition Wednesday that Majoras’ husband, John M. Majoras, is a partner at the Jones Day law firm. The groups alleged that DoubleClick hired Jones Day to represent the company before the FTC on its acquisition by Google, the leading Internet search company.

The Majoras’ relationship “calls into question the ability of the commission to render decisions that are fair and just,” the groups said.

Deborah Majoras said Friday that Jones Day hasn’t appeared before the FTC on the transaction, and is only representing DoubleClick before the European Commission, which is also scrutinizing the deal. John Majoras said Wednesday that he has not been involved in any aspect of the transaction.

In a statement, Deborah Majoras said that her husband was no longer an equity partner in the firm.

“Any decisions that I may make in any case in which Jones Day represent a party cannot be said to directly and predictably affect my husband’s interest in Jones Day. Hence, I do not have a financial conflict in this matter,” Majoras said in a statement.

Marc Rotenberg, of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and Jeff Chester, of the Center for Digital Democracy, said in a statement that “we do not believe that the chairman has made a persuasive case against recusal.” The two groups requested the recusal on Wednesday.

They argued that, contrary to what Majoras said, Jones Day had advertised on its Web site that it represented DoubleClick at the FTC. But, they said, that information was pulled off the site after their recusal request.

Statement of Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras

More at FTC.

Related:

Senators Urge FTC to Review Google-DoubleClick Deal Closely

EU Opens In-Depth Investigation of Google’s DoubleClick Purchase

Chicago, IL – NAVTEQ on Wednesday, Dec 12, announced that its stockholders have approved the previously announced merger agreement entered into with Nokia at the special meeting of stockholders held earlier today.

Over 75% of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock eligible to vote, representing over 99% of the total votes cast at the special meeting, were voted in favor of the adoption of the merger agreement.

Adoption of the merger agreement by NAVTEQ stockholders satisfies one of the conditions to completion of the merger between NAVTEQ and Nokia. Completion of the merger is also subject to receipt of regulatory approvals and the satisfaction of the other closing conditions set forth in the merger agreement. More at Navteq.

Oslo, Norway and Brussels, Belgium — Dec 13, ‘07 — Opera Software ASA filed a complaint with the European Commission yesterday against Microsoft.

The complaint alleges how Microsoft is abusing its dominant position by tying its browser, Internet Explorer, to the Windows operating system and by hindering interoperability by not following accepted Web standards.

Opera has requested the Commission to take the necessary actions to compel Microsoft to give consumers a real choice and to support open Web standards in Internet Explorer.

Opera requests the Commission to implement two remedies to Microsoft’s abusive actions. First, it requests the Commission to obligate Microsoft to unbundle Internet Explorer from Windows and/or carry alternative browsers pre-installed on the desktop.

Se