online prescription solutions
online discount medstore
pills online
buy lorazepam without prescription
xanax for sale
buy xanax without prescription
buy ambien without prescription
ambien for sale
buy modafinil without prescription
buy phentermine without prescription
modafinil for sale
phentermine for sale
lorazepam for sale
buy lexotan without prescription
bromazepam for sale
xenical for sale
buy stilnox without prescription
valium for sale
buy prosom without prescription
buy mefenorex without prescription
buy sildenafil citrate without prescription
buy adipex-p without prescription
librium for sale
buy restoril without prescription
buy halazepam without prescription
cephalexin for sale
buy zoloft without prescription
buy renova without prescription
renova for sale
terbinafine for sale
dalmane for sale
buy lormetazepam without prescription
nobrium for sale
buy klonopin without prescription
priligy dapoxetine for sale
buy prednisone without prescription
buy aleram without prescription
buy flomax without prescription
imovane for sale
adipex-p for sale
buy niravam without prescription
seroquel for sale
carisoprodol for sale
buy deltasone without prescription
buy diazepam without prescription
zopiclone for sale
buy imitrex without prescription
testosterone anadoil for sale
buy provigil without prescription
sonata for sale
nimetazepam for sale
buy temazepam without prescription
buy xenical without prescription
buy famvir without prescription
buy seroquel without prescription
rivotril for sale
acyclovir for sale
loprazolam for sale
buy nimetazepam without prescription
buy prozac without prescription
mogadon for sale
viagra for sale
buy valium without prescription
lamisil for sale
camazepam for sale
zithromax for sale
buy clobazam without prescription
buy diflucan without prescription
modalert for sale
diflucan for sale
buy alertec without prescription
buy zyban without prescription
buy serax without prescription
buy medazepam without prescription
buy imovane without prescription
mefenorex for sale
lormetazepam for sale
prednisone for sale
ativan for sale
buy alprazolam without prescription
buy camazepam without prescription
buy nobrium without prescription
mazindol for sale
buy mazindol without prescription
buy mogadon without prescription
buy terbinafine without prescription
diazepam for sale
buy topamax without prescription
cialis for sale
buy tafil-xanor without prescription
buy librium without prescription
buy zithromax without prescription
retin-a for sale
buy lunesta without prescription
serax for sale
restoril for sale
stilnox for sale
lamotrigine for sale

STLR Link Roundup – February 25, 2014

Comcast is causing a stir

On February 13, 2014, Comcast announced that it would acquire Time Warner Cable, making the largest broadband cable provider even bigger. Despite growing concerns that the F.C.C. will pursue an antitrust claim against the proposed merger due to the creation of a monopsomy market, Comcast is acting like a market leader. Yesterday, February 24, 2014, Netflix agreed to pay Comcast for smoother streaming of its online video. (See a recent STLR blog post about the developments.) Netflix joins Google and Facebook, as both companies already pay Comcast for content-delivery network access. This agreement has created uproar over potential cost increases to customers, despite Comcast’s adamant claim that this merger will benefit the consumer.

On the same day, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by the Tennis Channel from the D.C. Circuit, which unanimously ruled that Comcast did not have to include the Tennis Channel in its basic cable lineup. The Tennis Channel had argued that Comcast unfairly discriminated against it, favoring its own channels, like the Golf Channel. The dominance of Comcast will now come before the F.C.C. as it considers whether this merger passes muster. The Netflix agreement and the Tennis Channel refusal could be indicators of the power Comcast now yields, and potentially could yield as its market share grows.

Apple and Samsung fail to reach an agreement in mediation… again.

On February 24, 2014, Apple and Samsung announced that they failed to reach a settlement in their latest U.S. patent infringement lawsuit. This failed mediation leaves them headed to trial in the Northern District of California. The companies previously were forced to hold a court-imposed mediation session in May 2012 before the companies went to trial over other patents. In November 2013, a jury awarded Apple $290 million, bringing the total damages in the previous suit to $888 million, down from the initial $1.05 billion awarded by the first jury, holding that Samsung infringed its patents. The lawsuit is part of a historically expansive patent dispute, which is being fought in over 10 countries. Apple alleges that Samsung’s Galaxy products infringe its patents, while Samsung alleges that Apple’s iPod and iPhone infringe its patents.

Facebook acquired WhatsApp for $19 billion

Last week, Facebook Inc., advised by Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, acquired WhatsApp, Inc., advised by Fenwick & West LLP, for $19 billion ($12 billion in stock, $4 billion in cash and $3 billion in restricted shares). The deal marks the largest Internet acquisition in more than a decade. WhatsApp is a cross-platform messaging application that enables a user to message another user without having to pay for SMS, by allowing users to communicate using the same internet data plan for email and web browsing, which means users can even communicate internationally without having to pay exorbitant fees when traveling.

Less than a week later, WhatsApp co-founder and chief executive officer announced that the mobile messaging service will begin to offer voice calling as early as April, bringing free phone calls to users who already enjoy free text messaging on the application. This recent acquisitions shows how much money phone carriers are losing out to WhatsApp and its competitors, and has many searching for the next WhatsApp, one week after the company’s acquisition was splattered across the news.  Was it worth $19 billion?

Athletes’ copyright and antitrust case against the NCAA headed to trial

On February 21, 2014, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that a case in which former football and basketball players filed a claim against the NCAA seeking a share of $800 million a year in licensing fees for televised games must go to trial in June. The NCAA does not pay its athletes. Many current and former athletes are seeking to secure compensation and control over their image and likeness. Currently, the NCAA and its member institutions make enormous profits from college athletics and control the copyright over the players’ likeness.  The case originated when former UCLA college basketball player Ed O’Bannon filed a claim against Electronic Arts and the Collegiate Licensing Company along with the NCAA for selling his and other players’ likeness in video games. In November, the plaintiffs settled the claims with EA and CLC for $40 million.

 

About the Author

Scott Hvidt

Scott Hvidt is a Staffer for the Columbia Science and Technology Law Review. He is a 2L at Columbia Law School.
blog comments powered by Disqus