ftc
Latest
FTC sues Intel for alleged monopoly abuse
Here we go, folks. FTC is suing Intel for what it sees to be "anticompetitive tactics." The FTC has been circling this debate since last year, but now it has followed in the steps of the EU, and the New York attorney general (but no longer a cash-flush AMD) in prosecuting the chip giant. The FTC claims, among other things, that Intel has abused its monopoly position to "[wage] a systematic campaign to shut out rivals' competing microchips by cutting off their access to the marketplace." Tough words. The FTC says that Intel messed with a compiler to cheat competitors out of performance gains, has "stifled innovation" and "harmed consumers." The damages the FTC is after are a bit less clear: mainly it wants to stop Intel from keeping out competition or building or modifying its own products to impair the performance of other products. We'll be diving into the implications of this as we find out more, but it looks like Christmas came early for NVIDIA. [Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
Study finds explicit material for minors in virtual worlds
Along with violence and game addiction, inappropriate content is one of the bugbears that video games in general and MMOs in specific can't get away from. A recent FTC study took a look at the general safety available in twenty-seven different virtual worlds, including Second Life and Runescape, and their findings were... well, if you're at all familiar with Second Life, you can kind of guess at the results. Nineteen of the worlds surveyed featured some sort of inappropriate content. The worlds targeted explicitly at minors didn't fare a great deal better, with a full half of the fourteen kid-oriented worlds having some explicit content. The report goes on to suggest certain approaches to better handle gating content for younger children, including further prevention of children from fraudulently registering in worlds that are supposed to be exclusive to adults. However, some elements of the study's methodology are a bit questionable, especially as their list of explicit material included words common to anyone with a history of playing video games. (Or cable television.) The full report is worth looking at if you're a parent or if you're interested in the findings, and we'd be remiss not to mention our own ongoing series about playing MMOs in a family setting.
Poll: How do you feel about Comcast buying NBC?
Comcast has agreed to take a controlling interest of NBC from GE and whether the company has a can of Raid waiting for Hulu or not, there's a lot of potential reactions to this new deal. Some have the opinion that another team to take on the Disney-ABC-ESPN combination could help keep prices down for everyone, while others can't see how the government should allow so many media and communication outlets to be controlled by one company. So let's have it, what were you thinking when you heard about the buyout? %Poll-37978%
FTC commends ESRB and gaming industry for self-regulation practices
The Federal Trade Commission recently published a report which should simultaneously flatter the video game industry and stymie adversaries of the medium's terribly corruptive properties. In the report, the FTC says the gaming industry "outpaces" all other channels of entertainment in regards to its self-regulatory policies on marketing and advertising products which feature mature content. The report praises the ESRB's ratings system, stating that 80 percent of M-rated games sales to minors are prevented by retailers. In addition, the report found that no ads for mature games were being run before 10 p.m., adding that the Commission found little evidence of M-rated game advertisements being targeted towards minors. The only exception? That episode of Hannah Montana where Hannah traveled back in time to 15th century Italy to become a professional assassin. Admittedly, that was kind of ethically dubious.
FTC moseys into Intel / NVIDIA dispute
The dispute between Intel and NVIDIA has already reached legendary proportions, and it looks like now even the FTC is getting involved as a result of its longstanding investigation into Intel regarding another matter. While Intel just settled the antitrust fight with AMD that originally kick-started the investigation last month, the FTC is now reportedly talking to NVIDIA to see if its numerous complaints against the chipmaker actually hold water. While complete details are expectedly light and none of the parties involved are saying much on the record, some "people familiar with the matter" say that the FTC is trying to determine if a lawsuit filed by Intel earlier this year is nothing more than an effort to disrupt NVIDIA's business. Of course, things could well expand from there, considering what the FTC has waded into.
New York attorney general files antitrust lawsuit against Intel
No matter how it tries, Intel just can't shake those pesky antitrust monkeys off its back: the attorney general of New York today filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against the chipmaker, saying it unfairly prevented AMD from competing under state and federal law. That's pretty much what the EU just fined Intel $1.45b for in May and exactly what AMD itself is suing Intel for in Delaware, so we're guessing things are a little busy for Chipzilla's lawyers right now -- and it's just going to get worse, as the smart money says this is all just a precursor to the Federal Trade Commission dropping the hammer sometime soon. Hey, maybe this would be a good time to for Intel to distract everyone with some USB 3.0 chipsets?
Arthur Levinson departs Google board amid FTC probe
We kind of doubt the departure of Genentech's former chief executive from Google's board of directors will close all of this out in the FTC's eyes, but if you were curious about the impact of said probe, here's your answer. Just two months after Google's Eric Schmidt peaced out from Apple's board due to a "conflict of interest," Arthur Levinson has left Google's board for presumably the same reason. Schmidt is still obviously fond of Sir Levinson, noting that he has "has been a key part of Google's success these past five years," and while he's exiting the board, he'll "always have a special place at Google." So, now that all of this is cleared up, can we finally move on without worrying that the aforementioned search giant will buy up the world's remaining inventory of dark fiber, fuse into Apple and create a telepathic iPod that would rule the world until the dawn of the Robot Apocalypse?[Via New York Times]
ECA creates Gamers for Digital Rights movement
When it comes to dealing with the politics of software piracy, most lobbying groups side with the creators of the content that's being buccaneered. While groups like the Entertainment Software Association are serving a just and noble cause, the Entertainment Consumers Association is worried that this one-sided representation could end up with non-pirates getting the royal shaft. To better voice our plight to agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission, the ECA recently formed an initiative called "Gamers for Digital Rights." The GDR's mission is to "get the information out to consumers on the ins and outs of content protection," instructing its members on their rights in relation to restrictive DRM and unfair EULAs. Those interested in joining the group can sign up on the ECA's Facebook page. If you're hoping to get into the action right this second, ECA president Hal Halpin has penned a petition you can sign and send to the FTC, who's currently holding town hall meetings to discuss the future of DRM. Or you can, you know, do none of that stuff. Just don't let us hear you complaining when the next Sporegate debacle starts up. [Via Shacknews]
Apple and Google made informal deal to not pilfer each other's employees?
While not official, sources close to the matter have told TechCrunch that Google and Apple had an informal agreement not to poach each other's employees. Apparently, Google's recruitment division knew and adhered to not actively seeking Apple employees to hire them away, and vice-versa with Apple's recruiters. That's not to say someone who voluntarily submitted a resume would be turned away, but as one published email notes, cold calls were against policy. An agreement to not poach each other's workers, even if not codified, is part of the reason the government has launched antitrust investigations, as it can be considered an obstruction to healthy market competition. It's believed this deal came about as a byproduct of Google CEO Eric Schmidt also being an Apple board member at the time. Of course, with Schmidt finally excusing himself from all portions of Apple's board meetings, there's a chance that hiring agreement walked away with him, and really, we wouldn't be surprised if the federal inquiry also decided to leave the dinner table at this point.
FTC investigating explicit content in virtual worlds
Online gaming news site Virtual Worlds recently had the opportunity to sit down with a couple of FTC attorneys who are currently investigating adult content in virtual worlds. The FTC is apparently working on a report for Congress (which is due in December), spawned by an inflammatory report on Second Life's "rape rooms" from Illinois' Rep. Mark Kirk. Thankfully, according to Virtual Worlds, the FTC is "on a fact-finding mission, not a witch hunt."Coincidentally, this news comes on the heels of an announcement from Second Life's creators, Linden Lab. The virtual world will soon see a massive redistricting in order to separate the game's adult content from its all-ages content. To put it simply, Linden Lab will soon be creating an "adult content continent" that minors won't be able to access. May we suggest the name "Creepyvania" for this brave new landmass?[Via GamePolitics]
Is Congress the smoking gun behind Second Life's turnaround on adult content?
So, ever wonder what's really motivating Linden Lab's recent push to implement an Adult content rating and firm up age-verification for Second Life? How about HR110-920 FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2009? This is an appropriations bill that covers a lot of ground, covering appropriations for a whole lot of things. Introduced on 10 December 2008, the bill specifically includes an appropriation for an investigation and report to Congress on explicit content in virtual environments and on the access to those environments by minors.
Apple / Google relationship being investigated for antitrust violations
The relationship between Apple and Google has always been pretty cozy -- Mac OS X and the iPhone tie into a variety of Google services, Google's developed rule-breaking iPhone apps, we've heard endless whispers of Apple meddling in the development of the G1, and on and on. In fact, the relationship between the two companies is so tight they actually share board members: Google CEO Eric Schmidt and former Genentech CEO Arthur Levinson take meetings in both Cupertino and Mountain View. That's apparently raised some hackles at the Federal Trade Commission, which has reportedly informed both companies they're being investigated for violating a rarely-enforced section of the Clayton Antitrust Act prohibiting "interlocking directorates" when it reduces competition. That sounds like someone at the FTC just noticed that Apple makes the iPhone and Google's responsible for Android, but nothing's set in stone yet -- and we've got a feeling Android's open-source codebase could throw a monkey wrench into an already-complex legal analysis. We'll obviously be tracking this one closely, keep an eye out.
GameStop's employee checkout policy may be illegal [update]
[Update: We've received notes from a few GameStop employees telling us that their stores only allow the checking-out of used products. The company policy as reproduced in the Kotaku article does not specify that only used games can be checked out, so this seems to be a store-by-store decision.]GameStop's practice of gutting new games and placing empty cases on the shelf has two side effects beyond prevention of theft: first, that a lot of customers are outraged when they receive an open box, and second, it allows employees to try out games without having to open a new copy expressly for that purpose, a practice that the company has allowed since before the store was called GameStop. We can personally attest to the policy being in place at Software Etc. stores in late 1998.Kotaku contacted the Federal Trade Commission to determine if the policy of selling things as new that, in the strictest sense, were used, was unlawfully deceptive marketing. The FTC declined to comment about the practice or even if it is conducting an investigation.
LGJ: FTC could target EULAs
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: A few weeks back, I mentioned that the FTC was looking into regulating DRM. Well, in part on some discussions at the Game::Business::Law Conference, I have a sneaking suspicion that the FTC likely won't stop with DRM. In fact, I would be willing to guess that within the next few years, the often maligned End User License Agreement ("EULA") may fall into the realm of being regulated as further "consumer protection." Is it necessary? Well, that's a matter of opinion, really. The only certainty is that it will be able to bring in additional revenue for the government, which is certainly short on cash these days.If the FTC opts to regulate EULAs, I see three probable scenarios to accomplish its goal. Before I get ahead of myself, I should describe what the theoretical goal of consumer protection is: to prevent companies from taking advantage of consumers. Generally, though, it isn't necessarily the average consumer who's seeing the greatest benefit from the regulations. Often it's the most uneducated consumer, which usually means the regulations tone things down to a level of near absurdity.
LGJ: Here comes the FTC
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: GamePolitics is reporting that the Federal Trade Commission is ready to look into "consumer protection" related to digital rights management tools. To many people, this may seem like a great idea. In general, it's not. It would be nice to give consumers some protection from some of the most draconian or horribly flawed DRM systems that have been put into use. On the other hand, those of us who have been around the "government regulation" block know that these protections rarely solve the problem they set out to resolve, and in turn, generally put more hurdles in the way of those who want to get a product into the marketplace, which raises the cost of production and usually the consumer price, too. Consumer protection regulations do just what they sound like: they protect consumers. There are hundreds of these regulations at both the state and federal level in the U.S., and most are targeted at an industry level. There are consumer protections related to everything from debt collecting to auto repair to purchasing a franchised business. Many of these laws were enacted in response to a perceived or actual abuse by producers toward consumers. So, the government set out to level the playing field and to give consumers a way to deal with their grievances. All in all, the intent was good.
FTC clears Verizon acquisition of Alltel, last hurdle crossed
It's already made it past the Department of Justice and the FCC after making a few concessions, and Verizon has now cleared the last major hurdle blocking its acquisition of Alltel, with the Federal Trade Commission today giving the deal its all-important stamp of approval. Unlike the other regulatory agencies, the FTC apparently didn't require that Verizon make any further concessions, and instead simply approved an early termination of their antitrust review and indicated that they had "no objections." For those keeping track, the deal easily pushes Verizon past AT&T to become the largest wireless carrier in the United States and, as we have heard, it'll also likely have the side effect of some job cuts from the Alltel benches.[Via RCR Wireless]
FTC gives green-light for EA's Take-Two buyout
The Federal Trade Commission has stated that it will not oppose EA's pursuit of Take-Two Interactive. Following an investigation, the government agency concluded that no antitrust issue will occur, but left the door open to "take further action as the public interest may require."This means all systems are go for EA and Take-Two to come to some sort of amicable agreement over how to bring the companies together. If that doesn't work, EA will probably just go back to throwing money on the table until Take-Two is ready admit she can't deny the sugar.Source - Closing Letter to one EA attorneySource - Closing Letter to one Take-Two attorney[Via GamePolitics]
Take-Two makes good with FTC
Take-Two will cooperate with the FTC's probing of the company in regards to Electronic Arts' persistent courtship, according to the publisher's most recent SEC filing (via GameDaily). Last week a U.S. Court set a hearing for June 24 to determine whether or not they company was in compliance with the FTC. According to the latest filing, Take-Two's agreement alleviates the need for a court appearance.While stating it intends to cooperate fully, Take-Two noted that it would "appropriately limit the scope of its production of information and witnesses ... [We are] pleased that a resolution has been reached that should substantially reduce the economic burden on the Company and focus the inquiry in a way that should minimize the distraction to the Company's employees."
Intel antitrust investigation officially launched by FTC
Intel is no stranger to antitrust problems, the company just got nailed with a $25 million fine in Korea, Europe's been breathing down its neck for years, and AMD has been trying to drum up antitrust accusations against Intel since time immemorial, but the FTC just embarked upon what could be Intel's biggest headache yet. The Federal Trade Commission has opened up a formal antitrust investigation of Intel, and has subpoenaed Intel, AMD and other smaller competitors for dirt on the company. Intel is being accused of using pricing policies designed to maintain a near-monopoly on the market, and while the company has been protected from a formal FTC inquiry by former head Deborah Majoras, the new chairman William Kovacic seems to see things a bit differently. A less formal review of the company has been ongoing since 2006.
EA extends Take-Two purchase offer deadline a third time
Super mega-huge publisher EA has announced a third extension of its tender offer for all outstanding shares of common Take-Two stock, pushing the previous deadline, which quietly passed by last Friday without so much as a hello, to 11:59PM EST on June 16, 2008. EA notes that as of 5:00PM EST on May 16, 2008, "approximately 6,210,261 shares of Take-Two had been tendered in and not withdrawn from the tender offer." In Take-Two's response, the publisher noted that said shares amount to 8% of the total.The reason given for the latest extension seems to have less to do with virtuous patience and more to do with those pesky US Federal Trade Commission guys snooping around. "Extending our offer will allow the FTC review process to continue," said Owen Mahoney, Senior Vice President of EA Corporate Development, who added that the $25.74-per-share offer remained unchanged. The FTC sent EA a second request for information regarding the proposed takeover back in April.Take-Two's Chairman of the Board, Strauss Zelnick, reiterated that the offer was inadequate and continued to advise stockholders to hold on while buyout discussions with "interested parties" continue.Read -- EA announcementRead -- Take-Two's response
