Referencing the current results (subject to change) of the attempt to impose a PayPal only payment process on eBay Australia which eBay has been told by the Australian government it could not implement and the latest $63 Million fine by a French court for not properly policing the eBay site for counterfeits Dee reminded us;

eBay: In France – “today’s ruling is about an attempt by LVMH to protect uncompetitive commercial practices at the expense of consumer choice and the livelihood of law-abiding sellers that eBay empowers everyday.”

The ACCC in Australia to eBay: ‘‘consumers are in the best position to determine which service offers the best features… consumers are in the best position to decide which payment method is most suitable for them.”

eBay in France: “We believe that the overreach manifests itself through an attempt to impose, in France, a business model that restricts consumer choice through an anti-competitive business practice.”

Dee says: “Replace ‘in France’ with ‘in Australia’ and you’ve discovered eBay hypocrisy at its ugliest.”

Sorry folks, you still can’t have your cake and eat it too…

Post from: EveryJoe

Australian Cake Eaten In France – eBay Wants It Both Ways

If you want to learn how to be an Internet Marketer;

Allen Says, the owner of the Warrior forum, has made a new forum available where you can find real value in each and every thread posted.

It’s called [drum roll... :)] – The Warrior Private Membership Forum

That link won’t get you in – you’ll need to pay a one off fee that started at $20 and will be going higher. This is without a doubt the best $20 I have ever spent online and I only joined last night. Of course, I’ve been a Warrior forum member for a bit of time…

Whether you’re a current Warrior forum member or not, you can use this link to join.

Why would this be so valuable I would endorse it without Allen Says knowing I am? Every Internet marketer who has a recognizable “name” will be adding an invaluable thread chock full of tips and wisdom to this forum. You can’t help but learn something worth far more than the initial membership fee, without any doubt whatsoever!

The free ebooks that Allen offers are worth more than the membership by themselves alone!!!

Post from: EveryJoe

Every Thread Has Incredible Value!

Blogger arrests hit record high

“More bloggers than ever face arrest for exposing human rights abuses or criticising governments, says a report.

Since 2003, 64 people have been arrested for publishing their views on a blog, says the University of Washington annual report.”

Those of us who currently have the freedom to write ought to remain grateful even in the face of the destruction of privacy laws, net neutrality, freedom of speech, etc. Try this on…

“More than half of all the arrests since 2003 have been made in China, Egypt and Iran, said the report.”

Arrested for blogging to expose “corruption in government, abuse of human rights or suppression of protests. They criticised public policies and took political figures to task.” Imagine? So that a select “few” can live a lifestyle of waste and opulence, without regard to humanity.

Crooks and Liars and HuffPo might want to pay attention to this;

“arrests tended to increase during times of “political uncertainty”, such as around general elections or during large scale protests.”

There’s a lawless administration somewhere that can’t be trusted… especially with the truth!

Post from: EveryJoe

Remaining Consistent – The Truth Hurts

From The Electronic Frontier Foundation;

Report: Deal to Stop Courts From Ruling on Illegal Warrantless Wiretaps Imminent

“Today The Hill and Congressional Quarterly are reporting that a deal has been reached on legislation to amend FISA, which will include retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. Under the guise of a compromise, the legislation is designed to ensure that the only issue the courts will review is whether or not the President told the telecoms that their conduct was legal, but not whether the conduct actually was legal.”

There are many misguided souls in favor of this. That is truly sad.

“Over forty years ago, President Jack Kennedy said “In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger.” We are such a generation, facing down an executive branch that has seized incredible power to violate the laws set forth by Congress under a dubious interpretation of the Constitution.”

Today we stand ready to allow this administration to demean and belittle the memory of a wonderful President while it foists its lawless will on us.

“To maintain our core values and the separation of powers that is integral to our Constitutional system of government, we must allow the Courts to review and rule upon the legality of the President’s warrantless surveillance program. Such a ruling effects not only the power of the president to order unlawful surveillance, but will speak to any instance in which the executive branch seeks to unilaterally override the will of the people’s house.”

So many of us have been blinded by someone who spreads fear like dictators of old. Thankfully, not all of us have been conned but our Congressmen/women have been. Why do we allow this? Why won’t you do something about this?

“One person familiar with the talks said if there are no major objections, the deal could be announced next week.”

It is every American’s duty to work against this deal. Spread the word on your Blog or web site! Engage your friends. Get snarky about it. Your rights depend on this not coming to fruition.

The Hill article quotes “Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, [who] said the deal appears unconstitutional.

“Whatever silk purse Hoyer tries to make of Bond’s sow’s ear and no matter how they try to sell it, the end result of all this negotiating will be exactly what the administration has wanted from the beginning – FISA rewritten to delete court oversight of surveillance and immunity for its pals at the telephone companies,” Fredrickson said.

Think about it – deleting court oversight! Immunity for those who care not what they extract from your wallets and lives, just like oil companies.

There’s only a week or so – fight back now!

Post from: EveryJoe

A Lawless Administration Wins – American Rights Doomed

We’ll take a look at the third court determined legal standard, the Truncated Rule of Reason. There really isn’t much there yet its importance is just as great;

“The truncated rule of reason test is used in cases where the per se test is not applicable but where nonetheless “no elaborate industry analysis is required to demonstrate the anticompetitive character” of the restraint (NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma).”

I don’t want to neglect additional considerations or anti-competitive trade practices violators might engage in.

“There are two general categories of restraint of trade practices: vertical restraints and horizontal restraints. Vertical restraints occur when a company purchases or otherwise acquires control over another company that is either its supplier or customer. The controlling company is then in a position to impose various anticompetitive restraints on its former supplier or customer. Horizontal restraints deal with price-fixing agreements and are highly illegal. Similar to price-fixing agreements and likewise illegal are other practices such as “bid rigging,” boycotts, territorial impositions, and imposed minimum fee schedules.”

PayPal? Just a thought since IANAA…

Post from: EveryJoe

Restraint of Trade – The Truncated Rule of Reason and More

I found this article at the Electronic Frontier Foundation: “Spying Telecoms Receive Billions in Government Contracts” and I believe this information ought to be passed along to as many folks as possible. Much thanks to the author, Kurt Opsahl.

“The telecoms who are being sued for their cooperation in the government’s illegal warrantless surveillance program have received billions in government contracts. According to Washington Technology magazine, Verizon received $1.3 billion, Sprint $839 million and AT&T $505 million in federal prime contract revenue for fiscal 2007, for a total of $2.6 billion. While the companies have been government contractors for a long time, it still represents a significant increase in revenue.

Telecom apologists like to suggest that the communications companies’ motivation was not financial. As Judge Walker noted when examining EFF’s allegations of dragnet surveillance: “AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal.” Yet, the prospect of $2.6 billion per year can go a long way to explaining why an industry might cooperate with a program far outside the limitations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), despite the difficulty of believing it was legal.”

Isn’t it amazing what the almighty dollar will wreak on humanity? Thank God for Judges with some sense!

“Note that the numbers represent publicly available information for prime contracting only and do not include subcontracting revenue. Any monies paid for the secret NSA surveillance program would be in addition to the public contracting numbers.”

This means they’ve been given more money that we can’t find…

“According to former Qwest chief executive Joseph Nacchio “the government withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars after Qwest refused to participate in an unidentified National Security Agency program that the company thought might be illegal.” In light of these allegations and the vast sums awarded to the participating telecoms, before Congress votes on the pending FISA legislation or considers any form of immunity for the telecoms, it should hold thorough hearings, and find out if there was any quid pro quo.”

Do you have enough faith that Congress will do that?

Post from: EveryJoe

Spying Telecoms Receive Billions in Government Contracts [What Did You Pay For Gas Today?]

****************************************

Through the years you and I had developed a business relationship. You provided a web site that allowed me to post my books for sale for a fee to be paid to you. Understandable. You offered me reasonable incentives to use your web site services and I agreed because it kept the relationship working responsibly. I was able to choose who I used to print my books and everything moved along merrily for both of us. I made money, you made money. A wonderful business deal. A freedom gained for both of us by others who had the insight and fortitude to stand up for the rights of human beings.

You made enough money that you thought it was a good idea to invest in a printer. I’m sure you did your due diligence prior to making this purchase but unfortunately you must have missed something because you purchased the very same printer who cost me money and reputation years ago by their screw ups. Oh well, it’s your money, shouldn’t affect me one way or another…

All is well for a time, nothing really changes (at least publicly or visually). I make money, you make money. We’re still both happy. But;

Behind the scenes, out of the range of my inquisitive mind and eyes, you begin planning something that will affect me! Only now you do it with a monopolistic, corporate mindset. Surely you don’t give me a hint that my livelihood is about to change – for the worse if I dislike your proposal. You sit at board meetings and discuss this plan among yourselves deciding that this is a way for the company to make more money and you leave me out of it.

The printer you bought out, the printer who has a bad reputation for quality control and damaging my works along with the works of others, is in a position where you see an opportunity. Well heck, this is America right? Capitalism at its finest eh? You have a right to make more money! Absolutely!

Yet, as in so many millions of relationships that end poorly, you neglect the respect and consideration I’ve earned to have you at least communicate your plans with me. You move ahead with only your best interests at heart and decide that I can be replaced or that I’ll cave in to your demands. Because I’ll have no choice…

Sorry, I do have a choice! Still. It may be fading in the shadow of a lawless administration or it might just be flourishing on the wings of the Internet for now, but I have it! I can tell folks across the globe of your pitiful and greedy actions or non-actions. I can bring suit against you in what is still a semblance of what our forefathers created despite all the external and internal efforts to bring it down. I believe I’m right and you’re wrong. I believe you’ve violated the rights our sons and grandsons and great grandsons fought and died for. And I’m not letting go!

Post from: EveryJoe

I Don’t Want To Use Your Da** Printer!!!

We’ll take a look at the second court determined legal standard, the Per Se Test.

In Northern Pacific Railroad Co. v. United States (1958), the U.S. Supreme Court found that illegal restraints can sometimes fall outside a rule of reason analysis. In such cases carefully defined categories of restraint are illegal per se because “their pernicious effect on competition and lack of any redeeming virtue are conclusively presumed to be unreasonable and therefore illegal without elaborate inquiry as to the precise harm they have caused.” Related is the Socony Vacuum Oil Company case (1940) in which the Court found that even though there were previous specific exceptions, tampering with price structure is nonetheless illegal, and stated “raising, depressing, fixing, pegging, or stabilizing the price of a commodity in interstate and foreign commerce is illegal per se.”

Pernicious: Causing much harm in a subtle way.

Speaking of subtle harm, this announcement regarding eBay from AuctionBytes certainly might be of interest;

eBay Australia Files Response to PayPal-Only Policy Complaints

“eBay Australia has filed its response to submissions to the Australia Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) regarding its PayPal-only policy slated to go into effect next month. The company rejected claims from sellers, banks, competitors and other organizations that the policy would lessen competition in the online payments market and that the public benefits were illusory.

eBay Australia said in its filing, “No party has adequately demonstrated that the benefits submitted by eBay as resulting from the Project will not outweigh any likely detrimental effect on competition.”

Post from: EveryJoe

Restraint of Trade – The Per Se Test

Restraint of Trade

The people who wrote the Sherman Anti-Trust Act were purposefully vague because they apparently wanted to leave many decisions about this up to the courts and it worked. Since 1890, “the courts have come up with three different legal standards to be used in determining restraint of trade.” This is one;

Rule of reason

“‘Rule of reason’ is the traditional test and the one most often applied in antitrust cases. It emanates from a number of cases including: Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States (1911), American Tobacco Company v. United States (1911), and Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. United States (1918). In the first two cases, the U.S. Supreme Court found that not all but only unreasonable restraints of trade were illegal. In reaching a decision in the 1918 case the Court stated: “Every agreement concerning trade, every regulation of trade, restrains. To bind, to restrain, is of their very essence. The true test of legality is whether the restraint imposed is such as merely regulates and perhaps thereby promotes competition or whether it is such as may suppress or even destroy competition.” The Court went on to say that the condition of the particular business, both before and after the imposition of restraints, must be examined and a determination of the actual and probable effect of the restraint realized. Inherent in rule of reason cases is the ability of the violator to manipulate output or prices beyond the threshold that would be imposed naturally by the marketplace.”

Having read this my question becomes: If eBay were to attempt to restrict its U.S. sellers to only be able to use PayPal as a payment processor, would it be restraint of trade? I see above that the criteria appears to be whether competition is suppressed or damaged, and whether prices have been manipulated beyond a vague threshold “imposed naturally.”

Having no experience, using only what knowledge I’ve gathered by a bit of reading, it seems to me that were sellers restricted to using PayPal they would be charged both final value fees and PayPal fees on transactions. Because eBay owns PayPal is seems to someone unfamiliar with this intimately, that eBay might be manipulating prices beyond a “natural threshold” if they were to impose this requirement.

Yes, I know they said they weren’t going to but…

What do you think?

Post from: EveryJoe

For What It’s Worth, The Topic Is Restraint of Trade

It seems I was wrong.

I also thought one of them was probably telling the truth…

Seems I was right.

In Restless Pursuit of Craigslist’s Success

“The Kijiji unit of eBay, a free classified ads service covering 13 countries online, was introduced in the United States in late June, and has already achieved modest success in some important markets, including New York. Its vice president and general manager, Jacob Aqraou, said it would market itself far more aggressively in 2008, and was further refining its service in hopes of putting a dent in Craigslist’s huge market-share lead.”

Now I might consider that the San Francisco Superior Court ought to give this article a good read…

A tidbit or two;

• “Mr. Aqraou said Kijiji was meant to appeal to consumers who were uncomfortable with Craigslist’s laissez-faire approach, where ads for sofas and child care discussion boards are a click away from offers for sadomasochistic encounters and prostitutes.”

• “And although Mr. Aqraou said most of Kijiji’s visitors had come from word-of-mouth referrals, it has spent an undisclosed amount on ads, including some aimed at people who searched online for Craigslist-related terms like Craig Newmark, the company’s founder. Kijiji also leaned on its parent company for marketing help, sending 15 million to 20 million e-mail messages to eBay users who fit the ‘young family’ profile.”

Containing an obviously open reference is the following;

In mid-December, Kijiji introduced Spanish-language options for Miami and several Texas cities, and the company said it would probably introduce similar services for American cities with large populations of Polish, French and Chinese citizens, among others.

“It will pull in a lot of groups that have been marginalized by the mainstream Internet offerings,” said Colby Atwood, president of Borrell Associates, an advertising consultancy in Seattle.

“It’s a perfect example of why Kijiji will hurt Craigslist more than anybody else,” Mr. Atwood added. “It adds to what Craigslist does, without changing the underlying model of free classifieds.”

Why Kijiji will hurt Craigslist? Gosh, do you think that was the perception all along – or was it the fact?

Post from: EveryJoe

eBay, Kijiji, Craigslist and The Recent Past…