Describes motivation process for creativity with emphasis on intrinsic motivation by Corey K Katir

On August 19, 2010, the DOJ and FTC issued new Horizontal Merger Guidelines. The Guidelines were updated to reflect current agency practice. One of the changes in the new Guidelines is less reliance on market shares/concentration and more emphasis on the likely competitive effects of a transaction. The new Guidelines are supposed to be more flexible and fact dependent and less formalistic.

The new Guidelines are the result of a year long project that begain in September 2009. Draft versions of theGuidelines were issued in April, and the agencies held a series of workshops to solicit comments on the draft Guidelines.

Although the FTC’s press release claims the new Guidelines will “give businesses a better understanding of how the agencies evaluate proposed mergers,” FTC Commissioner Thomas Rosch called the new Guidelines “flawed.” He explained: “These guidelines do not describe the way that the Bureau of Competition and enforcement staff at the commission proceed today. They also do not reflect the way that the courts proceed.” Commissioner Rosch, however, voted in favor of the new Guidelines because he saw them as an improvement over the old Guidelines.

For our prior coverage of the new Guidelines, go here.

On December 3, 2009, the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission held a joint public workshop to explore the possibility of updating the Horizontal Merger Guidelines used by both agencies to evaluate potential competitive effects of mergers and acquisitions. Below is a summary of the major points from the workshop’s four sessions (which are available for re-play here):

Introduction

In his introduction, Jon Leibowitz (Chairman of FTC) said “we are a long ways from the bad old days” of the Schering brief and Section 2 Guidelines (when the FTC and DOJ disagreed on antitrust policy). Nowadays, he said, FTC and DOJ work well together. Christine Varney (from DOJ) spoke after him, but the only thing she said was “I have no comment on the Comcast/NBC merger.”

Carl Shapiro was the moderator of the first panel. He spoke about the need to update the Horizontal Merger Guidelines because: (1) there may be gaps between the Guidelines and actual agency practice; and (2) new economic analysis and evidence may change the way we think about antitrust policy.

There were four major issues discussed: (1) Innovation Competition; (2) Direct Evidence of Competitive Effects, (3) Market Definition, and (4) Unilateral Effects.

Innovation

As for the first issue, everyone agreed that the current Guidelines do a poor job of explaining how to measure harm/benefits to innovation (or how to define an innovation market). The agencies have some experience measuring innovation in the pharma industry, but not in any other context. The consensus was that perhaps the agencies should produce some additional commentary or extremely general guidelines on innovation, but that we simply were not ready for formal Guidelines because no one really knows how to measure innovation.

Direct Evidence / Market Definition / Unilateral Effects

The real debate came during the discussion of the next three issues, all of which amergeda together. Generally speaking, some academics and former government attorneys were in favor of using direct evidence of competitive effects, to the extent it exists (i.e., smoking gun documents from officers and directors of the companies who were to merge; customer surveys; natural experiment data as in the Staples case; or unilateral effects evidence). The academics and former government attorneys thought one could use direct evidence of competitive effects as a way to “back into” the market definition. In other words, if you could prove an effect, then you automatically proved a relevant market–you donat need to do anything else. If that’s true, then what happens to the traditional market definition and the presumptions and safeharbors that go with them?

The private practice attorneys (and a few of the academics) were more skeptical of such an approach. They thought the traditional market definition was essential before you could identify direct evidence of competitive effects. Robert Willig, Professor of Econ at Princeton, said: “Direct evidence without competitive analysis is full of pitfalls for the foolish looking for magic bullets.” The folks on this side of the debate said that even if you had direct evidence, the judge/jury will want to know more.

Everyone loved the SSNIP test and had nothing bad to say about it. But some folks thought there were other ways (direct evidence) to prove relevant markets. And there was some discussion of a “variable” SSNIP test in some circumstances.

As for unilateral effects, the panelists seemed to agree that if you did a unilateral effects analysis of differentiated products, then all mergers would look like they would raise prices. But this is not true. Some folks said unilateral effects analysis would cause over-enforcement and prevent mergers that were good for the economy. Others said not to worry because you could rebut the unilateral effects analysis with other evidence.

Conclusion

Everyone seemed to agree that the Guidelines should be revised to address the use of direct evidence of competitive effects and unilateral effects. But there was debate about what the Guidelines should say. Everyone wanted to keep the SSNIP test. And everyone also agreed that any revised Guidelines should be general and flexible (like the current ones).

A vast majority of attorneys in the United States and Canada must keep and maintain IOLTA trust accounts pursuant to very specific guidelines established by the governing body in each state. Despite the clearly defined rules, which in most jurisdictions, have been in place for years, some attorneys continue to put their license at risk. On The Un-Billable Hour, host Attorney Rodney Dowell, Director of the Massachusetts Law Office Management Assistance Program and interim executive director at Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers, talks with David Bilinsky, a Practice Management Consultant/Advisor for the Law Society of British Columbia, about why so many attorneys fail to properly do their IOLTA trust accounting, where they should go to learn how to properly do their accounting and shares his recommendations for trust accounting programs for attorneys.

Preserving the professional rules with regard to original content reporting and attribution to original sources is the topic on this Lawyer2Lawyer. Attorneys and co-hosts, J. Craig Williams and Bob Ambrogi welcome Alan Schwarz, a prolific sports writer from The New York Times, to discuss the legal and ethical issues pertaining to digital media. They discuss copyright law, the extent to which bloggers should give credit to original reportorial sources and the ethical guidelines bloggers and journalists should be following when it comes to content.

Attention bloggers: The Federal Trade Commission approved new Web guidelines pertaining to “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.” The FTC wants bloggers to disclose free products or payments they have received from companies for reviewing their products. Co-hosts and attorneys J. Craig Williams and Bob Ambrogi welcome Attorney Eric P. Robinson, Staff Attorney at the Media Law Resource Center and Attorney Barry J. Reingold, partner in the Washington D.C. office of Perkins Coie, to clarify the FTCas new guidelines, look at the ethics of blogging, blogger abuse and how these new guidelines will impact the blogosphere.

As the way we use and respond to email has evolved, has traditional email aetiquettea changed too? On this edition of the Kennedy-Mighell Report, co-hosts Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell take a look at the “Email Golden Rule” and come up with some new guidelines to improve your email experience, and the experience of anyone who receives a message from you. In the Q & A segment, Dennis and Tom will answer audience questions and wrap up with Parting Shots, leaving you with lasting tips and observations. After you listen, be sure to check out Tom & Dennisa co-blog and book by the same name, The Lawyers Guide to Collaboration Tools and Technologies.

This posting was written by Jeffrey May, Editor of CCH Trade Regulation Reporter.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has refused to set aside or correct a sentence imposed on an administrator in a Michigan public school district who pleaded guilty to charges arising from the Justice Department’s antitrust investigation into fraud and anticompetitive conduct in the federal “E-Rate” program.

The E-Rate program provides funding to schools to improve Internet connectivity. The defendant was charged with using his position as an assistant school superintendant to steer contracts for E-Rate projects to a business under his control.

After pleading guilty to one count each of mail fraud and bank fraud, the defendant was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 46 months and ordered to pay $1,342,702 in restitution.

The defendant argued that he would not have accepted the plea agreement, which included a 16-level increase under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, if his attorney had not given him incorrect advice concerning the proper legal standards for determining restitution and for calculating the amount of loss for purposes of the sentencing guidelines. However, the 16-level increase was appropriate because the amount of loss to the victims was between $1 million and $2.5 million. Thus, the defendant could not establish that his attorney gave him deficient advice concerning the calculation of loss or that rejecting the plea agreement was likely to result in a lesser sentence, according to the court.

Also rejected was the defendant’s argument that his attorney failed to properly advise him concerning the method of calculating the amount of loss for purposes of determining restitution.

The decision is Benit v. United States, 2012-1 Trade Cases ¶77,830.

This posting was written by Cheryl Beise, Editor of CCH Guide to Computer Law.

The 47-member Council of Europe (COE) announced on March 15 the adoption of a four-year Internet Governance Strategy to promote the universality, integrity, and openness of the Internet while protecting users’ rights.

The COE indicated that the Internet Governance Strategy will complement existing laws protecting free online expression and combating cybercrime. The COE will partner with member and nonmember state governments, the private sector, technical communities, and other interested parties in developing policies and industry guidelines.

The strategy identifies priorities and sets goals for the next four years (2012-2015) to advance the protection and respect for human rights, the rule of law, and democracy on the Internet. The main objectives of the strategy include:

(1) Protecting the Internet’s universality, integrity, and openness;

(2) Maximizing rights and freedoms for Internet users;

(3) Advancing data protection and privacy;

(4) Enhancing the rule of law and effective co-operation against cybercrime;

(5) Maximizing the Internet’s potential to promote democracy and cultural diversity, and

(6) Protecting and empowering children and young people.

The Strategy builds on and complements the COE Committee of Ministers’ 2011 Declaration on Internet Governance Principle and Recommendation (CM/Rec(2011)8).

By Tara M. Madison

Social networks like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are transforming the way companies communicate with consumers. Facebook, YouTube and Twitter can be powerful business tools, but you must be mindful of certain legal limitations and guidelines.

The words “Facebook,” “YouTube,” and “Twitter” are proprietary to the companies that own them. “Facebook,” “YouTube,” and “Twitter” are all registered with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. A trademark is a distinctive word, logo or phrase that is used by an individual or business to identify a unique source of products or services.

Facebook, Inc., Twitter, Inc. and Google, Inc., the owner of YouTube, are entitled to prevent others from using their trademarks, which include logos, or something similar in a way that is misleading, deceptive or could cause confusion in the marketplace. You must first obtain permission before using another’s trademark.

Both Facebook and Google authorize the use of the Facebook and YouTube trademarks in specified way. For example, both Facebook and Google prohibit users from modifying their trademarks and from using their trademarks as a verb. These guidelines are set forth in full on each of their websites. Twitter, however, expressly prohibits the use of its trademarks. The Twitter basic terms state, “Nothing in the Terms gives you a right to use the Twitter name or any of the Twitter trademarks, logos, domain names, and other distinctive brand features.” Thus, Twitter users should be wary of using the Twitter trademark to promote their businesses in advertising without receiving specific permission.

Google allows commercial usage of certain YouTube badges by those who make use of YouTube API, which allows users to incorporate YouTube content into the user’s own website or software application. A user is not required to get preapproval to use the YouTube API or to promote API functionality on the user’s website using the “YouTube Ready,” “YouTube Videos” or “Powered by YouTube” badges, all of which are provided on the website for free download and use. But, by downloading the badges, the user agrees to be bound by certain guidelines, all of which are set forth in the Branding Guidelines on the Google website available here.  Google prohibits usage of any other form of the YouTube logo other than the badges provided on the website, as well as any variation of the YouTube trademark such as such as “YouTubers,” “Tubing,” You-Tube,” or “YouTubed,” etc. Additionally, it is important to note that the YouTube license appears to only extend to use of a YouTube Badge to give attribution to a YouTube video on a website, blog, or other such means of electronic communication. The license does not specifically address print advertisements, such as billboards.

Facebook actually recommends promoting one’s Facebook page outside of Facebook, assuming very specific guidelines are followed. Facebook’s guidelines for both the use of its Brand Assets and for referencing Facebook are located in Facebook’s Brand Permissions Center located online here. For example, Facebook allows usage of its Like Button logo to be used in print advertisements and in connection with the Like Button social plugin that Facebook provides on its website. Facebook, however, prohibits usage of the Like Button logo in online advertisements. Facebook also requires users to get special permission to use the Facebook logo. Permission can be obtained directly from the Brand Permissions Center website by accessing the Permissions Request Form. Additionally, Facebook typically prohibits use of its trademarks in connection with merchandise such as clothing, hats, mugs, dolls, and toys. More examples of acceptable and unacceptable uses of Facebook’s trademarks and appropriate ways for users to reference Facebook are provided on the Brand Permission Center section of the Facebook website.

Before delving into the world of social networking advertising, take the time to read the permissions and guidelines of whatever social networking site you may be using. These guidelines are typically located on the social network’s website. If there are no guidelines, the default rule is that specific permission should be sought to use the social network’s trademark to promote your business by incorporating a social network’s trademark in commercial advertisements.
 

Food Safety News:  Coalition Calls for Labeling ‘Added Sugars’

A coalition of 14 public health organizations is calling on the Food and Drug Administration to require that food labels provide full information on added sugars.

FTC.gov:  FTC Will Host Public Workshop to Explore Advertising Disclosures in Online and Mobile Media on May 30, 2012

The Federal Trade Commission will host a day-long public workshop to consider the need for new guidance for online advertisers about making disclosures required under FTC law. The guidance will address technological advancements and marketing developments that have emerged since the FTC first issued itsonline advertising disclosure guidelines known as “Dot Com Disclosures” 12 years ago.

Bloomberg:  U.S. Challenges Judge Ruling on Cigarette Graphic Warnings

The U.S. government appealed a federal judge’s ruling throwing out requirements for graphic warning labels regarding the health risks of cigarettes.

Excite.com:  UK Internet providers lose copyright court battle

The High Court has endorsed Britain’s new copyright rules, siding with the music industry over Internet providers in a battle over online filesharing.

CNN.com:  FDA issues warning to ‘breathable’ caffeine maker

The Food and Drug Administration has warned a company that markets caffeine and vitamin B as “breathable energy” it could face regulatory action over “false and misleading” labeling.

Food Business Review:  USFDA to decide BPA ban in food packaging by 31 March

The US Food and Drug Administration will decide whether to ban the use of Bisphenol-A (BPA) in all food packaging by 31 March. BPA is an industrial chemical that causes reproductive and fetal development problems, prostate and several other cancers.

Prior to the advent of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, white collar defendants could expect to serve terms of probation for almost any non-violent, first time offense.  Those days are long behind us and as the Guidelines have evolved, white collar offenders are joining their blue collar colleagues in medium and high security prisons and spending decades of their lives behind bars.  This webcast will provide the white collar defense practitioner with tips and tools on how to keep …

This program will explore issues around sentencing in white-collar fraud cases. The federal Sentencing Guidelines focus primarily on the amount of loss in fraud cases, and often call for the imposition of decades-long sentences. We will explain the functioning of the Guidelines, focusing on how changes in the Guidelines and related developments over the past several decades have resulted in a tripling of the presumptive sentence in large fraud cases. We will also review the case law permittin…

With white collar prison sentences soaring and the guidelines on the rise, this program explores a variety of tested sentencing strategies to defend against higher sentences.  Although the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines are still the starting point of sentencing for prosecutors and judges, defense attorneys have the ability to roll that ball back.  This distinguished panel of experts outlines how to deconstruct the Guidelines, particularly the fraud Guidelines at 2B1.1, and where to find t…

This program is NOT available for CLE credit

With 2011 marking the 20 year anniversary of the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations, this panel is comprised of current and former Commission staff to explore the history and business impacts of the Guidelines. In addition, panelists will provide their perspective on recent and future amendments to the Guidelines and how organizations can stay in front of tho…

Blogs are now a dime a dozen, and bloggers need to make their blog posts stand out. Developing a blog following is not as easy as it once was. Learn how to write blog posts that attract readers and retain their attention. Follow these guidelines to cultivate readers…

Attention Getting Blog Posts

Welcome to latest news from FeedForAll.

Thank you for your continued interest, suggestions and support for the FeedForAll Product line.
FeedForAll team

There are no hard and fast rules on how to blog. Having said that, bloggers will likely increase their exposure by following some simple blog guidelines.

Tips for Creating a Blog.

I have heard many a blogger say that blogging fills a need. While blogging provides a humanizing effect on news and journaling, it also opens a window into personal lives. The details shared in blogs were once only available to a select group of friends, and while blogging has become common place, it has risks that should not be ignored.

Dangers of Blogging

Philosophies regarding social media networks, such as Twitter, can vary greatly. But similar to email, an unspoken etiquette has emerged for these social websites as well. The etiquette for these social sites does not consist of hard and fast rules, but is simply a list of guidelines for posting. The following is a set of Twitter etiquette guidelines, but can also be applied to other social networks…

Twitequitte

The following are the top blog posts for 2008.

Etiquette and Guidelines for RSS Feeds
HTML Web Templates
Ideas for Blogs Posts
Web Design Elements on CD
RSS Scripts on CD
Real Estate Video Podcasts
10 Podcast Tips
Reap the Podcast Rewards
Ringtones with RecordForAll
Create RSS and Make RSS Feeds
RSS2HTML Updated

Personal Injury Lawyer Los Angeles – FREE CONSULTATION by Personal Injury Attorney Los Angeles – Legal Defenders, Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyers – Law Offices of Burg and Brock, who have won over $100 million in verdicts and settlements for clients

Page took 3 seconds to load.