U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Paying People $2,000 To Pretend Binding Arbitration Is Good

from the tilted-playing-field dept

For years, AT&T worked tirelessly to erode its customers' legal rights, using mouse print in its terms of service preventing consumers from participating in lawsuits against the company. Instead, customers were forced into binding arbitration, where arbitrators, chosen and paid by the companies under fire, unsurprisingly rule in favor of companies more often than not. Initially, the lower courts derided this anti-consumer behavior for what it was, noting that however brutally flawed the class action is, binding arbitration, at least the way we let companies design it, in many ways made things worse.

But these lower court roadblocks quickly evaporated when the Supreme Court ruled in 2011 (Mobility v. Concepcion) that what AT&T was doing was perfectly OK. While lower courts saw this as an "unconscionable" abuse of consumer rights and the law, the Supreme Court bought into the ongoing myth that binding arbitration is a hyper-efficient, modern alternative to class actions. In reality, it shifted things to a form of binding arbitration that was costly, lopsided, and cumbersome for consumers, and less transparent for those used to visiting Pacer to dig up legal histories.

Fast forward to a few years ago, when a growing number of companies and services (like Fairshake) began streamlining the arbitration process, making it easier and less expensive for consumers (and yeah, class action lawyers). This shifted the balance of power back toward consumers, and starting in 2018 or so companies like Uber, AT&T and Comcast began to complain they were being swamped with arbitration feuds.

So now we're seeing another sea change. Now, even giants like Amazon are being forced to take consumer complaints back to the courtroom, in part because a system they constructed to dodge accountability is no longer helping them do that.

At the same time, company lobbyists are firing up their opposition to the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act, which would (as the name implies) prohibit the practice in several sectors. The bill has already passed the House, and to prevent it from passing in the Senate companies have been busy cultivating phony "grass roots" (astroturfed) opposition to the bill. That usually involves using some proxy org (in this case the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) to throw money at people to write (or just support) op-eds in papers around the country insisting how wonderful binding arbitration is:

"The pro-arbitration op-ed was already written and included in the body of the email. The op-ed calls arbitration “a relatively cheap and fast process” in a “much more relaxed” environment than a courtroom, which “could soon be eliminated if plaintiffs’ lawyers have their way.” The last line makes its objective clear: “Arizona’s workers and consumers can’t afford for Senators Sinema and [Mark] Kelly to allow [the FAIR Act] to happen."

As with most campaigns of this kind (they're pretty common in telecom), it involves reaching out to credible people to see if they'd willing to sell their principles downstream for some cash:

"Late last week, David Chami, an Arizona attorney who specializes in consumer protection, received an email from Drew Johnson, who identified himself as working with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Johnson offered Chami $2,000 if he could get one of his clients to sign their name to an op-ed opposing the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act, a bill in Congress."

You know you have a sound argument when you have to pay people to support it. There's so much valid disdain against the class action process (which usually provides lawyers a new boat and plaintiffs a $20 gift certificate to Arby's if they're lucky), it's not hard to lean on that to nab support for binding arbitration. But that in and of itself doesn't mean binding arbitration is good.

While conceptually the idea of binding arbitration isn't terrible, the way it has been implemented in the United States is an incomprehensible mess. It reduces the chance of a fair hearing of consumer grievances and makes it as annoying as possible for consumers to challenge corporate power. That's why surveys tend to suggest broad, bipartisan support for eliminating the practice. Yeah, the traditional class action system is also a hot mess. But replacing it with something less effective and more annoying was never quite the solution many companies pretended it was. And now that awareness of this fact is growing, they're getting a bit nervous.

Filed Under: arbitration, arizona, astroturfing, binding arbitration, class action lawsuits, opeds
Companies: us chamber of commerce

DOJ Announces Investigation Of Phoenix PD's Use Of Excessive Force And Abuse Of Homeless People

from the information-and-belief-on-top-of-patterns-and-practices dept

With a new Attorney General in charge and a new President in the White House, the Department of Justice is getting back to taking care of the uncomfortable business of investigating local law enforcement agencies. This part of the DOJ's responsibilities was largely abandoned under Trump, who opened up his presidency by declaring he would "end" the "dangerous anti-police atmosphere."

Trump actually made it worse. His enthusiastic support for police and police violence did nothing to discourage the sorts of actions that create "anti-police atmosphere." Concurrently, the DOJ -- under AGs Sessions and Barr -- looked the other way as law enforcement agencies engaged in activities that violated the rights of the public.

The latest law enforcement agency to under the DOJ's scope is the Phoenix, Arizona police department. The Phoenix PD last made news here at Techdirt after its union offered cops access to paid service that would "scrub" social media services of their posts. This was deployed in reaction to multiple investigations opened all around the nation after transparency activist group Plainview Project was able to link bigoted and violent social media posts to current law employment officers.

There are some specifics to this investigation that indicate some parts of the Phoenix PD's enforcement efforts are more problematic than others.

This investigation will assess all types of use of force by PhxPD officers, including deadly force. The investigation will also seek to determine whether PhxPD engages in retaliatory activity against people for conduct protected by the First Amendment; whether PhxPD engages in discriminatory policing; and whether PhxPD unlawfully seizes or disposes of the belongings of individuals experiencing homelessness. In addition, the investigation will assess the City and PhxPD’s systems and practices for responding to people with disabilities. The investigation will include a comprehensive review of PhxPD policies, training, supervision, and force investigations, as well as PhxPD’s systems of accountability, including misconduct complaint intake, investigation, review, disposition, and discipline.

The city is also being investigated to see what culpability it carries for the PD's anti-homeless actions. It appears the city (and the PD it employs) has been unwilling to obey court precedent finding certain policies unlawful.

A 2018 ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals banned cities from arresting or imposing fines on people sleeping in public places in the absence of meaningful housing alternatives.

As a result, local governments in western states have begun to reassess their urban camping ordinances. Among them are cities in Arizona like Glendale and Tempe, which have stopped enforcing urban camping laws.

But little has changed in Phoenix, said Elizabeth Venable, treasurer for the Fund for Empowerment.

Despite the court decision, the Phoenix Police Department is “doing the same thing they’ve always done,” said Venable.

The state appears to believe the proper solution to being on the wrong end of court decisions is to change the law. A new proposal would create sanctioned "camps" for homeless people while still allowing the state to punish homeless people for sleeping in public areas without permission.

The bill would authorize the state to create designated camping areas on state land with access to water, electricity and bathrooms where people experiencing homelessness could stay. Residents of the designated camping area may be required to attend substance abuse treatment or mental health services.

He said the camps would be similar to the temporary parking-lot shelters opened by Maricopa County last year to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Security would be provided at all camping areas.

The bill would prohibit homeless encampments anywhere else on state property.

Yes, this would create other options for temporary housing of homeless people. But it won't do much to prevent police officers from harassing and arresting homeless people for simply existing in the wrong place at the wrong time. And it's this leeway that appears to have led to this investigation -- the encouragement of heavy-handed enforcement by city reps, which has manifested as the abuses the DOJ is now digging into.

Unfortunately for the DOJ, it may soon discover it doesn't have a whole lot of information to work with. As was discovered by Justin Price of AZCentral last year, the city's contract with the police union allows misconduct records to be destroyed almost at will.

Over 500 of the city's 3,000 officers have had their pasts memory-holed by the union contract, covering over 600 misconduct incidents ranging from failure to complete reports to deployments of excessive force.

The purging prevents even internal investigators from discovering patterns of misconduct that should result in harsher discipline or termination. It also prevents plaintiffs suing officers over violated rights from obtaining key background info that could indicate an officer is a longtime abuser of citizens. In one case cited in Price's report, the PD began purging an officer's records as soon as the officer had been served.

Beyond the impediments posed by a lack of documentation, there's the question of how much the DOJ can actually change by performing an investigation. At best, it prevents law enforcement agencies from claiming any abuses uncovered are just a matter of perception. At worst, it just forces agencies to keep their heads low for a while and wait for the DOJ (and the public's interest) to head elsewhere.

It should be noted, however, that every closed DOJ investigation finds evidence of wrongdoing, usually of the "substantial" and "pervasive" varieties. By the time the DOJ decides to step in, the problem is generally too big to ignore. This means the agency being investigated is already aware of the problem but has done nothing to correct it. That mindset -- one that views bad cops as victims of public perception -- tends to stick around long after the DOJ has dropped off a consent decree and blown town.

Filed Under: doj, excessive force, homeless, investigation, police

Twitch Finally Gets Around To Letting Banned Streamers Know Why They Were Banned

from the victory! dept

We've covered Twitch's no good, very bad time for many months now, which should give you an indication just how bad this time has been. If you need a brief background, the major points of contention have been the Amazon-owned company having a laughably one-sided approach to DMCA takedowns of content, its complete inept method for temp-banning its own creative community over copyright claims, and its totally vague approach to banning creators over various rule-breaking when it comes to Twitch's indecipherable guidelines and the capricious manner in which it applies them.

While all of it is frankly bad, the lowest hanging fruit in all of this has always been the lack of communication Twitch has offered its own creative community when it comes to bans, copyright issues, or guidelines. For instance, Twitch, at first, would just disappear content, with little or no notice to the streamer who authored it. When it has given any notice to creators, that notice has traditionally been so devoid of any details so as to be entirely useless. Which I suppose is why the recent announcement by Twitch that it will finally tell streamers who have been hit with a copyright takedown what that infringing content is... is good?

The days of Twitch mysteriously suspending popular streamers are coming to an end. The Amazon-owned streaming platform announced yesterday that it will now actually tell streamers who get temporarily banned why they’ve been punished. It only took 10 years, folks.

“As of today, enforcement notifications sent to suspended users will include the name of the content and the date of the violation to ensure they have better clarity about what content is being actioned on,” Twitch Support wrote on Twitter. Based on a sample screenshot, these new explanations will include what the streamer did that violated Twitch’s Terms of Service or Community Guidelines and which stream it happened on.

So, again, this is a good thing, except, as the opening Kotaku graf hints, this announcement also highlights the absurdity of Twitch not having been doing this the entire time. And this should really also callout the minimalist nature of the "infringement" in question, which oftentimes involves video game audio assets that are part of a Twitch stream, or background music and whatnot. In other words, the need for this level of detail, though definitely crucial, also should let you know that these streamers aren't trying to infringe copyright. If they were, there wouldn't be so much confusion over why they were being banned or having their content taken down.

All of this certainly isn't lost on the very community Twitch is now trying to placate.

Twitch was founded back in 2011 and later acquired by Amazon in 2014 for nearly $1 billion. It’s a big business, but only because of the content put there by others. Telling creators why they’ve been occasionally locked out of what is for some a defacto job is the least Twitch could do, though still far from what a lot of users would ideally like. Even now Twitch Support’s announcement tweet for the ban explanations is littered with complaints about the lack of transparency and communication around things like the appeals process.

In other words, now that Twitch has gotten things to where they probably should have been at the jump, the real work to win back its community begins.

Filed Under: content moderation, copyright, dmca, information, policy violations, rules, streamers, takedowns
Companies: twitch

Judge Orders FBI To Return $57,000 Seized From A US Private Vaults' Customer Since It Apparently Can't Justify Keeping It

from the broad-speculation-isn't-probable-cause dept

The judge, who blocked the FBI from moving forward with forfeiting property from certain US Private Vaults' customers who haven't been accused of crimes, is now ordering the FBI to return money to one of the people contesting the seizures.

The FBI raided US Private Vaults in March, claiming customers, if not the owners of the business themselves, were involved in a host of crimes, including drug trafficking and money laundering. It's now August and no one has been charged. The FBI, however, has millions of dollars in currency and other property in its possession and is refusing to give any of it back.

The FBI's warrant specifically said agents would only search the content of safety deposit boxes to determine ownership. The contents were to be inventoried but the FBI's affidavit suggested the agents performing the raid would not be searching the contents for evidence of criminal acts.

That self-imposed restriction was ignored. And the FBI was able to move forward with seizures even without bringing criminal charges because civil asset forfeiture remains a thing in this country: the taking of people's property using only the unproven assertions that they may be the result of illegal activity. This vagueness didn't sit well with Judge R. Gary Klausner, who blocked the FBI from moving forward with some forfeitures early last month.

The FBI insists it is right to keep this process in motion. However, as the judge points out in his latest order [PDF], its insistence hasn't been accompanied by any plausible justifications. (h/t FourthAmendment.com)

The facts of this case raise two questions of constitutional import: first, "Why does the Government have [Joseph] Ruiz's $57,000?"; and second, "Why won't the government give it back?"

According to the government, the why is self-explanatory. A grand jury convicted the business of conspiring with customers to launder money, distribute drugs, and structure transactions to hide income from the IRS. The judge says the FBI's decision to seize the contents of boxes makes sense, given that it had to seize property containing many small boxes of property.

Though the Court makes no ruling as to the constitutionality of the Government's March 22, 2021 search and seizure, the Government's story makes practical sense. Assuming the Government was authorized to seize the nests of safety deposit boxes at USPV, then, by necessity, the Government was authorized to seize Ruiz's nest egg which was locked up in Box 7622.

That answers the first "why," and that answer largely rests on the assumption the search and seizure was proper, which the court assumes for the sake of argument, but not as a matter of law.

The second "why," however, has not been answered satisfactorily by the FBI.

The Government goes on at length as to the general difficulties in returning peoples' property to them, but the upshot of the Government's argument is that returning property to hundreds of people is a slow bureaucratic process.

As to the justification for continuing to seize the $57,000 found in Box 7622, the Government's answer falls flatter still. The Government asserts, without further explanation, that it is keeping Ruiz's $57,000 because "the cash is the subject of [] pending in rem forfeiture proceedings."

But why? The FBI notice sheds little light on the issue.

The court points out the notice only informs Ruiz his cash has been seized because of suspicion violations of US laws. But the laws referenced cover up to 35 different crimes and the government has yet to state which specific crimes it suspects Ruiz has committed. It's not enough to say things are the way they are because things are the way they are, as the FBI has done here.

Why has the Government kept the $57,000 now that Ruiz has come forward and sworn under the penalty of perjury that it is his? The Government doesn't really say. Instead, the Government states that it continues to seize Ruiz's property because "the cash is the subject of… pending in rem forfeiture proceedings." This explanation is not a justification. Merely stating that the Government has initiated forfeiture proceedings against the property does not offer any insight into how the Government's continued retention of the $57,000 complies with the dictates of the Fourth Amendment.

The result is an order for the FBI to justify this seizure or give back the money within seven days. This order follows 106 days of the FBI keeping Ruiz's cash without justification.

The FBI has chosen to try to justify the seizure. However, the assertions made in its affidavit don't offer any better explanations for the continued seizure. All the affidavit [PDF] does is declare the FBI can't say for sure how Ruiz ended up with this money. And, according to the FBI, this uncertainty should be all it needs to maintain permanent control of Ruiz's cash.

The affidavit claims agents can find no legal records pertaining to insurance/injury settlements that would add up to the $57,000 Ruiz claims came from insurance payouts. It also points out Ruiz hasn't filed a tax return since 2018, which it assumes means Ruiz has made no legitimate money since that point. Of course, this could simply mean Ruiz has made income he hasn't paid taxes on, but that's not included in the statutes listed in the government's forfeiture notice.

It also claims Ruiz is connected to unlicensed distribution of marijuana paraphernalia. But it also points out this potentially illegal business does NOT generate much cash flow, so by its own admission, the FBI is stating that the money seized could not have come from this.

On USPV Executor/Conservator paperwork, which Joseph RUIZ (“RUIZ”) left in the box, he listed his email address as holysmokescrafts@yahoo.com. Holysmokescrafts@yahoo is an on-line marijuana paraphernalia business, specializing in turning liquor bottles into marijuana smoking devices. On-line businesses do not typically generate cash, but this business suggests RUIZ may be involved in the cannabis industry in other ways. According to the California Department of Cannabis Control, RUIZ is not licensed in California to participate in the cannabis industry in any way.

The FBI also absurdly suggests that the mere existence of a bank account in Ruiz's name means he has a way to pay for living and medical expenses even without the $57,000 the FBI took from him.

Finally, the February 26, 2021 CTR by J.P. Morgan Chase, referenced above, demonstrates that RUIZ had an active bank account at J.P. Morgan Chase within weeks of the execution of the USPV seizure warrant, suggesting that he had a readily available avenue to pay for rent, groceries and other expenses.

I'm not sure if the Special Agent is aware of this, but the bank does not pay for these expenses. The bank merely holds a person's money and gives them a convenient way to pay for these using their own money, not the bank's. The FBI has Ruiz's money at the moment, not the bank. And I have no doubt that if there were any significant amount of money in that account, the FBI would be trying to seize that too.

This is going to be a tough sell in front of this judge. The FBI is saying the absence of evidence backing Ruiz's claims about the money's origin is the same thing as evidence of criminal wrongdoing. The FBI obviously doesn't know where the money came from but it wants to use a list of 35 federal crimes as probable cause for keeping it. The judge has already smacked the FBI twice for its vague justifications. Presenting a lack of evidence as culpatory evidence of criminal acts likely isn't going to fly.

Filed Under: civil asset forfeiture, fbi, forfeiture, in rem, legalized theft, safety deposit boxes, warrants
Companies: us private vaults

Daily Deal: The Complete Udemy Instructor Mastermind Bundle

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The Complete Udemy Instructor Mastermind Bundle has 7 courses to help you create your own online course on Udemy. Courses cover video production, website creation, podcast production, how to develop a curriculum, and much more. It's on sale for $30.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

Stupid Patent Of The Month: This Captcha Patent Is An All-American Nightmare

from the this-turing-test-outs-patent-trolls dept

A newly formed patent troll is looking for big money from small business websites, just for using free, off-the-shelf login verification tools. 

Defenders of the American Dream, LLC (DAD ), is sending out its demand letters to websites that use Google’s reCAPTCHA system, accusing them of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,621,578. Google’s reCAPTCHA is just one form of a Captcha test, which describes a wide array of test systems that websites use to verify human users and keep out bots. 

DAD’s letter tells targeted companies that DAD will take an $8,500 payment, but only if “licensing terms are accepted immediately.” The threat escalates from there. If anyone dares to respond that DAD’s patent might be not infringed, or invalid, fees will rise to at least $17,000. If DAD’s patent gets subject to a legal challenge, DAD says they’ll increase their demand to at least $70,000. In the footnotes, DAD advises its targets that “not-for-profit entities are eligible for a discount.” 

The DAD demand letters we have reviewed are nearly identical, with the same fee structure. They mirror the one filed by the company itself (with the fee structure redacted) as part of their trademark application. This demand letter campaign is a perfect example of how the U.S. patent system fails to advance software innovation. Instead, our system enables extortionate behavior like DAD’s exploding fee structure. 

DAD Didn't Invent Image Captcha

DAD claims it invented a novel and patentable image-based Captcha system. But there’s ample evidence of image-based Captcha tests that predate DAD’s 2008 patent application. 

The term “Captcha” was coined by a group of researchers at Carnegie Mellon University in 2000. It’s an acronym, indicating a “Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart.” Essentially, it blocks automated tools like bots from getting into websites. Such tests have been important since the earliest days of the Internet. 

Early Captcha tests used squiggly lines or wavy text. The same group of CMU researchers who coined “Captcha” went on to work on an image-selection version they called ESP-PIX, which they had published and made public by 2005. 

By 2007, Microsoft had developed its own image-categorization Captcha, which used photos from Petfinder.com, then asked users to identify cats and dogs. At the sime time, PayPal was working on new captchas that “might resemble simple image puzzles.” This was no secret—researchers from both companies spoke to the New York Times about their research, and Microsoft filed its own patent application, more than a year before DAD’s. 

There’s also evidence of earlier image-based Captcha tests in the patent record, like this early 2008 application from a company called Binary Monkeys. Here's an image from the Binary Monkeys Patent: 

And here's an image from DAD's patent:

So how did DAD end up with this patent? During patent prosecution, DAD’s predecessor argued that they had a novel invention because the Binary Monkeys application asks users to select “all images” associated with the task, as opposed to selecting “one image,” as in DAD’s test. The patent examiner suggested adding yet another limitation: that the user still be granted access to the website if they got one “known” image and one “suspected” image. 

Unfortunately, adding trivial tweaks to existing technology, such as small details about the needed criteria for passing a Captcha test, can and often does result in a patent being granted. This was especially true back in 2008, before patent examiners should have applied guidance from the Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice v. CLS Bank decision. That’s why we have told the patent office to vigorously uphold Supreme Court guidelines, and have defended the Alice precedent in Congress.  

Where did DAD come from? 

DAD’s patent was originally filed by a Portland startup called Vidoop. In 2010, Vidoop and its patent applications were purchased by a San Diego investor who re-branded it as Confident Technologies. Confident Tech offered a “clickable, image-based CAPTCHA,” but ultimately didn’t make it as a business. In 2017 and 2018, Confident Tech sued Best Buy, Fandango Media, Live Nation, and AXS Group, claiming that the companies infringed its patent by using reCAPTCHA. Those cases all settled.

In 2020, Trevor Coddington, an attorney who worked on Confident Tech’s patent applications, created Defenders of the American Dream LLC. He transferred the patents to this new entity and started sending out demand letters. 

They haven’t all gone to large companies, either. At least one of DAD’s targets has been a one-person online publishing company. Coddington’s letter complains about how Confident Tech failed in the marketplace and suggests that because of this, reCAPTCHA users should pay—well, him. The letter states: 

[O]nce Google introduced its image-based reCAPTCHA for free, no less, [Confident Technologies] was unable to to maintain a financially viable business… Google’s efficient infringement forced CTI to abandon operations and any return on the millions of dollars of capital investment used to develop its patented solutions. Meanwhile, your company obtained and utilized the patented technology for free.” 

Creating new and better Captcha software is an area of ongoing research and innovation. While the lawyers and investors behind DAD have turned to patent threats to make money, other developers are actively innovating and competing with reCAPTCHA. There are competing image-based Captchas like hCaptcha and visualCaptcha, as well as long lists of Captcha alternatives and companies that are trying to make Captchas obsolete. 

These individuals and companies are all inventive, but they’re not relying on patent threats to make a buck. They’ve actually written code and shared it online. Unfortunately, because of their real contributions, they’re more likely to end up the victims of aggressive patent-holders like DAD. 

We’ll never patent our way to a better Captcha. Looking at the history of the DAD patent—which shares no code at all—makes it clear why the patent system is such a bad fit for software. 

Originally posted to the EFF Deeplinks Blog

Filed Under: captcha, innovation, patent trolls, patents, recaptcha, shakedown, stupid patent, threats, trevor coddington
Companies: confident technologies, dad llc, defenders of the american dream llc, vidoop

AT&T CFO Wants A Cookie For Screwing Up The Time Warner, DirecTV Mergers

from the fail-upward dept

We've noted more than a few times how the AT&T Time Warner and DirecTV mergers were a monumental, historical disaster. AT&T spent $200 billion to acquire both companies thinking it would dominate the video and internet ad space. Instead, the company lost 9 million subscribers in nine years, fired 50,000 employees, closed numerous popular brands (DC's Vertigo imprint, Mad Magazine), and basically stumbled around incompetently for several years before recently spinning off the entire mess for a song.

I just got done noting how the US press' total failure to adequately outline the scope of this mess ensures that the executives, regulators, and various megamerger cheerleaders will never be held accountable for it. That, in turn, all but guarantees it will happen again. And again. And again. America's obsession with "growth for growth's sake" and megamergers is built on the inherent promise that no matter how many times a megadeal results in layoffs, chaos, and no benefits for anyone other than executives and investors, we'll simply refuse to learn anything from the experience.

That requires a lot of revisionist history. So, as if on cue, AT&T CFO Pascal Desroches this week complained that AT&T didn't get enough credit for turning HBO Max into a successful streaming brand. AT&T was forced to spin off this mess because the doddering telco sucked at running a media company. But Desroches is trying to claim the recent spinoff of its media ventures occurred because AT&T didn't get enough credit for building HBO:

"AT&T CEO John Stankey was “keenly focused on” the company being in the early stages of a “significant evolution in connectivity,” 5G and fiber, with management knowing it needed to invest there and in HBO Max, he told the Oppenheimer Annual Technology, Internet & Communications Conference.

“One of the things we realized (was that), even though we were succeeding in our launch of HBO Max, the market wasn’t giving us the appropriate credit for it,” Desroches said.

This is a weird rewriting of history. Ex-AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson was literally shoved into early retirement because instead of focusing on the company's core competencies (running and building networks; spying on Americans; lobbying the government to hamstring competition), AT&T blew an absolute ocean of money trying to elbow its way into the TV business. But like so many telcos (see: Verizon Go90), decades as a pampered government telecom monopoly leaves you ill-suited toward making adequate inroads in creative, competitive industries.

To be clear, AT&T's path post-merger was pretty obvious. It had to take the HBO brand, not fuck it up, and shovel it into a functional streaming experience. But the company struggled for the first several years to do that. It released so many conflicting, confusing AT&T and HBO streaming brands that they even managed to confuse their own support employees. Meanwhile, AT&T executives, obsessed with engagement over quality, have taken the HBO brand and watered it down. Now you can see a lot of quality HBO fare like Six Feet Under intermingled with AT&T concepts like "Fuckboy Island," which kind of speaks for itself.

If you actually talk to any of the creatives at places like DC or HBO (the ones who weren't fired, anyway), they're quick to point out that AT&T brass really had no idea what they were doing. It was like having an alleyway brawler run an opera house. Telcos aren't good at adaptation, creativity, competition, or innovation, because as government-pampered monopolies, they've never had to be. I'm not sure how many times we have to watch a telco fall on its face in this fashion before that becomes clear to people.

The reality is that AT&T screwed up, then had to spin off the entire mess because it screwed up. For AT&T's CFO to suggest the spin off was because the "market didn't give us a cookie" for building HBO Max is some weird, revisionist history. Revisionist history that once again ignores the 50,000 post-merger(s) layoffs, the fact AT&T received billions from government to make all of this work (the $42 billion Trump tax cut, merger approvals, the death of net neutrality), and still somehow screwed it up. There is absolutely no scenario in which any AT&T executive involved in any aspect of this mess gets a cookie.

Filed Under: acquisitions, broadband, content, hbo, john stankey, mergers, pascal desroches
Companies: at&t, directv, time warner

Manchester United Becomes Manchester UFC In 'Football Manager 22' Over Dumb Trademark Spat

from the mansplaining dept

It won't be a massive surprise that Manchester United, the famed Premier League football club, has made it onto our pages before. As the "Yankees of European soccer", it would be shocking if the club hadn't at some point taken aggressive action in the technology and IP space. Still, there isn't a great deal of posts in there, so you would be forgiven if you thought of Man-U as generally not bad on this sort of thing.

But, no, the club is perfectly capable of being protectionist, and even occasionally taking outrageous positions. For instance, we can start with the fact that Sega's Football Manager 22 will no longer include the name of the club in the game, but will shift it to something barely different after a lawsuit was filed because of... reasons.

Manchester United will be renamed Manchester UFC from Football Manager 22 onwards after the resolution of a trademark dispute. The Premier League club sued Football Manager publisher Sega in May last year, 16 years after the release of Sports Interactive's first Football Manager game, and 28 years after the launch of the first Championship Manager game.

In the actual lawsuit, Sega pushed back and stated that including the club in the context of a football/soccer game was a legitimate use, indicating it as basically simply describing reality. Sega also noted that Man-U had appeared under its name in the Football Manager series for literally 30 years without any complaint from the club whatsoever. Why this suddenly became an issue comes down to the club's desire to sell exclusive licenses for use to Sega's competitors, of course, but soccer games have existed forever. Where has Man-U been this entire time?

Further pushback came from Sega, indicating that the game designers went out of their way not to use Man-U's logos or crests, as that really would be a trademark violation. Somewhat amazingly, Man-U responded saying that was trademark infringement, too.

United also claimed Football Manager infringed its trademark of the Manchester United logo by not using the official Manchester United crest in the game. This "deprives the registered proprietor of its right to have the club crest licensed", Manchester United's lawyers said.

"Consumers expect to see the club crest next to the name Manchester United... and this failure to do so amounts to wrongful use," United argued, although the club's lawyer accepted this argument was "somewhat novel, and certainly in the context of video games, but it is certainly arguable".

Yes, it's novel, because I've never heard a trademark claimant suggest that not using trademarked iconography was infringement solely because it didn't result in a licensing deal to use the actual trademarked iconography. That's... not how this works. It would also be interesting to see how this claim would run up against any free speech rights Sega could point to in the UK. While obviously different from the laws in America, I'll just note that the 1st Amendment here would make this argument a complete non-starter. A 2nd party can't claim the right to force the 1st party to put something specifically in their game.

But, alas, Sega changed the name to something barely different to get out of this whole mess, noting the entire time that it admitted no guilt.

This means that, from this year's game onwards, Manchester United will be named 'Manchester UFC' or 'Man UFC'.

"These name changes have been made purely to settle the dispute on a no admissions basis," Sports Interactive added. "SEGA and Sports Interactive maintain that they do not need a licence to use the Manchester United name but have made the change as a gesture of goodwill so that both parties can move on."

And so everyone playing the game will know precisely what the game is referring to with its "Manchester UFC" name, but the club won't actually get the exposure benefit of having its normal branding in there.

Talk about an own-goal.

Filed Under: football manager 22, machester ufc, trademark
Companies: machester united, premier league, sega