Ashenfelter O.C.,Princeton University |
Hosken D.S.,Federal Trade Commission |
Weinberg M.C.,Drexel University
RAND Journal of Economics | Year: 2015
Merger efficiencies provide the primary justification for why mergers of competitors may benefit consumers. Surprisingly, there is little evidence that efficiencies can offset incentives to raise prices following mergers. We estimate the effects of increased concentration and efficiencies on pricing by using panel scanner data and geographic variation in how the merger of the brewers Miller and Coors was expected to increase concentration and reduce costs. All else equal, the average predicted increase in concentration led to price increases of 2%, but at the mean this was offset by a nearly equal and opposite efficiency effect. © 2015, RAND.
News Article | May 11, 2017
SAN FRANCISCO, May 11, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- U.S. District Judge James Donato has instructed the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") to dismiss Taiwan-based D-Link Corporation ("D-Link Corp.") from a case brought by the FTC in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California involving unfounded allegations as to security practices for routers and IP cameras. On April 3, 2017, D-Link Corp. filed a motion to dismiss the case because the Court lacked jurisdiction over the company. FTC's dismissal of D-Link Corp. renders that motion moot. The case will now proceed with California-based D-Link Systems, Inc. as the sole Defendant. Cause of Action Institute Assistant Vice President Patrick Massari: "The FTC sued a Taiwanese-based corporation without any factual predicate or consumer victims, real or imagined, exceeding the bounds of its regulatory authority. We are grateful for the Court's directive and pleased with this resolution of issues raised by D-Link Corp.'s motion to dismiss. We look forward to continuing to vigorously defend this case on behalf of D-Link Systems, Inc."
News Article | May 9, 2017
JERSEY CITY, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Datapipe, a leader in managed cloud services for the enterprise, announced today that it has received Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield certification, a framework designed by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Swiss Administration to enhance privacy protections when transferring data between Switzerland and the United States. Datapipe is one of the first managed cloud service providers to receive the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield certification. This certification assures Datapipe customers that any personally identifiable information (PII) from Switzerland that is processed in the United States will be safeguarded by the Privacy Shield and in accordance with Swiss data protection obligations. The new framework, which is an update from the Swiss-U.S. Harbor Framework that was declared invalid in October 2015, includes stricter data protection principles. The principles stipulate strengthened requirements around notice, regulations for onward transfers and data retention, updated management of the framework by U.S. authorities, and new mechanisms for individuals to obtain recourse for violations. “Datapipe recognizes that today’s cloud computing landscape is increasingly global – as such, we strive to provide customers with resources needed to securely transfer data across borders,” said Joel Friedman, Chief Technology & Security Officer, Datapipe. “This latest certification exemplifies our adherence to the highest standard of data protection and privacy for our customers across the globe.” The Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework was created in conjunction with the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework, which was designed to protect personal data transfers between the United States and members of the European Economic Area (EEA). As Datapipe has expanded its global footprint, the company has simultaneously grown its security practices to ensure its legal frameworks are in alignment with European data protection authorities, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the Federal Trade Commission. Datapipe’s registration for Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield certification follows its reception of EU-U.S. Privacy Shield certification in December 2016. To learn more about Datapipe’s security and compliance solutions, visit www.datapipe.com. A next generation MSP, Datapipe is recognized as the pioneer of managed services for public cloud platforms. Datapipe has unique expertise in architecting, migrating, managing and securing public cloud, private cloud, hybrid IT and traditional IT. The world’s most trusted brands partner with Datapipe to optimize mission-critical and day-to-day enterprise IT operations, enabling them to transform, innovate, and scale. Backed by a global team of experienced professionals and world-class interconnected data centers, Datapipe provides comprehensive cloud, compliance, security, governance, automation and DevOps solutions. Gartner named Datapipe a leader in the Magic Quadrant for Public Cloud Infrastructure MSPs.
News Article | May 10, 2017
Freedom Financial Network(FFN) – an innovative financial services company that enables consumers to overcome debt, build wealth and achieve better financial health – has reached record marks in two of its consumer businesses. The company’s Freedom Debt Relief (FDR) business has surpassed the $6 billion mark in total consumer debt resolved. The Freedom Financial Asset Management (FFAM) business has surpassed $1 billion in consumer loans issued. Growth in debt negotiations The FDR milestone comes just over six months after the company reached the $5 billion mark and on the heels of a record 2016. Freedom Debt Relief, one of three companies in the Freedom Financial Network, ended 2016 with more than $1.5 billion in the amount of debt it negotiated for clients during the calendar year. An increase of more than 40 percent over the previous year, the 2016 results equate to negotiating $4.2 million of debt each day throughout the year, or $174,558 per hour. During 2016, Freedom Debt Relief negotiated resolutions on 301,403 individual creditor accounts – up nearly 46 percent over 2015. The company negotiated resolutions on behalf of 110,003 clients, an increase of 39 percent over the prior year. For the fourth quarter of 2016, the company negotiated $433.7 million across 84,336 individual creditor accounts. Those figures represent increases of 12.2 and 9.1 percent, respectively, over the previous quarter. Freedom Debt Relief negotiated settlements for 51,012 clients in the fourth quarter, up 7.3 percent. FFN is the first in its industry to resolve $6 billion in consumer debt. Andrew Housser, FFN co-founder and CEO, points out that FFN has achieved its success by leading the industry in becoming one of the first companies to uphold Federal Trade Commission rules regulating the debt relief industry that took effect in 2010. The regulations aim to help consumers make sure they are working with a legitimate, reliable debt relief company and include a mandate that no debt relief company charge any fees until and unless it resolves debts for its clients. Growth in personal loans Freedom Financial Asset Management offers personal loans to help consumers consolidate their debts, lower interest rates and convert revolving debt into fixed-amortizing installment loans. Using a combination of process, technology, analytics and human interaction, FFAM provides long-term risk-adjusted returns for investors in consumer lending. “To put it simply, we think talking to people is valuable,” says Joe Toms, president of FFAM. “By doing so, we uncover information that isn’t available in a credit file or data model.” According to Toms, the commitment to human interaction and an approach of steady growth are key factors for FFAM. “Although the market has seen a significant shakeout in the formerly white-hot nonbank, peer-to-peer lending space over the past 12 months, FFAM has provided exceptional results for both consumers and investors.” “The growth in the consumer lending business demonstrates continued innovation and expansion beyond the core debt services that FFN offers,” says Housser. “Freedom Financial Network has proven that there are professional, credible ways to help people get out of debt. The rate of acceleration in the company’s growth – in each of its businesses – is a direct reflection on the ability to obtain real results for clients, day after day, quarter after quarter, year after year.” Freedom Financial Network (http://www.freedomfinancialnetwork.com) Freedom Financial Network, LLC (FFN), is a family of companies providing innovative solutions that empower people to live healthier financial lives. For people struggling with debt, Freedom Debt Relief offers a custom program to significantly reduce and resolve what they owe more quickly than they could on their own. FreedomPlus tailors personal loans to each borrower with a level of customer service unmatched in the industry. Bills.com helps homeowners better understand their loan options and make smarter mortgage decisions. Headquartered in San Mateo, California, FFN also operates an office in Tempe, Arizona, and employs more than 1,600 people. The company has been voted one of the best places to work in both the San Francisco Bay area and the Phoenix area for several years. In 2016, FFN ranked No. 1 in the Extra-Large category of the Phoenix Business Journal's Best Places to Work awards.
News Article | May 11, 2017
There's a huge court case you need to hear about. It might not be on your radar yet because, frankly, some of it gets pretty technical. But the outcome is likely to have enormous repercussions for online privacy, net neutrality and the broader economy. For months, policymakers have been struggling with the implications of this case, FTC vs. AT&T, in part because it overturned roughly a century of established legal practice — and, analysts say, because it appeared to open a tremendous loophole that businesses might use to evade federal oversight almost completely. This week, the federal appeals court responsible for the ruling agreed to rehear the case, potentially opening the door to a different result. Here's what you need to know. In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dealt the Federal Trade Commission a major blow — calling into question one of the consumer protection agency's most important powers. Over the course of 21 pages, the court said the FTC should be banned from regulating a company if even a small part of that firm's business is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission as a telecom service, otherwise known as a "common carrier." This was a major departure from the previous norm, said Harold Feld, a senior vice president at the consumer group Public Knowledge. "It was huge because it was totally unexpected," Feld said. "Nobody's ever ruled that way before." The FTC is one of America's foremost law enforcement agencies. In the tech sector alone, it has investigated or filed lawsuits against companies such as Apple, Amazon and Google. It has returned millions, if not billions, of dollars to Americans after moving to stop scams and fraudsters of all stripes. But it can go after companies only if they're within its jurisdiction. August's ruling effectively shrank the FTC's jurisdiction by placing a whole class of companies off limits. What's more, it gave businesses everywhere a massive incentive to try to gain entry into that class, thus wriggling out of FTC oversight. And it wasn't as if the FCC could pick up the slack, either; by law, the agency may regulate common carriers only to the extent that they are engaged in providing common-carrier services. Any other parts of a common carrier's business is off limits to the FCC. The result, legal experts say, was a new, gaping loophole in regulatory coverage that nobody anticipated. "This decision raised the question [of] whether any company with a common carrier business could escape FTC enforcement for all other aspects of its business," said Robin Campbell, a lawyer at Squire Patton Boggs. This is why FTC vs. AT&T is such a big deal. Under the August ruling, virtually any company in any industry seeking lighter regulation could try to claim common carrier status to exempt the rest of its business from FTC and FCC oversight. "Facebook could buy some dinky little telephone company, and then become totally exempt from the Federal Trade Commission," Feld said. Replace "Facebook" with the name of any other company, he said, and you begin to see how significant this gets. The court's decision this week to rehear the case happens to nullify the ruling, so the loophole is temporarily closed. But it could easily be reopened if the court comes to the same conclusion, analysts say. Other possibilities include reversing the court's prior position entirely, or perhaps coming down somewhere in the middle. AT&T said in a statement that it looked forward to participating in the rehearing. The outcome of the case will affect more than the FTC: It may also lend momentum to the FCC's effort to repeal its own net neutrality rules. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has argued that the FTC, not the FCC, should be responsible for policing Internet service providers. Right now, the FTC has no power over Internet service providers, because the net neutrality rules consider all those providers to be common carriers. Permanently undoing the Ninth Circuit's August ruling would mean giving the FTC the ability once again to go after the parts of an Internet service provider’s business that aren't common-carrier-related. But the FCC wants to go further than that. Pai has proposed to take Internet service providers out of the “common carrier” category, which could give the FTC even greater jurisdiction over the providers. "The court's [decision to rehear] strengthens the case for the FCC to reverse its 2015 Title II Order and restore the FTC's jurisdiction over broadband providers' privacy and data security practices," Pai said in a statement Tuesday. The FTC declined to comment. This debate over which agency should do what may seem arcane. But it has real consequences for businesses and consumers, because it represents the difference between, on the one hand, establishing preemptive rules to prevent customer abuse — and, on the other, asking customers and the government to take action to punish corporate transgressions after they occur. Preemptive regulation may cost businesses more in terms of extra paperwork, lawyers' fees and lost innovation, but after-the-fact enforcement shifts those costs onto customers and smaller businesses that can't afford to wage lengthy legal battles, according to Robert Cooper, a lawyer at Boies Schiller Flexner. "There is a role for antitrust enforcement in this space, but it is not a substitute for prescriptive rules," Cooper said in an earlier interview about the FCC's net neutrality plan. "[It] is expensive and time-consuming and thus favors those with the greatest resources. Moreover, it necessarily requires that an alleged violation already has occurred."
News Article | May 9, 2017
FOSTER CITY, Calif., May 09, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- QuinStreet, Inc. (Nasdaq:QNST), a leader in performance marketing products and technologies, today announced financial results for the third quarter ended March 31, 2017. For the third quarter, the Company reported total revenue of $79.2 million and GAAP net income of $579,000, or $0.01 per share. Adjusted net income was $2.6 million, or $0.06 per share, and adjusted EBITDA was $5.2 million, or 7% of revenue. The Company generated $6.2 million in operating cash flow in the third quarter, ending the period with $42 million in cash and equivalents, and no debt. “Fiscal Q3 was in line with our expectations and outlook,” commented Doug Valenti, CEO of QuinStreet. “We saw strong double-digit sequential revenue growth in all of our client verticals: Financial Services grew 23%, Education grew 18%, and Other (Home Services, Business-to-Business Technology) grew 17%. We delivered on our commitment to rapidly expand adjusted EBITDA margin and operating cash flow in the quarter. We are pleased to have achieved adjusted EBITDA margin of 7% and operating cash flow of $6.2 million, resulting in a net cash position of $42 million. “Looking at fiscal Q4, we expect revenue to grow in the low single digit percentages both year-over- year and sequentially. The expected sequential growth is considerably better than our typical historic pattern of a seasonal decline in Q4, indicating the continued positive momentum we are seeing in the business. We expect adjusted EBITDA margin to be at least 7% for the quarter,” concluded Valenti. Reconciliations of adjusted net income to GAAP net income and adjusted EBITDA to GAAP net income are included in the accompanying tables. The Company will host a conference call and corresponding live webcast at 2:00 p.m. PT today. To access the conference call, dial +1 (800) 768.6544 or +1 (785) 830.7990 for international callers. The webcast will be available live on the investor relations section of the Company's website at http://investor.quinstreet.com and via replay beginning approximately two hours after the completion of the call by registering online at: https://jsp.premiereglobal.com/webrsvp and using passcode 5654911 to obtain dial-in information for the replay. Dial-in information for the replay will be available beginning one day prior to the conference call and the conference call replay will be available through Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 4:30 p.m. PT. This release and the accompanying tables include a discussion of adjusted EBITDA, adjusted net income (loss) and adjusted diluted net income (loss) per share, all of which are non-GAAP financial measures that are provided as a complement to results provided in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America ("GAAP"). The term "adjusted EBITDA" refers to a financial measure that we define as net income (loss) less benefit from (provision for) taxes, depreciation expense, amortization expense, stock-based compensation expense, interest and other income (expense), net, restructuring expense and legal settlement expense. The term "adjusted net income (loss)" refers to a financial measure that we define as net income (loss) adjusted for amortization expense, stock-based compensation expense, restructuring expense and legal settlement expense, net of estimated taxes. The term "adjusted diluted net income (loss) per share" refers to a financial measure that we define as adjusted net income (loss) divided by weighted average diluted shares outstanding. These non-GAAP measures should be considered in addition to results prepared in accordance with GAAP, but should not be considered a substitute for, or superior to, GAAP results. In addition, our definition of adjusted EBITDA, adjusted net income (loss) and adjusted diluted net income (loss) per share may not be comparable to the definitions as reported by other companies. We believe adjusted EBITDA, adjusted net income (loss) and adjusted diluted net income (loss) per share are relevant and useful information because they provide us and investors with additional measurements to analyze the Company's operating performance. Adjusted EBITDA is part of our internal management reporting and planning process and one of the primary measures used by our management to evaluate the operating performance of our business, as well as potential acquisitions. Adjusted EBITDA is useful to us and investors because it provides information related to the Company's ability to provide cash flow for acquisitions, capital expenditures and working capital requirements. Internally, adjusted EBITDA is used by management for planning purposes, including preparation of internal budgets; to allocate resources; to evaluate the effectiveness of operational strategies; and to evaluate the Company's capacity to fund acquisitions and capital expenditures as well as the capacity to service debt. Adjusted EBITDA is used as a key financial metric in senior management's annual incentive compensation program. The Company believes that analysts and investors use adjusted EBITDA as a supplemental measurement to evaluate the overall operating performance of companies in its industry and use adjusted EBITDA multiples as a metric for analyzing company valuations. It is also an element of certain maintenance covenants under our debt agreement. Adjusted net income (loss) and adjusted diluted net income (loss) per share are useful to us and investors because they present an additional measurement of our financial performance, taking into account depreciation, which we believe is an ongoing cost of doing business, but excluding the impact of certain non-cash expenses (stock-based compensation and amortization of intangible assets) and other non-recurring charges. The Company believes that analysts and investors use adjusted net income (loss) and adjusted diluted net income (loss) per share as supplemental measures to evaluate the overall operating performance of companies in our industry. We intend to provide these non-GAAP financial measures as part of our future earnings discussions and, therefore, the inclusion of these non-GAAP financial measures will provide consistency in our financial reporting. A reconciliation of these non-GAAP measures to GAAP is provided in the accompanying tables. This press release and its attachments contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that involve risks and uncertainties. Words such as "estimate", "will”, "believe", "intend", "potential" and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements include the statements in quotations from management in this press release, as well as any statements regarding the Company's anticipated financial results, growth, strategic and operational plans and results of analyses on impairment charges. The Company's actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements. Factors that may contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to: the impact of changes in industry standards and government regulation including, but not limited to investigation or enforcement activities of the Department of Education, the Federal Trade Commission and other regulatory agencies; the Company’s ability to maintain and increase client marketing spend; the Company's ability to maintain and increase the number of visitors to its websites and to convert those visitors and those to its third-party publishers' websites into client prospects in a cost-effective manner; the impact of the current economic climate on the Company's business; the Company's ability to access and monetize Internet users on mobile devices; the Company's ability to attract and retain qualified executives and employees; the Company's ability to compete effectively against others in the online marketing and media industry both for client budget and access to third-party media; the Company's ability to identify and manage acquisitions; and the impact and costs of any alleged failure by the Company to comply with government regulations and industry standards. More information about potential factors that could affect the Company's business and financial results are contained in the Company's annual report on Form 10-K and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). Additional information will also be set forth in the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2017, which will be filed with the SEC. The Company does not intend and undertakes no duty to release publicly any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements contained herein. QuinStreet, Inc. (Nasdaq:QNST) is one of the largest Internet performance marketing and media companies in the world. QuinStreet is committed to providing consumers and businesses with the information they need to research, find and select the products, services and brands that meet their needs. For more information, please visit www.QuinStreet.com.
News Article | May 12, 2017
Walnut Place will be mailing notice letters to individuals whose data was present on the affected systems. Walnut Place will continue the notification process should additional individuals be determined to be potentially impacted. Walnut Place is providing potentially impacted individuals with access to free credit monitoring services. Walnut Place encourages potentially impacted individuals to remain vigilant against incidents of identity theft and fraud, to review account statements, and to monitor their credit reports and explanation of benefits forms for suspicious activity. Walnut Place is providing potentially impacted individuals with contact information for the three major credit reporting agencies, as well as providing advice on how to obtain free credit reports and how to place fraud alerts and security freezes on their credit files. The relevant contact information is below: Potentially impacted individuals may also find information regarding identity theft, fraud alerts, security freezes and the steps they may take to protect their information by contacting the credit bureaus, and the Federal Trade Commission. The Federal Trade Commission can be reached at: 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580; www.identitytheft.gov; 1-877-ID-THEFT (1-877-438-4338); and TTY: 1-866-653-4261. Walnut Place has set up a call center to answer questions from those who might be impacted by this incident. Anyone with additional questions may contact the call center at 1-888-735-5898 (toll free), Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. CT. Additional information on how potentially impacted individuals can protect themselves can also be found at Walnut Place's website www.walnutplacelcs.com. To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/walnut-place-notice-of-data-breach-300457044.html
News Article | May 12, 2017
And so continues the battle over Qualcomm's licensing practices. The US Federal Trade Commission on Friday defended its antitrust lawsuit from January, saying in a legal filing with the US District Court in San Jose, California, that the court shouldn't dismiss its complaint against Qualcomm. The group has accused Qualcomm, the world's biggest mobile chipmaker, of forcing Apple into an exclusive chip deal. Qualcomm maintained a monopoly that extracted high royalty fees and weakened competition, the FTC said. Qualcomm denies the claims and last month asked for a court to dismiss the antitrust suit. "Qualcomm uses its monopoly power to make [handset manufacturers] pay a royalty overcharge -- a tax -- when buying modem chips from its competitors," the FTC said Friday. "Qualcomm further hampers those competitors by denying them the licenses it promised would be available on FRAND terms during standard- setting. And Qualcomm foreclosed its competitors from selling to a uniquely important customer, Apple, for half a decade using exclusive contracts." On their own, each of those arguments "present a forceful antitrust case," the FTC said. "Together, they easily surpass the plausibility threshold at the pleading stage." Qualcomm in a statement reiterated its argument that the suit shouldn't proceed. "The Federal Trade Commission's latest submission to the court does nothing to cure the fundamental flaws in its complaint against Qualcomm: no coherent theory of competitive harm and no allegations of the type of conduct that the antitrust laws are designed to address," Qualcomm said. "The complaint therefore should be dismissed." Qualcomm is the world's biggest provider of mobile chips, and it created some of the essential standards for connecting phones to cellular networks. The company derives a significant portion of its revenue from licensing that technology to hundreds of handset manufacturers and others. Because Qualcomm owns patents related to 3G and 4G phones, any handset maker building a device that connects to the newer networks has to pay it a licensing fee, even if they don't use Qualcomm's chips. Qualcomm has come under scrutiny in recent years for alleged monopolistic practices. Two years ago, it paid China nearly $1 billion to end a 14-month antitrust investigation in that country. Then, in December, South Korea hit Qualcomm with a $850 million fine following a three-year investigation. The South Korean Fair Trade Commission accused the chipmaker of having an "unfair business model" and creating a monopoly with its practices. Those all come on top of the FTC's complaint. Apple in January filed suit against Qualcomm in the US, alleging the wireless chipmaker didn't give fair licensing terms for its technology. Apple also said Qualcomm sought to punish it for cooperating in a South Korean investigation into Qualcomm's licensing practices by withholding a $1 billion rebate. Last month, Apple said it had stopped paying royalties to contract manufacturers for phone patents owned by Qualcomm, starting with devices sold during the March quarter. That dealt a blow to Qualcomm's financial results. The FTC's lawsuit from January accused Qualcomm of maintaining a monopoly over chips for cellular phones through a "no license, no chips" policy. That policy imposed "onerous" supply and patent-licensing terms to extract high royalties from cellphone makers and weaken competitors, the commission said. The FTC's original complaint said the patents Qualcomm held are standard-essential patents -- technology that is essential to the industry and must be licensed to competitors under fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms (FRAND). But the complaint alleges that Qualcomm consistently refused to license some standard-essential patents to rival chipmakers, in violation of its FRAND commitments. Qualcomm's motion to dismiss last month contended that the FTC's complaint failed to support claims of antitrust violations or competitive harm. The case is at a "highly important juncture," Florian Mueller, a patent expert who maintains the blog Foss Patents, said Friday. "Unlike patent infringement and other commercial cases that are fact-intensive, this antitrust case is centered around some very important questions of law," Mueller said. "Qualcomm's dual-monopoly business model presents some unique issues, and the FTC's task in this litigation is to convince the court that this case fits within an established pattern of anticompetitive conduct." He added that the FTC makes a "very important point" that's also central to Apple's argument against Qualcomm: "Considering how multifunctional today's smartphones are, 'a 5 [percent] royalty on a 2006 phone is not economically equivalent to a 5 [percent] royalty on a 2017 smartphone.'" Samsung, the world's biggest handset maker, hasn't filed any lawsuits against Qualcomm, but it did file an amicus brief in support of the FTC on Friday, saying the court shouldn't dismiss the antitrust suit. In it, the company noted that it's a Qualcomm customer (it uses Qualcomm's chips in devices like the Galaxy S8), and it's also a potential competitor (Samsung builds and sells chips). "In both capacities, Samsung has directly experienced, and been directly harmed by, the exclusionary conduct alleged in the FTC's complaint," it said in a court filing Friday. "Qualcomm refuses to license its [standard essential patents] on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ... terms so that Samsung can make and can sell licensed chipsets. Given its position, Samsung is uniquely situated to assist the court in understanding the important antitrust principles at stake in this case." Samsung said in its filing that Qualcomm agreed to fairly license its technology if standards bodies adopt tech that required the use of Qualcomm patents. But the South Korean company said Qualcomm hasn't kept its side of the bargain. Instead of licensing its standard essential patents to rival chipmakers, it only gives licenses to handset manufacturers. "Because Qualcomm does not license [chipset] competitors, handset manufacturers have no choice but to accept Qualcomm's onerous terms," Samsung said. "Qualcomm directly excludes competitors and harms competition." Intel, one of Qualcomm's main rivals in semiconductors, also filed an amicus brief on Friday. The company, which was late and has struggled in the mobile chip market, became a supplier of iPhone mobile chips in Apple's latest models, the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus. "Although Qualcomm has driven nearly all of its competitors out of the premium LTE chipset market, Intel has not thrown in the towel," Intel said in a court filing. The company noted that Qualcomm's business dealings with Apple "put Intel's commercial success at risk and will do so in the future if Qualcomm is allowed to persist in its anticompetitive tactics. As the only remaining competitor in the premium LTE chipset market ... any harm to Intel's premium chipset business will have profound anticompetitive effects on the market as a whole." Update at 1:30 p.m. PT with Samsung's amicus brief filing. Update at 3:25 p.m. PT with Intel's amicus brief filing. Does the Mac still matter? Apple execs tell why the MacBook Pro was over four years in the making, and why we should care. Virtual reality 101: CNET tells you everything you need to know about VR.
News Article | May 11, 2017
Valence property management software announces new software integration partners for rent payment processing and tenant screening ValencePM property management software announces new rent payment processing platform and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) / United States Department of Housing and Development (HUD) compliant tenant screening integrations. These new software integrations will give ValencePM customers more rent payment benefits and tenant screening compliance when operating their apartment communities. ValencePM was founded on a simple principle: work with property owners and operators to develop practical property management software solutions at an affordable price. In 2008, the beta version of the ValencePM software was written and launched to a small group of property owners and operators. While in beta, the Valence software team used the owner and operator feedback to guide the evolution of ValencePM. Today, ValencePM software is a mature property management system covering everything from lease management, to maintenance tracking, to back-office accounting, to online rent payments. The new rent payment processing integration, powered by PayYourRent.com, gives ValencePM property management and residential customers many added benefits and features. For instance, property management customers will enjoy same-day payment processing and next-day funding. In addition, the residents of these property management companies can build their credit history with TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax with each rent payment. “The integration between ValencePM and PayYourRent.com is a beneficial partnership for everyone,” said Kevin Eberly, the General Manager at PayYourRent.com. “ValencePM is the iPhone of property management software in terms of ease-of-use, user interface design, and functionality; and PayYourRent is one of the industry’s fastest rent payment processors, and one of the only rent payment companies that report to the credit bureaus. ValencePM and PayYourRent both have a philosophy of helping property management companies and their residents save time and continuously improve.” The new FCRA / HUD compliant tenant screening integration, powered by ScreeningOne, gives ValencePM property management customers assurance that they are running government-compliant credit, criminal, and eviction background screening of new applicants. Most tenant screening companies get their tenant background screening information from the same database sources; and a lot of times, this information is outdated and not accurate. FCRA regulations give applicants the right to sue landlords and property management companies for non-compliant background screening practices. And recent guidelines by HUD makes it clear that non-compliance could subject the landlord to an action by HUD for alleged violations of The Fair Housing Act. Moreover, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) can file lawsuits against property management companies for not complying with the FCRA screening guidelines. And recently, lawsuits have increased over non-compliant tenant screening. “The integration between ValencePM and ScreeningOne was a huge priority for us,” said Anthony Ragland, the Director of Marketing at ValencePM. “We’re a customer-centric company. And we want our property management customers to have the best of the best software products, services, and solutions to operate their businesses efficiently and effectively without worry.” For all media inquiries, please contact: Anthony Ragland at Anthony@ValencePM.com ValencePM™, is a cloud-based property management software for apartment and multi-family housing communities. Since inception, ValencePM has believed in building an affordable apartment management software that is simple-to‐learn, easy‐to-use, and feature-rich; and providing every customer with first-class and responsive customer support. ValencePM core software features include AP/GL back-office accounting, online/mobile rent payment processing, FCRA/HUD compliant tenant screening, guest card tracking, resident lease management, property maintenance management, full reporting suite, and document storage management. ValencePM is one of the most modern property management software applications in the industry, and customers consistently say it's simple-to-learn, easy-to-use, cost-effective, a time-saver, well-supported, and cutting-edge.
Koch T.G.,Federal Trade Commission
Journal of Health Economics | Year: 2013
Crowd-out, the switching from private to public insurance, is often found, but estimates are rarely consistent with prior measurements. Cutler and Gruber (1996) found crowd-out in up to half of the newly eligible children, while Card and Shore-Sheppard (2004) found almost none. This paper exploits many regression discontinuity (RD) designs to estimate heterogeneous effects of public insurance eligibility. Crowd-out and its impact on spending and utilization is documented across the income spectrum, but effects are smaller at higher income levels. These differences vary by state and correspond to changes in the reimbursement rates of public insurance plans. © 2013.