News
Receptional Internet Marketing24 MAY 2013 19:20:
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/55555?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Agoogle-ftc-investigation%3A1913052&ch=Technology&c3=Guardian&c4=Google+%28Technology%29%2CAdvertising+%28media%29%2CInternet%2CTechnology%2CMedia%2CUS+news%2CWorld+news&c5=Unclassified%2CNot+commercially+useful%2CMedia+Weekly%2CTechnology+Gadgets%2CCorporate+IT%2CAdvertising+Media&c6=Charles+Arthur&c7=2013%2F05%2F24+08%3A20&c8=1913052&c9=Article&c10=News&c13=&c19=GUK&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=Google+advertising+under+investigation+in+US&c66=News&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FNews%2FTechnology%2FGoogle" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">US federal trade commission looking into allegations that company's DoubleClick has illegally promoted Google products</p><p>The US federal trade commission is investigating whether Google's DoubleClick advertising subsidiary has illegally pushed customers to buy its other products, the Guardian has established.</p><p>The regulator is understood to be looking at whether the display advertiser, acquired by Google in 2008 for $3.1bn (£2bn), is being used to muscle clients into buying adverts on other Google advertising properties such as its text-based AdSense. That could constitute "tying", which is illegal under antitrust law.</p><p>FTC spokesman Peter Kaplan declined to comment. The Guardian has, however, confirmed that the investigation is under way from other sources with knowledge of the FTC's work.</p><p>The FTC, which has a remit to protect consumers, has a number of preliminary investigations under way at any time, many of which are subsequently dropped for lack of evidence or harm. The first sign that it was moving towards a formal investigation would be the issuing of investigative requests to affected companies. The Google investigation is understood to be in its preliminary stages.</p><p>Reuters reported that the concerns have been raised by rivals who have complained that DoubleClick products such as its ad management system have been used to encourage sites to use other Google products such as <a href="http://www.google.com/doubleclick/networks/scaled-media-buying.html" title="">AdExchange</a>.</p><p>An antitrust investigation by the FTC could seriously hamper Google's freedom to manoeuvre in the advertising market. DoubleClick provides ad targeting based on various criteria. Since the purchase was completed in 2008, the number of players in the online ad market has shrunk.</p><p>Google had about 15% of America's $15bn online display advertising market in 2012, ahead of Facebook's 14.6%, said research firm eMarketer. That's expected to widen in Google's favour over the next year.</p><p>Microsoft famously fell foul of antitrust law in the 1990s, found guilty of illegally tying PC vendors' ability to buy its Windows operating system to the use of its Internet Explorer browser. That shut out the rival Netscape. Microsoft escaped a direct sanction following an appeal in 2000 but had to submit to antitrust oversight until May 2011. The trial and subsequent consent decree substantially changed Microsoft's corporate culture – and created the opportunity for Google to emerge with the rise of the internet.</p><p>Separately, the European commission has yet to decide whether it will accept a number of suggestions made by Google to end an investigation into potential abuse of its search monopoly. Google in April offered a number of concessions relating to search labelling – but rivals who previously complained to the EC <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/apr/25/google-rivals-reject-offer-label-listings" title="">indicated they would reject them</a>, which could set back any agreement and might trigger legal action.</p><p>The FTC has carried out formal investigations against Google a number of times in recent years. In 2011 it <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/30/google-privacy-reviews-buzz-ftc" title="">investigated its Google Buzz</a> social media system, for which it was bound over for 20 years in March 2011 on privacy-related matters. It then <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/aug/09/google-record-fine-ftc-safari" title="">had to pay a $22.5m fine</a> last August for violating that ruling by hacking Apple users' browsers to track them online.</p><p>In January, the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jan/03/google-cleared-search-bias-investigation" title="">FTC cleared Google</a> of biasing its search results in its own favour after a two-year formal investigation that ran in parallel with – but separate from – the one in Europe. However, the FTC did slap down Google's Motorola Mobility (MMI) subsidiary for its attempts to seek injunctions against companies including Apple and Motorola for using its "standards-essential" patents – a decision seen by many as lowering MMI's overall value, because it reduced the amount that Google could demand for use of its portfolio of 17,500 patents.</p><p>That weakness in MMI's patent portfolio was reinforced on Thursday, when a panel at the ITC, which adjudicates on trade disputes over US imports, declined to grant MMI a sales ban against Microsoft's Xbox, ending a dispute that had gone on since November 2010.</p><p>Previously a US judge cut to just $1.8m an MMI claim under which it was demanding royalties on a standards-essential patent that would have cost Microsoft billions of dollars annually.</p><p>The US district court judge argued that having a patent with comparatively small functionality used in a standard should not be an excuse for demanding a "hold-up" rate.</p><p>In Europe, Apple and Microsoft have both complained to the EC's antitrust arm – the same one investigating Google's alleged search bias – about MMI's use of standards-essential patents to seek injunctions.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/google">Google</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/advertising">Advertising</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/internet">Internet</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usa">United States</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/charlesarthur">Charles Arthur</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
More details
24 MAY 2013 17:00:
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/78923?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Asearch-me-online-reputation-management%3A1911380&ch=Technology&c3=Guardian&c4=Internet%2CTechnology%2CGoogle+%28Technology%29&c5=Unclassified%2CTechnology+Gadgets%2CCorporate+IT&c6=Tim+Dowling&c7=2013%2F05%2F24+06%3A00&c8=1911380&c9=Article&c10=Feature&c13=&c19=GUK&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=Search+me%3A+online+reputation+management&c66=News&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FNews%2FTechnology%2FInternet" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">Past scandals, bad photos, critical comments: the internet has a long memory. As the EU considers the 'right to be forgotten', we investigate the growing business of online reputation management – and learn how you can airbrush your own past</p><p>A few weeks ago, I Googled a pub to find out where it was. I clicked on the map that came up, for a larger view of the surrounding area. To the left of the map, under the pub's address and phone number, was a single quotation from a customer. "I had to wait 40 minutes for my chips!" it said.</p><p>The pub, which is part of a large chain, clearly had a problem: a bad review – a complaint, really – was the first thing that greeted potential customers, some of whom, like me, only wanted directions. Had I not arranged to meet people there, I might have looked for another pub. I don't want to wait 40 minutes for my chips.</p><p>This 21st-century problem now has its own solution: online reputation management. Businesses and brands are increasingly seeking the services of companies that specialise in tidying up search engine results. The effect of a terrible review, a critical blog, an unflattering link or a rant from a disgruntled ex-employee sitting in one of the top 10 Google spots can be devastating for a business as click-through rates plummet. Obviously some companies have the online reputation they deserve, but an unjustified, malicious or obsolete complaint may linger for years, blighting every new query.</p><p>However, the future of online reputation management seems to lie not just with rescuing brands, but with individuals. In the wake of the 2008 Wall Street crash, it was reported that prominent bankers were paying retainers of up to $10,000 a month to keep their search results clean. <a href="http://www.Reputations.com" title="">Reputations.com</a>, which claims to have more than a million clients in more than 100 countries, charges a starting price of £1,200 to repair the online reputations of individuals. In his book <a href="http://www.guardianbookshop.co.uk/BerteShopWeb/viewProduct.do?ISBN=9781848546202" title="">The New Digital Age</a>, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/eric-schmidt" title="">Eric Schmidt</a>, the executive chairman of Google, predicts that in the future, employing the services of an "identity manager" to maintain one's online presence will be "the new normal for the prominent and those who aspire to be prominent".</p><p>So that's exactly what I've done. My identity manager for the day is Simon Wadsworth, managing director of <a href="http://www.igniyte.co.uk/" title="">Igniyte</a>, a UK online reputation management company with offices in Leeds and London. We are sitting at a boardroom table with a bright pink top, looking at Wadsworth's laptop. He is about to type my name into Google, and I'm getting ready to pretend to be surprised by what he shows me, as if I'd never done it myself.</p><p>The idea of offering online reputation management was first presented to Wadsworth, a digital marketing consultant, 18 months ago by a client, a financial services company whose name brought up "four or five different bad blogs" when people searched for it. "They said, 'What can you do about it?'" Wadsworth says. "I just went and sat in a darkened room and thought about how, if I was going to do this, I would go about doing it. From that point onwards, we spent the best part of nine months learning how to do that one job."</p><p>Online reputation management now accounts for 95% of his business. Initially, he worked exclusively with firms and brands, but these days 60-70% of Wadsworth's clients are individuals. "I did not anticipate that," he says.</p><p>His customers range from "senior execs in household name companies" to medical professionals, actors, presenters, politicians and beyond. "I'm not exaggerating when I say I've had phone calls from people as they've left prison," he says. "There's a fine line with that. I don't know if I can define the line, but we do turn down people quite regularly, because of the nature of what they've done."</p><p>For the most part, it's not people you would necessarily have heard of. One client is a former NHS professional who was implicated in an expenses scandal and is looking to move on with his life. The matter was settled four years ago, but it still comes up in searches. Another is an actor who wanted some pictures from when she was younger removed from the web. Confidentially is an essential part of the job. "Would the individuals that we have on our books want their friends, family, relations, work colleagues or industry to know that we're trying to fix issues for them?" Wadsworth asks. "I don't think so."</p><p>An online reputation is notoriously prone to the tarnish of outdated or contentious information, of the sort which is now the subject of proposed EU rules concerning the so-called "right to be forgotten". Google's search algorithms can make stuff seem more current or valid or relevant than it is. Memories and newsprint fade, but decades-old allegations are often among the first things to appear when a name is searched. If the law can't help you, an online reputation manager may be your only option.</p><p>For companies and individuals alike, the ultimate goal is much the same: a clean page one. Most people never look beyond the first page of a Google search – 94% of all clicks go to a top 10 result – so pushing negative results down the list until they fall on page two or three is the strategy. A business or brand, Wadsworth says, should be looking to "own the assets that are on that first page". In other words, most of the content linking from the top 10 results should be stuff generated by the company itself. Coca-Cola can manage this – its main site, partner sites, customer sites and Facebook pages dominate – but a company such as Monsanto has a harder time: news reports and organic protest sites feature prominently.</p><p>For the individual, owning page one isn't really an option, or even desirable. And while the idea of shifting unfavourable content down the list sounds simple, it's far from easy.</p><p>"If Joe Bloggs sat in his bedroom in Pittsburgh decides that he doesn't like Tim Dowling's article," Wadsworth says, "I can't control him going on there and saying, 'Yes, but he writes these terrible articles and he's unfunny and da-da-da-da." (My mind automatically fills in the da-das with appropriate insults.) It is possible to get a malicious blog post removed if it's defamatory, or if it violates the terms and conditions of the host site, but taking issue with criticism – legitimate or otherwise – risks making matters worse. "I have a particular client who's got a blogger in Belgium," Wadsworth says. "Every time we try to do something, he's tripling his efforts to make sure the negative stuff stays on page one."</p><p>By way of demonstrating how he might begin an audit with a new client, he turns to his laptop and types in my name. A few suggestions – "tim dowling guardian" is one – immediately present themselves in a drop-down box. "People come to us to fix that as well," he says. "If the second suggestion down is 'tim dowling scam artist', you're in trouble before they've even looked at page one."</p><p>How would you go about fixing that?</p><p>"The reason it appears in the drop-down in the first place is based on the number of searches performed for that phrase. So we do searches to effect those moves: 'tim dowling journalist'; 'tim dowling nice guy'…"</p><p>Is online reputation management just gaming the system to give someone a clean slate they haven't earned? The system, Wadsworth says, is already inherently unfair, often providing a platform for unsubstantiated gripes or preserving complaints about problems that have long since been addressed. One angry employee can wreak havoc online. "I would like to see us more as the defender," he says. "But you can push that point only so far, because clearly some of the things we do are covering up."</p><p><a href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Tim+dowling&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=yl2WUZfKAuqk0QWasICwBg" title="">My page one</a> is, as I am fully aware, fairly clean. Guardian website pages claim the number one and two spots. Then there's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Dowling" title="">a Wikipedia entry</a>, followed by <a href="https://twitter.com/IAmTimDowling" title="">my Twitter feed</a> and links referring to other Tim Dowlings – an attorney, an Austin-based realtor, the head of North American structuring at Deutsche Bank AG – whose reputations are not my problem. As neutral placeholders in the top 10, they're more of an asset than a nuisance. In the fourth spot are <a href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=tim+dowling&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=nV6WUezzDK6r0gWd3YCwDw&ved=0CEgQsAQ&biw=1413&bih=1025" title="">a string of Google images I'd dearly like to push to page two</a>, but I posed for all of them, so I shouldn't complain. Wadsworth tells me of a prospective client whose highest-ranking image was his prison mugshot.</p><p>Wadsworth returns to the search box and types a "u" after "tim dowling". The first suggestion in the drop-down box is "<a href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=tim+dowling+unfunny&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=4V2WUf6sGeiW0QXOy4DQBA" title="">tim dowling unfunny</a>". We stare at it in silence for a moment.</p><p>"Have you seen this?" he asks.</p><p>I have. The number one spot for that search is a link to <a href="http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_classics/757299-Tim-Dowling-for-example-is-a-twat/AllOnOnePage" title="">a 2009 Mumsnet discussion entitled "Tim Dowling, for example, is a twat."</a> I have only myself to blame for its existence. I stumbled across that sentence online, wrote about finding it and inadvertently spawned a thread with 484 posts. At some point my wife signed up to Mumsnet to commiserate with my detractors. Dark times.</p><p>Wadsworth says I made a classic mistake, creating a forum over which I have no control. "You opened up an arena for people to debate whether or not you were funny." And a twat.</p><p>The other results confirm that when it comes to the search results for "tim dowling unfunny", I do not exactly own page one. But that may not necessarily be a problem. The negative stuff is out there, but is anyone looking for it? "People almost become obsessed about Googling their own name," Wadsworth says. No comment.</p><p>Logging into <a href="https://adwords.google.com/o/Targeting/Explorer?__c=1000000000&__u=1000000000&ideaRequestType=KEYWORD_IDEAS" title="">Google's adwords tool</a> – the one businesses use to determine what keyword searches to target with advertising – he shows me that, on average, the search term "tim dowling" is typed into Google in excess of 3,600 times a month. But the search "tim dowling unfunny" is executed globally fewer than 10 times a month. It barely registers. Something shameful occurs to me.</p><p>"That's probably just me searching," I say.</p><p>"Yeah," he says. "That'll be you. And I'll have added a couple this morning."</p><p>I am lucky, he tells me. The way Google's search algorithm favours established and authoritative sites means my Guardian profile page will probably retain its number one spot. But this means that for his clients, a damaging newspaper article can be all but impossible to shift to page two. Consumer sites such as <a href="http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/" title="">moneysavingexpert.com</a> and <a href="http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/" title="">TripAdvisor</a> are also stubborn.</p><p>For businesses, the solution is to create positive – or even neutral – content to overwhelm the negative. "What we don't do is post false reviews on behalf of the company," Wadsworth says, "because it's a game you're never going to win." Straightforward, genuine, usable content is preferable – he encourages companies to set up a separate jobs portal for recruitment, for example – but even so, the change tends to be glacial. And while it can take many months to get the negative stuff off Google's front page, its arrival can happen overnight.</p><p>"We've got a global alcoholic drinks brand that posted an ad on Facebook for one hour and ended up with three completely full pages of bad stuff on Google." He reckons it will take a year to sort out, and having seen the pages in question, I agree.</p><p>For an individual, there are a few simple things one can do to maintain a healthy online reputation, and I am apparently doing none of them. I should be colonising page one by joining big networking sites such as <a href="http://uk.linkedin.com/" title="">LinkedIn</a>. I could sign up for a DIY reputation-management service such as <a href="https://brandyourself.com/" title="">BrandYourself</a>. I should have online profiles lodged with professional listings sites. I should have my own website, my own blog, and I should post on them until they rank in the top 10.</p><p>When I get home, I don't do any of those things. Instead, I sign up for Google adwords, and start working my way through the alphabet. "tim dowling arsehole": no searches! "tim dowling bastard": no searches! When I'm done, I'm going to go back to the search box and type "tim dowling nice guy" until my fingers bleed. It's the future. </p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/internet">Internet</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/google">Google</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/timdowling">Tim Dowling</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
More details
24 MAY 2013 14:14:
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/85134?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Agoogle-facebook-waze-travel-app%3A1912770&ch=Technology&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Apps%2CGoogle+%28Technology%29%2CFacebook%2CInternet%2CTechnology%2CSocial+networking%2CDigital+media%2CMedia+business%2CMedia%2CTechnology+sector+%28business+sector%29%2CBusiness&c5=Unclassified%2CDigital+Media%2CBusiness+Markets%2CMedia+Weekly%2CTechnology+Gadgets%2CCorporate+IT%2CFamily+and+Relationships&c6=Charles+Arthur&c7=2013%2F05%2F24+03%3A14&c8=1912770&c9=Article&c10=News&c13=&c19=GUK&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=Google+and+Facebook+in+bidding+war+over+Waze+travel+app+company&c66=News&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FNews%2FTechnology%2FApps" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">Search pioneer reportedly made approach after social network's $1bn offer was rebuffed, in move that could boost its maps app</p><p>The travel app company Waze is believed to be the subject of a billion-dollar bidding war between Google and Facebook, in a move apparently aimed at tying its social functions more closely into the rival firms' networks.</p><p>A fortnight ago reports suggested that Facebook had bid $1bn for the business, in order to wrap the "social travel" element into its billion-strong social network. But those initial approaches seem to have been rebuffed – and now Google is said to have entered the fray.</p><p>Any buyout by Google or Facebook could also have implications for Apple, which buys data from Waze for its much-criticised Maps application on the iPhone and iPad. In January, Waze was said to have been in takeover talks with Apple, for which it is a supplier of some map data. Apple was reported to have been offering about $500m for the company – an amount that was apparently rejected by Waze chief executive Noam Bardin, who was holding out for substantially more.</p><p>Now those bids seem to have arrived for the company, which has more than 40 million users, and which has attracted attention in the US for its ability to provide real-time information about traffic. Its social influence was highlighted after Hurricane Sandy, when the White House and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) <a href="http://www.waze.com/blog/attention-wazers-help-us-get-fuel-to-new-jersey-residents/" title="">contacted Waze</a> to ask its users to indicate which petrol stations in New Jersey were short of fuel after the devastating storm so they could be prioritised for deliveries.</p><p>Waze, founded in Israel in 2007 but now headquartered in Silicon Valley, provides a free smartphone app which uses GPS sensing when the user is in traffic to determine their speed; by amalgamating it with other Waze users' data, it can generate real-time information about holdups, accidents and other problems. That, in turn, helps to predict optimal routes avoiding congestion or roadblocks. After Hurricane Sandy, the company sells anonymised data sets of maps and traffic to third parties.</p><p>For Facebook, Waze would provide a further route into the burgeoning mobile space, where <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/09/facebook-buys-instagram-mobile-photo" title="">purchased photo-sharing app Instagram for $1bn</a> in April 2012. Buying Waze could give it more opportunities to sell mobile ads, as well as getting better data about its users' movements.</p><p>For Google, Waze would help to enhance the <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/2038863/hands-on-new-google-maps-make-maps-interesting-again.html" title="">social side of its new maps app</a>, which was unveiled at its recent I/O conference earlier this month.</p><p>Waze has received a total of $67m of venture capital funding, the most recent a $30m injection in October 2011 which valued it at around $250m,.</p><p>Facebook declined to comment. Waze and Google did not return requests for comment.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/apps">Apps</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/google">Google</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/facebook">Facebook</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/internet">Internet</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/socialnetworking">Social networking</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/digital-media">Digital media</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/mediabusiness">Media business</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/technology">Technology sector</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/charlesarthur">Charles Arthur</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
More details
24 MAY 2013 13:48:
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/26934?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Amedia-measurement-david-gosen%3A1912749&ch=Technology&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Internet%2CGoogle+%28Technology%29%2CTechnology%2CDigital+media%2CMedia&c5=Unclassified%2CDigital+Media%2CMedia+Weekly%2CTechnology+Gadgets%2CCorporate+IT&c6=David+Gosen&c7=2013%2F05%2F24+02%3A48&c8=1912749&c9=Blog&c10=Comment%2CBlogpost&c13=&c19=GUK&c25=Technology+blog%2CMedia+blog&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=The+future+of+media+measurement+should+be+people-based&c66=News&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FNews%2FTechnology%2FInternet" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">Nielsen executive David Gosen responds to <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/20/google-nielsen" title="">Frédéric Filloux's blog</a> backing a site-centric approach using server logs</p><p>When it comes to the development and distribution of content, the pace of innovation has been breathtaking. Today, people consume media on multiple platforms and devices and, with the rise of mobile technologies, they do it any time and in any place. So, how should this proliferating and diverse consumption be measured?</p><p></p><p>Some, such as <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/20/google-nielsen" title="">Frédéric Filloux in his Monday Note post on 20 May</a>, argue that a site-centric approach using server logs is required. At Nielsen, though, we believe this overlooks some of the essential aspects of media measurement in today's world. </p><p></p><p>Currently, each publisher can only measure its own data. They can understand volume but, while some collect extensive user data through registration, in many cases they know little about their visitors. That's why Nielsen measures people.</p><p></p><p>Online audiences don't just visit websites in a vacuum – they are real people with real lives and real families and they no longer consume media in a linear way. When Nielsen recruits people for a panel, we do so with their explicit permission, and that allows us to get to know them. We construct panels that statistically represent the census of the region, and this gives us (and our clients) unique context about consumer behaviour across a wide variety of devices – computers, yes, but also televisions, smartphones, tablets, and more.</p><p></p><p>This measurement of people provides us with a full-market view – something which is missing from site-centric analytics. Data from a single publisher will only ever be one slice of the pie. What Nielsen does is measure all the players in a market, apply a common set of rules, and report the data such that comparisons can be made across sectors and industries. Our clients can feel confident that the whole universe is being reported, both the winners and losers.</p><p></p><p>And while panel-based sampling is a core methodology, it's not all we do. Depending on the region, we measure online advertising campaigns, smartphone app usage, digital programming, consumer tablet behaviour and, of course, television programme viewing. Right now, we use multiple forms of hybrid methodology that combine panel and census-based measurement to provide insight into all the "hows" and "whys" of a person's media diet. What's more, we continue to develop advanced technologies that deliver innovative capabilities into the marketplace.</p><p></p><p>Importantly, too, Nielsen is an objective third party. We provide data and insights across many devices and platforms. And, significantly, independent third parties such as the Media Rating Council audit our methodologies.</p><p></p><p>Gathering, measuring, aggregating and analysing consumer data so that it provides thoughtful and meaningful insights is not easy. It's complex, and becomes more so every day. Doing it well requires significant investment in people, methodology and technology, and it takes experience.</p><p></p><p>The consumption of media is moving into ever-expanding and evolving technologies. That's why we believe independent, people-based measurement is more indispensable now than ever before.</p><p></p><p><em>David Gosen is managing director of digital, Europe, Nielsen</em></p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/internet">Internet</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/google">Google</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/digital-media">Digital media</a></li></ul></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
More details
24 MAY 2013 10:23:
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/4060?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Acorporate-tax-avoidance-unitary-taxation-g8%3A1912526&ch=Comment+is+free&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Tax+avoidance+%28DO+NOT+add+to+ongoing+proceedings%29%2CCorporate+governance+%28Business%29%2CBusiness%2CTax+and+spending%2CPolitics%2CApple+%28Technology%29%2CGoogle+%28Technology%29%2CStarbucks+%28business%29%2CeBay+%28Technology%29%2CMicrosoft+%28Technology%29&c5=Personal+Finance%2CNot+commercially+useful%2CBusiness+Markets%2CTechnology+Gadgets%2CCorporate+IT&c6=Prem+Sikka&c7=2013%2F05%2F24+11%3A23&c8=1912526&c9=Blog&c10=Comment&c13=&c19=GUK&c25=Comment+is+free&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=How+to+take+a+serious+bite+out+of+corporate+tax+avoidance&c66=Comment+is+free&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2FComment+is+free%2Fblog%2FComment+is+free" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">A new system of unitary taxation must be debated at the next G8 meeting. It isn't perfect, but it would be a huge step forward</p><p>Apple is the latest company <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/21/apple-wants-single-digit-corporate-tax" title="">under the spotlight</a> for organised tax avoidance. In common with Starbucks, Google, Amazon, eBay, Microsoft and others it routes transactions <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/20/apple-accused-tax-avoidance-billions-scheme" title="">through low- or no-tax jurisdictions</a> to reduce its tax bill. Indignant ministers <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/leader-comment-ed-miliband-tax-avoidance" title="">gnash their teeth</a> and the corporate merry-go-round continues.</p><p>It is time to completely revamp the global corporate tax system and I've got an alternative: <a href="http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/Towards_Unitary_Taxation_1-1.pdf" title="">unitary taxation</a>.</p><p>The current corporate taxation system is the outcome of international treaties crafted nearly a century ago. Three aspects stand out. First, at a time when western nations ruled vast tracts of the globe, it was agreed that companies would be taxed at the place of their residence rather than where the economic activity took place. The companies' headquarters were mostly in the western world.</p><p>Second, even though companies may be under common ownership, control and strategic direction, they were to be taxed as separate entities. Thus a company with 100 subsidiaries will be treated as 100 separate entities for tax purposes.</p><p>Third, there was an issue about how intragroup transactions were to be assessed for tax purposes, as it was envisaged that corporations would set up operations and subsidiaries in other countries and transfer goods and services to each other. The solution was to agree on what is known as <a href="http://www.oecd.org/ctp/transfer-pricing/transfer-pricing-guidelines.htm" title="">transfer pricing</a> and intragroup transactions were to be valued at what the OECD calls "arm's length" principle, or free-market market prices.</p><p>This system is now broken and needs to be redesigned. In the era of monopoly capitalism, arm's length transfer prices are hard to find. For example, just 10 corporations control 55% of the global trade in pharmaceuticals; 67% of the trade in seeds and fertilisers and 66% of the global biotechnology industry. So companies are playing <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/nov/06/12" title="">creative games</a> to dodge taxes and many developing countries are <a href="http://www.amiando.com/eventResources/O/3/3CDTWEDhXdd0g1/5_Tatiano_Falcao.pdf" title="">substituting their own norms</a>. Resolving transfer pricing disputes is costly for both companies and tax authorities.</p><p>The idea of taxing companies at their place of residence rather than where the economic activity takes place gave them a licence to create artificial entities. The folly of allowing a group of companies under common control to be treated as hundreds of separate taxpaying entities means companies play one country off against another and large proportions of corporate profits escape taxes altogether.</p><p>These faultlines need to be addressed. Apple is Apple, no matter where it trades and all its profits accrue to the same entity. We need to know a company's global profit. This can only be made when a company transacts with the outside world. This means that all intragroup transactions should be ignored for tax purposes because they add little or no value. Such a principle is already enshrined in the law of most countries. Multinational companies are required to publish what accountants call <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_financial_statement" title="">consolidated accounts</a>. These treat the entire group of companies as a single economic unit and show its global profits. Company directors and auditors sign the accounts to publicly confirm that intragroup transactions added little or no economic value and have been eliminated from the accounts. The above provides the tax base or taxable profit.</p><p>The second step is to allocate the global profit to each country of a company's operations. This can be done using a formula that takes account of key drivers of profit generation. These may be the number of employees and payroll costs in each country, and assets and sales activity. Fortunately, some <a href="www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/centres/tax/conferences/Documents/INTR%202010/12%20AviYonah.pdf" title="">working models</a> of this allocation formula have already been applied in the internal economy of the US. The US has its own tax havens in places such as Delaware and Nevada, and companies can be resident there but trade in California. On the basis that a company should pay its taxes where it is resident, corporations can deprive other states of much-needed revenues. So profits are allocated to each state. Increasingly, profits are <a href="http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/267/case.html" title="">apportioned</a> on the basis of sales.</p><p>Unitary taxation is not a magical solution to the deep-seated problems of capitalism, but it has a number of strong points. Corporate taxation is still based on profits. As intergroup transfers are eliminated in calculation of profits, all profits shifted to tax havens are ignored. Thus no part of corporate profits escapes taxation. Each state is free to tax the profits accruing in its jurisdiction at any rate it wishes. The model does not impair the mobility of capital. For example, if a company thinks it can gain economic advantage by exploiting factors of production in an emerging economy, it can do so. There will be no point in tax arbitrage through tax havens because those activities will not have any material effect on its global profits.</p><p>The unitary taxation model should be debated at the next G8 meeting. It can easily be applied to EU member states and beyond. There is plenty of room for negotiations around the apportionment formula and related factors, but the ultimate prize of making a serious dent on organised corporate tax avoidance is worth pursuing.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/taxavoidance">Tax avoidance</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/corporate-governance">Corporate governance</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/taxandspending">Tax and spending</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/apple">Apple</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/google">Google</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/starbucks">Starbucks</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/ebay">eBay</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/microsoft/">Microsoft</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/premsikka">Prem Sikka</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
More details
24 MAY 2013 10:02:
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/16110?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Abest-android-apps-tetris-blitz-amazon-local%3A1912483&ch=Technology&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Android+%28technology%29%2CApps%2CSmartphones%2CTablet+computers%2CMobile+phones+%28Technology%29%2CTechnology%2CMedia%2CGoogle+%28Technology%29%2CAmazon.com+%28Technology%29%2CMobile+%28Games%29&c5=Unclassified%2CNot+commercially+useful%2CMedia+Weekly%2CTechnology+Gadgets%2CCorporate+IT%2CGames&c6=Stuart+Dredge&c7=2013%2F05%2F24+11%3A02&c8=1912483&c9=Blog&c10=Blogpost&c13=Best+Android+apps+%28series%29&c19=GUK&c25=Apps+blog&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=20+best+Android+apps+this+week&c66=News&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FNews%2FTechnology%2FAndroid" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">Tetris Blitz, Amazon Local, Blip Blup, Clueful, AppGratis, GPS Navigation & Maps, Epic and more</p><p>It's time for our weekly roundup of brand new and notable apps for Android smartphones and tablets.</p><p>It covers apps and games, with the prices referring to the initial download: so (Free) may mean (Freemium) in some cases. The equivalent iOS roundup will be published later in the day.</p><p>For now, read on for this week's Android selection (and when you've finished, check out previous <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/series/best-android-apps">Best Android apps posts</a>).</p><h2><a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ea.tetrisblitz_row">Tetris Blitz (Free)</a></h2><p>Huge popularity of the Bejeweled Blitz game has persuaded EA to try the free-to-play blitz-gaming model for the most famous puzzle game in the world: Tetris. Blitz meaning two-minute sessions to score as many points as possible, boosted by power-ups, and compete against Facebook friends' performances. The game is free-to-play, so in-app purchases are involved.</p><h2><a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.ember.android">Amazon Local (Free)</a></h2><p>Available already in the US, Amazon Local is now accessible in the UK too. It aggregates deals and discounts from local and national businesses, from shops to spas and hotels, aiming to show you the offers closest to your current location, with digital vouchers to redeem them.</p><h2><a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ustwo.blipblupfree">Blip Blup (Free)</a></h2><p>Blip Blup is a hypnotically-addictive puzzle game from UK studio ustwo, which sees you tapping to fill a screen-full of tiles with colour. The complication being walls and obstacles that get in the way of your colour-pulse's path. There are more than 120 levels to work through, with an in-app purchased used to remove the game's in-app ads.</p><h2><a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bitdefender.clueful">Clueful (Free)</a></h2><p>Concerned about privacy and apps? Clueful is trying to capitalise on uncertainty around the attitudes of some developers and startups with its "personal Privacy Consultant". Released by Bitdefender, it monitors how apps on your device are accessing your personal information, providing a score for each on how nice (or nasty) they are.</p><h2><a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=tv.boxee.cloudee">Cloudee: Backup & Share Videos (Free)</a></h2><p>Cloudee is the work of set-top box maker Boxee: a service for storing and sharing videos, as well as organising them into collections. "If YouTube is for everyone on the Internet, and Facebook is for everyone you know, then Cloudee is for those who matter to you the most," suggests the company. Once uploaded, vids can be watched on smartphones, tablets, computers and TVs.</p><h2><a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.imediapp.appgratis">AppGratis (Free)</a></h2><p>Famously booted off the App Store by Apple, app discovery service AppGratis has now turned its attention to Android instead. Its app promises daily offers for free and discounted apps, with recommendations from the AppGratis team and a daily push notification with a new offer.</p><h2><a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.skobbler.forevermapng">GPS Navigation & Maps +offline (£1)</a></h2><p>Skobbler is making a big push for its new navigation app, pricing it at £1 with a combination of turn-by-turn navigation and a single map of the world that can be used online or offline. The business model is that you buy access to country maps offline as in-app purchases, although one country is included in the initial download.</p><h2><a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gameloft.android.ANMP.GloftEPHM">Epic (Free)</a></h2><p>Ahead of the release of animated movie Epic, Gameloft has published the official mobile game. It's a freemium title that sees you building a kingdom then battling against enemies, with a choice of single-player and online multiplayer modes in the latter case. Facebook provides the social connections, while in-app purchases fund the action.</p><h2><a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.squareenix.mensa">Mensa Academy (£2.99)</a></h2><p>Mensa has teamed up with Square Enix for an official brain-training game on Android, promising more than 1,000 questions to test your grey cells in numeracy, language, logic, memory and visual. The male character looks like a professor, while the female character looks like Lara Croft. No stereotypes there, then.</p><h2><a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.easilydo">EasilyDo Smart Assistant (Free)</a></h2><p>There's a trend in 2013 for startups trying to provide personal-assistant apps for smartphones, aiming to out-Siri Siri. EasilyDo is the latest on Android, promising that it "tells you when to leave to arrive on time, monitors for important emails and friends' news, warns you of bad weather, tracks packages, files receipts, and even helps you celebrate birthdays".</p><h2><a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.kabam.ff6android">Fast & Furious 6: The Game (Free)</a></h2><p>There's a long history of Fast & Furious games on mobile devices, but social publisher Kabam is the latest licence-holder, aiming to do for the cars'n'guns movie franchise what it's already doen for The Hobbit. Which is? A lucrative freemium game, of course. Here, you'll be racing, customising cars and trying to work your way up the global leaderboards.</p><h2><a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.IMStudio.PocketRally">Pocket Rally (£0.65)</a></h2><p>If you prefer your racing to be less furious (but still fast), Pocket Rally may be worth a look. Taking its cues from console games like the Colin McRae series, it sees you belting through circuits (tarmac, gravel and grass included) racing up to three other cars at once, with a choice of Challenge and Single Race modes.</p><h2><a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.glidetalk.glideapp">Glide - Video Walkie Talkie (Free)</a></h2><p>"Would you rather write about going to the beach or show yourself at the beach? Exactly," suggests Glide's Google Play listing, pushing the idea that video messages are better than texts (and blithely unaware of the general quality of 3G reception on many British beaches, by the sounds of it). Still, this is one of the apps aiming to help people ping video to their Facebook friends, even if they're not available at the time.</p><h2><a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.storytoys.GrimmsBookshelf.GooglePlay">Grimm's Bookshelf (Free)</a></h2><p>Irish startup StoryToys has turned a number of the Grimm Brothers' fairytales into pop-up storybooks for Android. Now it's got a single Bookshelf app to promote them all, with free samples and the ability to launch any of the apps you already own from within it.</p><h2><a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.calsol.weekcal">Week Calendar (£1.49)</a></h2><p>Can anyone outdo the Google Calendar service on Android? Week Calendar is trying with an impressively-slick calendar app that ties into Google Calendar, Exchange and other services. Intuitive drag'n'drop controls make creating and moving appointments easy, with good use of colour to sort everything.</p><h2><a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ideagames.at">Arma Tactics THD (£3.24)</a></h2><p>PC strategy-game series Arma has spawned this mobile game, initially for Tegra-powered devices. It sees you controlling a four-person special forces team through a series of military missions, with slick graphics and freedom to try different tactics to succeed.</p><h2><a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=air.tv.cube.catchphrase">Catch Phrase (Free)</a></h2><p>Mr Chips! This is an officially-licensed game of British TV game-show Catch Phrase, which has recently been revived by ITV. You'll be guessing 48 catch phrases for free, with more available as an in-app purchase, and a Facebook-powered high-score table to compare your skills with friends.</p><h2><a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.thegamebakers.combocrew">Combo Crew (£1.49)</a></h2><p>Developer The Game Bakers made the popular Squids games, but now it's turning its attention to a new beat 'em up game called Combo Crew. "Inspired by classics like Streets of Rage, Final Fight, and Street Fighter" it sees you punching and kicking your way through a giant tower to beat the suitably-named Mr Boss – complete with asynchronous social features that see you rescuing friends as you go.</p><h2><a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ripstone.mrm">Men's Room Mayhem (£0.68)</a></h2><p>Okay, who had May 2013 in the "When will there be a mobile line-drawing game based on being the manager of a men's toilet?" sweepstakes? Congratulations. Yes, this loo-based game is the work of developer Ripstone, and has you "directing patrons, keeping everywhere sparkling clean and steering patrons away from trouble".</p><h2><a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.thumbstargames.totalrecoil">Total Recoil (Free)</a></h2><p>One more Android game – it's a busy week – and another one with a military theme. Total Recoil sees you waging war with a variety of weapons, with an emphasis on action. Or, as the developer puts it: "If you can see it, you can blow it up..."</p><p>That's this week's selection, but what do you think? Make your own recommendations, or give your views on the apps above, by posting a comment.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/android">Android</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/apps">Apps</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/smartphones">Smartphones</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/tablet-computer">Tablet computers</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/mobilephones">Mobile phones</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/google">Google</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/amazon">Amazon.com</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/mobile">Mobile</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/stuart-dredge">Stuart Dredge</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
More details
24 MAY 2013 06:30:
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/99815?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Atechnology-links-newsbucket%3A1912428&ch=Technology&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Technology%2CMicrosoft+%28Technology%29%2CApple+%28Technology%29%2CGoogle+%28Technology%29&c5=Unclassified%2CTechnology+Gadgets%2CCorporate+IT&c6=Charles+Arthur&c7=2013%2F05%2F24+07%3A30&c8=1912428&c9=Blog&c10=Blogpost%2CNews&c13=Newsbucket+%28series%29&c19=GUK&c25=Technology+blog&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=Boot+up%3A+Glass+views%2C+Surface+v+iPad%2C+Bitcoin+flourishes%2C+SGS4+hits+10m+and+more&c66=News&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FNews%2FTechnology%2Fblog%2FTechnology+blog" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">Plus broadband for Staffordshire, price elasticity in the smartphone business, how Chrome will dominate, and more</p><p>A burst of 8 links for you to chew over, as picked by the Technology team</p><h2><a href="https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2013/05/22/On-Glass">Glass Questions >> ongoing</a></h2><p>Tim Bray on Google Glass: </p><blockquote><p>Do They Meet a Need? · Seems pretty obÂviÂous to me; I'm damn sick of haulÂing out my moÂbile to find out what time it is, or to check on my next meetÂing, or to glance at a map, or to snap a quick photo of an inÂterÂestÂing streetÂlight or whatÂever. </p><p>Will They SucÂceed? · I haven't got the vaguest. They need work on power conÂsumpÂtion and softÂware fit/finÂish and syncÂing and lots of other things, and the manÂuÂfacÂturÂing cost needs to come way, way down. </p><p>A lot of the things Glass does could maybe work just fine on a smart watch or some such. So in a couÂple years it might be ubiqÂuiÂtous, maybe it'll just catch on for cerÂtain proÂfesÂsional uses, or maybe it just falls flat.</p><p>But peoÂple, and there are a lot of them, who are sayÂing "Glass is doomed beÂcause it's dorky-lookÂing/priÂvacy-inÂvaÂsive/anti-soÂcial" are pretty well wrong; it's more comÂplex than that.</p></blockquote><p>Yup.</p><p><hr /></p><h2><a href="http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/05/23/microsoft-caught-lying-about-tablet-size-in-comparison-to-apples-ipad">Microsoft caught lying about tablet size in comparison to Apple's iPad >> AppleInside</a></h2><p>Can't we all just get along? (Thanks @slimbowski for the link.)</p><p><hr /></p><h2><a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/news/515061/bitcoin-hits-the-big-time-to-the-regret-of-some-early-boosters/">Bitcoin hits the big time, to the regret of some early boosters >> MIT Technology Review</a></h2><blockquote><p>Bitpay recently received $3m from Founders Fund, led by Facebook's first major investor, Peter Thiel.</p><p>BitPay CEO Tony Gallippi told me that Thiel invested because he saw how the company could help ease online commerce across borders; the company already handles $5m in transactions each month and says the figure is growing. "Traditional payments such as credit cards don't even work in half the world, so companies just choose to not service international customers," Gallippi said. "That leaves a big opportunity." He plans to take further investment later this year but told me it will be more for reasons of making strategic contacts than a need for cash, since he and his cofounders have significant Bitcoin holdings.</p><p>One reason Bitcoin is interesting, says Jeremy Liew, a partner with Lightspeed Venture Partners, is that it could displace the practice of wiring money across borders, which underpins much international trade today and can be onerous. "If I'm trying to wire a supplier in China it's a three- or four-day process with heavy fees," he says. "Bitcoin transactions can be instant and free."</p></blockquote><p>Bitcoin will work in places where credit cards won't, seems to be the suggestion.</p><p><hr /></p><h2><a href="http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2270139/superfast-broadband-for-staffordshire-after-bt-wins-gbp274m-deal">Superfast broadband for Staffordshire after BT wins £27.4m deal >> V3.co.uk</a></h2><blockquote><p>BT has won yet another superfast broadband deal, this time in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, in which the vast majority of the region will be hooked to speeds of at least 24Mbps.</p><p>The £27.35m deal will see 472,000 premises – around 97% of the region – receive the high-speed service. The councils involved are investing £7.44m, while £7.44m will come from the Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) framework and £12.47m from BT.</p></blockquote><p>A Staffordshire county council member described the fibre infrastructure as being "as important as road or rail in providing the accessibility and opportunities for our residents and businesses."</p><p>And this apparently means we're just past the halfway stage in the national fibre broadband rolling.</p><p><hr /></p><h2><a href="http://global.samsungtomorrow.com/?p=24256">Samsung GALAXY S4 hits 10 million milestone in first month >> SAMSUNG TOMORROW Global</a></h2><blockquote><p>Samsung Electronics announced that global channel sales of its GALAXY S4, a life companion for a richer, fuller, simpler life, has surpassed 10 million units sold in less than one month after its commercial debut. Launched globally on April 27 in 60 countries, the phone is estimated to be selling at a rate of four units per second.</p></blockquote><p><hr /></p><h2><a href="http://techpinions.com/androids-market-share-is-literally-a-joke/16709">Android's market share is literally a joke >>Tech.pinions</a></h2><p>John Kirk: </p><blockquote><p>Android accounts for approximately 70% of global smartphone shipments and 29% of global profits. This means that the average Android manufacturer creates just 0.41% of profit for each point of market share (0.29/0.70 = 0.414). In other words, the average Android manufacturer needs to capture 2.4 points of market share just to increase their [share of] market profit by 1 percentage point.</p><p>Such a low fair share profit index may indicate that Android manufacturers are:<br />– Having difficulty differentiating their product;<br />– Sacrificing profits in order to buy market share (the "race to the bottom");</p><p>– Unable to reach <a href="http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/05/09/teardown-finds-samsung-galaxy-s4-more-costly-to-build-than-apples-iphone-5">economies of scale in the manufacturing process</a>.</p></blockquote><p>Kirk's point is that people who talk about low-cost iPhones are overlooking price elasticity. Although might he be overlooking the fact that the sector of the market which is price inelastic has been almost exhausted?</p><p><hr /></p><h2><a href="http://gigaom.com/2013/05/22/how-google-plans-to-rule-the-computing-world-through-chrome/">How Google plans to rule the computing world through Chrome >> Tech News and Analysis</a></h2><p>Kevin Tofel: </p><blockquote><p>if you're a Chrome user today, you'll be more immersed in the Chrome ecosystem a year from now, even if you don't have an "official" Chromebook. This all depends on how well Google pulls off its strategy to upend the desktop computing world, but so far, it seems to be on track.</p><p>Bear in mind the apps in this vision will be truly cross-platform as they'll run on any Windows, Mac or Linux computer with Chrome installed. If it can get developers on board — and those I spoke with at Google I/O are ready to embrace the effort — Google will have a thriving desktop platform built on top of the platforms created by others. But it will be a desktop that's far more agile, with new features added within days or weeks, not months or years.</p><p>Welcome to Chrome, my desktop today and your desktop of the future.</p></blockquote><p>It depends more on how much people want web apps that might or might not run offline, and might or might not have a better UI than a native app, on their desktop. Other than that, solid.</p><p><hr /></p><h2><a href="http://www.citeworld.com/mobile/21887/mayo-clinic-standard-ios">At the Mayo Clinic, iPhones and iPads are the standard >> CITEworld</a></h2><blockquote><p>Troy Newman, an IT specialist who oversees app development for Mayo, adds that the clinic was accustomed to running on a single platform - Windows - and wanted its mobile initiative to be similarly standardized.</p><p>"All our developers know how to do Windows development, so we made the same kind of same decision for iOS. We wanted a platform where we could get developers up to speed and train them to develop apps."</p><p>Finding that expertise hasn't always been easy.</p><p>"Our team's pretty small," says Newman. "As we've grown, it has been difficult to find people with the right skills who want to work in Rochester, Minnesota."</p></blockquote><p>15,000 devices using those apps. Meanwhile, the 25,000 PCs that it also uses might be scaled back. Unless Surface Pro has come along in the nick of time.</p><p><hr /></p><p>You can follow <a href="http://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech">Guardian Technology's linkbucket on Pinboard</a></p><p>To suggest a link, either add it below or tag it with @gdntech on the free <a href="http://www.delicious.com/">Delicious</a> service.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/microsoft/">Microsoft</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/apple">Apple</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/google">Google</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/charlesarthur">Charles Arthur</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
More details
23 MAY 2013 12:28:
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/4989?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Akim-dotcom-authentication-patents%3A1912070&ch=Technology&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Kim+Dotcom%2CTechnology%2CSoftware+%28Technology%29%2CGoogle+%28Technology%29%2CInternet%2CNew+Zealand+%28News%29&c5=Unclassified%2CNot+commercially+useful%2CTechnology+Gadgets%2CCorporate+IT&c6=Charles+Arthur&c7=2013%2F05%2F23+01%3A28&c8=1912070&c9=Article&c10=News&c13=&c19=GUK&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=Does+Kim+Dotcom+have+original+%27two-factor%27+login+patent%3F&c66=News&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FNews%2FTechnology%2FKim+Dotcom" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">Owner of Mega and MegaUpload sites fighting US extradition says Google and others should help his defence fund in return for using his patent, but earlier filings cast doubt on claim</p><p>Kim Dotcom, the New Zealand-based creator of the MegaUpload file-sharing site who is fighting an extradition demand from the US, is asking Google, Microsoft and others to contribute to his multimillion-dollar defence fund in return for a licence he claims to hold on a key patent.</p><p>However it has emerged that the patent is not valid in Europe, having been <a href="http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=EP&NR=0875871A2&KC=A2&FT=D&ND=&date=19981104&DB=&locale=en_EP">cancelled in Europe in 2011</a> following opposition from Ericsson, which holds a prior patent.</p><p>Dotcom, 39, said on Twitter on Thursday that he has a patent on "two-factor authentication", used by Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Twitter, Dropbox and others to provide extra safety on user accounts. The patent was <a href="https://www.google.com/patents/US6078908">filed in 1998</a> under his former name of "Kim Schmitz". He also issued a veiled threat to sue the companies if they don't help.</p><p>However <a href="https://www.google.com/patents/WO1996000485A2?cl=en">patent filings seen by the Guardian</a> suggest that Dotcom's claim is predated by others filed by telecommunications companies Ericsson and Nokia in 1994 in the US, Europe, China and through the international patent system. </p><p>Under the patent system, earlier filings take precedence in any claim, which would rule Dotcom's patent invalid unless he can show that it covers elements of authentication which are not covered by the earlier one. Dotcom had not responded to an email from the Guardian raising this point by the time of publication.</p><p>Dotcom said that he would allow Google, Facebook and others to use his patent for free. "I ask you for help," he <a href="http://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/337339102603116544">tweeted</a>. "We are all in the same DMCA [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] boat. Use my patent for free. But please help funding my defense." </p><p>He has claimed that the costs of his legal defence, which has been going since a raid by police in January 2012 which saw him imprisoned pending an extradition hearing, have reached $62m. He is presently on bail. Dotcom has previous convictions under the name of Schmitz in Germany for computer fraud and separately for embezzlement relating to insider trading, and in Hong Kong for securities-related offences. </p><p>The patent awarded in 1998 by the US Patent Office appears to be the only one Schmitz holds. On his Twitter feed, he <a href="http://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/337332094562873344">said</a>: "Big reveal: 1 billion+ two-step authentications on the internet weekly. I invented it. Here's proof", linking to the patent filing. He then <a href="http://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/337334129370734592">added</a>: "I never sued them. I believe in sharing knowledge & ideas for the good of society. But I might sue them now 'cause of what the US did to me."</p><p>However it is difficult to say whether such a claim would succeed. The Ericsson patent from 1994 describes "a method and an apparatus for authentication of a user attempting to access an electronic service, and, in particular, providing an authentication unit which is separate from preexisting systems." </p><p>That fits as a description of two-factor authentication, which typically uses a combination of a password typed into a browser with a code received by text message or from an app to authorise the user's access.</p><p><strong>Update:</strong> Emily Weal at the IPCopy site <a href="http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/kim-dotcom-and-the-two-factor-authentication-patent-inventor-or-not/">points out</a> that </p><blockquote><p>A look at the <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP98100688&lng=en&tab=doclist">EPO register</a> for the equivalent European patent reveals that the European patent was granted, but subsequently opposed and then revoked in its entirety in 2011.</p><p>The key prior art document in the opposition was <a href="http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19961204&CC=EP&NR=0745961A2&KC=A2">EP0745961</a>, owned by AT&T, with an earlier priority date of 31 May 1995. Interestingly, AT&T's US equivalent <a href="http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=19980113&DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&locale=en_EP&CC=US&NR=5708422A&KC=A&ND=4">US5708422</a> is granted, and still appears to be in force.</p><p>In the view of the EPO's opposition division then, Kim Dotcom's patent is not valid, and while Kim Dotcom may indeed have developed two-factor authentication himself, he was not the first inventor, having been pipped at the post (by a good 2 years!) by someone else.</p></blockquote><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/kim-dotcom">Kim Dotcom</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/software">Software</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/google">Google</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/internet">Internet</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/newzealand">New Zealand</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/charlesarthur">Charles Arthur</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
More details
23 MAY 2013 06:30:
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/53910?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Atechnology-links-newsbucket%3A1911810&ch=Technology&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Technology%2CMicrosoft+%28Technology%29%2CApple+%28Technology%29%2CGoogle+%28Technology%29&c5=Unclassified%2CTechnology+Gadgets%2CCorporate+IT&c6=Charles+Arthur&c7=2013%2F05%2F23+07%3A30&c8=1911810&c9=Blog&c10=Blogpost%2CNews&c13=Newsbucket+%28series%29&c19=GUK&c25=Technology+blog&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=Boot+up%3A+Metro+apps+usage%2C+Pirate+Bay+hacking+case%2C+iOS+7+%2B+Flickr%3F%2C+and+more&c66=News&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FNews%2FTechnology%2Fblog%2FTechnology+blog" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">Plus IBM's Watson heads towards phones (sorta), how Lotus lost, hyperattentive Kinects, and more</p><p>A burst of 7 links for you to chew over, as picked by the Technology team</p><h2><a href="http://www.soluto.com/reports">Metro Apps Usage Report >> Soluto</a></h2><blockquote><p>How often are Metro apps used?</p><p> <br />We found that, on average, a Windows 8 user will launch a Metro app 1.52 times a day. Tablet users launch the most Metro apps at 2.71 times per day. People who have touch-screen enabled laptops launch 47% more Metro apps than people with a standard laptop…</p><p>We found that among desktop and laptop users, 60% of users launch a Metro app less than once a day. This number significantly improves with tablets, but still 44% of Windows 8 tablet users launch a Metro app less than once a day. </p></blockquote><p>That latter statistic is really weird. A Windows 8 tablet where you don't launch a Metro app? (Thanks @rquick for the link.)</p><p><hr /></p><h2><a href="http://www.polygon.com/2013/5/21/4353010/kinect-trouble-xbox-one-reveal">Xbox 360's Kinect causes trouble for users during next-gen livestream reveal >> Polygon</a></h2><blockquote><p>Xbox 360 Kinect owners had some trouble today watching Microsoft's Xbox One reveal due to device's response to "Xbox" commands spoken during the livestream.</p><p>Several users took to Twitter to document their problems, which included pausing, opening Xbox Live or quitting the stream entirely. Polygon's own reviews editor Arthur Gies experienced similar problems with his Kinect while watching the stream.</p></blockquote><p>When the presenter said "Xbox Live", spectators' Kinects picked it up and obeyed. Nice demonstration. Let's hope nobody does "Xbox, wipe my files" in a demo. (Thanks @Nazo for the link.)</p><p><hr /></p><h2><a href="http://9to5mac.com/2013/05/21/flickr-vimeo-integration-likely-to-bolster-social-ties-in-ios-7/">Flickr, Vimeo integration likely to bolster social ties in iOS 7 >> 9to5Mac</a></h2><blockquote><p>Both Flickr and Vimeo will now also be integrated deeply into the new operating system, so users will be able to sign into the respective networks via iOS 7′s built-in Settings application. Like with iOS's Facebook and Twitter ties, Apple customers will be able to log-in one time into each social network and have full sharing access.</p></blockquote><p>Add salt as required. But if it's correct, note this point: it looks as though iOS 7 won't introduce Android-like "intents" to connect between apps.</p><p><hr /></p><h2><a href="http://www.androidauthority.com/ibm-watson-214598/">IBM's Watson for smartphones? It could be. >> Android Authority</a></h2><blockquote><p>For a select few companies, Watson will begin serving as their customer service representative. IBM may also make Watson available via apps on your smartphone, as well as web chats or email queries.</p><p>For many of us, the term "customer service" relates to hold times and an agent on the other end who seems befuddled by that charge on your credit card. Watson may be able to handle that, but the aim and scope seem different. It looks like Watson will concentrate more on the financial matters for now, but could also serve to assist representatives get faster access to more poignant information. Many of Watson's guinea pigs are banks or other financial institutions, and seem intent on using Watson's knowledge to better analyze and serve their customers' needs.</p></blockquote><p>Touch control is pervasive (and even spreading "back" to PCs); voice is next.</p><p><hr /></p><h2><a href="http://www.cringely.com/2013/03/04/accidental-empires-chapter-8-software-envy">Accidental Empires, Chapter 8 - Software Envy >> I, Cringely</a></h2><p>A wander down the alleys of early software development in the MS-DOS days, and a riff on software development. Pretty sure he's wrong about the first software patent, though he might be correct about the first to go to the US Supreme Court.</p><p><hr /></p><h2><a href="http://www.thelocal.se/48010/20130520/">Pirate Swede in 'biggest ever' hacking trial >> The Local</a></h2><blockquote><p>Pirate Bay founder Gottfrid Svartholm Warg is on trial once again in Sweden for his role in committing what prosecutors believe may have been the largest data breach in Swedish history.</p><p>Warg, who is currently serving a prison sentence after being convicted of copyright infringement in the infamous Pirate Bay trial, is suspected of having perpetrated a years-long hacker attack against Swedish IT-firm Logica through which he gained unauthorized access to personal data of thousands of people.</p><p>"This is, I believe, the largest hacking case ever in Sweden," prosecutor Henrik Olin told the TT news agency on Monday morning as he prepared to enter the Stockholm District Court for the first day of the trial.</p><p>"We're talking about customer information, information from the Sweden debt Enforcement Agency (Kronofogden), and a large number of police officers' organizational affiliations."</p></blockquote><p>Alleged to have carried out the attack using a user account belonging to a lawyer who represented US film studios in the original Pirate Bay trial. (Thanks @ivanivanovich for the link.)</p><p><hr /></p><h2><a href="http://seekingalpha.com/article/1448021-this-is-how-much-nokia-made-from-patents-last-year?source=yahoo">This is how much Nokia made from patents last year >> Seeking Alpha</a></h2><blockquote><p>…while the exact number will depend on how well the smartphone industry performs as a whole, Nokia is expected generate between $800m and $1.5bn in patent licence fees and royalty payments annually. Considering how IDC estimates that the smartphone industry is expected to double in size between now and 2017, this number can grow considerably. If we assign a P/E ratio of 10 to Nokia's patent portfolio, the patents under the mobile devices segment alone will be worth between $8bn and $15bn.</p></blockquote><p>Smart digging. (Thanks @rquick for the link.)</p><p><hr /></p><p>You can follow <a href="http://pinboard.in/u:guardiantech">Guardian Technology's linkbucket on Pinboard</a></p><p>To suggest a link, either add it below or tag it with @gdntech on the free <a href="http://www.delicious.com/">Delicious</a> service.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/microsoft/">Microsoft</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/apple">Apple</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/google">Google</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/charlesarthur">Charles Arthur</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
More details
22 MAY 2013 23:30:
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/18849?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Aleader-comment-ed-miliband-tax-avoidance%3A1911821&ch=Comment+is+free&c3=Guardian&c4=Tax+avoidance+%28DO+NOT+add+to+ongoing+proceedings%29%2CCorporate+governance+%28Business%29%2CBusiness%2CGoogle+%28Technology%29%2CAmazon.com+%28Technology%29%2CInternet%2CE-commerce%2CTechnology%2CEd+Miliband%2CPolitics&c5=Unclassified%2CNot+commercially+useful%2CBusiness+Markets%2CTechnology+Gadgets%2CCorporate+IT&c6=Editorial&c7=2013%2F05%2F23+12%3A30&c8=1911821&c9=Blog&c10=Editorial&c13=&c19=GUK&c25=Comment+is+free&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=Ed+Miliband%3A+a+googly+for+tax+avoiders&c66=Comment+is+free&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2FComment+is+free%2Fblog%2FComment+is+free" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">Labour – a party that pussyfooted around with avoidance for 13 years – needs to convince the country it will do better next time</p><p>In his own mind, Ed Miliband is pretty clear about how he would like to distinguish the Labour party he leads from the Labour party that went before. He aims to be readier than Blair and Brown to challenge the powerful in general, and the economically mighty in particular.</p><p>Over three years, we've seen flashes of both halves of that – in, for example, his determination to take Wapping to task over phone hacking, and in his conference speech on predatory capitalism, which initially left pundits scratching their heads, but looked smarter as the months rolled by.</p><p>What he has not yet succeeded in doing, however, as his <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/13/farage-factor-ukip-support-record" title="">personal poll ratings remorselessly demonstrate</a>, is get this mission across to the country at large, still less generate much enthusiasm. Save perhaps for down <a href="http://redlionwestminster.co.uk/" title="">the Red Lion on Parliament Street</a>, the rhetoric of "responsible capitalism" is not the language of the pub.</p><p>However worthy specific policy ideas – such as using procurement to encourage training, and overhauling reporting rules for listed firms – it is tough to persuade the experts that these things can achieve anything much from the opposition benches, and tougher to persuade voters to do anything but yawn.</p><p>The great PR problem with the agenda has been the absence of real-life predators to point to – demons to bring the story to life. A wave of fury over tax avoidance should transform the possibilities; voters who sweat for pay they cannot divert to Luxembourg or Bermuda rage at the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/17/mutinationals-tax-bad-smell-editorial" title="">antics of the Amazons and Googles</a> who thrive upon their custom.</p><p>While <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/may/22/google-clegg-miliband-schmidt" title="">Nick Clegg</a> and David Cameron are also manoeuvring to make anti-avoidance their own, the coalition is beset by infighting, and Mr Miliband spots an open goal. He struck at it on Wednesday, by adding aggressive words about Google's aggressive tax practices into a long-planned speech at the firm's <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/22/google-big-tent-ed-miliband-eric-schmidt-and-more" title="">Big Tent</a>.</p><p>The <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/22/google-corporate-responsibility-ed-miliband-speech" title="">pointed naming and shaming of its absent boss</a> soon provoked a response from <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22613205" title="">Eric Schmidt himself</a>, redoubling the handy publicity.</p><p>The remaining question, however, is whether Labour – a party that pussyfooted around with avoidance for 13 years – can convince the country it will do better next time. That will have to involve hard and specific commitments to act.</p><p>Mr Miliband is making the right noises, talking up comprehensive country-by-country reporting of corporate finances, and also signalling a willingness to act unilaterally if the PM's vaunted efforts at the G8 do not succeed.</p><p>Sadly, Ed Balls's policy papers remain overly cautious <a href="http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/uploads/editor/files/Corporate_tax.pdf" title="">on the smallprint</a>, replete with talk of "intelligent transparency", which can surely only be something more slippery than transparency plain and simple.</p><p>The endless questions on a tax return are tiresome, but – Labour take note – in the end the thing to do is declare on every detail.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/taxavoidance">Tax avoidance</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/corporate-governance">Corporate governance</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/google">Google</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/amazon">Amazon.com</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/internet">Internet</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/efinance">E-commerce</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/edmiliband">Ed Miliband</a></li></ul></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
More details
22 MAY 2013 20:00:
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/8660?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Apaying-tax-absolutely-moral-issue%3A1911527&ch=Business&c3=Guardian&c4=Tax+avoidance+%28DO+NOT+add+to+ongoing+proceedings%29%2CCorporate+governance+%28Business%29%2CBusiness%2CTax+and+spending%2CPolitics%2CSociety%2CUK+news%2CHMRC+HM+revenue+and+customs%2CApple+%28Technology%29%2CComputing+%28Technology%29%2CTechnology%2CGoogle+%28Technology%29%2CAmazon.com+%28Technology%29%2CInternet%2CE-commerce&c5=Society+Weekly%2CUnclassified%2CPersonal+Finance%2CNot+commercially+useful%2CBusiness+Markets%2CTechnology+Gadgets%2CCorporate+IT&c6=&c7=2013%2F05%2F22+09%3A00&c8=1911527&c9=Article&c10=Letter&c13=&c19=GUK&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=Paying+tax+is+absolutely+a+moral+issue&c66=Business&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FBusiness%2FBusiness%2FTax+avoidance" width="1" height="1" /></div><p>CBI president Sir Roger Carr's claim that there can be no moral basis to concerns about tax avoidance is a grave misjudgment (<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/blog/2013/may/20/multinational-tax-avoiders-taxpayer-roger-carr" title="">Never mind morals, tax is all about the rules</a>, 21 May). A great many ordinary people see payment – or rather non-payment – of tax as fundamentally a moral question. Perhaps it might be talked about as justice or fairness, but it boils down to the same thing. Christian Aid supporters have been campaigning on matters of tax justice for five years.</p><p>At the heart of their concern is the moral question of how societies raise revenues and how that money is spent. We estimate that developing countries lose around $160bn a year in tax revenue from multinational corporations. Contrast this with the UK's aid budget (£12bn) or the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation's estimated cost of tackling global hunger ($50bn a year on top of existing funding to 2025). The fact that tonight one in eight people in the world will go to bed hungry shows that the moral case for a fair and just taxation system is undeniable.<br /><strong>Canon Geoff Daintree</strong><br /><em>Church advocacy adviser, Christian Aid</em></p><p></p><p>• Simon Jenkins is spot-on when he calls on David Cameron to crack down on the UK's own tax havens (<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/21/cameron-bring-own-tax-havens-to-book" title="">Comment</a>, 22 May). Global Witness's investigations have found numerous examples of dodgy deals routed through places such as the British Virgin Islands, favoured by tax evaders and corrupt dictators. There is often a misperception that the UK can't impose its will on these last outposts of empire. In fact, from the decriminalising of homosexuality to banning the death penalty, there are repeated examples of UK governments telling its tax havens what to do, sometimes against their will. After Radio Caroline started broadcasting from the Isle of Man, the UK banned pirate radio stations from there and from the Channel Islands.</p><p>If the PM really wants to crack down on tax evasion, corruption and money laundering, he should force the British-linked tax havens to lift their veil of secrecy, for example by requiring them to publish the names of the ultimate owners of companies and trusts registered there.<br /><strong>Robert Palmer</strong><br /><em>Campaigner, Global Witness</em></p><p></p><p>• Paying tax is a social obligation. It is the price we pay for being part of a civilised society and one defining characteristic of such is its willingness to support those who are not considered to be economically productive. This doesn't just mean the unemployed, the sick, disabled and the old, but also artists, musicians and writers, those who enrich us and our society both intellectually and emotionally.</p><p>In the commercial world, businesses view taxation as just another cost of doing business and therefore within their fiduciary responsibility to seek ways of reducing their tax obligation as part of their cost base. This is wrong. The payment of corporate tax should be viewed not as a cost of doing business but as the price for gaining access to society.</p><p>Businesses that manipulate the tax rules to reduce or avoid paying tax impoverish the society in which they operate both financially and ethically. Good corporate citizenship requires the commercial world to fully engage in society – by making a fair and equitable contribution to the tax receipts of a nation and by paying its employees an appropriate living wage.<br /><strong>Mike Kellett</strong><br /><em>Cardiff</em></p><p></p><p>• In 1974, the then Tory prime minister, Edward Heath, called an election with the question Who governs Britain? – his premise being that the unions had too much power. Forty years on we can ask the same question in respect of big business (<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/21/apple-wants-single-digit-corporate-tax" title="">Cut tax and we'll pay, says Apple boss</a>, 22 May). I thought governments, elected by their peoples, decided tax rates. Apple (and Google, Amazon and the others) rely on their customers to be healthy and well-educated and for the states where their customers live and buy their products to be stable, orderly and defended.</p><p>Without all the benefits that a state provides there would be no Apple sales. Big business has grown increasingly arrogant and no longer plays and pays its part in contributing to the costs that are essential to their profits. Perhaps there should be an additional and hugely hefty tax on the products of those companies who are refusing to pay their way, so that in the end they are left with no profits to quarrel about.<br /><strong>Mark Doel</strong><br /><em>Sheffield</em></p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/taxavoidance">Tax avoidance</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/corporate-governance">Corporate governance</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/taxandspending">Tax and spending</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/hmrc">HMRC</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/apple">Apple</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/computing">Computing</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/google">Google</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/amazon">Amazon.com</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/internet">Internet</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/efinance">E-commerce</a></li></ul></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
More details
22 MAY 2013 19:49:
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/54614?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Agoogle-capitalist-island-eric-schmidt%3A1911763&ch=Technology&c3=Guardian&c4=Google+%28Technology%29%2CTax+avoidance+%28DO+NOT+add+to+ongoing+proceedings%29%2CEric+Schmidt+%28Technology%29%2CLarry+Page+%28Media%29%2CCorporate+governance+%28Business%29%2CTechnology%2CBusiness%2CUK+news%2CUS+news&c5=Unclassified%2CNot+commercially+useful%2CBusiness+Markets%2CCorporate+IT&c6=Charles+Arthur&c7=2013%2F05%2F22+08%3A49&c8=1911763&c9=Article&c10=Comment&c13=&c19=GUK&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=Google%27s+Eric+Schmidt+believes+one+company+is+an+island&c66=News&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FNews%2FTechnology%2FGoogle" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">A slip of the tongue by Google's executive chairman speaks volumes about his perception of the company's tax obligations</p><p>A week or so ago, Google's chief executive, Larry Page, caused ripples when <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/google-ceo-larry-page-wants-a-place-for-experiments-2013-5" title="">he suggested</a> at a public event that laws older than 50 years or so shouldn't apply to internet companies, and that it might be fun to have an island where Google could dabble in new ideas without all the silly meddling of governments. (That's only a slight paraphrase.) The only way he could have seemed more like a Bond villain would be if he had been stroking a cat while speaking.</p><p>While not an island, Google created its own patch of turf in Hertfordshire on Wednesday with its Big Tent event, which really is held in a big tent – a gigantic one with perfect Wi-Fi, and tables, chairs, coffee machines and a big stage in the grounds of the Grove hotel. Think of it as the most glamorous camping imaginable, Google's little island in the UK.</p><p>Sadly, there were no self-driving cars (buses were laid on), nor people sporting <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/01/google-glass-what-good-for" title="">Google Glass </a>. About 250 people turned up for a day out of London to hear deep thinking about the future, whether we'll all turn into robots, and perhaps a bit of fisticuffs about tax.</p><p>For that, we looked to Eric Schmidt, formerly the company's chief executive but now its executive chairman – in effect, its roving representative on earth. Especially on tax, he is a master at not really answering questions. He's like the un-Google. So he turned up in the afternoon to un-answer lots of questions about tax.</p><p>For someone so brainy, he has a remarkable capacity not to know things. How much money does Google ship to Bermuda under its complex tax system? He doesn't know. Couldn't Google live by the spirit as well as the letter of the law? He doesn't know enough law. How should international tax law be reformed? He's really not sure. When will Google Now (a Google program that suggests bus journeys and hotel rooms based on your travels) seem as smart as a human being? Well, that's hard to say.</p><p>If he were a search engine, you'd type your question and get a blank page back. Getting direct answers out of Schmidt would tax a saint – at a low rate, of course.</p><p>He also has a surprising capacity for going missing at opportune times. Despite having been at the Grove for a Q&A on Monday morning, and being scheduled to talk on Wednesday afternoon, he somehow missed Wednesday morning's session.</p><p>There, Ed Miliband cruelly (and cleverly) used Google's original "<a href="http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.127t8.htm#txy" title="">letter from the founders</a>" to argue that its tax structure – "close" sales in Ireland, ship money to the Netherlands, and then ship even more money to Bermuda, where it must form a sort of digital sand dune – was short-term thinking, something that Larry Page and Sergey Brin had said they wouldn't do.</p><p>Yet when Miliband looked around to say this to Google's man – like the guest at a housewarming who slags off the owner – Schmidt, like Macavity the cat, wasn't there. Not until the afternoon, when he un-answered like a pro.</p><p>Certainly he must tut and sigh when he hears Page talk about ignoring laws and creating fiefdoms but, when he was asked about capitalism, he replied: "Of course, Google is a capitalist country …" Laughter. "Company," he said, uncomfortably. A slip of the tongue? Perhaps the truth is out. Perhaps Larry Page's island isn't so far off after all. One has to wonder – how soon can one move there, and what will the tax rate be?</p><p>• This article was amended on 23 May 2013. The original said "Despite having been at the Grove on the Monday and Tuesday for the private Google Zeitgeist, he [Eric Schmidt] somehow missed Wednesday morning's session." While Schmidt was at the Big Tent event at the Grove hotel on Monday morning, he was not present on Tuesday.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/google">Google</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/taxavoidance">Tax avoidance</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/eric-schmidt">Eric Schmidt</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/larrypage">Larry Page</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/corporate-governance">Corporate governance</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usa">United States</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/charlesarthur">Charles Arthur</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
More details
22 MAY 2013 19:32:
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/87244?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Agoogle-boss-international-tax-system-eric-schmidt%3A1911779&ch=Technology&c3=Guardian&c4=Google+%28Technology%29%2CEric+Schmidt+%28Technology%29%2CCorporate+governance+%28Business%29%2CTax+avoidance+%28DO+NOT+add+to+ongoing+proceedings%29%2CTechnology%2CEd+Miliband%2CPolitics%2CNick+Clegg%2CLabour%2CBusiness%2CUK+news&c5=Unclassified%2CNot+commercially+useful%2CBusiness+Markets%2CCorporate+IT&c6=Patrick+Wintour%2CCharles+Arthur&c7=2013%2F05%2F22+08%3A32&c8=1911779&c9=Article&c10=News&c13=&c19=GUK&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=Google+boss+calls+for+a+%27rational+and+predictable+international+tax+system%27&c66=News&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FNews%2FTechnology%2FGoogle" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">Eric Schmidt rejects Ed Miliband's criticisms of tax affairs, saying firm fears being 'double or quadruple taxed' under any changes</p><p>The Google chairman, Eric Schmidt, has told political leaders to sort out a rational and predictable international tax system, as he faced a wave of criticism over the firm's failure to pay more tax.</p><p>Ed Miliband attempted to deliver his rebuke direct to Schmidt when invited to speak at the Google Big Tent conference, although the US executive missed the Labour leader's address on Wednesday, saying he had to attend a meeting in London.</p><p>Nick Clegg disclosed at a press conference he had also criticised Google at a Downing Street meeting earlier in the week at which Schmidt was present. David Cameron's aides, after earlier denying the prime minister rounded on Schmidt at that meeting, later briefed that Google had been implicitly rebuked in the context of the prime minister's general call for greater tax transparency as part of his agenda for the G8 summit next month.</p><p>Speaking at the annual Big Tent event after Miliband had left, Schmidt said one of his key concerns about changes to the tax structure was that Google might be "doubly or quadruply taxed".</p><p>Asked by Labour MP Stella Creasy how he would reform the tax system, he suggested: "Have a rational system that's predictable and doesn't change very much.</p><p>"Virtually all the American companies have tax structures like this, and UK companies operating in the US do too. But if we pay more taxes in one area, then we pay less in another.</p><p>"Google feels very, very strongly that tax information, tax policy should be done openly. I don't think companies should decide tax policy, governments should ... we're in a very long-standing tax regime ... we need to have a conversation about this, we're not trying to do the wrong thing, we're trying to do the right thing.</p><p>"We don't want to be in a situation where we get double or quadruple taxed."</p><p>Asked how he would cope if Miliband were to come to power and, as promised, stop transfer pricing, Schmidt said: "If he does – if he does so, we will follow the rules." Transfer pricing involves firms shifting profits between countries.</p><p>Schmidt also said Google would continue to invest in the UK, no matter what tax regime was in place: "We love you guys too much. We will continue investing in the UK no matter what."</p><p>He rebuffed Miliband's suggestion there was a distinction between the letter and the spirit of the law. "You'll have to define the difference," he said to a barrister who challenged him to say whether Google would comply with the "spirit" of the tax laws, which might then lead to it being taxed more. "We're governed by US securities laws – in that scenario it might be seen as incompetence," added Schmidt.</p><p>Earlier Miliband told the meeting of the firm's staff that he was "disappointed" it had paid £6m in corporation tax on UK sales worth £3.2bn in 2011. Most of Google's profits are routed through Ireland. Miliband said the US company's employees expected it to do the "right thing", as its motto was "Don't be evil."</p><p>He said: "I can't be the only person who feels deeply disappointed that a great company like Google, with great founding principles, should be reduced to arguing that when it employs thousands of people in Britain, makes billions of pounds in revenue in Britain, it is fair that it should pay just a fraction of 1% of that in tax.</p><p>"So when Google does great things, I will praise you ... But when Google goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying its taxes, I say it's wrong."</p><p>Labour rejected Schmidt's explanation, saying Google has been making sales to UK customers from its UK staff, but pretending the transactions were being made from Ireland so the firm could register the profits as made in Ireland rather than the UK.</p><p>Booking those sales in the UK would not mean taxing profits twice – just taxing them in the UK, not Ireland.</p><p>Even after profits were shifted to Ireland, Google avoids paying 12.5% corporation tax there by switching the surpluses to tax havens such as Bermuda, according to a Reuters investigation.</p><p>This is done by using two Irish firms, (hence the name, "double Irish") one a tax resident in Bermuda and owning the intellectual property of the company. The offshore firm then charges the onshore one royalties, which shifts the profits out of Ireland and into Bermuda.</p><p>By doing so Google would not be taxed on the same profits in different countries; it is shifting profits between tax jurisdictions to avoid paying tax.</p><p>Clegg told a press conference in London on Wednesday morning: "My overall approach to tax is the obvious one. I put this directly to Eric Schmidt from Google and other business leaders at a meeting in Downing Street a couple of days ago.</p><p>"We are bringing the tax burden on corporations down by lowering the rate of corporation tax but in return people have to pay their fair share."</p><p>He said tax havens were symptoms of the growing pains of globalisation. "You have got tax systems that are national rooted in an old economy, and now we have got these new corporate goliaths that operate in this disembodied way particularly in the digital sector, that quite unsurprisingly think they can exploit the best deal for themselves in the cracks and crevices between the national tax systems."</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/google">Google</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/eric-schmidt">Eric Schmidt</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/corporate-governance">Corporate governance</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/taxavoidance">Tax avoidance</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/edmiliband">Ed Miliband</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/nickclegg">Nick Clegg</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/labour">Labour</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/patrickwintour">Patrick Wintour</a></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/charlesarthur">Charles Arthur</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
More details
22 MAY 2013 18:49:
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/5238?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Agoogle-information-tax-new-state%3A1911725&ch=Comment+is+free&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Google+%28Technology%29%2CPrivacy+%28News%29%2CYouTube+%28Technology%29%2CTechnology%2CSocial+media%2CMedia%2CPolitics%2CCulture%2CTax+avoidance+%28DO+NOT+add+to+ongoing+proceedings%29%2CCorporate+governance+%28Business%29%2CBusiness%2CAdvertising+%28media%29%2CUS+news%2CUK+news%2CWorld+news&c5=Unclassified%2CBusiness+Markets%2CNot+commercially+useful%2CMedia+Weekly%2CCorporate+IT%2CAdvertising+Media&c6=McKenzie+Wark&c7=2013%2F05%2F22+07%3A49&c8=1911725&c9=Blog&c10=Comment&c13=&c19=GUK&c25=Comment+is+free&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=Who+dares+to+dodge+Google%27s+information+tax%3F&c66=Comment+is+free&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FComment+is+free%2FComment+is+free%2Fblog%2FComment+is+free" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">In exchange for giving up our personal data, we get to watch each other's cat videos, while Google becomes the new state</p><p>Of course Google doesn't want to <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/22/google-chief-ed-miliband-responsible-capitalism-eric-schmidt" title="">pay its taxes</a> to the British crown, like a loyal corporate subject. In Google's mind it secretly thinks that it is now something like a state, and we are all its subjects. It is we who should pay tribute to it – and we do.</p><p>We pay it a sort of information tax. Google is the Ministry of Information Retrieval. If you want some data, you have to give up some, about who you are, what you do, what your movements are. Like most other states, Google will then sell access to you to other interested parties.</p><p>Just like any state, Google has its spies. Its <a href="http://www.google.co.uk/help/maps/streetview/learn/cars-trikes-and-more.html" title="">Street View cars</a> snoop the world's high-value streets. All the better to help us citizens of Google-land do what we are supposed to do there – which is shop.</p><p>If Google succeeds in selling us its <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/us-news-blog/2013/may/17/congress-caucus-google-glass-privacy" title="">Google Glass</a>, then we all become its agents. We would be a sensory apparatus for a vast computer database whose mission is to take our perceptions, thoughts, feelings or discoveries and turn them into money.</p><p>Some might be quite happy residing in Google-land. Google Books might be better than your local library. Google Maps makes up for all the missing street signs your council can't maintain. It is entirely possible that Google has better intelligence on world affairs than MI5 or the CIA, and its designs on what to do with it might be a bit less evil.</p><p>As with any state, there's another side. The British government at least notionally acts in the interests of its citizens. There is at least some transparency, some checks and balances. But in Google-land none of this applies. It acts in the interests only of its shareholders, and that perhaps only notionally. We are not really its citizens but its peons. We always owe a debt of information to Google, no matter how much of it we have already given up.</p><p>There used to be all sorts of criticisms of the old "culture industries" like Hollywood and the top 40, which entertained us with stories or songs that always ended on an upbeat note, no matter how false. But at least the culture industries went to the bother of entertaining us. Their replacements don't even bother. They expect us to entertain each other, and pay a tax for it. Facebook or Google's YouTube are not the culture industries so much as the vulture industries, taking an information surcharge from us while we amuse each other, and selling us to advertisers. Like do-it-yourself commercial TV.</p><p>These are all elements of what I call the "<a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/05/spectacle-disintegration" title="">spectacle of disintegration</a>". The old spectacle of television and radio papered the world with images of what the lovely soul of the commodity was supposed to look like. We were at least still free to daydream while we sat idly watching.</p><p>But in the spectacle of disintegration, all that breaks apart. The big screen decays into so many little screens. Our leisure time is now to be spent producing information for the vulture industries of Google and co, in an unequal exchange of information. In exchange for the poll tax of personal data, we get to watch each other's cat videos, while Google becomes some new version of the state, presiding over all our bitty lives, master of all our data, in aggregate.</p><p>Like any state, Google has its patriots. But there are also those who think this latest version of the spectacle offers some quirky avenues for having fun at its expense. Its time for a certain opacity, a certain glamour of obscurity. Not all the information we offer up has to be even remotely true.</p><p>It's 45 years since the failure of May '68, that last attempt to rock the old kind of state. Afterwards the <a href="http://libcom.org/thought/ideas/situationists" title="">Situationists</a>, who gave us the concept of the spectacle, disbanded. But they did not go silent. They pioneered ways of discreetly carving out spaces where other codes apply, protected by cryptic passwords. Perhaps some of their subtle arts might work within the belly of this new digital beast, so that we might live within it, but not give it our undivided attention.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/google">Google</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/privacy">Privacy</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/youtube">YouTube</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/social-media">Social media</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/taxavoidance">Tax avoidance</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/corporate-governance">Corporate governance</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/advertising">Advertising</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usa">United States</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/mckenzie-wark">McKenzie Wark</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
More details
22 MAY 2013 15:35:
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/69206?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Agoogle-chief-ed-miliband-responsible-capitalism-eric-schmidt%3A1911607&ch=Technology&c3=GU.co.uk&c4=Google+%28Technology%29%2CTechnology%2CEric+Schmidt+%28Technology%29%2CEd+Miliband%2CPolitics%2CTax+avoidance+%28DO+NOT+add+to+ongoing+proceedings%29%2CCorporate+governance+%28Business%29%2CBusiness%2CInternet%2CUK+news%2CWorld+news&c5=Unclassified%2CBusiness+Markets%2CNot+commercially+useful%2CTechnology+Gadgets%2CCorporate+IT&c6=Charles+Arthur&c7=2013%2F05%2F22+04%3A35&c8=1911607&c9=Article&c10=News&c13=&c19=GUK&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=Google+chief+rejects+Ed+Miliband%27s+call+for+%27responsible+capitalism%27&c66=News&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FNews%2FTechnology%2FGoogle" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">Eric Schmidt says search giant follows international rules after Labour leader criticised company over tax practices</p><p>Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt rejected the idea put forward by Labour leader Ed Miliband that the search giant should practise "responsible capitalism", arguing the company simply follows international tax laws – which he described as "irrational".</p><p></p><p>Speaking at Google's annual Big Tent event in the UK, Schmidt said one of his key concerns about reform of the tax structure was that the company might be "doubly or triply taxed". Asked by Labour MP Stella Creasy how he would reform the tax system, he suggested: "Have a rational system that's predictable and doesn't change very much." But he said he wasn't arguing for uniform tax rates: "I don't think taxes should be the same everywhere – they're a cultural construct," he said."</p><p></p><p>After being <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/22/google-tax-avoidance-ed-miliband" title="">lambasted in his absence by Labour leader Ed Miliband</a> in the morning for having overseen the creation of a tax system which uses "transfer pricing" – where different parts of a company charge themselves for "services" to shift profits – Schmidt was unrepentant. Asked how he would cope if Miliband were to come to power and, as promised, erase transfer pricing, Schmidt responded: "If he does – if he does so, we will follow the rules."</p><p></p><p>His comments seemed to mark an end of what had looked like a softening of Google's line over its taxation setup, which has come under sustained attack from MPs and ministers who have <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/16/google-told-by-mp-you-do-do-evil" title="">called it "evil" and "amoral"</a>, and over which whistleblowers have come forward to question its claims that no sales are concluded in the UK, where they would attract taxes.</p><p></p><p>But Schmidt also said the company would continue to invest in the UK, no matter what tax regime was in place: "Google will continue to invest in the UK, no matter what you guys do, we love you guys too much. We will continue investing in the UK no matter what."</p><p></p><p>He also rebuffed the suggestion that there is a distinction between the letter and the spirit of the law – a distinction that was emphatically made by Apple chief executive Tim Cook in testimony to the US Senate on Tuesday, who said that Apple complied with both.</p><p></p><p>"You'll have to define the difference," he said to a barrister who challenged him to say whether Google would comply with the "spirit" of the tax laws, which might then lead to it being taxed more. "We're governed by US securities laws – in that scenario it might be seen as incompetence."</p><p></p><p>Asked whether Britain has a different approach to capitalism than the US, Schmidt made a rare speaking slip: "Google is a capitalist country … company," he corrected himself, to laughter from the audience. "It's easy to say you would like us to have to have less profits and have that somewhere else. We will comply with the letter of the law, but we're trying to avoid being doubly and triply taxes, which would prevent us investing in some of the wilder things we do."</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/google">Google</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/eric-schmidt">Eric Schmidt</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/edmiliband">Ed Miliband</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/taxavoidance">Tax avoidance</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/corporate-governance">Corporate governance</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/internet">Internet</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/charlesarthur">Charles Arthur</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
More details
24 MAY 2013 19:20:
<div class="track"><img alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.25.4/55555?ns=guardian&pageName=Article%3Agoogle-ftc-investigation%3A1913052&ch=Technology&c3=Guardian&c4=Google+%28Technology%29%2CAdvertising+%28media%29%2CInternet%2CTechnology%2CMedia%2CUS+news%2CWorld+news&c5=Unclassified%2CNot+commercially+useful%2CMedia+Weekly%2CTechnology+Gadgets%2CCorporate+IT%2CAdvertising+Media&c6=Charles+Arthur&c7=2013%2F05%2F24+08%3A20&c8=1913052&c9=Article&c10=News&c13=&c19=GUK&c47=UK&c64=UK&c65=Google+advertising+under+investigation+in+US&c66=News&c72=&c73=&c74=&c75=&h2=GU%2FNews%2FTechnology%2FGoogle" width="1" height="1" /></div><p class="standfirst">US federal trade commission looking into allegations that company's DoubleClick has illegally promoted Google products</p><p>The US federal trade commission is investigating whether Google's DoubleClick advertising subsidiary has illegally pushed customers to buy its other products, the Guardian has established.</p><p>The regulator is understood to be looking at whether the display advertiser, acquired by Google in 2008 for $3.1bn (£2bn), is being used to muscle clients into buying adverts on other Google advertising properties such as its text-based AdSense. That could constitute "tying", which is illegal under antitrust law.</p><p>FTC spokesman Peter Kaplan declined to comment. The Guardian has, however, confirmed that the investigation is under way from other sources with knowledge of the FTC's work.</p><p>The FTC, which has a remit to protect consumers, has a number of preliminary investigations under way at any time, many of which are subsequently dropped for lack of evidence or harm. The first sign that it was moving towards a formal investigation would be the issuing of investigative requests to affected companies. The Google investigation is understood to be in its preliminary stages.</p><p>Reuters reported that the concerns have been raised by rivals who have complained that DoubleClick products such as its ad management system have been used to encourage sites to use other Google products such as <a href="http://www.google.com/doubleclick/networks/scaled-media-buying.html" title="">AdExchange</a>.</p><p>An antitrust investigation by the FTC could seriously hamper Google's freedom to manoeuvre in the advertising market. DoubleClick provides ad targeting based on various criteria. Since the purchase was completed in 2008, the number of players in the online ad market has shrunk.</p><p>Google had about 15% of America's $15bn online display advertising market in 2012, ahead of Facebook's 14.6%, said research firm eMarketer. That's expected to widen in Google's favour over the next year.</p><p>Microsoft famously fell foul of antitrust law in the 1990s, found guilty of illegally tying PC vendors' ability to buy its Windows operating system to the use of its Internet Explorer browser. That shut out the rival Netscape. Microsoft escaped a direct sanction following an appeal in 2000 but had to submit to antitrust oversight until May 2011. The trial and subsequent consent decree substantially changed Microsoft's corporate culture – and created the opportunity for Google to emerge with the rise of the internet.</p><p>Separately, the European commission has yet to decide whether it will accept a number of suggestions made by Google to end an investigation into potential abuse of its search monopoly. Google in April offered a number of concessions relating to search labelling – but rivals who previously complained to the EC <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/apr/25/google-rivals-reject-offer-label-listings" title="">indicated they would reject them</a>, which could set back any agreement and might trigger legal action.</p><p>The FTC has carried out formal investigations against Google a number of times in recent years. In 2011 it <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/30/google-privacy-reviews-buzz-ftc" title="">investigated its Google Buzz</a> social media system, for which it was bound over for 20 years in March 2011 on privacy-related matters. It then <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/aug/09/google-record-fine-ftc-safari" title="">had to pay a $22.5m fine</a> last August for violating that ruling by hacking Apple users' browsers to track them online.</p><p>In January, the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jan/03/google-cleared-search-bias-investigation" title="">FTC cleared Google</a> of biasing its search results in its own favour after a two-year formal investigation that ran in parallel with – but separate from – the one in Europe. However, the FTC did slap down Google's Motorola Mobility (MMI) subsidiary for its attempts to seek injunctions against companies including Apple and Motorola for using its "standards-essential" patents – a decision seen by many as lowering MMI's overall value, because it reduced the amount that Google could demand for use of its portfolio of 17,500 patents.</p><p>That weakness in MMI's patent portfolio was reinforced on Thursday, when a panel at the ITC, which adjudicates on trade disputes over US imports, declined to grant MMI a sales ban against Microsoft's Xbox, ending a dispute that had gone on since November 2010.</p><p>Previously a US judge cut to just $1.8m an MMI claim under which it was demanding royalties on a standards-essential patent that would have cost Microsoft billions of dollars annually.</p><p>The US district court judge argued that having a patent with comparatively small functionality used in a standard should not be an excuse for demanding a "hold-up" rate.</p><p>In Europe, Apple and Microsoft have both complained to the EC's antitrust arm – the same one investigating Google's alleged search bias – about MMI's use of standards-essential patents to seek injunctions.</p><div class="related" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><ul><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/google">Google</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/advertising">Advertising</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/internet">Internet</a></li><li><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usa">United States</a></li></ul></div><div class="author"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/charlesarthur">Charles Arthur</a></div><br/><div class="terms"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk">guardian.co.uk</a> © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/terms-of-service">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/feeds">More Feeds</a></div><p style="clear:both" />
More details
