Extraordinary Rendition–Convictions

It’s been awhile since extraordinary rendition has been in the news, but the Italians have done something that is both unexpected and not surprising.  It’s unexpected because it isn’t often that CIA agents are convicted of anything anywhere, and it’s not surprising because they were tried in absentia.

The convictions involve 23 CIA agents who allegedly kidnapped a very influential Italian Imam–Abu Omar–off the streets of Milan, and then sneaked him off somewhere, where he was then allegedly tortured.  The Italians have, from time to time, thought of having the agents extradited from the United States, but nothing ever came of that (mainly because the Secretary of State would never authorize the extradition, and it would cause diplomatic friction, so Italian authorities never pursued the matter).  In lieu of that, then, the Italians opted to try the agents in absentia and now they have been convicted.  (Link)  It really doesn’t mean a whole lot from a practical perspective other than that the agents are pretty much barred from going to Europe now.

Intel Antitrust Suit Filed

Intel has been fighting an antitrust suit in Europe for years (recently getting hit with €1.06bn in fines) and now it must deal with essentially the same allegations in the United States.  According to the NY Times (found via Gizmodo, but there are more here), New York’s Attorney General–Andrew Cuomo–has filed a federal antitrust claim in the District of Delaware alleging that Intel “used bribery and coercion to maintain a stranglehold on the market.”

A copy of the 87-page complaint can be found here (PDF), and the first 77 pages or so lay out the alleged acts which led to the case being filed.   There are actually only four claims in the complaint, and only one of which is covered by the Sherman Act.  The other three claims involve New York state laws.  The Sherman Act claim alleges that Intel exercises monopoly powers, and by virtue of those powers, it “willfully maintained, and unless restrained by the Court may continue to willfully maintain, that power by anticompetitive and unreasonably exclusionary conduct.”

15 U.S.C. § 2 makes it a felony for a company or person to monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, any part of trade or commerce.  It’s punishable by up to ten years in prison, up to a million dollars in fines, or both.  But you’ll notice that this is a civil complaint, and not a criminal indictment.  This is because 15 U.S.C. § 15 gives an injured person the right to bring suit in federal court, and seek treble damages plus reasonable attorneys fees.

Naturally, Intel disputes the claims and promises to defend itself against the allegations.  (Link)

By nook or by Crook

Barnes & Noble’s new ebook reader, the nook, is widely considered a Kindle killer.  (Full disclosure: I was once an employee of Barnes & Noble, but that has nothing to do with this post.)  But a California-based company is suing Barnes & Noble, claiming the publishing and retail giant stole its ideas to make the nook.  (Source)

This company is called Spring Design, and it alleges that it met with Barnes & Noble in February of this year to show the company a product they called “Alex.”  This meeting occurred 5 days after a nondisclosure agreement was allegedly negotiated.  And it is alleged, through the filings, that the features found in the nook were all things envisioned by Spring Design.  So Spring is suing for “breaching the non-disclosure agreement, misappropriating trade secrets, and violating unfair competition laws.”  In addition, Spring would like production of the nook to be ceased.

We’ll see.

Where’s the Map for That?

It appears that at&t doesn’t like Verizon’s snarky “There’s a Map for That” commercials.  You know, the ones that somewhat inaccurately equate Apple’s “There’s an App for That” slogan with at&t’s native 3G service.  (Kinda shows you just how important the iPhone is to at&t’s viability, doesn’t it? Once that exclusivity is gone, I wonder what will happen to at&t…)

Anyway, at&t has filed suit against Verizon, in Georgia of all places, alleging false and deceptive trade practices. (source)  The ads are pretty aggressive, really, showing that at&t has pretty anemic 3G coverage while Verizon’s is quite extensive.  What at&t doesn’t like is the insinuation that somehow at&t customers aren’t able to access voice and data in the areas not covered by the 3G map.  at&t’s 3G implementation isn’t quite as robust as Verizon’s, but it does have the EDGE network in many places, so at&t customers get a sort of half-fast data network in the places where 3G isn’t available.

That’s why at&t is suing Verizon, because it feels that Verizon is insinuating that at&t customers don’t get any service in the areas where 3G has not been implemented.  Verizon is having none of it, saying that the ads are accurate because they clearly state that they are talking about 3G technology and that at&t data and voice access are still available in many places.

What’s funny is that the whole case has the potential to be completely moot if it actually goes to trial.  By the time that happens, 4G will be the new standard, and 3G probably won’t matter one whit.

Federal Hate Crimes Legislation

Earlier today, I mentioned that the FBI (and other federal agencies) doesn’t typically investigate “street crimes” like assault.  Nonetheless, there’s a new federal crime to be aware of today, and it’s one that proponents of the legislation have been wanting for a very long time.

According to the AP and to the Human Rights Campaign, the new legislation was tacked onto a defense spending bill.  What does it cover?  Hate crimes.

From what I gather, a new section of the U.S. Code will be created: 18 U.S.C. § 249, which will be part of Chapter 13, and which will make it a crime to willfully cause injury (or attempt to cause injury) to a person based on that person’s actual or perceived race, gender, national origin, or sexual orientation.  The punishment will be imprisonment for up to 10 years, or for any term of years up to life if death, kidnapping, or sexual abuse occurs (or attempts to do such are undertaken).  Congress also stated that nothing about the law should be construed as a limit on expression: “Nothing in this division shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.”

Google Maps Navigation on Android 2.0

It was only a matter of time, really, before Google Maps became a turn-by-turn mobile application.  And now it has.  Gizmodo has a good write-up on its features and abilities, and of course it looks polished even in beta form.  (What isn’t beta in Google-land, besides GMail?  Oh.  Google Apps, actually, and a few other things.  Drat.  It was always fun to joke about how long things stayed in beta with Google.  Oh well, I guess I’ll have to fall back on making jokes about how no one knows you’re a dog on the internet.)  For right now, the application is available only to Android 2.0 users, but there are plans afoot to get it on the iPhone.

Anyway, what surprised me about the Gizmodo review of the application is this:

My fears on zero pricing, for the long term: If Google sells this in the App Store for zero dollars, those millions of bucks Apple makes off of GPS app sales will likely disappear. It’s not for us to worry about until there’s no more GPS competition except Google, and we’re dependent on their pace of progress, but no competition is a bad thing. And it’s a little strange that Google’s search money is going to pay for a free map app that is competitive with stuff that costs $100 a year from full-time GPS makers like TomTom. Unfair is the word that comes to mind. But I can’t say I don’t want this app.

I’ve written about my concerns regarding the freeconomy before, and this Engadget link essentially proves the point.  TomTom’s shares are down about 20% as of the time of this writing, and Garmin isn’t faring much better, down about 15%.  Free is nice and all, but it does have a cost.

(Sure, yeah, fine, in the long run all the buggy-whip manufacturers eventually ended up making something else, right?)

Murder as Terrorism? Hold up a moment…

It is somewhat axiomatic that the FBI doesn’t generally investigate so-called “street crimes” such as assault, rape, murder, and even low-level drug use.  This isn’t because there aren’t federal laws for these activities.  For example, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 et seq. proscribes homicide,  18 U.S.C. §§ 2241 et seq. proscribes sexual abuse, 18 U.S.C. §§ 111 et seq. proscribes assaults, and 21 U.S.C. § 844 proscribes “simple possession” of controlled substances.  Despite having laws that could be enforced by federal authorities, though, it is generally considered an inappropriate use of resources when the states can handle the cases just fine, thank you very much.

That changes, apparently, when murder gets called terrorism.

Medical Marijuana Update … Update

The United States Department of Justice has issued a press release on the changes to the prosecution of medical marijuana providers.  According to Attorney General Holder,

“This balanced policy formalizes a sensible approach that the Department has been following since January: effectively focus our resources on serious drug traffickers while taking into account state and local laws.”

The release also contains a link to the Guidelines memo, which can be found here.  An example of an inefficient use of federal resources is provided in the memo:

“As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources.”

However, if the individual is not in clear and unambiguous compliance, that individual could still face federal prosecution.

Extradition from Britain–Gary McKinnon? Maybe Not

Those of us who follow international extraditions are quite familiar with the tale of Gary McKinnon.  Mr. McKinnon, if you don’t know, is the British man charged in 2002 with hacking his way into government and military computers in the United States.  He claims he was searching for proof of UFOs, which, let’s be honest, who isn’t?

In any event, despite being determined to be extraditable, and losing a number of appeals along the way, he appears to have received yet one more slight reprieve.  According to PC World, the Home Secretary has received evidence that Mr. McKinnon has severe depression and Asperger’s syndrome, and as such, extradition would be harmful to his health.  This argument has been made previously throughout all the hearings, along with the argument that there was no guarantee that he wouldn’t just be shipped off to Guantanamo. So, while this isn’t an unexpected development, it will be interesting to see how the Home Secretary rules on this case.  If Mr. McKinnon is ordered to be extradited, he has 14 days to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

Medical Marijuana Update

Back in March, I mentioned that the Obama Administration had signaled it would reevaluate the Bush-era policies regarding federal prosecutions of medical marijuana dispensaries.  According to the AP, new guidance is expected to be distributed today to US Attorneys Offices in the 14 states that have legalized medical marijuana.  The general thrust is that legitimate dispensaries are to be allowed to go about their business, while those which are posing as fronts, or are engaged in other criminal activity, are to be prosecuted.

I only have one real problem with this plan, and it’s a problem that I have with other aspects of Obama’s we-need-to-focus-on-the-future-and-put-the-past-behind-us attitude, is that it does nothing with the fact that there’s a Supreme Court case, Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), which states that the federal government, through the Commerce Clause, is allowed to prosecute marijuana cultivators in states where such is legal.

What is left, then, is an environment where, for the next three-and-a-half years, at least, medical marijuana use in states where it is legal will likely not be prosecuted.  What happens when a new President gets elected, though?  Without getting rid of the Raich precedent, the federal government will still have the ability to change the guidance and start prosecuting medical marijuana cultivators and dispensaries.  Thus, while this is welcome news for those people who provide marijuana to those who receive beneficial treatment through it, it’s not necessarily an “all-clear” signal.