Subject: General Tech | January 19, 2012 - 11:40 PM | Tim Verry
Tagged: dell, nvidia, insider trading, tech, Law, ethics
There is an important distinction between working within the confines of the law to make the most profit possible and going outside those lines to make a profit while hoping you don't get caught. To drive that point home, the FBI has stated "what distinguishes you from the dozens who have been charged is not that you haven’t been caught; it’s that you haven’t been caught yet." Assistant Director in Charge Janice K. Fedarcyk wrote that when referring to a recent bust of seven individuals accused of insider trading of Dell and Nvidia stock. The arrests, made as part of Operation Perfect Hedge, include seven men who are connected by "friendship or business association."
Thanks to three of the seven men cooperating with the FBI, we know that the men used information about Dell and Nvidia's quarterly earnings prior to any public release of such earnings documents to purchase stock to resell after positive earning documents caused the stock value to increase or to short their stock to avoid losses that would be incurred by lower than expected quarterly earnings causing the stock price to drop. On the Dell side of things, two employees in the know provided quarterly earnings numbers to various hedge funds. The first employee, Sandy Goyal, is charged with providing a hedge fund with Q1 earning results for 2008 in exchange for $175,000. The hedge fund then used that insider information to make $3.8 million dollars. Another (former) Dell employee, Jesse Tortora furnished three hedge funds with quarterly earnings numbers who each then made $4 million on Q1 information and $53 million on the Q2 information, $1 million in profit, and the final Hedge fund avoided #78,000 in losses by selling stock before the inevitable price drop thanks to knowing the negative earning numbers before hand.
Finally, Danny kuo knew someone who worked at Nvidia and provided information to the other members of the insider trading group.
Let this be a lesson to those business folks that slept through ethics classes, stay away from insider trading, especially when you are paid for the information as you are just asking to get caught. (Cue the "Cops" theme song). Normally we don't cover this kind of news; however, I thought it applicable since it involves Dell and Nvidia. Also, speaking of quarterly earnings, Josh will have all the details from today's Intel Earnings Call up soon.
Subject: General Tech | January 16, 2012 - 03:56 AM | Tim Verry
Tagged: SOPA, pipa, congress, Law, Copyright
Everyone who contacted your congressmen and / or boycotted SOPA supporting businesses please give yourself a pat on the back because the controversial House bill, SOPA, has been stalled until a consensus is reached. Following Texas House Representative Lamar Smith's announcement that the DNS provision of SOPA would be removed, House Oversight Chairman Darrel Issa of California stated he was promised that the House would no longer vote on the Stop Online Privacy Act unless a consensus is reached on the bill.
Chairman Issa was quoted by The Hill in stating "While I remain concerned about Senate action on the Protect IP Act, I am confident that flawed legislation will not be taken up by this House." He further assured people that a consensus on anti-piracy legislation would need to be reached before any bill would come to a vote. The Protect IP Act action he mentioned relates to the Senate bill proceeding as planned, without the DNS provisions however.
This is a small victory for everyone who is not overreacting Big Content or being paid by Big Content to think that way. SOPA has gathered a great many opponents during it's short time in the public eye, including popular sites Google, Yahoo, and Facebook, legislators Nancy Pelosy, Darrel Issa, and presidential candidate Ron Paul, and various civil rights groups. Now that the bill has been stalled, it is not likely to proceed to a vote in its current form, and the Internet thanks everyone who contacted their congressmen to oppose the bill. Keep in mind that the Senate version of the bill, Protect IP, is still proceeding; therefore, there is still work to be done.
Photo courtesy Amani Hasan via Flickr.
Subject: Editorial, General Tech | May 4, 2011 - 05:36 PM | Tim Verry
Tagged: Law, Copyright, Bit Torrent
This past year has seen a surge of copyright infringement cases where copyright holders have brought suits against not one, but hundreds or even thousands of defendants. These kinds of wide sweeping cases are highly controversial, and, according to TorrentFreak opponents have even gone so far as to call these types of cases as "extortion".
The main reason for the controversy is that rights-holders are acquiring lists of IP addresses that connect to, download, and/or share illegal files that they own the original copyright for. They are then bringing lawsuits against the so called John Does listed in the IP addresses, and using legal subpoenas to force ISPs to release personal information of the account holder(s) connected to that IP at the times the IP address was logged downloading and/or sharing their files. While many may not realize the flaw in this logic, it seems as though a District Court judge by the name of Harold Baker has questioned the legality and implications of assuming an IP address is grounds enough to obtain further personal information.
The issue of connecting solely an IP address to a person is that while a log with an IP address along with specific dates and times can be connected to an ISP’s subscriber and their Internet connection, there is no way to know that it was that particular person who represented that IP address in that matter. It could just as easily have been another person living in the household, a friend or visitor who used the wireless connection, or a malicious individual piggy-backing on that subscriber’s Internet connection (and thus the IP address).
TorrentFreak reports that “Judge Baker cited a recent child porn case where the U.S. authorities raided the wrong people, because the real offenders were piggybacking on their Wi-Fi connections.” They also state that Judge Baker believes that these types of cases, particularly when it involves adult entertainment, assuming an IP address is enough material to subpoena for further personally identifiable information could obstruct a “‘fair’ legal process.” This is because, bringing a suit against someone by connecting them to solely an IP address, especially when it involves adult entertainment, could irreparably defame an innocent persons character.
Judge Baker goes on to say that rights-holders could potentially use the delicate issue of the accusation of allegedly sharing adult material to encourage even innocent people to settle out of court. TorrentFreak reports that “Baker conlcudes [sic] by saying that his Court is not supporting a “fishing expedition” for subscribers’ details if there is no evidence that it has jurisdiction over the defendants.”
There is no question that Judge Baker’s ruling could potentially change the landscape of bit torrent related lawsuits throughout the United States. Rights-holders are no doubt going to aggressively combat this ruling; however, civil rights groups and countless innocent people are rejoicing at the knowledge that it may very well be the beginning of the end for John Doe bit torrent lawsuits in the Unite States.
Image courtesy MikeBlogs via Flickr (creative commons 2.0 w/attribution).