According to the report, 500 million Android phones may be affected. What happens to Consumer Reports?
I think he is referring to Bezos Cash Flow - the scheme being used to show their cash flow using dubious accounting tricks like capital leases.
Futures Trader Charged with Illegally Manipulating Stock Market, Contributing to the May 2010 Market ‘Flash Crash’
A futures trader was arrested in the United Kingdom today on U.S. wire fraud and commodities fraud and manipulation charges in connection with his alleged role in the May 2010 “Flash Crash,” when the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 600 points in five minutes, announced Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and Special Agent in Charge Robert J. Holley of the FBI’s Chicago Division.
Navinder Singh Sarao, 36, of Hounslow, United Kingdom, was arrested today in the United Kingdom, and the United States is requesting his extradition. Sarao was charged in a federal criminal complaint in the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 11, 2015, with one count of wire fraud, 10 counts of commodities fraud, 10 counts of commodities manipulation, and one count of “spoofing,” a practice of bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the bid or offer before execution.
According to allegations in the complaint, which was unsealed today, Sarao allegedly used an automated trading program to manipulate the market for E-Mini S&P 500 futures contracts (E-Minis) on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME). E-Minis are stock market index futures contracts based on the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Sarao’s alleged manipulation earned him significant profits and contributed to a major drop in the U.S. stock market on May 6, 2010, that came to be known as the “Flash Crash.” On that date, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by approximately 600 points in a five-minute span, following a drop in the price of E-Minis.
According to the complaint, Sarao allegedly employed a “dynamic layering” scheme to affect the price of E-Minis. By allegedly placing multiple, simultaneous, large-volume sell orders at different price points—a technique known as “layering”—Sarao created the appearance of substantial supply in the market. As part of the scheme, Sarao allegedly modified these orders frequently so that they remained close to the market price, and typically canceled the orders without executing them. When prices fell as a result of this activity, Sarao allegedly sold futures contracts only to buy them back at a lower price. Conversely, when the market moved back upward as the market activity ceased, Sarao allegedly bought contracts only to sell them at a higher price.
MOUNTAIN VIEW -- Google will have a hard time emerging unscathed from the bull's eye of the European Union, even if the search engine giant mounts a successful defense to the antitrust complaint filed against it Wednesday.
That's because European regulators appear to be interested in more than simply resolving their five-year investigation into Google's online search practices that led to Wednesday's complaint. A separate probe into Google's Android smartphone system, announced at the same time, promises to cast a larger cloud over the Mountain View company reminiscent of the costly and drawn-out U.S. and European investigations of Microsoft that began in the 1990s.
"It taps into a larger fear, especially in Europe, of Google's dominance and the power it exercises over all of us," said Vivek Krishnamurthy of Harvard Law School's Cyberlaw Clinic, speaking of the EU's complaint.
Krishnamurthy believes that "the Android action is potentially much more significant" than the formal search complaint because Europe's concern -- that Google forces phone makers to install its search engine and other products -- has "shades of the U.S. antitrust case against Microsoft" for favoring its Web browser.
"They're accusing Google of copying Microsoft's playbook ... with this idea that they're incentivizing manufacturers, or requiring them to bundle Google's own applications with Android," he said.
Google began its vigorous defense by calling attention to the success of its competition and denying the charges.
So far, at least, the case against Google is narrow in scope. The European Union has accused the company of abusing its dominance in the search market by favoring its own comparison shopping results over those of competitors.
Such a precise allegation focusing on how people search and shop for products online surprised some lawyers.
"When you think of Google, the first thing that comes to mind is not comparison shopping," Krishnamurthy said. "It's an odd first step for the Europeans."
But Google, which has 10 weeks to respond, could face more trouble if it is unable to convincingly deny the charge that it uses its powerful position to restrict competition. The European Union may broaden its formal allegations or could discover evidence that points to larger problems.
That is a real possibility, according to Margrethe Vestager, the European Union's competition chief, who said a finding that Google infringed EU law by favoring its own shopping service could be a "broader precedent" for enforcing rules on other online search products.
The Danish politician, noting in a news conference that she and her children use the search engine all the time, made clear that Google's market dominance was not its problem, but how it used that dominance. Shopping is "the area where Google has been favoring its products in its search results for the longest period," she said, adding that other services under investigation included Google Maps, hotel and flight searches, exclusive contracts with advertisers and copying or "scraping" content from other websites.
The European Union's competition regulator on Wednesday accused Google of illegally abusing its dominance of the Internet search market in Europe by favoring its own comparison-shopping product when consumers shop online.
The case could cost the tech firm billions in fines or even force Google to make significant changes to its business in Europe. It also revives memories of Microsoft's decade-long antitrust fight with the EU. That case ended in 2009 with Microsoft paying over $2 billion in fines to the EU's competition commission.
EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said Wednesday in a statement unveiling an investigation that she is "concerned that the company has given an unfair advantage to its own comparison shopping service, in breach of EU antitrust rules. Google now has the opportunity to convince the commission to the contrary."
Vestager also is probing Google's Android mobile operating systems, apps and services. Vestager said that she wants to "make sure the markets in this area can flourish without anti-competitive constraints."
Google accounts for 90% of all Internet searches in Europe and the commission alleges the Internet giant broke antitrust regulations by siphoning traffic from its competitors to its own services.
The commission said Google "may be artificially divert(ing) traffic from rival comparison shopping services (to its Google Shopping) and hinder their ability to compete."
The EU has been investigating Google for five years. The California-based technology giant was not immediately available for comment on the new charges.
My point is it is incorrect to think that the issue is over because no AH actions. In fact, the problem just started and it will get a lot worse in the coming weeks and months. Most Pros know case like this will take time. On the positive note, it gives time to people to get out. If you look at the insiders transactions, it is clear that the insiders are unloading as much as they can without causing attentions.
Google and Samsung only know copy machine. They foster theft culture! No doubt, they will shamelessly try to copy Apple Watch!
Indian e-commerce giant Flipkart has decided it doesn’t need to rely on the Web to lure shoppers, dumping its mobile site and pushing visitors to its app. That move may spell trouble for the future of Google's cash-cow search engine, which relies heavily on links to shopping sites.
Smartphone users that go to the mobile websites of either Flipkart or its sister site Myntra no longer see the same virtual store shelves as when they visit those sites from a personal computer. Instead they see a message to download the sites’ mobile apps.
The problem for Google is that a large percentage of its ad business is driven by paid links that direct users to e-commerce sites. But mobile apps are walled gardens unto themselves, unconnected by links to the broader Web.
The more smartphone users get used to shopping inside mobile apps, instead of navigating to e-commerce sites via their phone’s browser, the less they need Google search to find what they want to buy.
And the trend may be especially pronounced in emerging markets like India, which Google hopes will power future growth. Since many of those users may come online for the first time via smartphones rather than PCs they may be trained to use mobile apps more than the Web.
For Flipkart, mobile accounts for about 75% of traffic today, up from single digits a year ago, according to a spokeswoman.
When people use its app, they remain logged in, making checkout faster. Also Flipkart can connect with customers via push notifications.
“We are constantly experimenting with various aspects of our service to create the best shopping options and experience for our users, the Flipkart spokeswoman said.
The advocacy group Consumer Watchdog is calling on the Federal Trade Commission to reopen an antitrust investigation into Google, in light of this week's news that a 2012 staff report recommended taking the company to court.
Consumer Watchdog also is urging the Senate to examine how Google “escaped prosecution for its anticompetitive practices.”
The organization, a frequent Google critic, was responding to an article in The Wall Street Journal, which said on Thursday that FTC staff found evidence that Google leveraged its market power in search to harm other companies. The Journal said it obtained a portion of the Bureau of Competition's staff report after the agency mistakenly released it in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
A separate FTC report by its Bureau of Economics recommended against suing Google.
Consumer Watchdog is calling on the FTC to release both reports in their entirety.
The report in favor of suing focused on several allegations, including that Google scraped content from Yelp, TripAdvisor and Amazon. The search giant allegedly did so in order to boost its own sites.
The European Union is going to file antitrust charges against Google in the next few weeks, according to a new report in The Wall Street Journal.
The EU has been investigating Google for several years, but now the region's top antitrust authority, the European Commission, has been asking companies who filed confidential complaints against Google for permission to publish those complaints.
The Commission could end up fining Google up to 10% of its annual revenues, which would be more than $6 billion based on last year's revenue.