AT&T and Time Warner deal generates scepticism; calls for ‘close’ scrutiny in Washington

Image Credit: REUTERS

  24 Oct 2016 , 10:45

AT&T Inc’s proposed $85 billion takeover of Time Warner Inc generated scepticism among both Democrats and Republicans on Sunday, making it more likely that regulators will closely scrutinise the effort to create a new telecommunications and media giant. The biggest deal of the year, announced just over two weeks before the Nov. 8 U.S. election, is a gamble on a victory for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and a continuation of the status quo on antitrust and regulatory enforcement.

The Republican candidate Donald Trump, who is trailing Clinton in the polls, has said he would block the takeover. The billionaire businessman has railed against the media’s role in what he has described as a “rigged” election and he believes the acquisition of Time Warner, which owns CNN and Warner Bros, Hollywood’s largest film and television studio, would concentrate too much power in one organisation.

“AT&T, the original and abusive ‘Ma Bell’ telephone monopoly, is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal because it concentrates too much power in the hands of the too and powerful few,” Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro said in a statement on Sunday. Clinton, who has expressed misgivings about other corporate megamergers, has not yet commented on the takeover.

But Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s former rival for the Democratic party’s nomination, said on Twitter that the administration should “kill” the Time Warner takeover because it would mean higher prices and fewer choices for consumers. Sanders’ comments carry weight because Clinton needs Sanders’ coalition of young and left-leaning voters to propel her to the presidency.

Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon told reporters on Sunday there were “a number of questions and concerns” about the deal “but there’s still a lot of information that needs to come out before any conclusions should be reached.” The Senate subcommittee on antitrust will hold a hearing on the acquisition sometime in

US Supreme Court to hear arguments in Apple vs Samsung patent and copyright dispute

Image: Getty Images

  10 Oct 2016 , 17:41

After five years of litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday in the bitter patent dispute between the world’s two top smartphone manufacturers over the amount Samsung should pay Apple for copying the iPhone’s distinctive look.

The justices’ ruling, due by the end of June, could have a long-term impact for designers and product manufacturers going forward because the Supreme Court, if it agrees with Samsung, could limit the penalties for swiping a patented design.

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd paid Apple Inc $548.2 million last December, fulfilling part of its liability stemming from a 2012 verdict for infringing Apple’s iPhone patents and copying its look.

But Samsung will argue before the Supreme Court that it should not have had to make as much as $399 million of that payout for infringement of three patented designs on the iPhone’s rounded-corner front face, its bezel and the colorful grid of icons that represent programs and applications.

It will be the Supreme Court’s first case involving design patents in more than 120 years, when the products at issue were carpets and rugs.

Cupertino, California-based Apple sued its South Korean rival in 2011, claiming Samsung stole its technology and the iPhone’s trademarked appearance.

Samsung has said it should not have had to fork over all of its profits on phones that infringed the patents, which contributed only marginally to a complex product with thousands of patented features.

Apple has said Samsung was properly penalized for ripping off its work.

With the many years of fighting behind these fierce rivals, this case has become mostly about money, said Michael Risch, a professor at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law.

“The infringement has been affirmed, now it’s whether this huge judgment should be affirmed,” he said.

Risch joined a group of 50 university professors who filed a