non_sequitur

Like other people have mentioned, this is mainly stock compensation related, but the funniest part is that they tag this loss % as "Not meaningful" in their financial statements. Just a not meaningful $2B loss :)

Just wondering why you say Tacobell isnt advertising on Snap? They were part of a very publicized campaign a couple years ago [1], are you saying they've stopped?

[1] https://www.marketingdive.com/news/taco-bells-cinco-de-mayo-...

"A group of the agency’s policy analysts said senior officials at the CDC informed them about the banned words on Thursday, according to the Post’s report. In some cases, the analysts were reportedly given replacement phrases to use instead.

But in follow-up reporting, The New York Times cited “a few” CDC officials who suggested the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases."

Can I just briefly rant about how annoying/bad/outright made up modern day reporting is? Good lord.

Updated: South Korea Clarifies Position After Reports of Possible Ban on All Crypto Transactions

"On Monday, Financial Services Commission (FSC) Chairman Choi Jong-ku clarified to reporters at a luncheon meeting that “the FSC is mapping out measures to restrict [cryptocurrency] transactions to some extent,” which he did admit include “an all-out ban,” Yonhap reported. “The restriction is aimed at minimizing side effects of bitcoin transactions and reducing speculative investment,” the news outlet added. Choi was then quoted by Asia Economy:

We are discussing to what extent the government will regulate the trade, including the prohibition of trade. The chairman noted that the Ministry of Justice is currently reviewing measures to regulate cryptocurrencies. News.Bitcoin.com reported last week on this ministry being put in charge of a new Virtual Currency Task Force in order to “set up and implement the regulatory measures through consultation between the related ministries.”

And also "It is expected that the government measures related to virtual currency will not be a one-sided regulation that prohibits virtual currency trading altogether, but a regulation that limits investment amount and investment qualification."

https://news.bitcoin.com/south-korea-reports-ban-all-crypto-...

This is from their legal agreement:

7.1 Discontinuance of Services. Subject to Section 7.2, Google may discontinue any Services or any portion or feature for any reason at any time without liability to Customer.

7.2 Deprecation Policy. Google will announce if it intends to discontinue or make backwards incompatible changes to the Services specified at the URL in the next sentence. Google will use commercially reasonable efforts to continue to operate those Services versions and features identified at https://cloud.google.com/terms/deprecation without these changes for at least one year after that announcement, unless (as Google determines in its reasonable good faith judgment)

So technically they can do it, though their enterprise customers likely have stronger agreements that require at least X time (probably 1 year) notice

Relevant excerpt:

"The Chinese government is building one of the world’s most sophisticated, high-tech systems to keep watch over its citizens, including surveillance cameras, facial-recognition technology and vast computers systems that comb through terabytes of data. Central to its efforts are the country’s biggest technology companies, which are openly acting as the government’s eyes and ears in cyberspace.

Companies including Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. , Tencent Holdings Ltd. and Baidu Inc., are required to help China’s government hunt down criminal suspects and silence political dissent. Their technology is also being used to create cities wired for surveillance.

This assistance is far more extensive than the help Western companies extend to their governments, and the requests are almost impossible to challenge, a Wall Street Journal examination of Chinese practices shows.

Unlike American companies, which often resist U.S. government requests for information, Chinese ones talk openly about working with authorities. Tencent Chief Executive Ma Huateng, also known as Pony Ma, and Alibaba founder Jack Ma both have voiced support for private companies working with the government on law enforcement and security issues.

“The political and legal system of the future is inseparable from the internet, inseparable from big data,” Alibaba’s Mr. Ma told a Communist Party commission overseeing law enforcement last year. He said technology will soon make it possible to predict security threats. “Bad guys won’t even be able to walk into the square,” he said.

In practice, China’s internet giants, which have benefited from trade policies shielding them from foreign competition, have little choice but to cooperate in a country where the Communist Party controls both the legal system and the right to function as a business."

This article is pretty clickbait-y - their 2 "recommendations" are to short bitcoin or buy puts in bitcoin. Doing either isn't usually recommended for novice investors when dealing with reputable S&P500 type stocks, let alone a cryptocurrency in the middle of a mania. Following either recommendation could be a great way to lose your shirt.

“Bitcoin has no underlying rate of return,” said Bogle, 88, who started the first index fund in 1976. “You know bonds have an interest coupon, stocks have earnings and dividends, gold has nothing. There is nothing to support bitcoin except the hope that you will sell it to someone for more than you paid for it.”

Didnt quite understand this quote - is he down on gold too?

7 years is a tiny sample size if you are hoping to retire off it (unless of course you cash out your millions during that time). His advice makes sense if you are looking at a 30 year retirement horizon - it may not be there in 30 years.

Are sites like fakespot not sufficient (or any other popular meta review sites)? HN/reddit review writers would be such a tiny subset of purchasers that you probably wouldnt get much relevant data.

"Microsoft and its 29-year-old chairman, William H. Gates, clearly want to be No. 1 again."

Really amazing what he had done by 29. As someone older than that, I'm really starting to feel like I'm hitting the "older tier" of tech ages.

What kind of rumors? Any links or anything that would give some context?

You could just launch an ICO, doesn't seem to really matter what it does. A platform that helps launch platforms that launch ICOs?

They definitely had permission. Android was cross marketed on Kit Kat bars as well, e.g.: http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1444541.13782299...

You (and most people in this thread, and discussing this on the Internet) are confusing 2 completely separate concepts.

Fair use is a COPYRIGHT doctrine. It is part of the US copyright law that says, creators of a copyright can enforce their rights against people who misuse their creations, except in certain cases, fair use being one of them. So if Zillow brings a claim under the US Copyright act, McMansion can assert a fair use defense. (https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html)

Zillow's terms of service is a CONTRACT. It is separate from whether Zillow can bring a copyright claim. They could sue for both breach of contract and copyright infringement. Fair use is a legitimate defense for the copyright infringement claim (and I agree would likely be successful). It is NOT a defense for the breach of contract claim. There is no such thing as "TOS overriding fair use" because they are on separate and distinct tracks. ("However, binding agreements such as contracts or licence agreements may take precedence over fair use rights.[21]" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use)

As for whether the arbitration cases show that restrictions on use of proprietary images on browsewrap TOS are enforceable, we'll agree to disagree - jury trials are a far more important right (as someone below pointed out) than whether you can use someone's proprietary images for your own purpose. I find it difficult to believe a judge or jury could (fairly) find that there is no 'meeting of the minds' on whether you can take and use any images, website content, code, etc. you feel like from someone's website or online product under a browsewrap license. It's a significantly different issue than whether an arbitration clause can be enforced. I would argue that most people know that 'taking things from other people is bad and not allowed' without requiring prominent notice on a website about it. But this case will be litigated, so we'll never know.

Flip it around - courts decide not to apply arbitration provisions because it involves giving up a key right (jury trial), so they find that there was no meeting of the minds in the TOS given the manner it was presented. Essentially, if a browsewrap TOS is not presently prominently enough to let you to make an educated decision on waiving your right to a jury trial, you get to keep your right to a jury trial.

You dont have this situation when the issue is whether you have the ability to use a provider's images for non-permitted purposes. Your right to use someone's images how you like is not nearly as important as your right to a jury trial. I'm not aware of any case where non-arbitration provisions of a TOS were not applied due to browsewrap reasons, if you are aware of any I'd love to see them.

EFF's argument would be totally valid if Zillow was trying to force McMansion into arbitration. That's not the issue here, and it's misleading to start off with "your TOS are unenforceable [because courts have declined to apply arbitration provisions in certain browsewrap TOS contexts]"

When lawyers write letters, they will throw everything they can possibly think of and the kitchen sink, even if it's not relevant. Many of the cites in the letter are not relevant to this situation (I'm not going through every one, but just as an example):

The letter says:

"But Wagner is not bound by your Terms of Use and, even if she were, the relevant provisions are unenforceable. Courts routinely decline to enforce “browsewrap” agreements like Zillow’s Terms of Use, which fail to present terms except via a hyperlink and without a checkbox to signal assent. See, e.g., Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014); Meyer v. Kalanick, 199 F. Supp. 3d 752 (S.D. N.Y. 2016); Be In, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 12-CV-03373-LHK, 2013 WL 5568706, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2013); Kwan v. Clearwire Corp., No. C09-1392JLR, 2012 WL 32380 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 3, 2012)."

Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., - court declined to apply arbitration clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyen_v._Barnes_%26_Noble,_In...) Meyer v. Kalanick, - court declined to apply arbitration clause (http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2016/08/judge-declines-...) Kwan v. Clearwire Corp. - court declined to apply arbitration clause (http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/02/kwan_v_clearwir...) Don't have a link to the Google case, but I would be shocked if it werent the same issue.

Do you see how the very first paragraph where they start citing has very little to do with the actual issue? Translation: "Hey Zillow, first of all your terms of service arent enforceable, see these 4 cases, all of which have to do with whether an arbitration clause could be applied and have nothing to do with the current situation."

2nd paragraph: "Even if an agreement were formed, paragraph 14 of the Terms of Use, asserting Zillow’s right to alter the contract without notice or justification, would render the agreement illusory and void for lack of consideration. See, e.g., Cheek v. United Healthcare of Mid-Atl., Inc., 378 Md. 139, 144, 835 A.2d 656, 659 (2003); Interchange Assocs. v. Interchange, Inc., 16 Wash. App. 359, 362, 557 P.2d 357, 359 (1976)."

Again, nothing to do with the situation at hand

Cheek v. United Healthcare of Mid-Atl., Inc. - arbitration clause in an employee handbook held unenforceable (http://www.whaylaw.com/employee-arbitration-agreement) Interchange Assocs. v. Interchange, Inc. - an agreement where directors agreed to serve 10 years or until they resigned was an "illusory promise" and did not provide sufficient consideration for a contract (http://courts.mrsc.org/appellate/016wnapp/016wnapp0359.htm)

Again, neither of these are really relevant to the situation. I'll stop here but I hope you get the gist of it. Here's what happened - some junior lawyer at EFF spend 4-5 researching all the cases they thought would be remotely relevant and threw them in there because hey it looks impressive, but if you spend some time digging into them the truth quickly becomes apparent.

(I don't work for Zillow or EFF)

The EFF letter cites a bunch of cases where an arbitration clause was unenforceable because of the way the terms of service were presented, which has nothing to do with the current situation (whether a restriction on using images from Zillow is enforceable). I know it's not fashionable to express support for a big bad corporate machine over the little guy/gal, but I'm trying to share some actual information instead of just gush.

Because Zillow is ultimately right here and her use of the images without Zillow's permission is against their terms of use (which contrary to the hand-wavy analysis in EFF's letter, is absolutely enforceable). However, Zillow doesnt have a lot of damages to recover from her use and definitely wants to avoid another big PR stink, so they get to back off gracefully, she agrees to stop saying she gets the pictures from Zillow (which is what they really wanted), and everything goes back to normal.

Of course I'm guessing, I don't work at Zillow and I've never seen the contract. A similar guess was also made by The Verge - "I’m all but certain some brokerage or MLS provider saw Wagner’s blog, got mad that their photos were being used to make fun of the houses they were selling, and complained to Zillow. And Zillow’s lawyers probably thought sending a scary letter would solve the problem, because that’s what lawyers are paid to do."

Even if there's no affirmative duty to police, if you become aware of something that potentially makes you in breach in a contract, you're supposed to try to stop it. Otherwise if you get sued for breach it looks even worse for you - "they knew about it and were too lazy to do anything to stop it"

No, it's not true. From their Terms of Use:

"Except as expressly stated herein and without limitation, you agree that you will not, nor will you permit or encourage any third party to, reproduce, publicly display, or otherwise make accessible on or through any other Web site, application, or service any reviews, ratings, and/or profile information about real estate, lending, or other professionals, underlying images of or information about real estate listings, or other data or content available through the Services."

So yes, McMansion Hell could be violating their terms of use.

Zillow likely has a clause in their contracts with MLS/wherever else they get these pictures, that they cant allow the pics to be used for any other purpose other than for posting on Zillow. They are trying to enforce this since they have apparently gotten dinged by suppliers in the past. Since they found a blog that explicitly stated "i got these pics from Zillow," they had a lawyer who had apparently been working there ~1 month send out a standard C&D letter, even though the facts didnt exactly fit (when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, etc.). It obviously became a PR disaster for them but could also have just gone the opposite way where a no name blog using their pics stopped doing it. It was obviously a mistake but I'm sure there was no malice on their part, the rash of people rushing to condemn them for stifling free speech are being silly. It was a standard process thing that didnt quite fit and got blown out of proportion, i'm sure everyone has encountered some form of it in their job before.

All she has/had to do was take out that statement that 'it's from Zillow' and the problem goes away, Zillow doesnt care where you get pics from as long as they have no liability.

Yeah it's not clear if they actually indemnify pre-signing bad acts though? What would be their incentive for indemnifying him for bad things he did at Google?

I do agree I wouldn't have called it "bad acts" if I was drafting, "Pre-Signing Actions" sounds much better :)

I'm a tech lawyer, not affiliated with either company. I think the linked article sensationalizes it and makes it a bigger deal than it is, if you read the underlying Bloomberg article it just says that Uber agreed to indemnify (defend in a lawsuit) if Lewandowski got sued over something that was in his memory. It doesnt say anything about him copying and bringing over files etc. The "what's retained in memory" issue is a pretty standard point that is negotiated in NDAs, ultimately most people agree that you shouldnt be sued for something you remember, as long as you didnt go out of your way to memorize it or write it down. Otherwise, if you learned anything confidential at a job you'd be unemployable by other companies doing similar things.

Can't wait until they have to litigate this one!

I think you should italicize "positive" - "Well, except that your change in the ashtray is a positive contribution." :)

Core Yahoo was actually worth a negative amount when comparing its market cap to the market cap of the Alibaba assets.

One of the funnier parts is that for revenue, they grew +286%. for losses (which +2200% if you include the stock comp), there is no percentage listed, just "NM" (Not meaningful)

Cheaper cost, even easier to use since it has voice? I can see this going over well with older generations who are still fumbling around or slower with with phones and ipads.

I think the biggest benefit is video calling. Get your parents one, get one yourself, schedule a video call with them once a week (or whatever). Easier than Facetime since you don't have to hold up the phone. Reminds me of the videophones in the Starship Troopers movie.

From BBC: "The campaign said the documents showed only legitimate campaign activities."

From WSJ: "The cache includes both authentic and falsified documents “with the goal of sowing doubt and disinformation,” the campaign said."