• Like something out of the movie Ocean's Eleven, cybercriminals working with "cashing crews" in more than two dozen countries managed to steal $45 million from thousands of ATMs in just a few hours. First, the hackers raised the withdrawal limits on several prepaid debit card accounts, then the account information was distributed and encoded onto magnetic-stripe cards. In NYC alone, a team of 8 people withdrew $2.4 million from a few thousand ATMs. [url]
• Thieves glued the cancel button on several ATMs in Spokane, WA. Their hope was that a customer would make a mistake or try to cancel a transaction, and then realize they can't because the cancel button is stuck. If the customer left in frustration, the thieves could unglue the button and then steal the bank card or continue the transaction. [url]
• A hacker serving a five-year sentence in Romania has invented a device that prevents ATM skimming thefts. The add-on device rotates ATM cards so that skimming devices (as they're currently designed) can't read them. [url]

The judge also ruled that the government was not in the wrong for failing to disclose to a magistrate judge that it planned to use a stingray to track the defendant, or to explain to the judge how the tracking device it intended to use worked. He characterized this information as a “detail of execution which need not be specified.”

“When the government is seeking a warrant to use new technology, it has the duty to explain to the court what that technology is and how it works,” she said. “Stingrays are a very potent example of why that is so, because it scoops up innocent information of third parties who are not under probable cause surveillance.”

In its adolescent years, the U.S. was a hotbed of intellectual piracy and technology smuggling, particularly in the textile industry, acquiring both machines and skilled machinists in violation of British export and emigration laws. Only after it had become a mature industrial power did the country vigorously campaign for intellectual-property protection.

The most candid mission statement in this regard was Alexander Hamilton’s “Report on Manufactures,” submitted to Congress in December 1791. “To procure all such machines as are known in any part of Europe can only require a proper provision and due pains,” Hamilton wrote. “The knowledge of several of the most important of them is already possessed. The preparation of them here is, in most cases, practicable on nearly equal terms.”

Notice that Hamilton wasn’t urging the development of indigenous inventions to compete with Europe but rather the direct procurement of European technologies through “proper provision and due pains” -- meaning, breaking the laws of other countries. As the report acknowledged, most manufacturing nations “prohibit, under severe penalties, the exportation of implements and machines, which they have either invented or improved.” At least part of the “Report on Manufactures” can therefore be read as a manifesto calling for state-sponsored theft and smuggling.

Important Notice

Effective immediately, the Internet Copyright Law Enforcement Agency has ceased operations. Please disregard any notices you received from us, and please do not send us any payments.

... an international organization that helps to enforce copyright laws on the internet worldwide by informing potential copyright law violators regarding the serious possible criminal and/or civil liability they may face, and providing them with an opportunity to help them comply with copyright laws.

We work with law enforcement agencies and strategic partners around the world to enforce copyright laws, and to help prosecute individuals and companies who violate these laws.

There’s a lot going on in the recent Wall Street Journal story about how Hewlett-Packard “missed a chance to back away” from its acquisition of Autonomy – which HP now thinks did a lot of revenue recognition fraud and on which it has taken zillions of dollars of writedowns – but this description of the board’s approval process for the deal is the only thing you really need to know:¹

HP directors and bankers calculated how much revenue Autonomy would have to add over 10 years to justify such a price. Autonomy’s trajectory alone wouldn’t get there. The deal required assuming more revenue growth as a result of the tie-up than HP usually assumed in acquisitions, said people familiar with the matter. But the directors believed they could make the numbers.

Those calculations were done without knowledge of the alleged fraud but who cares? Here is, roughly, HP’s thought process:

• The price that Autonomy demands is X²
• Autonomy’s DCF value is Y₁ based on expected revenue growth but no synergies
• Y₁ < X
• Well but the DCF value is Y₂ with regular-to-aggressive synergies
• Y₂ < X
• Well but … well we could make up another number Y₃
• Y₃ >= X
• LOOKS GOOD.

If you notice that current revenue numbers are made up, then that changes Y₁, but Y₁ isn’t an input into Y₃ – the actual value that HP put on Autonomy – because that number was also just made up. “Synergies” was just a plug to get the equation to balance. The bankers’ math in the board book to approve the deal was just there to be soothing – directors get twitchy³ if they can’t look at a football field slide while approving an acquisition – not to have an impact on the outcome. You can hypothesize that HP would have rejected the deal if it had known Autonomy’s true revenue situation, because then the valuation numbers wouldn’t work, but that is a silly hypothesis because even using fake⁴ revenues the valuation numbers didn’t work and it didn’t reject the deal.

That is too glib – off by a lot is worse than off by a little, and “oh you’re a massive fraud actually” is a great point to make in negotiating down the asking price – but I think it’s the right analysis. As Usha Rodrigues writes, “The die was cast on the Autonomy acquisition when the HP board picked Apotheker, a CEO ‘bent on a high impact acquisition.’” If you have a CEO who really wants to do a deal, and a deal he really wants to do, it’s hard to imagine that some accountant coming to him with some minor boring technical quibble like “all these revenues are fictitious” would cause any more trouble than – well, than some banker coming to him with some minor boring technical quibble like “the price you are paying is more than the discounted cash flow of this asset to you.” Shut up, nerds! We’re doing important CEO business here!

How should this make you feel about the social value of M&A? Sort of same as you always felt? Some deals are good and some are bad, and CEOs tend to like making acquisitions because they are optimists and doing acquisitions makes them feel like big shots, and boards should try to shut down acquisitions that are bad for shareholders, but sometimes they don’t because country clubs etc. Everyone knew that already; this anecdotal confirmation is pleasing but, after all, just anecdotal. I’m sure HP’s current CEO would never do an acquisition that might destroy shareholder value.

How should it make you feel about Dragon Systems? Dragon, you’ll remember, sold itself for stock to a company that turned out to be a giant fraud and whose stock turned out to be worthless; Dragon’s shareholders then went out and sued their ragtag team of junior investment bankers at Goldman for not noticing that the acquiror was a giant fraud. And one of those junior bankers testified that they did a “great job” for Dragon, insofar as “We guided them to a completed transaction.” This got them made fun of a lot, here and elsewhere, but you get the sense Apotheker would approve. Dragon’s, and HP’s, bankers saw themselves as service providers, providing a particular narrow service – roughly, transaction execution – and leaving other services (auditing, fraud detection) to other providers, or no one, as the case may be. It was clear – to the bankers, and HP, though perhaps not to Dragon – who was in charge of the deal, and it sure wasn’t the bankers.

One popular and reasonably promising path to medium-term success as an investment banker is to tell clients what they want to hear. This is good because then clients will find you pleasant to be around; it’s also good because what they want to hear is frequently “oh yeah you should totally do this transaction that involves paying investment banking fees.” So there’s a synergy there. CEOs, after all, tend to (1) want to do stuff, (2) want to do big stuff, and (3) have a high degree of confidence in their ability to make investing decisions. If those decisions are systematically biased toward destroying shareholder value … well, I mean, we just work here, y’know?

Also, the Journal had an article about the flood of stock buybacks analysts expect this year.

Inside HP’s Missed Chance To Avoid a Disastrous Deal [WSJ]

1. Though you should read the rest because it is pretty entertaining? Like this is good:

HP became aware that bloggers and some financial analysts had claimed in the past that Autonomy was aggressive in its accounting. HP asked Autonomy’s [CEO] Mr. Lynch about how his firm recognized revenue, receiving answers and documents that allayed concern, said HP General Counsel John Schultz.

Bloggers! That happened right after the acquisition agreement was signed, as did this: “[HP board chairman Ray] Lane spoke to senior HP executives and found a near-universal view that their CEO wasn’t right for the job.” Imagine being a board chairman and sidling up to like the CFO and saying “hey, everything good with this Apotheker dude?” and the CFO saying “no he’s horrible you have to fire him.” And you’re like, hmm, that’s discouraging. And you check in with the COO and hear the same thing. And then you ask everyone and get “a near-universal view that their CEO wasn’t right for the job.” Never mind the big acquisition you just signed. “Gee, you know that information really would’ve been more useful to me YESTERDAY,” you might find yourself thinking.

2. Which we’ll take as a given: it’s a 50% premium to market price, which “wasn’t unusual for a software deal.”

3. For “twitchy” read “sued.” Imagine that the rest of this footnote discusses the negative effects of Smith v. Van Gorkom on, like, life, and its positive effects on investment banking M&A advisory revenues.

4. This footnote runs the global “allegedly” macro. I have no idea. Lynch remains adamant that there was no monkey business at Autonomy.

• Morgan Stanley Finalizes Its Entry In The “Who Said The Worst Things About Its Own Products?” Competition
• Hedge Fund Manager Will Get Chance to Fulfill Dream of Spending Hundreds of Millions of Dollars Badly
• Bank Investors Push For Change Via Strongly Worded Poll Responses

“At the FTC, Rachel from Cardholder Services is public enemy number one,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “We’re cracking down on illegal robocalls by bringing law enforcement actions and pursuing technical solutions to the problem.”

In the robocall cases announced today, the FTC alleges that the defendants place automated calls to consumers, typically with a prerecorded message from “Rachel” or someone else from “Cardholder Services.” The calls purport to have an “important message” regarding an opportunity to reduce high credit card interest rates. Consumers are urged to “press 1” to connect with a live representative, or “press 2” to discontinue getting such calls. Consumers who press 1 are connected to live telemarketers. Most consumers have no way to screen the calls using Caller ID, as the incoming number allegedly is often “spoofed,” or displayed as a false number. In many cases, the name displayed on the Caller ID is so generic, such as “Card Services,” that it provides little information about who is calling.

According to the FTC, consumers who reach a live telemarketer are then pitched allegedly deceptive offers to have their credit card interest rates substantially reduced, sometimes to as low as 6.9 or even zero percent. The telemarketers allegedly guarantee that lowering card interest rates will save the consumers thousands of dollars in finance charges in a short period of time and will allow them to pay off the balances more quickly. Some telemarketers allegedly claim that consumers will save at least $2,500 in finance charges and will be able to pay off their balances two to three times faster, without increasing their monthly payments.

In some cases, according to the FTC, the telemarketers claim to be calling from the consumer’s credit card company. In other cases, they use “Cardholder Services” to suggest a relationship with a bank or credit card company. If the consumer expresses an interest in the rate reduction offer, the telemarketer sometimes conducts a purported “audit” to determine whether the consumer qualifies. Consumers provide their financial and personal information, and are then put on hold while the “audit” is completed. According to the FTC, the “audit” typically is used only to determine whether consumers have enough credit available on their credit cards to pay the company’s fee.

[Lily] Dionne was one of about 79 cast and crew who say they were "grossly misled" when they answered casting calls on Craigslist, Backstage magazine and other publications in July 2011 for a film that was described as "an historical Arabian Desert adventure."

But from the beginning, Dionne said the cast and crew had questions, including why the central character in a period piece had a Western name.

"We did wonder what it was about. They kept saying George. And we were like, 'This is the Middle East 2,000 years ago. Who's George?'" she said.

In a 17-page complaint filed Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court, the lawsuit from Cindy Lee Garcia also names YouTube LLC, the video-sharing website on which the video is posted, and its parent company, Google Inc., as causing irreparable harm to Ms. Garcia for refusing to remove the content from their site.

"The lawsuit is not an attack on the First Amendment or the right of Americans to say what they think," but it demands the content be pulled off because "Ms. Garcia in no way consented to the use of her performance, image or likeness in such an offensive and file film," Garcia's attorney, M. Cris Armenta, said in a statement.

“We don’t have discretion to grant exceptions in situations like this. Once we find out someone has a criminal history of dishonesty or breach of trust we can no longer employ them.”

"Although an attorney may be accused of defrauding opposing parties, knowingly committing discovery abuses, lying to the court, or purposely and maliciously defaming another individual, if it takes place during the course of litigation, the conduct simply is not actionable,"

Judge Boal recommended that the motion for dismissal be denied in significant part. The defendants had argued that Mr. Shirokov was not entitled to sue them at all, since he wised up before paying their demands, and his claimed injuries were out-of-pocket costs of investigating the threats. They claimed that the Noerr-Pennington privilege, an antitrust doctrine, prevented any liability. And they argued that lawyers and their clients have absolute immunity for even intentional torts, or in DGW’s words: “although an attorney may be accused of defrauding opposing parties, knowingly committing discovery abuses, lying to the court, or purposely and maliciously defaming another individual, if it takes place during the course of litigation, the conduct simply is not actionable.” Just think about that one for a minute.

Judge Boal thoroughly debunked each of those claims. The fees Mr. Shirokov incurred in investigating the trumped-up copyright claims constitute an injury-in-fact that gives him standing to sue. The Massachusetts litigation privilege does not apply to threats of litigation that are not seriously contemplated in good faith. And the Noerr-Pennington antitrust doctrine did not apply outside of antitrust law, and even the First Amendment right to petition isn’t an absolute protection for litigation threats.

It is however the viewpoint of this article that the Megaupload indictment will likely be seen in the long run as having a more significant impact on Internet business models and innovation than the withdrawal of PIPA and SOPA — and this would be the case even if those bills had been enacted in some combined form.

Megaupload removed the search feature on its website, which had previously been of assistance to those looking for infringing content. The indictment alleges that this was done to disguise the company's willful infringement, much of which was purportedly facilitated by other "linking" websites operated by unrelated third parties. But if the search feature had not been removed, wouldn't that have been cited as evidence of facilitating infringement? Similarly, the indictment notes that "browsing the front page of Megavideo.com does not show any obviously infringing copies of any copyrighted works; instead, the page contains videos of news stories, user generated videos, and general Internet videos in a manner substantially similar to Youtube.com", but then cites "the most-viewed videos in the Entertainment category on Megavideo.com… has at times revealed a number of infringing copies of copyrighted works that are available from Mega Conspiracy-controlled servers" as evidence of knowing facilitation of commercial infringement.

A recent New Yorker profile of YouTube's evolution makes one wonder if the "YouTube Conspiracy" might not have been criminally targeted if this enforcement tactic was being employed when it launched in 2005, especially since e-mails between its principals indicated a deliberate toleration of infringing content to build traffic — e-mails that bear a distinct resemblance to some of those reproduced in the Megaupload indictment.

Defendant contests Plaintiff’s ownership of the disputed copyright and argues the case should be dismissed for lack of standing. Plaintiff’s ownership of its assigned copyrights has been contested in Nevada and Colorado. Judges in Nevada have dismissed complaints for lack of standing and issued orders to show cause why these cases should not be dismissed for lack of standing. The copyright assignments in the Nevada cases are governed by a Strategic Alliance Agreement between Righthaven LLC and Stephens Media LLC which appears to be very similar to the Copyright Alliance Agreement (the “CAA”), including its Schedule 1 – Terms and Conditions, between Plaintiff and MediaNews Group, Inc. (“MediaNews”) that Defendant asserts governs the copyright assignment at issue in this case.* Moreover, the CAA appears to support Defendant’s claim that Plaintiff does not have standing to sue for copyright infringement. Specifically, the CAA appears to qualify any copyright assignments it governs such that Plaintiff is left only with a bare right to sue and does not own any exclusive rights in the copyright, as would be required for Plaintiff to have standing to allege an infringement claim on those copyrights. See Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entm’t, Inc., 402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that an assignee who held an accrued claim for copyright infringement, but who had no legal or beneficial interest in the underlying copyright itself, could not institute a cause of action for infringement); Eden Toys, Inc. v. Florelee Undergarment Co., 697 F.2d 27 (2d Cir. 1982) (holding that one who owns no exclusive right in a copyright may not sue for infringement; only the owner of an exclusive right under a copyright may bring suit).

Although Plaintiff argues substantive analysis of the assignment must await discovery, the Court believes this issue should be addressed because it goes to Plaintiff’s standing to bring a copyright infringement claim at all. Thus, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court issues this Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s lack of ownership of any exclusive rights in the copyright and, therefore, lack of standing to sue.

In Plaintiff’s case, Defendants were able to and did access Plaintiff’s personal and credit card information by intercepting and recording her confidential electronic communications without or beyond her consent, further using that information to cross-reference public records and other sources to obtain, among other things, Plaintiff’s legal name, age, date of birth, and other personal, confidential information, and making some of that unlawfully-obtained confidential information available to the public at www.imdb.com and other affiliated and unaffiliated websites.

By this practice, Defendants committed fraud, breached the terms of the Subscriber Agreement and Privacy Policy entered into with Plaintiff, and violated Plaintiff’s statutory privacy and consumer protection rights as described herein. Plaintiff brings this action seeking declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief to redress Defendants’ unlawful conduct.

First, because lesser-known forty-year-old actresses are not in demand in the entertainment business, Plaintiff has suffered a substantial decrease in acting credits, employment opportunities and earnings since Defendants’ addition of Plaintiff’s legal date of birth to the Internet Movie Database. Second, because Plaintiff looks so much younger than her actual age indicates, Plaintiff has experienced rejection in the industry for each “forty-year-old” role for which she has interviewed because she does not and cannot physically portray the role of a forty-year old woman.

Because a journal’s readers are all harmed by the fraud, they may sue the guest in a civil RICO class action. One of their harms involves the value of the journal subscription. The subscription price represents the value of a year’s worth of articles that conform to the guidelines. Readers would not willingly pay for the fraudulent articles, as shown by the hypothetical example of a guest author who disclaims responsibility for authorship. Whether or not they read the article in question, its publication deprives them of the opportunity to read an article satisfying the journal’s requirements, and thus diminishes the value of their subscription. The harm may be measured by reducing the subscription price in proportion to the space devoted to the ghostwritten article. If the subscription costs $100, and the journal publishes 100 articles per year, it could be said that each subscriber suffers a $1 loss from a fraudulent article. The individual loss is small, but the aggregate loss to all subscribers may be significant—particularly if the cost is trebled under RICO.

Righthaven is far worse than the debt collectors referenced in the cases cited above. In every single one of those cases, the debt collector at least tried to collect the debt prior to litigation.... But with Righthaven, its first and only act in the collection of alleged debts is to prosecute a lawsuit. That is all Righthaven does and all it ever did. Righthaven is not a debt collector who unintentionally ran afoul of the law of unauthorized practice, Righthaven is an entity set up ab initio for the express purpose of committing the unauthorized practice of law.

It's a wonder Righthaven's pleadings don't end with 'arbracadabra.'