7 Sep, 2011  |  Written by  |  under News


Groupon founder and CEO Andrew Mason attends the second day of the Allen and Company Sun Valley Conference in Sun Valley, Idaho on July 7, 2011. REUTERS/Anthony Bolante

Groupon founder and CEO Andrew Mason attends the second day of the Allen and Company Sun Valley Conference in Sun Valley, Idaho on July 7, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Anthony Bolante


By Alistair Barr

SAN FRANCISCO |
Tue Sep 6, 2011 4:36pm EDT

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Groupon is going to wait at least a couple of weeks before launching the final phase of its initial public offering because regulators still have questions for the daily deals website and the stock market is too volatile, a person familiar with the situation said on Tuesday.

Groupon had been planning to go public in mid to late September. To hit that unofficial deadline, the company would have had to launch a roadshow to attract potential investors this week or next week.

A Groupon spokesman declined to comment.

Groupon filed for a $750 million IPO in June, when the stock market was higher and less volatile than it is now. In such an environment, it would be difficult being the first IPO to hit the market after Labor Day, the person said.

Some on Wall Street have questioned Groupon's financial disclosures, while others are concerned the company's rapid growth is starting to slow in North America.

Groupon Chief Executive Andrew Mason sent a memo to employees recently that was widely reported in the media, in which he blasted critics in the press and on Wall Street.

The company has received questions from the SEC about the memo, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday. Regulations limit what companies can say ahead of a planned IPO.

The newspaper also said Groupon had scheduled a roadshow for next week, but has called that off now. The company is not canceling its IPO, but it's reassessing the timing of an offering on a week-by-week basis, the newspaper added, citing an unidentified person familiar with the matter.

(Reporting by Alistair Barr; editing by Andre Grenon)

original content on reuters

2 Sep, 2011  |  Written by  |  under News

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge on Thursday threw out a "grossly excessive" $1.3 billion verdict that Oracle won against SAP in a landmark intellectual property case, possibly setting the stage for another circus-like showdown between the two technology companies.

The decision was a surprising twist in a 4-year-old case that's been filled with them. There will be a new trial if Oracle Corp. formally rejects a lower $272 million award, which it has indicated it will do.

While Thursday's ruling was a victory for SAP AG, a German maker of business software, it's not necessarily as much of a setback for Oracle, which stands to humiliate SAP again even if it can't secure the higher award.

If the second trial is anything like last year's, expect more high-wire theatrics from Oracle's outspoken CEO, Larry Ellison, who has pilloried SAP for its amateurish theft of software and customer-support documents from password-protected Oracle websites. SAP has admitted that a now-shuttered subsidiary, TomorrowNow, committed the offense.

Oracle is the leading maker of database software, which helps companies organize their information. Its aggressive expansion into business applications has forced Oracle into a faceoff with SAP, the leader in that space.

Oracle argued that the stolen information helped SAP steal customers by offering similar services at cheaper prices. SAP argued that TomorrowNow wasn't that great at stealing customers with the information anyway and should have to pay only $40 million for accounts that SAP did manage to lure away.

The jury ultimately awarded Oracle more than 30 times that amount after a three-week trial last November. It was one of the largest verdicts in a case involving software-related theft and showed how severely jurors were willing to punish corporations for intellectual-property theft from rivals.

Although the amount was less than what Oracle asked for, it was far more than what SAP had budgeted. SAP had set aside $160 million to pay anticipated damages and had already spent $120 million of that in payments to Oracle's lawyers. The punishment amounted to more than half of SAP's total profit in the prior year.

Thursday's decision by Judge Phyllis Hamilton in in U.S. District Court in Oakland, Calif., is a major victory for SAP. She said the size of the penalty was "contrary to the weight of the evidence, and was grossly excessive."

Oracle can now choose whether to accept the lower award of $272 million or proceed with a new trial before a different jury. The $272 million amount was based on an earlier estimate from an Oracle expert on what profit Oracle lost and SAP gained.

Whatever happens, Oracle has already scored repeated public relations wins because of the case.

The case gave Ellison a platform to taunt another foe, former SAP CEO Leo Apotheker, who is now CEO of Hewlett-Packard Co. Oracle is increasingly battling HP in the market for computer servers, straining a decades-long technology partnership.

Oracle, which is based in Redwood Shores, Calif., tried to summon Apotheker to testify at the trial, and the company pushed the image of a "Where's Waldo?"-type manhunt involving private investigators and a vanished executive. Apotheker wasn't spotted within the jurisdiction of the Oakland court in time, and he didn't appear.

HP, based in Palo Alto, continually skirted questions about Apotheker's whereabouts at the time, presumably because there was little to be gained in allowing him to testify. HP accused Oracle of harassing its new executive and said Oracle had ample time to question Apotheker in an earlier deposition.

SAP said it was very gratified with Thursday's decision.

"We believed the jury's verdict was wrong and are pleased at the significant reduction in damages," the company said in a statement. "We hope the court's action will help drive this matter to a final resolution."

Oracle said it plans to fight for the full amount it was awarded.

"There was voluminous evidence regarding the massive scope of the theft, clear involvement of SAP management in the misconduct and the tremendous value of the (intellectual property) stolen," Oracle said. "We believe the jury got it right and we intend to pursue the full measure of damages that we believe are owed to Oracle."

Oracle's stock fell 23 cents, or 0.8 percent, to close Thursday at $27.84. SAP's stock fell 75 cents, or 1.4 percent, to $53.76.

Follow Yahoo! News on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook

original content on yahoo

2 Sep, 2011  |  Written by  |  under News

SAN FRANCISCO – Netflix's negotiations to keep a key piece of its Internet video library have collapsed, dealing a major blow to the largest U.S. video subscription service as it raises the prices for most of its 25 million customers. The setback triggered a nearly 9 percent drop in Netflix Inc.'s stock price.

Starz Entertainment delivered the bad news Thursday in a terse statement announcing that it won't renew a contract that allows Netflix to show a lineup of recently released movies and TV shows over high-speed Internet connections.

That means Starz content will be removed from Netflix's streaming service starting in March. Starz' library includes movies from Walt Disney Co.'s assorted studios and, until recently, Sony Corp.

The talks fell apart after the two sides disagreed over the value of the Starz content and how it should be sold to Netflix subscribers, according to people familiar with the negotiations. The people asked not to be identified because they weren't authorized to speak publicly.

The content from Starz' cable TV channel played an instrumental role in increasing usage of Netflix's Internet service and helped Netflix add nearly 17 million subscribers since the deal was signed in October 2008.

That growth probably wouldn't have happened without the boost that the Starz deal gave to Netflix streaming, said Janney Montgomery Scott analyst Tony Wible.

"What created (Netflix's success in streaming) is frankly, initially getting Starz, getting that content, which got you more subscribers, which allowed you to buy more content," Wible said. "The virtuous cycle that has made Netflix what it is could work against it. If you lose content, you lose subscribers; ... it could be a downward spiral from here."

Netflix had been expected to work out a new contract with Starz, although at a much higher price than the estimated $30 million a year that it had been paying under the current agreement. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings acknowledged earlier this year that the company might have to pay as much as $250 million a year to retain the Starz rights when the current contract expires in February.

But those hopes were dashed, if not blown up completely, with Thursday's bombshell dropped by Starz CEO Chris Albrecht.

The timing of the announcement was seen a way to kick Netflix in the shins at a particularly vulnerable time. It came on the first day of a new Netflix pricing system that will hit U.S. subscribers with price increase of as much as 60 percent if they want to continue to get DVD rentals through the mail along with unlimited streaming of Internet video. The new pricing system has incensed a large group of Netflix subscribers who have threatened to cancel their accounts, a backlash that could intensify if it looks like Netflix's streaming library is becoming less attractive.

Albrecht said Starz had decided against a renewal "to protect the premium nature of our brand by preserving the appropriate pricing and packaging of our exclusive and highly valuable content."

The contract renewal talks broke down when Netflix refused to meet demands that could have driven up the annual licensing rights to $300 million or more, according to one person familiar with the negotiations.

A major sticking point arose when Starz insisted its content be corralled on a higher-price tier, another person said. Instead of making their content available to any Netflix subscriber paying just $8 per month, Starz executives wanted viewership limited to people paying at least $16 per month for a package that bundles DVD rentals with Internet video.

That stipulation was seen as a way to preserve Starz' relationship with cable and satellite TV distributors, who include Starz in channel packages that cost far more than the $8 monthly fee for Netflix streaming. Albrecht said Starz, part of Liberty Media Corp., is in an "excellent position" to make more money from other sources besides Netflix.

Netflix tried to downplay the possible loss of the Starz relationship. The company, which is based in Los Gatos, Calif., said it would spend the $250 million that Hastings had earmarked for the Starz renewal to buy audience-pleasing content from other distributors. Hastings has left no doubt that he intends to invest heavily in Netflix's Internet video library because he wants more subscribers to use that option. That would allow Netflix to cut postage and other costs to mail DVD rentals to its customers.

As it is, Starz has become less important to Netflix as the service expanded its streaming rights. In June, Sony also stopped allowing its movies, which include "Easy A" and "Grown Ups," to part of Starz streaming in June. Those factors have reduced Starz's share of Netflix streaming viewership in the U.S. to 8 percent, according to Netflix.

The rising cost for Internet streaming rights is one of the reasons that Netflix raised its prices for people who want to rent DVDs through the mail and stream video. The changes don't affect customers who subscribe to the streaming-only plan.

Starz's decision to end the talks with Netflix underscores the escalating tensions with pay-TV services that view Netflix's popularity as a competitive threat. Time Warner Inc.'s HBO has consistently refused to license its shows for Netflix streaming, and Showtime recently has declined to make some of its top series, including "Dexter" and "Californication" available to the service.

Morningstar analyst Michael Corty said he thinks Netflix can salvage the Starz deal, given there is still six months before the current contract expires. To do that, Netflix will likely have to pay even more than it intended because Starz appears to have more negotiating leverage, Corty said.

Although Albrecht's statement made it sound as if there is little chance of a new deal, Netflix left the door open.

"We have tremendous respect for the Starz creative team, and we look forward to someday licensing some of their original or licensed content," Netflix said in a statement.

The falling out with Starz added to the worries of Netflix investors already fretting about the higher prices driving away subscribers. Netflix's stock plunged $19.97 to $213.30 in extended trading Thursday, after the announcement by Starz.

___

Nakashima reported from Los Angeles.

Follow Yahoo! News on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook

original content on yahoo

SAN FRANCISCO – The Justice Department's rejection of AT&T's proposed purchase of T-Mobile USA will test new federal guidelines on challenging mergers and the companies' resolve in forming the nation's largest wireless carrier.

A courtroom battle is likely and could wring out information that the companies would prefer to keep private. Still, AT&T Inc. has a big incentive to fight: If the deal is called off, the company has to pay a $3 billion breakup fee and surrender some of its unused spectrum for wireless communications.

AT&T is promising to fight the Justice Department's decision. The department filed a lawsuit Wednesday to block the $39 billion deal, saying it would reduce competition and lead to price increases for customers.

If AT&T follows through on that, it could produce the biggest antitrust showdown since business software maker Oracle Corp. squared off with the federal government seven years ago. That dispute, triggered by the government's decision to block Oracle's proposed purchase of rival PeopleSoft Inc., exposed several well-kept corporate secrets and required Oracle CEO Larry Ellison to testify before a packed courtroom.

In the end, Oracle pulled off something few companies have done in the past 30 years: It persuaded a federal judge that the Justice Department didn't have grounds to block its PeopleSoft deal. Oracle closed its $11.1 billion takeover four months after getting the favorable court ruling.

Usually, not even the most powerful companies bother to fight government regulators in an antitrust dispute. Google Inc., for example, backed off in 2008 when the Justice Department threatened to sue to block a proposed Internet search partnership with Yahoo Inc. Microsoft Corp., the world's largest software maker, pulled out of a deal to buy Intuit Corp. in 1995 after the Justice Department objected.

The Justice Department filed 138 antitrust cases in federal courts from 1999 to 2008 and lost just four of them, according to the latest breakdown from the agency.

One reason that the Justice Department has such a good track record is because it rarely challenges a deal unless it's very confident it can win, said Joseph Bauer, a University of Notre Dame law professor and antitrust expert.

Knowing AT&T would probably go to court, the Justice Department may have wanted to signal that it intends to get tougher on corporate marriages between rivals in markets with few other competitors.

A union between AT&T and T-Mobile USA would leave Verizon and Sprint as the only other major cellphone carriers in the U.S. T-Mobile, a subsidiary of German telecom company Deutsche Telekom AG, is currently the No. 4 wireless carrier, while AT&T is second. Combined, AT&T would be the largest.

In a sign of its confidence, the Justice Department decided to strike down the deal even though it could have taken about three more months to study the pros and cons. The timing stunned AT&T, which said it didn't get any advance warning.

"It was an aggressive and impressive move by the DOJ to take the battle right at AT&T," said Daniel Wall, a San Francisco attorney who represented Oracle in its 2004 fight to win the right to buy PeopleSoft. "It sent a statement that the DOJ intends to fight this one all the way to the finish line."

Wall said AT&T may have a tougher time proving its case than Oracle did against the Justice Department. In the PeopleSoft deal, Wall said, antitrust enforcers seemed to be manipulating the definition of the business software market. "This time, it looks to me that they have a pretty solid market definition," Wall said. "They don't appear to be playing games."

University of Iowa law professor Herbert Hovenkamp said the Justice Department is being guided by a set of new guidelines, issued late last year, which make it clearer when mergers should be challenged on antitrust grounds.

"I don't think they are overreaching here," Hovenkamp said. "If there is a broader message here, it's that the government intends to enforce these new guidelines."

Besides being forced to divulge potentially damaging information, AT&T will face other risks if it doesn't settle with the Justice Department. Going to trial will take months, or even years, leaving the company in a legal limbo that could depress its stock price and cause customers and key employees to defect.

There's another risk to going to trial: as they try to prove their case, antitrust lawyers sometimes obtain confidential e-mails that contain embarrassing snippets and present other evidence that can make companies look bad.

Those are some of the reasons why AT&T mayl try to reach some kind of settlement with the government.

If AT&T persists, antitrust experts said that it's better off going up against the Justice Department than the Federal Trade Commission, which also handles antitrust reviews. That's mainly because lawsuits with the Justice Department are contested in federal courts. By contrast, the threshold for the FTC to block deals is generally lower, and the ensuing legal skirmishes occur in administrative law proceedings that drag on longer.

"The merging parties usually have a better shot when they are going up against the DOJ than the FTC," said D. Daniel Sokol, a University of Florida professor specializing in antitrust law.

Follow Yahoo! News on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook

original content on yahoo

30 Aug, 2011  |  Written by  |  under News


A dedicated iPad station is seen in front of an iPhone at the Apple store in New York May 23, 2011. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

A dedicated iPad station is seen in front of an iPhone at the Apple store in New York May 23, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Shannon Stapleton


By Alistair Barr

SAN FRANCISCO |
Mon Aug 29, 2011 3:27pm EDT

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Amazon.com Inc may sell as many as 5 million tablet computers in the fourth quarter, making the largest Internet retailer the top competitor to Apple Inc in this fast-growing niche of the consumer PC market, Forrester Research said on Monday.

Amazon.com has to price its tablet "significantly" below competing products and have enough supply to meet demand, but if the company can pull this off it can "easily" sell 3 million to 5 million units in the final three months of 2011, Forrester's Sarah Rotman Epps predicted.

Apple has sold almost 30 million iPads since launching its tablet in April 2010. Rival products from companies including Samsung Electronics Co, Research in Motion and Motorola Mobility have failed to mount a serious challenge to that early lead. This month, Hewlett-Packard scrapped its TouchPad after sales languished.

"Thus far, Apple has faced many would-be competitors, but none have gained significant market share," Epps wrote. "Not only does Amazon have the potential to gain share quickly but its willingness to sell hardware at a loss, as it did with the Kindle, makes Amazon a nasty competitor."

One problem with iPad rivals has been that developers have so far waited before creating a lot of applications, or apps, for the devices, Forrester noted.

Apple claims about 100,000 custom-built iPad apps, while Google's Honeycomb platform, which is the tablet version of the Android operating system, has attracted fewer than 300 apps, according to Forrester.

"If Amazon's Android-based tablet sells in the millions, Android will suddenly appear much more attractive to developers who have taken a wait-and-see approach," Epps said.

Amazon's Kindle e-reader is lighter and smaller than the iPad, but Apple's tablet has a browser and other services for enhanced reading and researching, Fred Wilson, a venture capital investor and principal at Union Square Ventures, said in a recent blog.

"What we all want is a hybrid of the two -- a Kindle that is a full-blown tablet computer with a browser, apps, and an OS," Wilson added. "It looks like Amazon is going to bring that to market this fall ... It looks like a killer product."

Amazon shares were up 3.4 percent at $206.03 in afternoon trading on Monday, leaving them up more than 10 percent so far this year.

Apple shares were up 1.6 percent at $389.87. The stock is up almost 19 percent so far in 2011.

(Reporting by Alistair Barr; Editing by Tim Dobbyn and Matthew Lewis)

original content on reuters

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes