August 2012

[Commentary] The latest argument from those who oppose sales taxes on Internet purchases is that it's "taxation without representation." Where did this counterfactual meme come from, and how do we kill it?

I'm fond of that principle too, but it's irrelevant to online sales taxes. At issue here is how to enforce state laws that require buyers to pay taxes on the items they purchase. Purchases made locally are taxed at the point of sale. Those made out of state are taxed when the buyer pays income taxes. Technically, the latter are "use" taxes, not "sales" taxes, and not every state imposes them. Just to be clear here, the buyer is the one paying the tax; the online retailer is merely remitting it after collecting it from the buyer. And under the Marketplace Fairness Act pending in the Senate and the Marketplace Equity Act in the House, the amount and terms of the tax would be set by the buyer's home state. In other words, the buyer would be paying taxes to the state where the buyer votes.

Regulators investigating British Sky Broadcasting’s dominant position in the UK pay-TV movies market have confirmed a previous ruling that the broadcaster was not stifling competition, in spite of protests from rival providers.

The Competition Commission reiterated its provisional decision in May that the rise of online pay-TV providers such as Netflix and Lovefilm had cut BSkyB’s dominance in the area. The media watchdog said that Sky’s dominant position in owning most of the rights to distribute new movies in the UK “did not adversely affect competition in the pay-TV retail market.” The commission concluded that Sky Movies, which broadcasts movies from all six of Hollywood’s leading studios, was “not a sufficient driver of subscribers’ choice of pay-TV provider to give Sky such an advantage over its rivals ... as to harm competition.”

Watch out employers -- as of January 1, 2013, you won’t be able to compel employees or job applicants to disclose passwords for social networking sites anymore. Gov. Pat Quinn (D-IL) signed the law at the Illinois Institute of Technology, making the state the second, after Maryland, to halt the practice. Other states, including Washington, Delaware, and New Jersey, are considering adopting similar legislation.

Samsung lawyer John Quinn has some explaining to do. After sending reporters links to blocked evidence in its patent trial against Apple, Samsung had to face the wrath of U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh. Again. Here's a recap of what went down in court earlier in the day: Before opening statements, Quinn approached the bench and asked Koh to reconsider her earlier decision that Samsung not be allowed to present evidence showing that Apple's iPhone was inspired by "Sony style." Judge Koh had previously denied the request and quickly did so again, saying the court needed to move forward. But Quinn didn't go easily. "Your honor, I've been practicing law for 36 years and I've never begged the court. I'm begging the court now," Quinn said. As the tiff became more heated, Judge Koh warned: "Mr. Quinn, don't make me sanction you." After that didn't work, she snapped: "I want you to sit down, please." Opening statements then began.

Then, in the early afternoon, I (as well as other reporters in the courtroom) received an email containing two links to the blocked evidence, as well as a short statement that read in full:

"The Judge’s exclusion of evidence on independent creation meant that even though Apple was allowed to inaccurately argue to the jury that the F700 was an iPhone copy, Samsung was not allowed to tell the jury the full story and show the pre-iPhone design for that and other phones that were in development at Samsung in 2006, before the iPhone. The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence."