December 2012

Not long ago, The Financial Times would have been the crown jewel of any media company, instantly conferring prestige and influence on its owner. Now, given the likely bidders, one of the world’s most respected and distinctive financial newspapers could end up as a trophy to help sell more computer terminals.

Michael R. Bloomberg is weighing the wisdom of buying The Financial Times Group, which includes the paper and a half interest in The Economist, according to three people close to Bloomberg who spoke on the condition of anonymity to divulge private conversations. Bloomberg has long adored The Economist, and his affinity for The Financial Times, at least as a reader, has deepened lately. Its bisque-colored pages, once rarely seen in the thick stack of newspapers Bloomberg carries under his arm all day, have become a mainstay. Friends say he favors its generally short, punchy and to-the-point articles, which match his temperament. He has spoken openly with friends and aides about the potential benefits and pitfalls of making such a costly acquisition in an industry he admires deeply as a reader but sneers at as a businessman, these same people said. And he has recently taken to rattling off circulation figures and “penetration” rates for the paper.

The federal judge overseeing the Apple-Samsung case asked a question last week that is clearly on everyone’s mind. When will all of this mobile patent warfare come to an end? Unfortunately, the responses that she and the rest of us got back indicate that the answer is probably no time soon.

For her part, Judge Lucy Koh urged the parties to rethink their combative approach. “I’ve said this all along,” Judge Koh said during the hearing. “I think it is time for global peace.” She made a similar suggestion at the end of the trial, also to no avail. With no real alternative, Judge Koh is working on deciding various post-trial motions and getting things set up for the inevitable appeal. However, she said a settlement would be better.

The Federal Communications Commission’s Media Bureau announced the release of updated water files for certain markets in anticipation of the resumption of Auction 83 FM translator application processing in the near future. The Low Power FM (LPFM) Fourth Report and Order included a detailed LPFM spectrum availability analysis at selected grid points within core areas in 156 studied markets. A description of the Bureau’s methodology and the summary results of its analysis appear in the Fourth Report and Order’s Appendices A and B. The Commission relied on this same methodology to fashion new processing rules for FM translator applications that remain pending from the 2003 Auction 83 window, and upheld and clarified these processing rules in the LPFM Fifth Order on Reconsideration. To help FM translator applicants identify protected LPFM channel/grid point combinations, the Bureau released the spectrum availability analysis program and data files by Public Notice on April 30, 2012. However, based on user comments and its own independent review, the Bureau has identified a few minor discrepancies in the files used to exclude grid points at locations over water or not within the United States. Specifically, the Bureau has updated the water files for Chicago, IL, Detroit, MI, Jacksonville, FL, and Los Angeles, CA.

The Federal Trade Commission issued a new staff report, “Mobile Apps for Kids: Disclosures Still Not Making the Grade,” examining the privacy disclosures and practices of apps offered for children in the Google Play and Apple App stores.

The report details the results of the FTC’s second survey of kids’ mobile apps. FTC staff found little progress toward giving parents the information they need to determine what data is being collected from their children, how it is being shared, or who will have access to it. The report also finds that many of the apps surveyed included interactive features, such as connecting to social media, and sent information from the mobile device to ad networks, analytics companies, or other third parties, without disclosing these practices to parents. The survey found that:

• Parents are not being provided with information about what data an app collects, who will have access to that data, and how it will be used. Only 20 percent of the apps staff reviewed disclosed any information about the app’s privacy practices.
• Many apps (nearly 60 percent of the apps surveyed) are transmitting information from a users’ device back to the app developer or, more commonly, to an advertising network, analytics company, or other third party.
• A relatively small number of third parties received information from a large number of apps. This means the third parties that receive information from multiple apps could potentially develop detailed profiles of the children based on their behavior in different apps.
• Many apps contain interactive features – such as advertising, links to social media, or the ability to purchase goods within an app – without disclosing those features to parents prior to download.
• Fifty-eight percent of the apps reviewed contained advertising within the app, while only 15 percent disclosed the presence of advertising prior to download.
• Twenty-two percent of the apps contained links to social networking services, while only nine percent disclosed that fact.
• Seventeen percent of the apps reviewed allow kids to make purchases for virtual goods within the app, with prices ranging from 99 cents to $29.99. Although both stores provided certain indicators when an app contained in-app purchasing capabilities, these indicators were not always prominent and, even if noticed, could be difficult for many parents to understand.