Hasta La Gadget!

Undercover cops in San Francisco are looking to cut down the amount of iPhone thefts there are in their city. However, these cops are taking a different approach than just running after iPhone robbers and cuffing them. Instead, they are going after the buyers of the stolen products, in a scheme that they call “cutting the head off the snake”. San Francisco Police Captain Joe Garrity says that if the iPhone thieves aren’t able to sell their goods, there’s no market for them.

In the scheme, an undercover cop, Tom Lee, dresses up as a normal civilian and speaks like the buyers that he is targeting. He has worked at an Apple retail store before, so he knows all of the lingo of persuading people to purchase his goods. When approaching a buyer, he confirms that the iPhone he is selling is stolen, and instead of offering a price for the phone, he asks the potential buyer to make an offer.

Once the buyer offers to purchase the phone, and begins the transaction process, Lee signals nearby undercover officers to come in and arrest the buyer. With this scheme, the police officers are poisoning the market for stolen electronic goods and making would-be buyers think twice before making an illegal transaction. However, this scheme has stirred up some controversy in the city.

Chesa Boudin, a San Francisco Public Defender, says,

“You’re basically creating crime or luring people to commit crimes. It’s an outrageous waste of resources.”

George Gascon, a San Francisco District Attorney, states that these operations “yield little deterrence” and don’t really lower iPhone thefts in the city. Instead, he believes that these sting operations fuel the fire for more iPhone thefts. He says,

“The numbers don’t appear to be abating at all. This is like a drug war — the more arrests you make for drug use, the more drug use seems to go on.”

Many have voiced their outrage over these schemes, saying that it’s entrapment and that the police should allocate their resources to more pressing matters. These schemes have been used in other cities as well, including New York, where crime rate has increased up to 5 times due to iPhone thefts. Police believe that by going after the buyers, they will be able to create fear in the market that will hopefully kill the demand for stolen iPhones and in turn reduce iPhone thefts in their cities.

[via Huffington Post]

Undercover cops sell iPhones in black market scheme is written by Brian Sin & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

As the iPhone is a hot commodity, it means that owners of the iPhone are more prone to having their phone stolen compared to someone else who might own a feature phone. Stolen phones are then resold to those who might otherwise cannot afford the iPhone at full price, or who think that they are getting a great deal for a secondhand product. In any case if you’re ever approached by someone selling you an iPhone at a price too good to be true, you might want to say no because apparently in San Francisco, police are going undercover and launching sting operations in which they arrest buyers who attempt to buy the stolen phones from them.

They of course make sure that the buyer knows that the phone is stolen, and apparently in order to make the operation legal, the police officers are not allowed to state the price, but rather have the potential customer make an offer instead. So far there are reports of buyers offering anywhere from $25 up to $200. This operation was designed to deter customers from purchasing stolen products and are launched in areas where stolen products are known to be sold, such as the corner of 7^th and Market Streets. We’re not sure how successful this operation since this definitely smells like a lawsuit in the works.

By Ubergizmo. Related articles: San Francisco Cops Go Undercover To Prevent iPhone Thefts, Google Now Available On iPhone, iPad As Google Search Update,

Carfax is a service that allows users to essentially perform a background check on cars, getting a look into their history and whether they’ve been in any reported wrecks, been salvaged, or any other details that could drastically reduce the asking price. While some consumers swear by the service, some dealerships aren’t happy with it, saying that the company is “monopolist” and in violation of antitrust laws.

A total of 120 car dealerships have joined forces to file an antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Carfax, rallying against what they say is its anti-competitive practices and other related issues. The dealerships are located across the nation, spanning from California to the East Coast and back again.

Such a high number of dealerships exceed what the plaintiffs, represented by Bellavia Blatt Andron & Crosset, expected, with their attorney saying they anticipated between 25 and 50. Such wasn’t the case, with many more proving eager to take part in the push against Carfax and its alleged devious actions, which include charging higher-than-industry-norm rates for dealers to pull up vehicle history reports and exclusive agreements that leave its competitors without a leg to stand on.

For example, the lawsuit says that Carfax has exclusive agreements that requires dealers to purchase its history reports. With dealers in this vice, the company then jacks the price up, charging more than is considered within the normal range. Another problem is the exclusive agreements it is said to have with AutoTrader.com and Cars.com that require dealers who list used cars on the sites to only provide history reports from Carfax.

Carfax said it can’t comment on the issue.

[via Automotive News]

Carfax suffers antitrust lawsuit from auto dealerships across the nation is written by Brittany Hillen & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

A trial of Google’s attempts to avoid European Union censure around anti-competitive search behaviors looks set to struggle to gain necessary agreement from rivals, with the concessions in testing insufficient to satisfy the complaints. The EC announced yesterday that it would begin a month-long test of Google’s proposed methods to dilute the over-dominance of the European search market that it has been accused of, including giving three rival services positions on its results page right next to its own. However, the concessions are already failing to win over critics.

First out the gate is European consumer association the BEUC, which took issue with Google’s offer to flag up – with a border or some other method – results that had been prioritized from its own services, such as Google Shopping. “We do not think [Google’s] proposals can credible achieve these targets” the agency says, pointing out that the highlighting system might perversely work in Google’s favor.

“Labelling results will do little or indeed nothing to prevent Google from manipulating search results and discriminating against competing services” the BEUC argues. “It may even shepherd consumers towards clicking on Google services now highlighted in a frame.”

“Infringements of competition rules call for strong and rigorous structural remedies where needed, going beyond the halfway house of consumer information. Labelling an infringement of competition law doesn’t prevent it being an infringement” BEUC

Meanwhile, Fairsearch Europe – a group made up of Microsoft, Nokia, Trip Advisor, and others – has also weighed in, similarly unimpressed, and promising “empirical evidence” as to why Google’s proposed salves simple won’t do.

We have always said that the best remedy for consumers and innovation would be to require Google to apply the same policy to search results for its own products as it does to all others. “Google’s proposed commitments appear to fall short of ending the preferential treatment at the heart of the Commission’s case based on formal complaints from 17 companies” Fairsearch argues, and alleges that in fact Google is still demanding preferential treatment.

“Google’s own screen shots in its proposal shows it seeks approval to continue preferential treatment for its own products” Fairsearch Europe

The BEUC also takes issue with the idea of Google self-governing its modifications, a route which it claims will lead only to another type of dominance in European search. “The proposal to display links to three rival specialised services raises the natural question of who decides the promotional criteria” BEUC points out. “If that is Google, it leaves too much discretion in their lap while most importantly, not solving the problem of non-discriminatory choices for consumers.”

The EC had proposed installing an “independent Monitoring Trustee” if the month-long trial went well, who would be responsible for making sure Google stuck to its agreements for the full length of the five-year concessions.

However, the BEUC has more stringent suggestions [pdf link] for how the matter should be resolved, including Google giving no highlighted placement to any of its own products, and instead “crawl, index, and rank its own services in exactly the same way it does everybody else.” The organization also wants tougher penalties should Google not comply, though the EC can currently fine the company up to 10-percent of its global revenues under existing rules.

[via Guardian]

Google’s Euro search concessions already facing rival rejection is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Samsung and Apple are not the best of friends at this point in time, as the latter was awarded $1 billion in damages in last year’s court ruling, which has led to appeals as well as a fraying working relationship between both behemoths in their respective industries. Well, for watchers on the sidelines who are interested to know how Apple and Samsung’s second patent trial will pan out (which is set to begin sometime in March next year), Judge Lucy Koh has laid down some ground rules to make life easier for everyone.

She issued an order to both Samsung and Apple that they are to limit the number of accused products to 10 for each side, while Apple, obviously living up to their previous motto of thinking differently, prefers an alternate proposal that would enable each side to accuse “representative products” and, and should any of those be found to infringe on a patent, such similar products can be thrown into the mix. Judge Koh has also ensured that both sides would agree to the trial being limited to just 12 days, so they had better pull in their best expert witnesses to get the “job” done, so to speak, as soon as possible without delaying it any further.

By Ubergizmo. Related articles: US Judge Rules That Motorola’s Patents Aren’t Worth $4 Billion, But Around $1.8 Million Instead, T-Mobile/MetroPCS Merger To Become Official 1st Of May,