Sherpany is the Swiss market leader for meeting management software

Sherpany

United States v. Apple INC Court Filing, retrieved on March 21, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 21 of 25. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here C. Third Claim for Relief: Monopolization of the Smartphone Market in the United States in Violation of Sherman Act § 2 211. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 210 above. 212. Smartphones in the United States is a relevant antitrust market, and Apple has monopoly power in that market. 213. Apple has willfully monopolized the smartphone market in the United States through an exclusionary course of conduct and the anticompetitive acts described herein. Each of Apple’s actions individually and collectively increased, maintained, or protected its smartphone monopoly. 214. Apple’s anticompetitive acts include, but are not limited to, its contractual restrictions against app creation, distribution, and access to APIs that have impeded apps and technologies including, but not limited to, super apps, cloud streaming, messaging, wearables, and digital wallets. The areas identified in this complaint reflect a non-exhaustive list of recent anticompetitive acts but as technology advances, both the technologies impeded and the specific manner of impediment may shift in response to technological and regulatory change consistent with Apple’s past conduct. 215. While each of Apple’s acts is anticompetitive in its own right, Apple’s interrelated and interdependent actions have had a cumulative and self-reinforcing effect that has harmed competition and the competitive process. 216. Apple’s anticompetitive acts have had harmful effects on competition and consumers. 217. Apple’s exclusionary conduct lacks a procompetitive justification that offsets the harm caused by Apple’s anticompetitive and unlawful conduct. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on March 21, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. justice.gov

United States Alleges Apple's Monopolization of US Smartphone Market Violates Sherman Act

United States v. Apple INC Court Filing, retrieved on March 21, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 19 of 25. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here A. First Claim for Relief: Monopolization of the Performance Smartphone Market in the United States in Violation of Sherman Act § 2 199. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 198 above. 200. Performance smartphones in the United States is a relevant antitrust market, and Apple has monopoly power in that market. 201. Apple has willfully monopolized the performance smartphone market in the United States through an exclusionary course of conduct and the anticompetitive acts described herein. Each of Apple’s actions individually and collectively increased, maintained, or protected its performance smartphone monopoly. 202. Apple’s anticompetitive acts include, but are not limited to, its contractual restrictions against app creation, distribution, and access to APIs that have impeded apps and technologies including, but not limited to, super apps, cloud streaming, messaging, wearables, and digital wallets. The areas identified in this complaint reflect a non-exhaustive list of recent anticompetitive acts but as technology advances, both the technologies impeded and the specific manner of impediment may shift in response to technological and regulatory change consistent with Apple’s past conduct. 203. While each of Apple’s acts is anticompetitive in its own right, Apple’s interrelated and interdependent actions have had a cumulative and self-reinforcing effect that has harmed competition and the competitive process. Apple’s anticompetitive acts have had harmful effects on competition and consumers. 204. Apple’s exclusionary conduct lacks a procompetitive justification that offsets the harm caused by Apple’s anticompetitive and unlawful conduct. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on March 21, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. justice.gov

United States Slams Apple for Sherman Act Violation

Scientific American, Volume XXIV., No. 12, March 18, 1871 by Various, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book . THE SHERMAN PROCESS. here THE SHERMAN PROCESS. When people boast of extraordinary successes in processes the details of which are kept profoundly hidden from public scrutiny, and when the evidences of success are presented in the doubtful form of specimens which the public has no means of tracing directly to the process, the public is apt to be skeptical, and to express skepticism often in not very complimentary terms. For a considerable time, the public has been treated to highly-colored accounts of a wonderful metallurgic process whereby the best iron and steel were said to be made, from the very worst materials, almost in the twinkling of an eye. This process has been called after its assumed inventor, or discoverer, the "Sherman Process." The details of the process are still withheld, but we last week gave an extract from an English contemporary, which throws a little light upon the subject. The agent relied upon to effect the remarkable transformation claimed, is iodine, used preferably in the form of iodide of potassium, and very little of it is said to produce a most marvellous change in the character of the metal. A very feeble attempt at explaining the rationale of this effect has been made, in one or two English journals, which we opine will not prove very satisfactory to chemists and scientific metallurgists. The has published two three-column articles upon the subject, the first containing very little information, and the second a great number of unnecessary paragraphs, but which gives the proportion of the iodide used, in the extremely scientific and accurate formula expressed in the terms "a small quantity." Engineer Assertions of remarkable success have also been given. Nothing, however, was said of remarkable failures, of which there have doubtless been some. A series of continued successes would, we should think, by this time, have sufficed for the parturition of this metallurgic process, and the discovery would ere this have been introduced to the world, had there not been some drawbacks. We are not prepared to deny that the process is all that is claimed for it; but the way in which it has been managed is certainly one not likely to encourage faith in it. in toto The very name of "process" implies a system perfected, and if it be still so far back in the experimental stage that nothing definite in the way of results can be relied upon, it is not yet a process. If, in the use of iodine, in some instances, fine grades of iron or steel are produced, and in as many other experiments, with the same material, failures result, it is just as fair to attribute the failures to the iodine, as the successes. A process worthy the name is one that acts with approximate uniformity, and when, in its use, results vary widely from what is usual, the variation may be traced to important differences in the conditions of its application. On the whole, we are inclined to believe Mr. Sherman's experiments have not yet developed a definite process, and we shall receive with much allowance the glowing statements published in regard to it, until such time as it can face the world and defy unbelief. The patents obtained by Mr. Sherman seem to cover the use of iodine, rather than the manner of using it, and throw no light upon the rationale of the process. A patent was granted by the United States Patent Office, Sept. 13, 1870, to J. C. Atwood, in which the inventor claims the use of iodide of potassium in connection with the carbons and fluxes used in making and refining iron. In his specification he states that he uses about of this salt to eighty pounds of the metal. This is about 1⁄373 of one per cent. He uses in connection with this exceedingly small proportion of iodide of potassium, about two ounces of lampblack, or charcoal, and four ounces of manganese, and asserts that steel made with these materials will be superior in quality to that made by the old method. These claims we are inclined to discredit. Certainly, we see no chemical reason why this small amount of iodide should produce such an effect, and the specification itself throws no light upon our darkness. fifteen grains If the experiments in these so-called processes have no better basis than is apparent from such information as at present can be gathered respecting them, it is probable we shall wait some time before the promised revolution in iron and steel manufacture is accomplished through their use. About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Various (2006). Scientific American, Volume XXIV., No. 12, March 18, 1871. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/19180/pg19180-images.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at , located at . www.gutenberg.org https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html

THE SHERMAN PROCESS

United States Of America. v. Microsoft Corporation Court Filing by Thomas Penfield Jackson, November 5, 1999, is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 1 of 58. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here FINDINGS OF FACT These consolidated civil antitrust actions alleging violations of the Sherman Act, §§ 1 and 2, and various state statutes by the defendant Microsoft Corporation, were tried to the Court, sitting without a jury, between October 19, 1998, and June 24, 1999. The Court has considered the record evidence submitted by the parties, made determinations as to its relevancy and materiality, assessed the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses, both written and oral, and 2 ascertained for its purposes the probative significance of the documentary and visual evidence presented. Upon the record before the Court as of July 28, 1999, at the close of the admission of evidence, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 52(a), the Court finds the following facts to have been proved by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court shall state the conclusions of law to be drawn therefrom in a separate Memorandum and Order to be filed in due course. Continue reading . here About We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: This court case Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ) and Civil Action No. 98-1233 (TPJ) retrieved on 01-19-2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. justice.gov

Did Microsoft Violate the Sherman Act? Findings of Fact

The Story Girl by L. M. Montgomery, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book here . HOW BETTY SHERMAN WON A HUSBAND CHAPTER VII. HOW BETTY SHERMAN WON A HUSBAND The rest of us did not share the Story Girl’s enthusiasm regarding our call on Mr. Campbell. We secretly dreaded it. If, as was said, he detested children, who knew what sort of a reception we might meet? Mr. Campbell was a rich, retired farmer, who took life easily. He had visited New York and Boston, Toronto and Montreal; he had even been as far as the Pacific coast. Therefore he was regarded in Carlisle as a much travelled man; and he was known to be “well read” and intelligent. But it was also known that Mr. Campbell was not always in a good humour. If he liked you there was nothing he would not do for you; if he disliked you—well, you were not left in ignorance of it. In short, we had the impression that Mr. Campbell resembled the famous little girl with the curl in the middle of her forehead. “When he was good, he was very, very good, and when he was bad he was horrid.” What if this were one of his horrid days? “He can’t DO anything to us, you know,” said the Story Girl. “He may be rude, but that won’t hurt any one but himself.” “Hard words break no bones,” observed Felicity philosophically. “But they hurt your feelings. I am afraid of Mr. Campbell,” said Cecily candidly. “Perhaps we’d better give up and go home,” suggested Dan. “You can go home if you like,” said the Story Girl scornfully. “But I am going to see Mr. Campbell. I know I can manage him. But if I have to go alone, and he gives me anything, I’ll keep it all for my own collection, mind you.” That settled it. We were not going to let the Story Girl get ahead of us in the manner of collecting. Mr. Campbell’s housekeeper ushered us into his parlour and left us. Presently Mr. Campbell himself was standing in the doorway, looking us over. We took heart of grace. It seemed to be one of his good days, for there was a quizzical smile on his broad, clean-shaven, strongly-featured face. Mr. Campbell was a tall man, with a massive head, well thatched with thick, black hair, gray-streaked. He had big, black eyes, with many wrinkles around them, and a thin, firm, long-lipped mouth. We thought him handsome, for an old man. His gaze wandered over us with uncomplimentary indifference until it fell on the Story Girl, leaning back in an arm-chair. She looked like a slender red lily in the unstudied grace of her attitude. A spark flashed into Mr. Campbell’s black eyes. “Is this a Sunday School deputation?” he inquired rather ironically. “No. We have come to ask a favour of you,” said the Story Girl. The magic of her voice worked its will on Mr. Campbell, as on all others. He came in, sat down, hooked his thumb into his vest pocket, and smiled at her. “What is it?” he asked. “We are collecting for our school library, and we have called to ask you for a contribution,” she replied. “Why should I contribute to your school library?” demanded Mr. Campbell. This was a poser for us. Why should he, indeed? But the Story Girl was quite equal to it. Leaning forward, and throwing an indescribable witchery into tone and eyes and smile, she said, “Because a lady asks you.” Mr. Campbell chuckled. “The best of all reasons,” he said. “But see here, my dear young lady, I’m an old miser and curmudgeon, as you may have heard. I HATE to part with my money, even for a good reason. And I NEVER part with any of it, unless I am to receive some benefit from the expenditure. Now, what earthly good could I get from your three by six school library? None whatever. But I shall make you a fair offer. I have heard from my housekeeper’s urchin of a son that you are a ‘master hand’ to tell stories. Tell me one, here and now. I shall pay you in proportion to the entertainment you afford me. Come now, and do your prettiest.” There was a fine mockery in his tone that put the Story Girl on her mettle instantly. She sprang to her feet, an amazing change coming over her. Her eyes flashed and burned; crimson spots glowed in her cheeks. “I shall tell you the story of the Sherman girls, and how Betty Sherman won a husband,” she said. We gasped. Was the Story Girl crazy? Or had she forgotten that Betty Sherman was Mr. Campbell’s own great-grandmother, and that her method of winning a husband was not exactly in accordance with maidenly traditions. But Mr. Campbell chuckled again. “An excellent test,” he said. “If you can amuse ME with that story you must be a wonder. I’ve heard it so often that it has no more interest for me than the alphabet.” “One cold winter day, eighty years ago,” began the Story Girl without further parley, “Donald Fraser was sitting by the window of his new house, playing his fiddle for company, and looking out over the white, frozen bay before his door. It was bitter, bitter cold, and a storm was brewing. But, storm, or no storm, Donald meant to go over the bay that evening to see Nancy Sherman. He was thinking of her as he played ‘Annie Laurie,’ for Nancy was more beautiful than the lady of the song. ‘Her face, it is the fairest that e’er the sun shone on,’ hummed Donald—and oh, he thought so, too! He did not know whether Nancy cared for him or not. He had many rivals. But he knew that if she would not come to be the mistress of his new house no one else ever should. So he sat there that afternoon and dreamed of her, as he played sweet old songs and rollicking jigs on his fiddle. “While he was playing a sleigh drove up to the door, and Neil Campbell came in. Donald was not overly glad to see him, for he suspected where he was going. Neil Campbell, who was Highland Scotch and lived down at Berwick, was courting Nancy Sherman, too; and, what was far worse, Nancy’s father favoured him, because he was a richer man than Donald Fraser. But Donald was not going to show all he thought—Scotch people never do—and he pretended to be very glad to see Neil and made him heartily welcome. “Neil sat down by the roaring fire, looking quite well satisfied with himself. It was ten miles from Berwick to the bay shore, and a call at a half way house was just the thing. Then Donald brought out the whisky. They always did that eighty years ago, you know. If you were a woman, you could give your visitors a dish of tea; but if you were a man and did not offer them a ‘taste’ of whisky, you were thought either very mean or very ignorant. “‘You look cold,’ said Donald, in his great, hearty voice. ‘Sit nearer the fire, man, and put a bit of warmth in your veins. It’s bitter cold the day. And now tell me the Berwick news. Has Jean McLean made up with her man yet? And is it true that Sandy McQuarrie is to marry Kate Ferguson? ‘Twill be a match now! Sure, with her red hair, Sandy will not be like to lose his bride past finding.’ “Neil had plenty of news to tell. And the more whisky he drank the more he told. He didn’t notice that Donald was not taking much. Neil talked on and on, and of course he soon began to tell things it would have been much wiser not to tell. Finally he told Donald that he was going over the bay to ask Nancy Sherman that very night to marry him. And if she would have him, then Donald and all the folks should see a wedding that WAS a wedding. “Oh, wasn’t Donald taken aback! This was more than he had expected. Neil hadn’t been courting Nancy very long, and Donald never dreamed he would propose to her QUITE so soon. “At first Donald didn’t know what to do. He felt sure deep down in his heart, that Nancy liked HIM. She was very shy and modest, but you know a girl can let a man see she likes him without going out of her way. But Donald knew that if Neil proposed first he would have the best chance. Neil was rich and the Shermans were poor, and old Elias Sherman would have the most to say in the matter. If he told Nancy she must take Neil Campbell she would never dream of disobeying him. Old Elias Sherman was a man who had to be obeyed. But if Nancy had only promised some one else first her father would not make her break her word. “Wasn’t it a hard plight for poor Donald? But he was a Scotchman, you know, and it’s pretty hard to stick a Scotchman long. Presently a twinkle came into his eyes, for he remembered that all was fair in love and war. So he said to Neil, oh, so persuasively, “‘Have some more, man, have some more. ‘Twill keep the heart in you in the teeth of that wind. Help yourself. There’s plenty more where that came from.’ “Neil didn’t want MUCH persuasion. He took some more, and said slyly, “‘Is it going over the bay the night that yourself will be doing?’ “Donald shook his head. “‘I had thought of it,’ he owned, ‘but it looks a wee like a storm, and my sleigh is at the blacksmith’s to be shod. If I went it must be on Black Dan’s back, and he likes a canter over the ice in a snow-storm as little as I. His own fireside is the best place for a man to-night, Campbell. Have another taste, man, have another taste.’ “Neil went on ‘tasting,’ and that sly Donald sat there with a sober face, but laughing eyes, and coaxed him on. At last Neil’s head fell forward on his breast, and he was sound asleep. Donald got up, put on his overcoat and cap, and went to the door. “‘May your sleep be long and sweet, man,’ he said, laughing softly, ‘and as for the waking, ‘twill be betwixt you and me.’ “With that he untied Neil’s horse, climbed into Neil’s sleigh, and tucked Neil’s buffalo robe about him. “‘Now, Bess, old girl, do your bonniest,’ he said. ‘There’s more than you know hangs on your speed. If the Campbell wakes too soon Black Dan could show you a pair of clean heels for all your good start. On, my girl.’ “Brown Bess went over the ice like a deer, and Donald kept thinking of what he should say to Nancy—and more still of what she would say to him. SUPPOSE he was mistaken. SUPPOSE she said ‘no!’ “‘Neil would have the laugh on me then. Sure he’s sleeping well. And the snow is coming soon. There’ll be a bonny swirl on the bay ere long. I hope no harm will come to the lad if he starts to cross. When he wakes he’ll be in such a fine Highland temper that he’ll never stop to think of danger. Well, Bess, old girl, here we are. Now, Donald Fraser, pluck up heart and play the man. Never flinch because a slip of a lass looks scornful at you out of the bonniest dark-blue eyes on earth.’ “But in spite of his bold words Donald’s heart was thumping as he drove into the Sherman yard. Nancy was there milking a cow by the stable door, but she stood up when she saw Donald coming. Oh, she was very beautiful! Her hair was like a skein of golden silk, and her eyes were as blue as the gulf water when the sun breaks out after a storm. Donald felt more nervous than ever. But he knew he must make the most of his chance. He might not see Nancy alone again before Neil came. He caught her hand and stammered out, “‘Nan, lass, I love you. You may think ‘tis a hasty wooing, but that’s a story I can tell you later maybe. I know well I’m not worthy of you, but if true love could make a man worthy there’d be none before me. Will you have me, Nan?’ “Nancy didn’t SAY she would have him. She just LOOKED it, and Donald kissed her right there in the snow. “The next morning the storm was over. Donald knew Neil must be soon on his track. He did not want to make the Sherman house the scene of a quarrel, so he resolved to get away before the Campbell came. He persuaded Nancy to go with him to visit some friends in another settlement. As he brought Neil’s sleigh up to the door he saw a black speck far out on the bay and laughed. “‘Black Dan goes well, but he’ll not be quick enough,’ he said. “Half an hour later Neil Campbell rushed into the Sherman kitchen and oh, how angry he was! There was nobody there but Betty Sherman, and Betty was not afraid of him. She was never afraid of anybody. She was very handsome, with hair as brown as October nuts and black eyes and crimson cheeks; and she had always been in love with Neil Campbell herself. “‘Good morning, Mr. Campbell,’ she said, with a toss of her head. ‘It’s early abroad you are. And on Black Dan, no less! Was I mistaken in thinking that Donald Fraser said once that his favourite horse should never be backed by any man but him? But doubtless a fair exchange is no robbery, and Brown Bess is a good mare in her way.’ “‘Where is Donald Fraser?’ said Neil, shaking his fist. ‘It’s him I’m seeking, and it’s him I will be finding. Where is he, Betty Sherman?’ “‘Donald Fraser is far enough away by this time,’ mocked Betty. ‘He is a prudent fellow, and has some quickness of wit under that sandy thatch of his. He came here last night at sunset, with a horse and sleigh not his own, or lately gotten, and he asked Nan in the stable yard to marry him. Did a man ask ME to marry him at the cow’s side with a milking pail in my hand, it’s a cold answer he’d get for his pains. But Nan thought differently, and they sat late together last night, and ‘twas a bonny story Nan wakened me to hear when she came to bed—the story of a braw lover who let his secret out when the whisky was above the wit, and then fell asleep while his rival was away to woo and win his lass. Did you ever hear a like story, Mr. Campbell?’ “‘Oh, yes,’ said Neil fiercely. ‘It is laughing at me over the country side and telling that story that Donald Fraser will be doing, is it? But when I meet him it is not laughing he will be doing. Oh, no. There will be another story to tell!’ “‘Now, don’t meddle with the man,’ cried Betty. ‘What a state to be in because one good-looking lass likes sandy hair and gray eyes better than Highland black and blue! You have not the spirit of a wren, Neil Campbell. Were I you, I would show Donald Fraser that I could woo and win a lass as speedily as any Lowlander of them all; that I would! There’s many a girl would gladly say ‘yes’ for your asking. And here stands one! Why not marry ME, Neil Campbell? Folks say I’m as bonny as Nan—and I could love you as well as Nan loves her Donald—ay, and ten times better!’ “What do you suppose the Campbell did? Why, just the thing he ought to have done. He took Betty at her word on the spot; and there was a double wedding soon after. And it is said that Neil and Betty were the happiest couple in the world—happier even than Donald and Nancy. So all was well because it ended well!” The Story Girl curtsied until her silken skirts swept the floor. Then she flung herself in her chair and looked at Mr. Campbell, flushed, triumphant, daring. The story was old to us. It had once been published in a Charlottetown paper, and we had read in Aunt Olivia’s scrapbook, where the Story Girl had learned it. But we had listened entranced. I have written down the bare words of the story, as she told it; but I can never reproduce the charm and colour and spirit she infused into it. It LIVED for us. Donald and Neil, Nancy and Betty, were there in that room with us. We saw the flashes of expression on their faces, we heard their voices, angry or tender, mocking or merry, in Lowland and Highland accent. We realized all the mingled coquetry and feeling and defiance and archness in Betty Sherman’s daring speech. We had even forgotten all about Mr. Campbell. That gentleman, in silence, took out his wallet, extracted a note therefrom, and handed it gravely to the Story Girl. “There are five dollars for you,” he said, “and your story was well worth it. You ARE a wonder. Some day you will make the world realize it. I’ve been about a bit, and heard some good things, but I’ve never enjoyed anything more than that threadbare old story I heard in my cradle. And now, will you do me a favour?” “Of course,” said the delighted Story Girl. “Recite the multiplication table for me,” said Mr. Campbell. We stared. Well might Mr. Campbell be called eccentric. What on earth did he want the multiplication table recited for? Even the Story Girl was surprised. But she began promptly, with twice one and went through it to twelve times twelve. She repeated it simply, but her voice changed from one tone to another as each in succession grew tired. We had never dreamed that there was so much in the multiplication table. As she announced it, the fact that three times three was nine was exquisitely ridiculous, five times six almost brought tears to our eyes, eight times seven was the most tragic and frightful thing ever heard of, and twelve times twelve rang like a trumpet call to victory. Mr. Campbell nodded his satisfaction. “I thought you could do it,” he said. “The other day I found this statement in a book. ‘Her voice would have made the multiplication table charming!’ I thought of it when I heard yours. I didn’t believe it before, but I do now.” Then he let us go. “You see,” said the Story Girl as we went home, “you need never be afraid of people.” “But we are not all Story Girls,” said Cecily. That night we heard Felicity talking to Cecily in their room. “Mr. Campbell never noticed one of us except the Story Girl,” she said, “but if I had put on MY best dress as she did maybe she wouldn’t have taken all the attention.” “Could you ever do what Betty Sherman did, do you suppose?” asked Cecily absently. “No; but I believe the Story Girl could,” answered Felicity rather snappishly. About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. L. M. Montgomery (2004). The Story Girl. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/5342/pg5342-images.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org , located at https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html .

HOW BETTY SHERMAN WON A HUSBAND

Welcome to the Sherman Group Daily Briefing. In each briefing, we let you know the top 3 pieces of news you should know about in the and industry along with today’s top reads. cryptocurrency blockchain Sorry, I’ve been gone for so long. A bunch of updates. You will be hearing from me daily again. I am launching a consulting firm called , we help governmental agencies, Fortune 500 companies and institutional investors understand the blockchain and cryptocurrency space. Our first client was the State of Ohio’s Treasurer Office where we helped implement the first cryptocurrency tax payment portal. You can read about it . I will have some updates about Grasshopper Capital in the next couple of weeks. Stay tuned. The Sherman Group here What’s Happening Today? Bitmain closing Israeli development center. ( ) Globes Bitmain is closing its Israel office and laying off all 23 of the employees who work there. What’s the Story? Bitmain has been the leader in the cryptocurrency mining space for some time now. For the past couple of years, they have literally been printing money, but a combination of bad decisions (eg. supporting Bitcoin Cash) and a significant decline in cryptocurrency prices has affected their business. I wouldn’t look too much into the fact that they are shutting down their Israeli office, but it does show that even the mightiest cryptocurrency companies sometimes bleed. It’s not 2017 anymore. Why It’s Important? SEC Fines Crypto Fund $50K and Issues Cease-and-Desist ( ) Coindesk Coinalpha, a cryptocurrency hedge fund, was fined $50,000 and ordered to shut down by the SEC. What’s the Story? I’ve never heard of this fund and the fund being fined isn’t that important, but what is important is the increase in civil actions being pursued by governmental agencies specifically the SEC. In September, the SEC brought a civil action against cryptocurrency fund, CAM, as well as an action against an unregistered broker-dealer named TokenLot. I’ve reguarly talked about the idea that if something looks like and acts like a security, it’s probably a security and the SEC has jurisdiction. You can’t just say, I am investing in or creating a cryptocurrency and, we don’t have to follow security laws because we are magically exempt. It doesn’t work like that. I’m not a lawyer though, so if you don’t believe me contact one and ask them. Why It’s Important? Layoffs Become the Latest Thing in Cryptocurrency ( ) Wall Street Journal Consensys and other cryptocurrency companies are laying off employees left and right. What’s the Story? This story is similar to the Bitmain story. Recently, Consensys laid off 13% of its staff while other firms such as Spankchain and Steemit have also reduced headcount. It’s obvious to say that in a recession people get fired while in a bull market people get hired, but I want to go deeper than that. Many firms hired too many people for roles that just weren’t necessary. Consensys employs over a 1,000 people. That is a mind-boggling number. Consensys has offices in 28 cities. Their hiring practices are the definition of profligate spending. I have deep respect for Lubin and think he is a visionary, but before firms go on hiring sprees, they need revenue from a product that is selling. I don’t see many firms making money besides exchanges and maybe mining firms. Why It’s Important? Top Links The Rise of Decentralized Finance. ( ) Trustnode The Price Crash & The Impact On Miners. ( ) BitMex Bitcoin & Ethereum: Prices are Down More than the Fundamentals. ( ) Chris Bursinke This newsletter was written by @amlewis4 and edited by @MichamJake .

The Sherman Group Daily Briefing: December 10, 2018

United States v. Apple INC Court Filing, retrieved on March 21, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 25 of 25. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here X. Request for Relief 232. To remedy these illegal acts, Plaintiffs request that the Court: Adjudge and decree that Apple has acted unlawfully to monopolize, or, in the alternative, attempt to monopolize, the smartphone market in the United States in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2; Adjudge and decree that Apple has acted unlawfully to monopolize, or, in the alternative, attempt to monopolize, the performance smartphone market in the United States in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, the New Jersey Antitrust Act, N.J.S.A. 56:9-1 to -19, Wisconsin’s Antitrust Act, Wis. Stat. Ch. § 133.03 et seq.; Enter relief as needed to cure any anticompetitive harm; Enjoin Apple from continuing to engage in the anticompetitive practices described herein and from engaging in any other practices with same purpose or effect as the challenged practices, including but not limited to: a. preventing Apple from using its control of app distribution to undermine cross-platform technologies such as super apps and cloud streaming apps, among others; b. preventing Apple from using private APIs to undermine cross platform technologies like messaging, smartwatches, and digital wallets, among others; and c. preventing Apple from using the terms and conditions of its contracts with developers, accessory makers, consumers, or others to obtain, maintain, extend, or entrench a monopoly. 5. Enter any other preliminary or permanent relief necessary and appropriate to restore competitive conditions in the markets affected by Apple’s unlawful conduct; 6. Enter any additional relief the Court finds just and proper; and 7. Award each Plaintiff, as applicable, an amount equal to its costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred in bringing this action. Dated: March 21, 2024 Respectfully, FOR PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF NEW JERSEY: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF ARIZONA: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF CALIFORNIA: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF MAINE: FOR PLAINTIFF PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN: FOR PLAINTIFF OF STATE OF MINNESOTA: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF NEW YORK: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF OKLAHOMA: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF OREGON: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF TENNESSEE: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF WISCONSIN: FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF VERMONT: About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on March 21, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. justice.gov

Plaintiffs Call for Remedies Against Apple's Unlawful Monopolization in Smartphone Market

United States v. Apple INC Court Filing, retrieved on March 21, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 22 of 25. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here D. Fourth Claim for Relief, in the Alternative: Attempted Monopolization of the Smartphone Market in the United States in Violation of Sherman Act § 2 218. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 217 above. 219. Smartphones in the United States is a relevant antitrust market, and Apple has attempted to monopolize that market. 220. Apple has attempted to monopolize the smartphone market in the United States through an exclusionary course of conduct and the anticompetitive acts described herein. Each of Apple’s actions individually and collectively increased Apple’s market power in the smartphone market. 221. Apple’s anticompetitive acts include, but are not limited to, its contractual restrictions against app creation, distribution, and access to APIs that have impeded apps and technologies including, but not limited to, super apps, cloud streaming, messaging, wearables, and digital wallets. The areas identified in this complaint reflect a non-exhaustive list of recent anticompetitive acts but as technology advances, both the technologies impeded and the specific manner of impediment may shift in response to technological and regulatory change consistent with Apple’s past conduct. 222. While each of Apple’s acts is anticompetitive in its own right, Apple’s interrelated and interdependent actions have had a cumulative and self-reinforcing effect that has harmed competition and the competitive process. 223. In undertaking this course of conduct, Apple has acted with specific intent to monopolize, and to destroy effective competition in, the smartphone market in the United States. There is a dangerous probability that, unless restrained, Apple will succeed in monopolizing the smartphone market in the United States, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on March 21, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. justice.gov

SHERPANY

sherpany.com

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

SHERPANY

EVERGREEN INDEX #9596

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Sherpany WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

SHERPANY

sherpany.com

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

SHERPANY

EVERGREEN INDEX #9596

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT SHERPANY

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Sherpany WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!