I'm Just Sayin'

AT&T Customer Wins $850 in Data-Throttling Case

noreply@blogger.com (Evanino.com) — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 17:02:00 +0000

A source of a lot of contention from consumers these days is the practice of throttling, or slowing down data speeds after a certain data cap has been met, especially if the consumer is paying for an unlimited plan.

Matt Spaccarelli, a student, wasn’t happy when AT&T slowed down the data service on his iPhone, so he fought the carrier in small-claims court — and won.

His award was all of $850, according to The Associated Press. A judge ruled in favor of Mr. Spaccarelli in Ventura Superior Court in Simi Valley, Calif., on Friday after determining that it was unfair for the company to limit the speed of his iPhone when he was paying for an “unlimited” data plan.

In July, AT&T warned smartphone customers with unlimited data plans that it might temporarily reduce their Internet connection speeds if they were in the “top 5 percent” of heaviest data users.

Mr. Spaccarelli had said he was being throttled after using at least 1.5 gigabytes — that’s 1,500 megabytes, or enough to watch 13 hours of streaming video, according to AT&T’s data calculator. The judge said it was unfair for AT&T to sell an unlimited data plan to Mr. Spaccarelli and then bury terms in its contract claiming the right to reduce data speeds. An AT&T spokesman told the A.P. that the company was evaluating whether to appeal the decision.

Mr. Spaccarelli’s story is similar to other complaints that customers have had about throttling. Earlier this month, John Cozen, an AT&T customer,published a blog post documenting his experience with being throttled after using 2.1 gigabytes of data. Mr. Spaccarelli’s victory could open the door to more small-claims cases to come.

(My Comment)

I feel like EVERYONE who has a "unlimited" data plan should be able to use "unlimited" data. We all need to push on AT&T, if one man in small claims court can do...... WE ALL CAN!

BOOOOooooo to AT&T data Throttling... I'm Just Sayin'

Facebook’s new stock ticker

noreply@blogger.com (Evanino.com) — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:05:00 +0000

Why not LIKE or POKE? But FB? That’s the best they could do?
The company that changed how politicians raise money, dissidents start revolutions and parents keep tabs on their kids announced its stock ticker symbol Wednesday.

And it used about as much creativity as liking someone else’s status.

This was Facebook’s place on the ticker, the electronic river of American commerce. This was a chance to make a statement, assert an identity — a choice as fundamental as picking blue for the ribbon at the top of the screen.

But FB?

It was a ticker symbol more fit for a bank or an insurance company. Not the social network that lets people find old flames, get themselves fired and announce their marriages and divorces.

Even BOOK would have been a little more creative. (FACE was already taken by a cosmetics company.)
A clever ticker can be like a vanity license plate, helping investors remember a company. Snagging a coveted one-letter ticker — think “C’’ for Citigroup, formerly for Chrysler — is a status symbol in certain realms.

Very occasionally, companies get creative. Mattress company Sealy is ZZ. Shoe seller Steven Madden is SHOO. Southwest Airlines is LUV, a nod to Love Field airport in its hometown of Dallas. Veterinary hospital chain VCA Antech Inc. is WOOF, a nod to — well, you get it.

Companies can’t pick just anything for their ticker symbol. They have to have to ask the Nasdaq, the New York Stock Exchange or another exchange for permission to use it. (The NYSE tells companies to submit their top three choices.) And like elsewhere in business, there’s room for bruised egos.

A few years ago, regulators decided that ticker-awarding wasn’t always fair, and created rules to keep stock exchanges from playing favorites. Regulators also blocked companies from piling up requests for ticker symbols just to keep rivals from taking them.

The new rules reworked the number of letters allowed in a ticker. The NYSE had offered only one-, two- and three-letter symbols, Nasdaq fours and fives. The new regulations make it wide open — one to five letters should eventually be allowed on any exchange.

The idea was to keep the length of the ticker symbol from dictating which exchange a company filed with. In its regulatory filing Wednesday evening, Facebook said it planned to trade on either the Nasdaq or the NYSE.

Here are our suggestions for what could have been:
—TMI: Too much information. For the company that made it OK to share details about your broken relationships and drunk-dialing miscues, and deliver passive-aggressive rants about your siblings, all over the Internet.

—TFS: Thanks for sharing! (Again!) Because we were really hoping for an hour-by-hour update of what that lab partner from high school biology is doing every weekend.

Oracle Suffers USPTO Java Patent Rejection

noreply@blogger.com (Evanino.com) — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:49:00 +0000

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has effectively rejected one of the seven patents Oracle said Google infringed by rejecting the one claim in the patent that Oracle raised in the case.

Google gained some new ground in its patent battle with Oracle as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a final rejection of one of the patents Oracle raised in the case.

On Dec. 20 the USPTO rejected patent number 6192476, which was up for reexamination at Google’s request, according to 9to5 Google, which referred to a citation from Groklaw. Oracle claimed Google had infringed on seven of its patents for Java technology that the database giant had acquired in its purchase of Sun Microsystems in January 2010.

Initially, Oracle asserted 132 claims against those seven patents, but upon request by the judge on the case, U.S. District Judge William Alsup, the company cut those claims down to an interim short list of 50 claims. Groklawreports that only one of those claims for patent 6192476, claim 14, was asserted by Oracle in the litigation. And claim 14 was denied by the USPTO.

In a preliminary finding, the USPTO rejected 17 of the 21 claims in the patent, and then made that rejection final with its Dec. 20 filing. Oracle has until Feb. 20, 2012, to seek reconsideration or appeal of the USPTO action.

Judge Alsup has instructed Oracle to limit the number of claims it brings to trial. From the short list of 50, Oracle still hopes to bring 21 patent claims to trial, said Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. Judge Alsup had tentatively proposed that Oracle only bring three patent claims to trial.

A speedy trial is what Oracle wants. According to court documents filed Dec. 19, Oracle came out pushing for a trial as early as January in its antitrust case against Google claiming that Java is losing ground to Google’s Android, and the faster Oracle can seek relief the better.

In a Dec. 20 post about the filing, Mueller said Oracle and Google filed a joint pretrial statement to Judge Alsup detailing their request for a trial date, among other things. Oracle asked for a trial to start as early as January. Google said it could be ready for a trial as late as July 2012. A trial in the case was initially slated for the end of October 2011, but the court had a scheduling conflict.

Facebook Friends Depends on Real-Life Connections

noreply@blogger.com (Evanino.com) — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 15:52:00 +0000

Facebook users add and delete friends largely based on real-life relationships, a new study finds, as social networkers begin to cultivate more intimate connections.

NM Incite, a Nielsen McKinsey company, surveyed nearly 2,000 social media users about how they pick Facebook connections. Users responded that knowing someone in real-life and sharing mutual friends on Facebook were the top reasons they added connections to their social media profiles, while not knowing someone made it much easier to delete them.

Amid privacy concerns, spam attacks, and a growing number of legal cases where Facebook statuses are fair game, many social networkers have become wary of online acquaintances who they don’t know well. Some users are choosing to narrow their inner circles to a more intimate collection of true friends.

Facebook began with Mark Zuckerberg‘s dream of connecting the world, but that dream may have become a little too real. Nearly a billion people across the world use Facebook, making the site a prime target for hackers and criminals hoping to filch personal information.

Facebook is also the top Internet advertising seller in the U.S, and questions about how much user data is shared with advertisers continue to plague the social networking site.

The social networking site also made headlines recently when a Connecticut court allowed a user’s Facebook statuses and comments to be used against her by opposing counsel in a divorce case, sending a message to other users that their profiles were not as private as previously thought.

Due to the mounting risks, many users who signed up with Facebook to share their photos and life moments with others are now fearful of doing so among an ever-widening circle of friends, leading them to delete anyone who isn’t part of their close inner circle.

Some are even fleeing Facebook for new social networking site Google+, which allows users to create separate friend networks to keep work connections private from personal and other connections.

The NM study also found that making offensive comments, trying to sell people stuff, being overtly political, and making depressing comments can also get users booted from Facebook friends’ lists.

Facebook probably won’t suffer too greatly from a few deleted friends here and there, and the trend toward smaller friendship circles is likely part of the site’s evolution as it continues to be a cultural mainstay. But the site may want to take note of their users’ growing list of concerns in the future, or risk being “unfriended” themselves.

Apples Supply-Chain Secret? Hoards

noreply@blogger.com (Evanino.com) — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 13:19:00 +0000

About five years ago, Apple (AAPL) design guru Jony Ive decided he wanted a new feature for the next MacBook: a small dot of green light above the screen, shining through the computer’s aluminum casing to indicate when its camera was on. The problem? It’s physically impossible to shine light through metal.

Ive called in a team of manufacturing and materials experts to figure out how to make the impossible possible, according to a former employee familiar with the development who requested anonymity to avoid irking Apple. The team discovered it could use a customized laser to poke holes in the aluminum small enough to be nearly invisible to the human eye but big enough to let light through.

Applying that solution at massive volume was a different matter. Apple needed lasers, and lots of them. The team of experts found a U.S. company that made laser equipment for microchip manufacturing which, after some tweaking, could do the job. Each machine typically goes for about $250,000. Apple convinced the seller to sign an exclusivity agreement and has since bought hundreds of them to make holes for the green lights that now shine on the company’s MacBook Airs, Trackpads, and wireless keyboards.

Most of Apple’s customers have probably never given that green light a second thought, but its creation speaks to a massive competitive advantage for Apple: Operations. This is the world of manufacturing, procurement, and logistics in which the new chief executive officer, Tim Cook, excelled, earning him the trust of Steve Jobs. According to more than a dozen interviews with former employees, executives at suppliers, and management experts familiar with the company’s operations, Apple has built a closed ecosystem where it exerts control over nearly every piece of the supply chain, from design to retail store. Because of its volume—and its occasional ruthlessness—Apple gets big discounts on parts, manufacturing capacity, and air freight. “Operations expertise is as big an asset for Apple as product innovation or marketing,” says Mike Fawkes, the former supply-chain chief at Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) and now a venture capitalist with VantagePoint Capital Partners. “They’ve taken operational excellence to a level never seen before.”

This operational edge is what enables Apple to handle massive product launches without having to maintain large, profit-sapping inventories. It’s allowed a company often criticized for high prices to sell its iPad at a price that very few rivals can beat, while still earning a 25 percent margin on the device, according to the estimates of Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster. And if the latest rumors are to be believed, Apple’s operational expertise is likely part of what gives the company enough confidence to enter the notoriously cutthroat television market by 2013 with a TV set that would tightly integrate with existing Apple software like iTunes. The widespread skepticism over Apple’s ability to compete in such a price-sensitive market, where margins are often in the single digits, is “exactly what people said when Apple got into cell phones,” says Munster.

Apple began innovating on the nitty-gritty details of supply-chain management almost immediately upon Steve Jobs’s return in 1997. At the time, most computer manufacturers transported products by sea, a far cheaper option than air freight. To ensure that the company’s new, translucent blue iMacs would be widely available at Christmas the following year, Jobs paid $50 million to buy up all the available holiday air freight space, says John Martin, a logistics executive who worked with Jobs to arrange the flights. The move handicapped rivals such as Compaq that later wanted to book air transport. Similarly, when iPod sales took off in 2001, Apple realized it could pack so many of the diminutive music players on planes that it became economical to ship them directly from Chinese factories to consumers’ doors. When an HP staffer bought one and received it a few days later, tracking its progress around the world through Apple’s website, “It was an ‘Oh s—’ moment,” recalls Fawkes.
That mentality—spend exorbitantly wherever necessary, and reap the benefits from greater volume in the long run—is institutionalized throughout Apple’s supply chain, and begins at the design stage. Ive and his engineers sometimes spend months living out of hotel rooms in order to be close to suppliers and manufacturers, helping to tweak the industrial processes that translate prototypes into mass-produced devices. For new designs such as the MacBook’s unibody shell, cut from a single piece of aluminum, Apple’s designers work with suppliers to create new tooling equipment. The decision to focus on a few product lines, and to do little in the way of customization, is a huge advantage. “They have a very unified strategy, and every part of their business is aligned around that strategy,” says Matthew Davis, a supply-chain analyst with Gartner (IT) who has ranked Apple as the world’s best supply chain for the last four years.

When it’s time to go into production, Apple wields a big weapon: More than $80 billion in cash and investments. The company says it plans to nearly double capital expenditures on its supply chain in the next year, to $7.1 billion, while committing another $2.4 billion in prepayments to key suppliers. The tactic ensures availability and low prices for Apple—and sometimes limits the options for everyone else. Before the release of the iPhone 4 in June 2010, rivals such as HTC couldn’t buy as many screens as they needed because manufacturers were busy filling Apple orders, according to a former manager at HTC. To manufacture the iPad 2, Apple bought so many high-end drills to make the device’s internal casing that other companies’ wait time for the machines stretched from six weeks to six months, according to a manager at the drillmaker.

Life as an Apple supplier is lucrative because of the high volumes but painful because of the strings attached. When Apple asks for a price quote for parts such as touchscreens, it demands a detailed accounting of how the manufacturer arrived at the quote, including its estimates for material and labor costs, and its own projected profit. Apple requires many key suppliers to keep two weeks of inventory within a mile of Apple’s assembly plants in Asia, and sometimes doesn’t pay until as long as 90 days after it uses a part, according to an executive who has consulted for Apple and would not speak on the record for fear of compromising the relationship.

Not every supplier gives in. An executive who works with a major parts manufacturer says that Apple’s bargaining tactics tend to exert downward pressure on prices, leading to lower profits and margins. After months of negotiations, the company declined a $1 billion payment from Apple that would have required the supplier to commit much of its manufacturing capacity to Cupertino’s products. The executive familiar with these talks, who asked not to be named because the discussions were not public, says that while deals featuring $1 billion in cash up front are basically unheard of, his company didn’t want to be too dependent on Apple—and didn’t want to help it deflate prices.

Apple’s control reaches its crescendo in the leadup to one of its famed product unveilings, a tightly orchestrated process that has been refined over years of Mac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad debuts. For weeks in advance of the announcement, factories work overtime to build hundreds of thousands of devices. To track efficiency and ensure pre-launch secrecy, Apple places electronic monitors in some boxes of parts that allow observers in Cupertino to track them through Chinese factories, an effort meant to discourage leaks. At least once, the company shipped products in tomato boxes to avoid detection, says the consultant who has worked with Apple. When the iPad 2 debuted, the finished devices were packed in plain boxes and Apple employees monitored every handoff point—loading dock, airport, truck depot, and distribution center—to make sure each unit was accounted for.

Apple’s retail stores give it a final operational advantage. Once a product goes on sale, the company can track demand by the store and by the hour, and adjust production forecasts daily. If it becomes clear a given part will run out, teams are deployed and given approval to spend millions of dollars on extra equipment to get around the bottleneck.

Apple’s enormous profits—its gross margins were 40 percent last quarter, compared with 10 to 20 percent for most other hardware companies—are in large part due to this focus on operations, which is sure to remain a priority under Cook. The new CEO is known to give colleagues copies of Competing Against Time, a book about using supply chains as a strategic weapon in business. According to Martin, the logistics executive, Cook uses a catchphrase to hammer home the need for efficiency: “Nobody wants to buy sour milk.”

The bottom line: Apple plans to double spending on its supply chain, to $7.1 billion, continuing its focus on streamlining and controlling manufacturing.

Apple employee lost a prototype iPhone AGAIN!

noreply@blogger.com (Evanino.com) — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 16:27:00 +0000

Apple employee lost a prototype of an unreleased iPhone in a San Francisco-area bar. No, you haven't fallen through a wormhole and woken up in 2010 -- it happened again.

The prototype was reportedly lost in July, and Apple's efforts to recover the device have not succeeded thus far.

Rather than immediately remote-wiping the phone as it did with the iPhone 4 prototype last year, Apple used the Find My iPhone feature and co-ordinated with San Francisco police to trace the phone to a home in San Fran's Bernal Heights area. The homeowner gave police permission to search his house, but the device was not recovered.

Supposedly the prototype has already been sold on Craigslist for US$200, a paltry sum compared to the $5000 a certain "gadget blog" (CNET's words) paid for the iPhone 4 prototype last year. No other details on the device are available, but considering the firestorm that erupted in 2010, it's unlikely that any "gadget blog" would have the stones to buy the device even if it was offered to them.

We're not judging here, but doesn't it seem like bars, pubs, watering holes, and all other forms of alcohol-serving establishments ought to be off-limits to prototype testers from now on?

Or maybe this is a publicity scheme to sell more iPhones? Just build a better device instead of putting together stories of Poor little Apple employees losing prototype devices.

If you are an employee trusted with a prototype device, what the hell are you doing leaving it somewhere...... just sounds like crap!

I'M JUST SAYIN'

Judge bounces Googles complaint over Android code viewing

noreply@blogger.com (Evanino.com) — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:09:00 +0000

ITC rejects Google effort to block expert testimony in Microsoft-Motorola patent battle.

A U.S. trade judge has rejected Google's move to block the testimony of a Microsoft expert witness in the latter's 10-month dispute with Motorola over patents allegedly used by Android.

"The ALJ [Administrative Law Judge] finds no basis to discern from Google's statement whether Google made a reasonable, good-faith effort to resolve the matter with Microsoft," Essex wrote in his ruling.

Essex also pointed out that only parties in a complaint -- in this case Microsoft and Motorola -- are allowed to file a motion for sanctions like the one Google demanded. "Google has not set forth any legal support for the proposition that a non-party may move for sanctions," wrote Essex.

Google's complaint centered around Stevenson, who Microsoft allowed to review Android source code. Google said it had not been told beforehand that Stevenson would see what it called "confidential" code so "highly proprietary...that Google does not even share with its partners, such as Motorola."

In an interview last week, German patent activist and analyst Florian Mueller said that Google's attempt to block Stevenson was no more than a speed bump in the case, which he sees as potentially harmful to Android if Microsoft wins.

"I think Google is extremely afraid of the outcome of this particular ITC investigation," said Mueller last week. "If this investigation finds Motorola and, in fact, all Android devices to infringe various valid Microsoft patents, all of Google's hardware partners will have to pay royalties to Microsoft."

Microsoft filed its complaint with the ITC in October 2010, when it charged Motorola with violating several Microsoft patents in Motorola devices powered by Google's Android operating system.

On Monday, Google announced plans to acquire Motorola for $12.5 billion. Most analysts have said Google's need for a beefier patent portfolio -- necessary to deter further infringement claims against Android by the likes of Microsoft and Apple -- prompted the purchase and high price.

On Monday, U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) Judge Theodore Essex denied Google's motion to prevent Robert Stevenson, an expert hired by Microsoft, from testifying about the Android source code at an upcoming hearing.

Last week, Google accused Microsoft of violating a confidentiality agreement struck between Microsoft, Motorola and Google in the ITC case.

Essex rejected Google's motion.

Lucille Balls 100th birthday doodle-style

noreply@blogger.com (Evanino.com) — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 12:02:00 +0000

Well, would you look at that? Two of our favorite entertainers, Lucile Ball and the World Wide Web, share a birthday. Of course, the former Mrs. Desi Arnaz would have about 80 years on the old web if she were alive today, but there's no reason the two can't get along, right? That's Google's stance anyway, as the internet giant's dedicated its latest doodle to the memory of the fiery ginger comedienne. If you love Lucy as much as we do, hit the source link, grab some popcorn and cozy up to that tiny TV to watch some of her very finest comedic performances.

Apple has more cash than the U.S. Treasury

noreply@blogger.com (Evanino.com) — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 15:41:00 +0000

Apple Inc. may not have more money than God. But it's got more cash than Uncle Sam.

As the government struggled to reach an agreement on raising the debt ceiling, the U.S. Treasury's cash balance fell to $74 billion this week. That's less than the $76 billion that Apple now has in cash.

It's not terribly likely that the government will ask Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs for help. But it wouldn't be the first time the government has asked for a bailout from an industry mogul.

In the mid-1890s, with the U.S. economy still recovering from the financial panic of 1893, the U.S. Treasury was in danger of going bankrupt as worried investors clamored to collect what they were owed from U.S. gold reserves. With few options left, President Cleveland met with New York financier J.P. Morgan, who pledged a whopping $60 million in gold. Adjusted for inflation, that would be about $1.5 billion today.

"The fact that Morgan had become a cosigner on the federal debt was what impressed the markets," historian H.W. Brands wrote in his account "The Upside-Down Bailout." "Within days the Treasury's condition stabilized; within weeks the dollar's danger had passed."

To be fair, comparing Apple's cash reserves with the Treasury's is not exactly apples to apples.

Apple's billions are essentially the funds in its bank accounts, while the federal number represents the amount of money the government has left before it hits the legal debt limit — a figure that can be changed by Congress.

At about $362 billion, Apple is the second-largest company in the world by market value (behind Exxon Mobil Corp. at $395 billion) — big by any standard, but still far smaller than the U.S. government, which will spend close to $3.8 trillion this year, 10 times what Apple is worth.

Still, Apple's reasons for keeping such a giant cash stockpile may well be related to worries about the stability of the U.S. government's finances.

"One of the reasons U.S. companies have amassed so much cash is that it provides them financial flexibility in times of heightened uncertainty," said Laurie Simon Hodrick, a professor of business economics at Columbia University's business school. "It might seem ironic, but as the risk of a government default grows, bringing with it the specter of higher interest rates, the incentives for firms to finance with internally generated cash grows as well."

Something is wrong with this picture...... I'm Just Sayin'

Victims of Amazon Tax Cry Out

noreply@blogger.com (Evanino.com) — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 13:22:00 +0000

Note: If you were fired as an Amazon affiliate, please email me your story to be included in a future article: writejohnseiler@gmail.com

“I was fired today,” my friend Gary Metz wrote me just after Amazon.com notified him on Thursday of the action. Amazon fired him right after Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law the new “Amazon tax,” as it was widely referred to on Capitol Hill, although it affects other companies as well.

Metz’s main job is as a network engineer in Southern California, “helping people with Websites and businesses.” But for several years now he has supplemented his income by about $100 a month through Amazon.

“For me, it was additional income,” Metz told me. “So it wasn’t that big a deal personally. For anybody who is making a living on the Internet, and there are a growing number of people in California who are dong that, this is disastrous. If you want to put those people out of work, too, that’ll do it.”

Metz said he operated a Website and blog on foreign policy, Regime Change in Iran. If you check out the site, you’ll notice that on the right side he lists some foreign policy books. If someone clicked on one and bought it through Amazon, he would get a portion of the sale.
“It was nice additional income,” Metz said. “There are probably thousands of people in California for whom it’s important supplemental income. And for other people, this is how they make their living. For those people, this will force them to either act like they’re in another state somehow, or actualy physically move.”

Or go broke, go in welfare and apply for food stamps and Medi-Cal, thus costing the taxpayers money, whereas before they were taxpayers themselves.

“These kinds of laws will destroy one of the few areas where our economy is growing and is strong,” Metz observed. “So they make a few dollars on some taxes. At the same time they drive the businesses out of business. They destroy the means to make money, which would be spent in the local economy.”

I hope the Legislative Analyst does a study of the Amazon tax. Because it’s clearly a negative tax — it reduces taxes at a higher rate than it collects them. The businesses destroyed will not be paying income, sales and property taxes in California. That amount will be more than that “collected” under the new tax.

Destroying businesses is insane in a state still suffering 11.7 percent unemployment. But, alas, par for the course under Gov. Jerry “Jobs Killer” Brown.

Businesses Destroyed

Katy Grimes’ article on CalWatchDog.com, “Brown Signs Punitive Amazon Tax,” also has drawn comments from Californians whose livelihoods he has destroyed with the stroke of a blood-filled pen.

These are all the “little people,” the Mom and Pop businesses that keep the state going. But Jerry “Jobs Killer” Brown doesn’t care about them. Bill Clinton used to say, “I feel your pain.”
Jerry Brown screams: “I inflict your pain.”

Soquel by the Creek wrote:

I’m a fourth-generation native Californian, a former Amazon Affiliate, and I fully support Amazon’s position in the matter. Amazon did far more for my small business than the state of California ever has, especially for the privilege of spending an additional $800 annually on California corporate taxes.

I fully expect that the California law will eventually end up in the Supreme Court, at taxpayer expense our course. Only the United States Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, not the California Legislature.

The state will never collect their projected revenues from this flawed policy.

For anyone in the “producing class”, California is a high tax state already. California ranks near the bottom on general business climate and in business tax climate. It should come as no surprise that California also enjoys the nation’s 2nd highest unemployment rate.

Casey wrote:

By the time I gave up for the night, I was down by 94 merchants, one of which was Amazon. I don’t blame Amazon or any of my out-of-state merchants for the decision to distance themselves from us here in California.

I’ve said this elsewhere and I’ll say it here: These tax nexus laws make as much sense as removing a car engine to improve gas mileage. Yes, the mileage will be vastly improved (on paper) but you’re not going to get very far very fast.

I want my engine back.

Rexanne wrote:

I was born and have lived in Southern California most of my life. This law has just destroyed my small business that is the only means of support for myself and 2 children and one that has taken me 12 years to build into a viable means of income.

The state of California will not see ANY money from this law. Merchants are simply dropping their CA affiliates so there is no “nexus” (presumption of physical location) and they will therefore not have to pay this unconstitutional interstate tax (taxation without representation).

The budget that Gerry Brown signed is in no way “balanced” and those who created it and stuffed it on the CA people (including Governor Brown who signed and validated it) are now getting their paychecks again. Meanwhile 25 thousand CA businesses are suffering and losing money that would be taxed and spent in the state.

This is not only a blow to California affiliate marketers but a blow to the people of California.

Amy wrote:

I didn’t spend today being productive. Instead we read 100s of e-mails from stores around the country. They are terminating their relationships with us. We had to figure out how to deal with the situation.

When we discovered that most of them made the terminations effective immediately, we had to scramble to get them off of our sites. It’s almost 9pm and we are not done.

I expect that there will be more tomorrow and that they will trickle in through next week.

We won’t be generating income from these stores anymore. Someone in another state will and that state will collect income tax. California won’t get the income tax from those sales.

Oh, and California won’t be receiving sales tax collections from these stores either. Just lost income for the state and its residents.

If you think that people should pay sales tax on what they buy no matter where they buy it, you’re right. That’s the law. Unfortunately this bill won’t make that happen and just hurts businesses like mine.

Amy added later:

And in case anyone thinks that we are going to any satisfaction by being able to say “I told you so” to the legislators and governor, it won’t. It still sucks that we have to go through this even though we knew that our businesses would be devastated by the passage of this law and spent over TWO YEARS telling the legislators and their staffs exactly what would happen.

Today is the day, ladies and gentlemen of the California State Legislature… you ordered this up. Where is your $150 million that the lobbyists for the unions and big box stores promised? Oh yeah, you trusted Walmart when its lobbyist told you that this was about Main Street fairness. Did you bother to see what Walmart did to Main Streets across the country?!?

It’s not too late to repeal this bill. Once our businesses move out of state or close, then it’s too late.

If you want to see what it looks like when affiliate publishers move states, watch this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckP0HWl_w3c

Amy again:

It’s almost midnight and I’m not done yet but I can’t look at this screen anymore. It’s just too depressing. The dead stores on our sites will have to stay there a little longer.

With the economy down, is there anything else that the California Legislature wants to put in the way of our small business having any chance of success? Isn’t California where the tech revolution is supposed to be? Shouldn’t our governement be HELPING, not HURTING internet startups?

The state will collect more from the success of Facebook, LinkedIn, Pandora, Twitter, etc. than it could ever hope for from this bill. How about some perspective people?!? HELP the people who are generating income tax revenue and jobs!!!

Amy’s final word:

One last thing that I just noticed… we lost partnerships today that we have had for TEN YEARS!!! We have had good working relationships with many of these companies and worked closely with them.

This is so sad.

Here’s the YouTube Amy linked to, about affiliates leaving Illinois after it imposed an “Amazon tax”:
.
.

Amazon Firing Letter

And here’s the letter Amazon sent to Gary Metz and other affiliates:

Hello,

Unfortunately, Governor Brown has signed into law the bill that we emailed you about earlier today. As a result of this, contracts with all California residents participating in the Amazon Associates Program are terminated effective today, June 29, 2011. Those California residents will no longer receive advertising fees for sales referred to Amazon.com, Endless.com, MYHABIT.COM or SmallParts.com. Please be assured that all qualifying advertising fees earned before today will be processed and paid in full in accordance with the regular payment schedule.

You are receiving this email because our records indicate that you are a resident of California. If you are not currently a resident of California, or if you are relocating to another state in the near future, you can manage the details of your Associates account here. And if you relocate to another state in the near future please contact us for reinstatement into the Amazon Associates Program.

To avoid confusion, we would like to clarify that this development will only impact our ability to offer the Associates Program to California residents and will not affect your ability to purchase from Amazon.com, Endless.com, MYHABIT.COM or SmallParts.com.

We have enjoyed working with you and other California-based participants in the Amazon Associates Program and, if this situation is rectified, would very much welcome the opportunity to re-open our Associates Program to California residents. As mentioned before, we are continuing to work on alternative ways to help California residents monetize their websites and we will be sure to contact you when these become available.

Regards,

The Amazon Associates Team

By JOHN SEILER

Chris Brown can't rap.........I'm Just Sayin'

noreply@blogger.com (Evanino.com) — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:46:00 +0000

I’m not sure how I feel about Chris Brown rapping, so we’ll move on. I do love the beat that Diplo (Shakira, Robyn) and Afrojack cooked up for him. A deafening baseline coupled with quirky, slippery synth remind me very much of a Kardinall Offishall record. This is good.

The secret weapon of “Look At Me Know” is a ferocious verse from Busta Rhymes, who at times raps so densely that the listener gets light-headed. Lil Wayne chimes in on the track talking about God knows what. Both artists’ verses are well-suited to the track and sit in the beat perfectly.

This is a song that succeeds as an excellent track with stellar production, Chris Brown is there, but his contributions neither lift the track to glory nor spoil it. “Look at Me Now” is Chris Brown’s first single, drumming up support for his “F.A.M.E.” album, out in 2011.

Chris could not RAP his way out of a wet paper bag in a rain storm, but with features like Lil Wayne, and Busta to save the album i will check out the rest....

noreply@blogger.com (Evanino.com) — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:18:00 +0000

Is Rihanna the "only girl in the world" for Ryan Phillippe?

According to Us Weekly, the two have been "secretly dating" – and even had a fling way back in December.

"They initially hooked up when things were strained with [Rihanna's ex] Matt Kemp," a source claimed.

The two reportedly reconnected at a star-studded event on Feb. 12.

Rihanna, 23, "thinks he's hot," an insider told the magazine. "They totally had sex. And it wasn't even the first time!"

But if true, the report means 36-year-old Phillippe has hardly been a one-woman guy.

He's been linked to Amanda Seyfried, 25, since October – and despite reports that the two have called it quits, the actress herself has suggested that is not true.

"That's just false. I can't really tell you that, but most of what you read is false," she told X17online.com paparazzi last week, before quickly back-tracking.

"Well, I'm not sure about that," she added. "You'll never know."

Regarding an earlier claim that Rihanna had actually blown off Phillippe at the Feb. 12 event, Seyfried had something to say about that, too.

"That Rihanna story is not true," she said. "It is so f--king not true. I feel bad for him."

Seyfried and Phillippe were also seen kissing at a Los Angeles bar as recently as last Friday, according to Star.

So, which hot star is the actor really dating? Only time will tell for sure.

I'm Just Sayin'