The New York Times says eBay should still police for counterfeits if it wants to win back customers:

eBay would generate enormous goodwill if it instituted a policy of proactively fighting fraud on the site, instead of forcing companies to point out individual items, day after day, which it then takes down.

That's true, but eBay would also win goodwill if it didn't allow luxury companies to bully individuals who are obviously reselling their used luxury goods—it's pretty obvious that when a company like LVMH goes after a person selling a single used, slightly damaged luxury case, they're not really concerned with stomping out counterfeiting rings.

This hard-to-read press release from something called the "Luxury Institute" (an institute for luxury? I want to work there!) calls the ruling an "egregious injustice to the consumer" because it removes any protection from the customer—a valid claim (despite the source) that resonates with anyone who's been scammed on eBay. The Luxury Insititute suggests alternate luxury auction sites like Portero.com.

BusinessWeek quotes an e-commerce advocate who says the ruling also helps keep the marketplace more open, by taking some of the power away from companies like LVMH and Tiffany:

Many of the smaller vendors that make a living selling through eBay were also relieved at the verdict. Had the U.S. judge echoed the opinions of European courts, major brands that did not want their merchandise to be resold on a discount site would have had a strong weapon to keep resellers from advertising their brand names online, even when dealing with genuine articles. "This was never about controlling counterfeits. It was really about how consumers could buy and sell Tiffany's products and maintaining margins," says Steve DelBianco, executive director of NetChoice, a coalition that advocates for e-commerce. "If you aren't born with a Tiffany silver spoon in your mouth, you can buy one on eBay."

What do you think? Should eBay be required to police luxury brands more closely, and would that help shoppers in the long run? Or are companies like Tiffany and LVMH using the counterfeit issue to solidify control over online sales of their merchandise?

"Judge to Tiffany: Police Your Own Brand" [BusinessWeek]
(Photo: jillclardy)

The California Public Utilities Commission and state officials believed that crisis-era pacts with San Diego-based Sempra Energy and others were costing consumers an extra $1.45 billion to $3.08 billion — an amount they had hoped to return to electricity customers, possibly by reducing or eliminating future charges.

A Washington utility had hoped to get relief from a nine-year power contract with Morgan Stanley Capital Group. Under that contract, the Snohomish County Public Utility District is paying $105 a megawatt-hour, well above the historic norm for the Pacific Northwest of $24 a megawatt-hour, but also well under the $3,300 a megawatt-hour hit at the peak of the energy crisis that spread beyond California's borders, according to the court's synopsis.

Justice Scalia scolded the states for whining about "buyer's remorse." Roger Berliner, a lawyer for Nevada utility Sierra Pacific Resources, applauded the Justice for his unrivaled ability to blind himself to reason:

"It was the failure of regulators to protect consumers from market manipulation" that caused the utilities to overpay for power. I don't think the court appreciated the extent to which the dysfunction in the market made it impossible for there to be just and reasonable contracts."

Supreme Court deals blow to states on electricity [Los Angeles Times]



(Photo: Getty)

Although it won't affect other cases, the RIAA was handed a small smackdown this week when a U.S. district judge rejected their request for a summary judgement, and ruled that putting song files in a shared directory was not enough proof that infringement had occurred.

The judge said that the RIAA "must prove that the songs were actually downloaded," which is not a distinction past judges have made. Whether or not this ruling will cause other judges to look at the RIAA's future claims in a different light remains to be seen, however.

Wake's ruling pretty much contradicts many of the legal arguments the RIAA has presented in those peer-to-peer lawsuits the organization has brought against individual users. However, not that many cases actually make it to court, mainly because defendants often opt for settling for a few thousand dollars instead of shouldering expenses for a jaunt through the civil legal system.

His celebrity could raise attention about tax defiance and deter protesters, said Assistant Atty. Gen. Nathan J. Hochman of the Justice Department's tax division.

"The three-year sentence Mr. Snipes received today sends a loud and crystal-clear message to the tax defier community that if they engage in this illegal conduct, they can and will go to jail," Hochman said.

Despite Snipes' claims that he was taken advantage of, Hochman said the actor was a "disciple" of the tax defiance movement who understood that his actions were illegal.

"It's more than just an accident. It occurred on numerous occasions over many different years," Hochman said. "This wasn't an innocent victim of 'jackals.' This is someone who willfully and knowingly participated."

Before his sentencing, Snipes told the judge that his wealth and celebrity attracted "wolves and jackals like flies are attracted to meat," and he called himself "well-intentioned but miseducated."

Snipes was convicted on three misdemeanor counts of failing to file tax returns for 1999-2001. His former "tax advisers," Douglas Rosile and Eddie Ray Kahn were respectively sentenced to 54 months and 10 years in jail.

The decision is a tragic setback for Tax Dog, and a reminder to always pay your taxes.

Wesley Snipes sentenced to 3 years in prison [L.A. Times]
(AP Photo/Phil Sandlin)

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

T-Mobile customers Kathleen Lowden and John Mahowald sued T-Mobile in King County Superior Court in 2005, alleging that the wireless carrier wrongly charged them for roaming, long distance, night-time and other fees that should have been free. They said T-Mobile also levied other charges, such as "a universal service fund fee," that weren't advertised.

T-Mobile removed the case to federal district court and tried to compel mandatory arbitration, noting that the consumers had signed a contract agreeing to resolve their disputes in this manner.

T-Mobile customers can sue, court rules [Seattle P-I]
Opinion by Judge Gould (PDF)
(Photo:swruler9284)