Category Archives: Law

July 6, 2015 · 14:46

The mere legality

Now that the Greeks have voted to bankrupt themselves (blaming everyone else in the process), it is duly time to take another look at the part I touched on in my article ‘Dress rehearsal (part 1)’ on July 1st 2015 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/07/01/dress-rehearsal-part-1/). There the issue that came from Danuta Hübner, Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament, with the attachment I added in the paper by Phoebus Athanassiou ‘Withdrawal and expulsion from the EU and EMU‘

Danuta Hübner mentions Art. 50 of the Lisbon Treaty as well as Art. 140 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). So, this is something we need to look at, because Greece has decided not to be responsible and before the papers and TV drown us in emotional issues, whilst keeping quiet that the debt of other European nations might go up and not by a small amount.

So, yes, basically article 50 is about ‘withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements‘, which does not mean the others can throw Greece out.

So far, that part seems almost impossible, as Tsipras keeps on claiming wanting to remain in the Eurozone, the image given is that he would stay in because article 50 is all about voluntarily removing one’s self from the Euro. Article 7(1) gives us “On a reasoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by the European Commission, the Council, acting by a majority of four fifths of its members after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2“, which leads to Article 7(3) “Where a determination under paragraph 2 has been made, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council”

In short, Article 7 is about reprimanding, even if all rights are suspended. That does not mean that they exit, which gives us two parts, the fact that France can walk away from the Euro to protect itself, yet Greece cannot get removed, which is not a given yet, there is a lot more to sift through. Article 2 is all about values, respect from Human rights and the rights of minorities, which does not have bearing on this precise case. The PDF that brought this to light, which by the way (due to an error on my side) is from Phoebus Athanassiou, my apologies for the earlier mistake in my previous blog!

“The idea that the treaties should explicitly provide for a possibility of expulsion was discussed in the 2001-2003 Intergovernmental Conference responsible for drafting the ill-fated Constitutional Treaty, but was abandoned“, so not only were politicians the start of the mess, yet NO ONE had the bright idea to consider that one player might not be an adult giving them all permanent headaches is beyond hilarious, the fact that this legal bright mind (trained in the UK) is also a former Lawyer connected to Athens Law Firm of Tsibanoulis & Partners, and a former consultant for Government of the Republic of Cyprus just adds to the humour. His paper from 2009 and now we are all about to learn how we wasted millions on representations from the ECB whilst they were unable (as it seems) to properly protect the members. In all this both Yanis Varoufakis and Alexis Tsipras must be howling with laughter as we learn that most papers had not even clearly investigated the marketing term Grexit, so even as Brexit and Frexit might become reality in voluntary secession, Grexit will not happen against the will of Greece, as the facts presently are given, but let’s take a look at the steps that come next, because the PDF I added on July 1st is truly a treasure trove (Phoebus Athanassiou seems to be hindered by extreme levels of brilliance).

There is however another consideration, if we look at Article 2, where we see “The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities“, the question becomes, as Greece decided to ignore equality and rule of law, are they in violation of Article 2?

Consider, that the creditors are a factual minority (one set on wealth and power of decision), the Greek government took out loans, they signed of these loans, as they are not complying with the execution of the agreed terms, are they not breaking the law? In addition, Article 3(2) gives us “The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime”

It is the part ‘prevention and combating of crime‘, so as we see that for decades Greece did not ‘uphold’ (read reform) taxation laws or properly prosecute tax evaders (one fined Bobolas ‘proper’ combatting tax evasion does not make), can we state that Greece is in violation in accepting the articles of the Union, as such, what could be made then?

I will be the first to admit that this is a mighty fine line, but in this game, could such a fine line be enough?

Article 3(3) is about several things, including cohesion, Economic, social and territorial. When we consider the economic part we get the thought that economic and social cohesion is an expression of solidarity between the Member States and regions of the European Union. This means balanced and sustainable development, reducing structural disparities between regions and countries and promoting equal opportunities for all individuals. The fact that Greece (one of many) has not been able to (or intentionally unwilling) to keep a proper budget, we get an unbalanced and unsustainable development, whilst these people (the previous administrations) have not been properly investigated or even prosecuted, which gives us possible transgressions of Articles 2, Article 3(2) and Article 3(3). So is expulsion still not an option in that hindsight?

So as we see that the makers of the articles painted themselves in a corner by only focussing on growth and ignoring accountability, we see that Greece either got really well informed, or just had the right page open on the right day, no matter what, the EEC is inheriting a mess it did not properly defend itself against, so even though the path was reached in another way, as we see this explode, it seems very conceivable that the fallout from this event will have a large impact on the chances of Brexit and Frexit as they will be voluntary. So even as the UN was bright enough to include their Article 6, where the member can send home in a not so nice way for ‘persistently infringing the principles of the Charter‘, it becomes clear that the overpaid makers of Treaty of Lisbon were a lot less clued in at this point (or so it seems).

As I see it, Dr Phoebus Athanassiou, Senior Legal Counsel with the DGLS of the European Central Bank (ECB) had nailed the issue fair and square in 2009, I am just appalled that journalists and politicians have either ignored the options, or intentionally misinformed the people, whilst the European member politicians had their ‘closed door‘ meeting.

As I stated on July 1^st: “Consider the next news “Here’s Bloomberg on Schaeuble’s comments: German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble told lawmakers in Berlin that Greece would stay in the euro for the time being if Greek voters reject austerity in a referendum scheduled this week, according to three people present. Schaeuble also said the European Central Bank would do what’s needed to protect the euro if Greeks voted against the bailout terms in the July 5 referendum, according to the people, all of whom participated in the closed-door meeting on Tuesday“, is that why it was closed door? The fact that expulsion is pretty much impossible?

So as we now see “Angela Merkel, is to head to Paris on Monday for urgent talks with French president François Hollande over how to avert a growing Eurozone debt crisis” (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/05/germany-greek-referendum-anger-solidarity), which signals two things, the first is that Germany is not considering steps that will accelerate many things, pat of it will make Greece the pariah it should not have made itself, you see, the BBC and the Guardian are all about ‘negotiations’ and the, as we might regard it hollow statement from EU Parliamentarian Martin Schulz “he hopes that meaningful proposals from the Greek government will arrive in the coming hours because “if not, we are entering a very difficult and even dramatic time.”“, is that so? Because Greece can only leave the Euro voluntarily as we see it at present. Another voice, which is the Economic editor Robert Preston gives us even more to worry about. “The Bank of Greece could make unsecured loans to Greek banks without the ECB’s permission“, which could blow the Euro straight into the basement value, as well as “Or it can explicitly create a new currency, a new drachma, which it could then use to provide vital finance to Greek banks and the Greek economy“, which might be more likely, but does Greece have to go either way? Consider that the lacking law makers forgot to properly defend itself, now take into account that when Tsipras will let it all fall and food and medication are no longer an option, we get back to Article 2 of the Lisbon Treaty with “The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities“, which means that the other EEC nations would have to foot the bill and come to the aid of Greece to deliver food and medication. All this because previous Greek elected officials refused to adhere to Article 3(2) regarding ‘prevention and combating of crime‘ (tax crime to be exact), as well as the economic cohesion thing, but the last one is one that pretty much NONE of the EEC members adhered too, so calling Greece on that seems slightly hypocritical from my side.

So as the creditors might resort to “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche” (let them eat cake), we see a dangerous escalation. I wonder how both Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen will respond in the coming days. There is no doubt in my mind that this will impact Brexit and Grexit, especially as it will be voluntarily.

No matter how this plays, we already seeing images on how Greek retirees are getting hit all over the place. So as we see Tsipras playing ‘paper tiger’ stating “the vote showed that “democracy won’t be blackmailed””, my less ‘diplomatic’ quote would be: “No, you blistering idiot, you sitting on your hands and not seriously reforming taxation and prosecution laws is part of the direct reason of the mess we now see!” This is why we will now see articles like http://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/crying-greek-pensioner-the-story-behind-the-heartbreaking-photo, ‘Crying Greek pensioner’. Here we now see quotes like “I see my fellow citizens begging for a few cents to buy bread. I see more and more suicides. I am a sensitive person. I cannot stand to see my country in this situation.” And this is not even close to the tip of iceberg.

The next few days will be interesting to say the least.

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Alexis Tsipras, Angela Merkel, bloomberg, Brexit, Danuta Hübner, DGLS of the European Central Bank, Dr Phoebus Athanassiou, ECB, EMU, Eu, EUROPEAN COMMISSION, European Parliament, European Union, François Hollande, Frexit, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, Greece, Grexit, Lisbon Treaty, Member State, Member States, Phoebus Athanassiou, Robert Preston, TFEU, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Tsibanoulis & Partners, Tsipras, Wolfgang Schaeuble, Yanis Varoufakis

July 4, 2015 · 23:13

Ruled by cowards

That was my first thought this morning, the Guardian is full of news, on how Greece “needs up to €60bn (£42bn) of extra funds over the next three years and large-scale debt relief to create “a breathing space” and stabilise the economy“. Really? In all this, no move will be made until after the referendum, but the fact that Greece goes a way they do not like, a 60 billion Euro carrot is thrown into the mix. So as we see that the IMF now reveals a deep split with Europe as it warned that Greece’s debts were “unsustainable”, which we already knew, we see absolutely nothing on the accountability of Greece, its choice of politicians and it taken political policies in the last decade.

Consider the rules at creditcard.com ‘Preteens should learn that borrowing money costs money, and that when you borrow, you make a promise to repay‘, now there are two main reasons why things go wrong, the first is because things change, a person loses his job, a town falls into recession, these are usually temporary issues, and a delay tends to solve matters. Yet when the child has a compulsive buying disorder, that person will have all the toys and all the goodies and no usable credit card. Last there is the group of people who are both in denial and rationalising, this applies to Greece and pretty much the political BULK of the EEC.

They are in denial that they overspent and they are rationalising why it was spent in the first place. Greece being the front runner, because Greece is now in the hot water tub. More important, several players are now stepping on the plate stating things like unsustainable and debt relief, which was a given for a long time, yet NO ONE is holding Greece accountable (at present), for the things they did. It will be pushed towards ‘it was the previous people’ and these people are not to blame. We can allow for both to be truths, yet the current administration has done NOTHING to make serious changes, changes to prevent this from happening from now on. This makes them equally guilty. So as the Guardian published yesterday ‘IMF says Greece needs extra €60bn in funds and debt relief‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/02/imf-greece-needs-extra-50bn-euros) and now follows it up with ‘IMF says no third bailout without debt relief‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2015/jul/02/greek-debt-crisis-athens-creditors-referendum-yes-no-live) yesterday, it seems to me that the people behind the screens are slowly releasing information in an urge to keep the status quo going, the fact that this will hit everyone down the track is not their concern, like former Greek politicians, they will leave it for the next person to solve.

What a tangled web we weave!

Now, we see additional hilarious statements as Yanis Varoufakis starts spinning its tail. With messages like “Europe has taken a “Political decision to shut the banks down” as a way to force Greece to accept a non-viable decision” on Bloomberg. Let’s not forget that the ECB had to give Greece 3.3 billion in emergency cash, making the total of cash through the Emergency Liquidity Assistance (ELA) €68.3bn (£50.3bn) (source: BBC), so this means, that whilst people can only get 60 euro’s a day, and as some source stated “Greek banks down to €500m in cash reserves as economy crashes“, we see that 11 million people could take out 660 million euro’s leaving absolutely no money left in the banks (or ATM’s for that matter), so, how about stating that the banks were closed because Greece had no money left? As a professor of Economy, I would hope that Yanis Varoufakis can use an abacus and calculate the dire situation for himself. Giving us the issue that as a politician he is spinning half-truths as I see it (I do accept that as a politician he had very little options to work with).

You see in all this, my massive issue is not the status this parliament is in, they were handed a really bad hand. It is the utter inaction that propelled this situation into the limelight. So why bash Tsipras and Varoufakis? That is the question I ask myself, because I must look at reasoning in all matters!

I have no hatred or ill feelings towards Greece, I always loved Crete! I have nothing against these politicians as persons (never met them), but their actions call into the light certain elements we must inspect and investigate, even within ourselves, because if we do not do that, we become players in the blame game and there has been way too much of that on many sides of the monopoly table.

Now we look at news with more ‘fearing’ upcoming events of utter negativity ‘Greek economy close to collapse as food and medicine run short‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/03/greece-economy-collapse-close-food-medicine-shortage). First the subtitle “Alexis Tsipras urges people to vote no in Sunday’s referendum as capital controls bite and vital tourism industry sees tens of thousands cancel holidays in Greece“, how interesting as politicians and spokespeople were all about on how tourism was great and how the numbers would continue.

For example ‘The record boom in Greek tourism with more to come, says Tourism Minister Elena Kountoura‘ (at http://www.neomagazine.com/2015/04/greece-has-never-been-sexier-the-record-boom-in-greek-tourism-with-more-to-come-says-tourism-minister-elena-kountoura/), where we see “All entities that deal with tourism including our ministry and the people of Greece have come together and joined hands so that 2015 will be an even better year. The feedback so far is very positive and we feel very optimistic“. Which is an April 2015 article, in my article of April 22^nd, we see the Ekathimerini quotes, where the quote a drop of 50% came from, which I thought was overly pessimistic, it had foundations as Global Travel reported a predicted drop of 40% from the Russian shores. Now we see that Ekathimerini might be getting closer to the mark than we thought. Tourism is an important factor, because it is the first and direct influx of funds to the small business owners all over Greece, with a stated 50,000 tourist’s now changing destination, it becomes a very dangerous time for the Greek economy, when the tourists stay away Greek gets a new level of nightmares to deal with.

Then we see the quote “Greece’s economy is on the brink of collapse after the capital controls imposed ahead of Sunday’s referendum left the country with shortages of food and drugs” as well as “The survival of the Syriza coalition, formed just over five months ago to repudiate five years of austerity programmes, was in doubt as Greece started to suffer shortages of basic provisions, including the sale of vital drugs in pharmacies nationwide” You see, the second one is the problem, it hides another matter, the fact that a generic ‘commercial’ side can no longer survive in the Greek environment. I knew it was going to be bad, but this is showing another matter all entirely, a side many papers left in the shadow of the events. You see, if capital controls brought basic shortages to the surface, what else are the people (not just the Greeks) unaware of?

Consider the quote “Greek islands, where thousands of holidaymakers headed this week, have also been hit, with popular Cycladic destinations such as Mykonos and Santorini reporting shortages of basic foodstuffs. More than half of Greece’s food supplies – and the vast majority of pharmaceuticals – are imported, but with bank transfers now banned, companies are unable to pay suppliers“, and contemplate what capital controls allows for limiting the requirement of food and medication, unless it is done on credit, or done under a condition when currency has dwindled to zero. Of course the situation is not that simple, yet when imposed capital controls (as reported) stops food and medication from reaching the people. If it is a governmental ploy to push for a vote (not entirely impossible) than we can truly state that the game is changing for the Greeks and the power players behind the mirror.

This is given added weight when we consider “The ECB will meet on Monday to decide whether to step up its help to Greece under its emergency liquidity assistance scheme. The head of Greece’s banking association, Louka Katseli, told reporters: “Liquidity is assured until Monday, thereafter it will depend on the ECB decision.”“, so is this part of the fact, or is it another level? You see, if the Emergency liquidity opens the influx of medication and food, we have a nation truly out of cash. This is not a story that makes me happy, it is a sad continuation for a nation of people who have ended up with the short end of the stick for too long and in addition their latest government has done almost nothing to quell the issues that truly needed attention. So as we are now a day away from the referendum, we seem to bulk up question after question, most of them all relate to the referendum and more important, what will the consequence be on Monday?

Monday will be a milestone for the Europeans, not just the Greeks. You see, no matter what, the French and the Italians will be all about securing their borders, securing their financial status, because when we see Mark Carney all over the news with “He said the risk to the banking system in the UK has increased but added that the central bank was ready to take whatever action is required to protect Britain“, yet he also warned that Britain’s exposure to the rest of the Eurozone remained ‘considerable’” (at http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3146443/Greece-deadlock-risks-UK-financial-stability-warns-Mark-Carney-adds-BoE-ready-action-protect-Britain.html). It is the part that is ignored by many people and a many reporters. You see, no matter what, France and Italy will be all about setting their projected and their presented status.

Yet, it is the French RFI that gives me “Elsewhere in Athens, in a backstreet with graffiti-painted walls not far from Omonia Square, is the Alexander the Great restaurant. Its terrace is full. But not full enough to keep the business running. “We have only 10 tables, down from 30, because the overheads were too high,” says Sodia Blacho, a lawyer who helps her father run the eatery in her spare time. “We are a family business. All our family members help around without being paid. We used to have 10 staff members but now we have only three left. We have to borrow individually some money to invest in the business and to keep it going.”“, this shows a different side. We all know that many restaurants are depending on tourism, but beyond that people have to eat, when places like this falter, is it a combination of issues? Not just the tourists, but what happens when business models fall under the changing conditions of an economy to this extent? I feel certain that there are more places, other places that have a similar issue to deal with. The interesting wisdom that people ignore as they bash a word called austerity, words of wisdom come from Dimitri Sotiropoulos, a senior research fellow with the Eliamep think tank, where we hear “Any type of austerity measures you can think of will be necessary in the next two years for Greece to stand again on its own feet and hopefully this will happen within the Eurozone. If it is going to be No, the prospects of Greece remaining in the Eurozone are very bleak”, the heart of Austerity ignored is a nation (actually pretty much all EEC nations) keeping a proper handle on its budget, when Greece falls, France and Italy become the next players that need to realise that the jig is up, no matter how committed and how up to date their payments are, when Greece falls 11 million people will start looking for any answer, anywhere in Europe to keep them alive and no one will be able to blame them. The news is only overshadowed by an article published today in the Economist (at http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21656720-legal-reforms-may-help-chip-away-mountain-non-performing), where we see the quotes “the government last week introduced an emergency decree aimed at unblocking a backlog of bad loans. The hope is that this would allow banks to lend to more deserving companies instead and so boost the economy, which after three years of recession grew by 0.3% in the first quarter“, “This has become especially problematic as the financial crisis has caused the number of companies in distress to soar: annual corporate insolvencies rose from around 6,000 in 2007 to more than 14,000 a year in 2013 and 2014. The result is a mass of impaired loans—€325 billion ($360 billion) as of December“, as well as “Italy’s justice ministry has appointed a commission to come up with plans for a comprehensive overhaul“. This is all emphasised by the subtitle ‘Legal reforms may help chip away at the mountain of non-performing loans‘, nice to see an article to phrase what I have been telling for almost a year. Italy might have options as it is making changes now, not in a year from now when it is possibly too late, with almost 30,000 companies going bankrupt in the last 2 years, this year will be a cruncher for Italy, especially with a contracting economy. All this changes with Greece, with 2.6 trillion in debt, Italy is another player altogether, even though the Italian outlook is nowhere near deadly at present, the Greek situation will push Italy (France too) towards the Abyss, now Europe has two direct options, the first is the four nations banding together (UK, Italy, France and Germany), yet the UK referendum is not sitting well with the other three players and France remains an item too. If President Hollande, President Sergio Mattarella and German Chancellor Angela Merkel set up a triad of economy between Italy, Germany and France, there is an option for limited growth, in that vision the UK becomes a pariah as the referendum talks have been voiced, in all that Hollande has time, but once Marine Le Pen gains too much traction with National Front, his options are over. In all this, those players will drop Greece like a bad habit, because Alexis Tsipras overplayed a really bad hand and he played it badly too. No matter how ‘clever’ some see the acts, those with all the coin behind the mirror will not hesitate to take a bruise regarding Greece if it means keeping the total 5 trillion debt issue from both Italy and France safe, when that goes it all stops for everyone.

No matter how it all goes next, the one change that will fill the minds of the policymakers will be legislation and prosecution, the view on how it filed in Greece is something these two nations cannot live with, through all this the French and British referendums will sound and it will have an impact on all changes that insiders and outsiders would want. When these evolutions remain absent, its population will see to what extent they are ruled by cowards, for the mere simplicity of fact that at present no one will get out of this without skin in the game, Greece was not cause of it, it just brought it to the surface a hell of a lot faster.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Alexander the Great restaurant, Alexis Tsipras, Athens, Bank of England, capital controls, creditcard.com, debt relief, ECB, EEC, Ekathimerini, ELA, Elena Kountoura, Emergency Liquidity Assistance, France, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Greek islands, Greek politicians, IMF, Italy, Marine Le Pen, Mark Carney, National Front, Omonia Square, President Hollande, President Sergio Mattarella, RFI, the Guardian, Tourism Minister Elena Kountoura, Yanis Varoufakis

July 3, 2015 · 00:31

Let’s dance (part 2)

I promised to get back to the game of Finance, to some it is called 50 shades of Greece, to some it is called the work of Atë, yet I see it as the result of a cloud of Stupidity, Inactions and Desolation. Without massive changes Greece will end up without any future left.

This is not some prediction, because the nation is bankrupt, or in default or even in a bad place. You see, whatever ‘promise’ that comes from any of the banks, power players or politicians, throwing money at something that is inert and unproductive is just waisted money. The Juncker speech of three days ago (at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-15-5274_en.htm), gives us all those politically correct words, with the quote “And a deal could also have ensured that we, the Commission, could go ahead with a package for a ‘new start for jobs and growth’ package of 35 billion euro to help the Greek economy get back on track“, so that sounds nice, but that is not even close to the factual issue as I see it. If we include the overdue payments (yes, plural), we see that before the end of the year, Greece faces 2 payments of the ECB at 6.7 billion Euro. The IMF has coming 4 times 300 million Euro, plus 2 sets of 600 million Euro and 2 sets of 500 million Euro, in addition, there is the 1.5 billion Euro overdue and the 750 million Euro shifted payment, which Greece paid for using the IMF emergency funds. You all forgot about that last one did you not? Which makes for 5.65 billion, so these two players are due 12.35 billion Euro before the end of the year alone. In addition there are 10 treasury bills maturing with a total of 15.1 billion, the last one is an issue, you see if Greece is very very very lucky, those owners would be ‘willing’ to roll them over, if not, the max damage will be 27.5 billion in before the end of 2015. That is just expenses with NOTHING paid for and the interest due on the loans has not been taken into account either. The important part is, is the fact that over 50% of that debt is an unknown, because who exactly owns these Greek bonds? To whom is payment due? These are the events that Greece already has and I have mentioned them before, so why mention them again. Well, these facts are important to consider, because what Juncker calls ‘new start for jobs and growth’ is nice, but what will the politicians use is for? This fund covers 80% of the outstanding payments and ZERO towards reducing debt.

So how will the Greek economy get back on track? That is the killer question, because there is no given path. Greece has very little to export, it has relied on services for too long and there is no real resolution there. I personally will not trust rock star Varoufakis (a valid feeling as he has not propelled Greece forward in 6 months). A man of all smiles and no substance. His blog (at http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2015/07/01/why-we-recommend-a-no-in-the-referendum-in-6-short-bullet-points/) gives us 6 short bullet points, yet as a professor of economy from the University of Athens, he gives us plenty of disturbing afterthoughts.

1a. refused to reduce our un-payable public debt
1b. insisted that it should be repaid ‘parametrically’ by the weakest members of our society, their children and their grandchildren.

My view?

1a. Why? Even though previous elected officials spend it, you still get to pay for it. You accepted the responsibility of office, which include a maximised credit card.
1b. Nope! It just needed to be paid in some way, again, as a result from previous elected officials.

So point one, being 2 points can be seen as a failure because Syriza did not do the following:

Immediately start the investigation on prosecution of previous officials (which might be a farce trial, but it would have given the proper presentation that Greece is truly making a change, his smiley smiley rock star presentation missed the mark by a lot, with the added danger that Jean-Claude Juncker might not have any sense of rhythm or blues, making the act a double miss.
Instigate a serious overhaul of the Greek tax system, mainly taxability and tax collection. Even if it was still underway today, if started in February it would have given a clear signal to those holding onto 7 billion plus, that this elected Greek government was a Greek government that wanted to create a true future for the Greek people. The stress of the last week would never have happened.
Instigate prosecution of tax evaders, not just a sham trial of a man named Leonidas Bobolas (which is actually a cool name to have), that 1.9 million euro bill did not last long did it? How about placing Kostas Vaxevanis in the limelight and giving the clear message that tax evasion is now a thing of the past. Greece could have started to annex these back taxes, many nations would be on the side of Greece here (France and Italy most enthusiastically), in addition, giving the tax evaders an option to pay back tax +20% within a week, or back tax +150% when accounts needed to get frozen, misreporting would come at an additional 200% of misreported outstanding taxation. At this point Syriza would become the most popular band ever. In a group of 11 million, these 2045 people do not add statistically to number of Greeks and after the culling of outstanding taxation the debt might be a smidge lower, showing again that Syriza wanted a better Greece.

NONE of these actions had been taken by Greece in any visible way. So, Ο καθηγητής Βαρουφάκης missed the boat in point one already.

I am skipping point two!

The Euro group had previously (November 2012) conceded that the debt ought to be restructured but is refusing to commit to a debt restructure.

My view? It could have been a fair point if Greece would have shown any economic evolution as mentioned in the three points (by me earlier), restructuring is pointless if the machine is not getting the overhaul it requires. I have stated before and now that in all this previous administrations have been key in the failure of the Greek economy. Not just because the Greek economy collapsed, but what was done to repair it all? What concrete actions were made between 2010 and 2015 to restart the economy? This is a much harder question to pose, because it intersects on what could have done and what should have done. Which is directly coupled to Junckers 35 billion Euro carrot, you see, dumping money somewhere, but how and where will the economy be revived? You see, no money and no plan is destitution, a plan and no money is a future, money without a plan is a spending spree and a plan with money is a solution. It is actually THAT simple. Greece has had enough spending sprees, it is in a state of destitution, so it needs to get a future and move towards a solution. This is a simple path, but 3 Greek administrations have not pulled that one off, so they are in the state they are in.

I am not proclaiming to have the solution, yet no one else have any either. With the Greying European community retirement villages are an option. How many does Greece have? Consider that the nations with a retired population over 16% is Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Austria. All nations where the life style has been good. Now add to this the people who will start their retirement in the next 5 years. Thousands of people in relatively expensive cold places, they can in some cases sub-rent their property and retire in warm, sunny Greece. The food is good, the people nice and they move from a life with 4 months of summer to a life of 7 months of summer and the removal of cold winters (compared to their home turf that is). It is not a solution, but it is a start. Greece needs to become innovative and change the game all together. It is extremely likely that these solutions have been looked at, yet, how deep. Too many people look at solutions to fill their pockets, how many looked at it with the intent to fill the treasury coffers? Greece has a second option, is to use the church. Instead of making a short sale of places that came for sale, how about ‘nationalising’ them as tourist accommodation, managed through the church? Move hotels from foreign investors to local hands! Just an idea to start growing the foundation of taxable income.

In all this, the ideas by me should be regarded as laughable. Yet, how many options have been inspected? You see the problem does not go away by throwing a few billion at it, buying all the fish leaves you with a double debt, learning how to fish and get the pond to yourself will leave you with a future. Greece has limited products to work with, so it either adds products or it adds services, services is a first, products is often longer term, unless it is the service that becomes the product.

In all this I still have to address one part I talked about earlier. I stated “they have left, what should be regarded as criminal activities open to reactivation“, there is some of it (at http://www.globalresearch.ca/goldman-sachs-doesnt-have-clean-hands-in-greece-crisis/5459498), more in the annals of history. the article gives us: “According to investigative reports that appeared in Der Spiegel, the New York Times, BBC, and Bloomberg News from 2010 through 2012, Blankfein, now Goldman Sachs CEO, Cohn, now President and COO, and Loudiadis, a Managing Director, all played a role in structuring complex derivative deals with Greece which accomplished two things: they allowed Greece to hide the true extent of its debt and they ended up almost doubling the amount of debt Greece owed under the dubious derivative deals“, no matter where all this is going, consider the Greek bonds. I massively objected in the past against Greece being allowed anywhere near the bond market in April 2014. Consider the total value of Greek bonds out there, are they covered? Consider that Greece is completely bust, the fact that from multiple sources that Greek cannot repay its debt (amongst them the Finance Minister of Greece). Consider that Yanis Varoufakis stated on March 10th 2015 “Varoufakis Says Greece Was Never Going To Repay Its Debts” (source Forbes). So how come that at THAT point certain steps were not made to use the reserve funds Greece had at that time to settle the bonds. When you consider my opposition to bonds in April 2014 comes into view with the consideration ‘The terms on which a government can sell bonds depend on how creditworthy the market considers it to be‘, so as some power players had (as I see it) inflated the Greek credit rating, the question becomes, is the Greek bond market a continuation of the ‘Greekman Sachs’ protocols as played to hide debt, as such, should there be a more serious level of criminal investigation? Moreover, who are the involved parties and why are other parties not truly digging here?

In the end, let’s be clear, there is absolutely no indication that any laws have been broken regarding the bonds, is that not the interesting part? The one part that could have limited the issues now playing (like adjusting laws) is the one action 10 years of government had not adjusted. That seems to have worked out very well for Addy Loudiadis, Chief Executive and Director, Rothesay Life Limited and Managing Director of Goldman Sachs and a few others (Addy was just the most visible one), in all this we see that Greece needs changes, the law most likely first.

So can the Greeks dance? Unless their parliament wakes up, it is only one of many skills a Greek will need to add to his/her skill set to get by after the ATM’s stop working.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

Tagged as Addy Loudiadis, BBC, Blankfein, Bloomberg News, Cohn, Denmark, Der Spiegel, ECB, France, Germany and Austria, Goldman Sachs, Greece, IMF, Italy, Jean-Claude Juncker, Kostas Vaxevanis, Loudiadis, Rothesay Life Limited, Sweden, SYRIZA, the New York Times, Yanis Varoufakis, yanisvaroufakis.eu

July 1, 2015 · 22:16

Prosecuting Facebook

As I was trying to complete a few legislative issues regarding Greece, I noticed that another part had been neglected for too long, so I decided to cut Greece in half (at least the story) and now take a look at the situation where Facebook might find itself getting prosecuted in the near future in more than one way.

This story started in the Netherlands. The story (at http://www.meuknieuws.nl/wraakpornofilmpje/) ‘Facebook loses lawsuit revenge porn movie Chantal‘. So what happened?

There is a girl named Chantal (now 21), who at one point gave oral sex to her boyfriend, and it got filmed (never a good idea). On January 22^nd, through a fake account this movie was spread through Facebook, after which her life turned into a hell. Even though Facebook removed the movie, the damage was done and the movie got spread into all directions. Soon thereafter the fake account vanished. This is the act of revenge porn.

The case got a twist when all the data was removed after two weeks, the data was permanently deleted. Additional information in Dutch can be found here (at http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/34821/Rivierenland/article/detail/4072928/2015/06/12/Facebook-gegevens-account-gewist.dhtml). The data was (according to Facebook) wiped. The Judge has ruled that Facebook must show diligence and present evidence that all options have been searched to find any data pertaining the crime. The judge also stated that if need be a third party has to be assigned to find and trace the information. Now we have two issues. One is to find the data of Chantal, the second is that the acts undertaken by Facebook could imply that Facebook could also be prosecuted at present.

Why?

Well, if we go through Common Law (Australia/UK) we see that in Australia the Crimes Act section 254 states:

Destruction of evidence

A person who knows that a document or other thing of any kind is, or is reasonably likely to be, required in evidence in a legal proceeding; and either

destroys or renders it illegible, undecipherable or incapable of identification; or expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorises or permits another person to destroy or conceal it or render it illegible, undecipherable or incapable of identification and that other person does so; and with the intention of preventing it from being used in evidence in a legal proceeding is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to level 6 imprisonment (5 years maximum) or a level 6 fine or both. There could even be complications as the lady was less than 18 years old giving the case additional uneasy sides.

Ouch Mr Zuckerberg!

In addition, hiding in the US on this is not much help either, this is seen in California Penal code 135 (thanks to the site of Attorney Seppi Esfandi), the penal code states:

California Penal Code 135[1] makes it illegal to destroy or conceal any evidence, written or physical, that you know is relevant to either a criminal investigation or court case. The two elements of the crime are:

That you destroyed or concealed evidence that you knew was going to be used as part of the investigation.
That you destroyed or concealed the evidence wilfully.

Interestingly, he also states a few common legal defences. The first one is the application of the word ‘knowingly’, which already makes it hard for the Dutch party to progress, the second one if destruction was not successful, so if the information is found after the fact it becomes not an issue, because penal code 135 does not have any ‘attempting to commit a crime’ issues. They can only be processed if the deletion was a complete success.

So, in all fairness, my first message to Mr Zuckerberg is to call Seppi Esfandi for advice as the man has 13 years of experience regarding penal code 135.

Why is this still an issue?

Well consider the following sources: ‘Facebook keeps track of every message you type – even ones you don’t post’ (at http://bgr.com/2013/12/13/facebook-user-tracking-deleted-posts/), where we see the quote “Facebook isn’t keeping a database on all these non-posts’ contents, mind you — it’s simply keeping a record of all the data surrounding self-censored posts such as what time it was almost posted and whether it was set to be posted on a friend’s page or on the user’s own page. Kramer and Das say that Facebook wants to understand all the reasons that people decide against posting because the company “loses value from the lack of content generation” every time a would-be post gets the axe” This is a core need in social media data mining, with the specific quote “Facebook wants to understand all the reasons that people decide against posting” which implies that a post would also have records created with a league of meta data.

Then there is this quote ““So Facebook considers your thoughtful discretion about what to post as bad, because it withholds value from Facebook and from other users,” she writes. “Facebook monitors those unposted thoughts to better understand them, in order to build a system that minimizes this deliberate behaviour”“, which we got from http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/12/facebook_self_censorship_what_happens_to_the_posts_you_don_t_publish.html. So in anyone deleted the post, there would have been a record.

This is part one!

Now for the next part. This part is seen in ‘Turns out ‘delete’ doesn’t quite mean the same thing to Facebook as it does to you‘ (at http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/deleting-facebook-posts-fail/). Here we see the quote “New evidence suggests that Facebook might not really be deleting the posts you think you’re getting rid of. In fact, sometimes these deleted Facebook posts are reappearing“. So if that is the case, than we have two tiered evidence. If these messages are remaining, it implies that there was a record, which also means that if the movie and its metadata has been deleted permanently, Facebook could be facing California Penal Code 135, as well as the issue in several nations where such events have been happening, the only part Facebook could truly hope for is that it is all settled in the US, as it becomes a 6 months versus a 5 year stretch in Hotel Iron Bar.

Even if the case cannot stick, Facebook will now feel the marketing pressure and condemnation that it unknowingly assisted in the transgressors of revenge porn to remain non-prosecutable. So even as US legislation is still trying to make heads and tails of the act from Rep. Jackie Speier, the fact that it is law in some nations cannot be ignored by a global company like Facebook, in addition, the fact that all traces are claimed to have been wiped is further cause for concern.

The question now becomes: is Facebook in danger of getting prosecuted?

That question becomes even harder to answer when we go back to the Digital Trends article where we see: “We reached out to Facebook about the issue, whose representative only pointed out Facebook’s Terms and Conditions page, and highlighted the fact that that when you actually delete content on Facebook, it only goes away if it’s permanently deleted – which is tricky. The problem with permanently deleting anything on Facebook is the fact that nothing is actually seemingly deleted. Just simply “deleting” content stores the content to a backup Facebook drive temporarily. As Facebook puts it: “Some of this information is permanently deleted from our servers; however, some things can only be deleted when you permanently delete your account”“.

That was exactly what happened, yet can there be verification on whether the user deleted it, or whether Facebook removed the user? That part is not clearly given (as far as I could tell). Yet, the issue of truly delete photos/videos on Facebook was never truly achieved until 2012, which means that the video in question was no longer there, yet the fact that no separate log of uploads was maintained in some way remains an interesting mystery, especially in the light of this legal case. In addition, some logging of the original account should also have been kept, again, interesting that this was not done. In an age where 4 Terabyte can be bought for a mere $250 dollars adds to the confusion of why not keeping this logging data, especially as mined data is the bread and butter of Facebook!

This case calls for several questions, the Lady named Chantal might never get a clear answer, yet that should not prevent legislation from taking a long hard look at social media, especially in the age of lone wolf terrorism, because next time it might not be a lady in ‘Bee Jay’ mode, it could be an extremist showing the combination of 4 chemical compounds, which according to Matthew Meselson, a Harvard biochemist is extremely easy, the fact that this could kill a boatload of people makes the dangers of social media a lot more intense, when that media starts to wipe overwrite, not delete) data of inconvenience, the world could find out the hard way on just how dangerous social media could be.

Revenge Porn has been deemed criminal in several states, although they are usually treated as misdemeanors (until the bill by Rep. Jackie Speier gets passed), the case in the Netherlands gives us an uncomfortable truth and that truth is that Facebook seems to be lacking in keeping some victims safe, because the logged logging data could have achieved that very thing.

To state it clear in the end, Facebook is very likely not guilty. I will not state innocent, because certain data, even for mere mining statistics could have remained with Facebook, whilst not breaching any privacy, enough data to give assistance to digital forensics to aid Chantal in her plight.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Politics

Tagged as California Penal code 135, Chantal, Crimes Act section 254, Destruction of evidence, Facebook, Harvard, Kramer and Das, Mark Zuckerberg, Matthew Meselson, meuknieuws.nl, Peter R de Vries, Rep. Jackie Speier, Revenge Porn, Seppi Esfandi, slate.com

June 26, 2015 · 21:41

Questioning Assurance

A positive approach intended to question confidence. That is at the heart of the matter today. I have been involved in such tracks before, but in a slipping age of technology, where we see greed driven (or bonus driven) changes where some executives hide behind the excuse of giving new young Turks a start in the business, we need to wonder whether they were looking at the world through chartreuse glasses.

I have seen the stupidity (for the lack of a better word) of software firms pushing out software, some to make sure they kept some deadline, whilst the product was nowhere near ready. In a few cases they thought the product was truly ready and the QA department messed up in a royal kind of way. There is of course the third option, where a product was tested, was deemed good and things pop up. These are the three parts of QA the user faces, I have seen them all!

The third one is the clearest one. Development does its work, the QA department did all the test and then some and when released things go a little awry. Weirdly enough, this tends to happen to parts of the program that people seldom use, like that weird, off the wall setting that only 0.000001% of all Microsoft Word users tend to use. Microsoft had no idea, and at some point it gets fixed. This is just a flaw. You name a product, like anything in the range of Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, Oracle, SPSS, Sybase or SAS Miner, they all have them. These programs are just too large to get 100% tested, and even when that happens, there is the interaction with another program, or with an operating system update that will then throw a spanner in the cogs. You only need to search for issues with Windows 8.2 or IOS 8.2 to see that things just happen. In the zero layer, we see the hardware, in layer one we get the operating software, in layer two we see the application, in layer three we get the peripherals (printer, keyboard, mouse and joystick), one massive sandwich to check! In any of these interactions things can go wrong and a QA department needs to sift through it all. Of course even if all of that did work correctly we see the fourth layer which is the user him/herself, who then decides to dunk that layered sandwich in tea. Boy oh boy can they mess up their own system! No software can truly prepare for that!

Yet in all this QA needs to have high standards, which are proven when we see the third option in all this. Options one and two are an entirely different mess! It is for the outsider often impossible to tell what on earth happened. I had the inside scoop on an event where something was marketed ready, yet the program was nowhere near that. Deadlines for stakeholders had to be met and some figured that a patch afterwards via the BBS systems would do the trick. So basically a flawed product went to the shops. I remember those days, that was long before any level of fast internet, I was a trendsetter in those days by owning a 64Kb modem, yes I was a speed demon in those days! LOL!

You see, legally the consumer is in a messy situation, product liability laws are not that strong, unless health and lives are placed in peril, beyond that, you would think that these consumers are protected when it involved fraud, yet, when we consider that part of fraud is ‘deception intended to result in financial or personal gain’, we see any case go south really fast when the defence becomes, ‘the consumer was offered a refund’ and ‘Your honour, our costs are massive! We are doing everything to aid the consumers, offering them a refund immediately’ and we see any fraud case go south. Consider part of this with the ruling ‘intentional perversion of truth’, the keyword ‘intentional’ can usually be swayed too easily, faltering the case of fraud. But in the core, getting people to sign on in the first weeks, getting that revenue on their boards can mean the survival of such a company, so some accept the costs for what happens to remain on the game board.

The other situation is where the Quality Assurance (QA) department messed up. Here is the kicker, for the outsider to tell which scenario played is impossible, without working at a place, it is an impossible task to tell, one can make estimated guesses, but that is as good as it goes. For example, Ubisoft had a net profit on -66 million in 2013, they fell from grace in 2008 from $32 to $3.80 per share, that’s a not too healthy drop of 90%. The interesting part here is that when we look at their games, we see over those terms Prince of Persia, the language coaches on DS, which was novel (especially Japanese), Assassin’s Creed II, Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell: Conviction and a few more. This is the interesting part, here we see a few excellent games, a Prince of Persia that would bring back to life a forgotten franchise, Assassin’s Creed II, which was so far above the original that it mesmerised a massive player population, Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands, which upped the ante of Prince of Persia by a lot and Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood, which gave us even more challenges. Yet, these good games could not hinder the fact that Ubisoft had produced so many games over that time, many of them far below great that it impacted their stock. Is their value back to $16 because of their games? So what about Assassins Creed: Unity? Is stock the reason for the lacking game. I personally would state no! I think lacking games drop the stock. Yet, this is an emotional response, because stock is driven by demands and rejections, as great games are made, people want a shae of that rabid bunny, if the games are nowhere near, the stock gets rejected. In this case it is about the games, because Ubisoft is gaming! This is also why the E3 is such a big deal and even though I was not impressed with their E3, ‘For Honor’ clearly shows that Ubisoft has some gems in their arsenal, or should that be ‘had’? For Honor is a new and likely high in demand game, the presentation was extremely well received. I am not much for those types of games, but I also looked with anticipation of a lovely challenge. The issue here remains, it is online, so timing and decent players are required to make this a good experience. Yet beyond that new title, I would see it as a collection of predictable that have become indistinguishable from their other titles. Sequels sharing bits from other sequels with an interchangeable codebase. With too many triggered scripts. We remain with a blurred sense of gaming. I stated it a few years ago, by adding too many prince of Persia moments into Assassins Creed, we end up not playing Assassins Creed, if I wanted that, I would have bought Prince of Persia! So why these games?

Well, there is of course method to my madness (and my madness is purely methodical). You see, Assassins Creed 2 and Splinter Cell: Conviction were amazing achievements. I can still play these two today and have loads of fun. They had set a standard, even though Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood was a step up, certain flaws were never dealt with, flaws that became part of the engine for 5 iterations of the game. You see that in the second premise, I went from new game to iteration? That part matters too! With the Splinter Cell series we went from Conviction to Blacklist. Again, it was a step forwards, but now we get the issue that QA messed up buy not properly testing the re-playability part of the game, leaving players in a lurch, making the game a mess if I wanted to play a ‘NewGame+’, it is a little thing, with a far reaching consequences. What was great became good, a step forward, hindered by one and a half steps back., which is the faltering part. Ubisoft needed a QA department with teeth, as I see it, they did not have one, or Marketing got involved. There is in all honesty no way to tell how that came to pass.

Yet, this is not about Ubisoft, because Rocksteady Studios outdid it all with Batman: Arkham Knight, making Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment extremely unhappy as I see it. A game that should be heralded as a new legendary release got a 50% rating by Steam and 70% by Gamespot, these are not good numbers, they are ratings that resemble coffin nails. Not a good thing at all. In my view, this is a massive fail by their QA department. However, when we accept the statement from Kotaku.com, we get “The moment I’m inside the batmobile, it’s not surprising to see it dip to 15 frames-per-second“, did QA really not see that? So is it Marketing or is it QA? No matter what answer I give here, it is pure speculation, I have no facts, just personal insight from 30 years of gaming. No matter where it lies, QA should not have signed off on it, not at such drops of quality. Which gets us back to the non-liability of these firms. ‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’, or in slightly more English “the thing speaks for itself“, The plaintiff can create a presumption of negligence by the defendant by proving that the harm would not ordinarily have occurred without negligence. Yet, what harm? The only harm the game has is spending funds which are refundable, the only harm there is for the maker of the game. So, there is no case, what is the case is that until these firms properly invest into QA, we get to go through buying and returning a lot more. Yet, these companies realise and they take a chance that the gamers (which tends to be a loyal lot) in that they hold on to the game and just download the patch. So basically, the first hour gamers become the sponsors for the development of an unfinished game. That is how I personally see it.

In my view, the game suffered, what could have been great will soon be forgotten. Yet, what happens when it is not a videogame? What happens when it is not a game, what happens when it is business software? you see the Donoghue v Stevenson case gives us that a maker can be held responsible for personal injury or damage to property, yet, what happens when neither is the case?

It is a very old UK case in Torts, where a Mrs Donoghue was drinking a bottle of ginger beer in a café in Paisley. A dead snail was in the bottle and because of that she fell ill, and she sued the ginger beer manufacturer, Mr Stevenson. The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to her, which was breached, because it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to ensure the product’s safety would lead to harm of consumers. This is a 1932 case that is still the key case of torts and personal harm involving negligence. Yet, with video games there is no visible harm, there is only indirect harm, but the victims there have little say in this as the direct victim is offered a refund, the competitor missing out on revenue has no case. So as revenue is neither injury nor damage to property. Now we get the issue that if the buyer buys goods which are defective, he or she can only have a claim under contract of sale against the retailer. If the retailer is insolvent, no further claims will be possible. So, with Arkham Knight, when 2500 copies are returned, a large shop will not go insolvent, you get the idea, when the shop needs to close the doors, you are left out of money.

Here we get the crux, a maker of a game/program has pushed an inferior product to market. It will offer compensation, yet if the shop closes (that is a massively big if), the buyer is out in the cold. Now, the chance of this ever happening is too unrealistically small, but the need to set rules of quality, setting the need of standards is now becoming increasingly important. With games they are the most visible, but consider a corporation now pushing a day one product to get enough revenue to tailor a patch which the customer needs to download. An intentional path to stay afloat, to buy time. Where do you stand, when you got pushed to solution 2 as solution 1 is a month away, only to discover the flaw in the program, which gets freely adjusted in Week 23, so 22 weeks without a solution, this situation also hindering the sale of solution 1, which was fine from day one onwards.

Not only is a much better QA required, the consumer should be receiving much stronger protection against these events. That could just be me.

Now to the real issue connected to this. Assassins Creed: Unity became a really bad joke last year,

It went so far as Ubisoft offering a free game because (source: Express) “UBISOFT have confirmed some Xbox One fans who have previously applied patch 3 for Assassin’s Creed: Unity are now being hit by a 40GB download when trying to use the latest title update”. 40GB is massive, that comes down to 10 DVD Movies, it is well over 10% of the entire hard drive space, this gives us the image that one game has clear impact on the total space of the console. Also be mindful of the term ‘patch 3’, which implies that patch one and two had been applied, so is there clarity on the reasonable assumption that there is an issue with both release and QA here? In my view, delayed in addition or not, the game should never have been released to begin with.

Don’t get me wrong, with the new AAA games, the chance of a patch becomes larger and larger. You see QA can only get us to a certain distance and an issue on a console is a lot less likely than an issue on your PC (with all kinds of hardware combinations), yet the amount of fixes as shown here is way off the wall. Now we see a similar thing happening to the PC edition of Arkham knight. Warner Brothers have decided to call back the game, all sales have stopped at present. However, the issues we see on gottabemobile.com are “Warner Brothers’ forums are filled with complaints about the game including Error CE-34878-0 issues on the PS4, various issues with the Batmobile including this one on Xbox One, issues with cut scenes, Harley Quinn DLC problems on the PS4, Batman season pass problems, problems launching the game, problems with the game’s well-known Detective Mode, missing Flashpoint skin, problems with missions, problems saving the game, and more”.

Now we get the question, was this properly QA-ed? Was a proper quality test made, because the size and nature of the issues, as reported give out a negative testing vibe, which I consider to be extremely negligent! As such we must wonder, should such levels of non-functionality be allowed. Can the law allow the release of a product that causes, as alleged ‘no harm has been caused’, an industry, hoping on the users to wait quietly as a game gets finished on the consumers costs.

Now that the Nextgen consoles are all set out to be downloaded in the night, how long until games start tasking the game of ‘customer expectations’ and release a 90% game? How long until corporations will work on a business model that relies on consumer sponsoring whilst they contract even better profits. We also need to be careful, patches will always be a factor, I have no issue with that, and the list of games that needing massive patches keeps on growing, AC: Unity, GTA-V, Arkham Knight, Destiny, and the list goes on a little longer. I am only mentioning the patches over 3GB (one is well over 6Gb) and in this light Destiny gets a small pass as that game is all about multiplayer, which is a dimension of errors all on its own. The Elder Scrolls Online wins this year with a 16Gb patch, again, all about online play, but overall the gaming industry seems to adapt the bad traits of Microsoft, which is definitely not a good idea.

For now we seem to accept it, especially as the Nextgen systems are relatively new, but that feeling will change sooner rather than later and at that point someone official needs to step in, which might end up being a lot more official that the game makers bargained for, especially as games outside of the US can be up to 70% more expensive, at that point we are entitled to some proper consumer protection, against these levels of negligence, levels that currently only exist on a limited scope.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, Law

Tagged as AC Unity, Adobe Photoshop, Arkham Knight, Assassin's Creed II, Assassins Creed, Assassins Creed Unity, Batman: Arkham Knight, Destiny, Donoghue v Stevenson, Elder Scrolls Online, gottabemobile.com, GTA-V, IOS 8.2, Kotaku.com, Microsoft Office, negligence, negligence in videogames, Oracle, Prince of Persia, Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands, QA, QA department, SAS Miner, Splinter Cell, Splinter Cell: Blacklist, SPSS, Sybase, Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Conviction, Torts, Ubisoft, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, Windows 8.2

June 25, 2015 · 22:15

Hunting facts

We can go on about Greece (which is again in crises), we can look at video games (like how the QA of Arkham Knight got effed up), but for now all interesting news has been said and there are a few British political events starting, but what some of you all forgot about was FIFA. When I look into the Guardian and seek the sports page (online) I see three times the mention of FIFA, only one has a video regarding the money-laundering inquiry. The interesting part is that the term ‘bribes’ is now replaced with ‘money laundering’. In that view the following document is rather interesting https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Fraud_bribery_and_money_laundering_offences_-_Definitive_guideline.pdf.

You see, Money Laundering is a rather harsher part in all this. For that we need to take a look at a few crimes acts, specifically the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (not today though).

And as I go through it with a few giggles, it seems to me that all this is not good for Jack Warner, even though he ‘threatened’ to reveal an ‘avalanche’ of secrets, he could end up looking at his luxurious stay in Hotel Sing Sing for a lot longer, than he would if convicted for bribery, in addition the accusation of him redirecting financial aid for the Haiti victims (from several newspapers) could make matters even worse for him.

This came from the Guardian with the title ‘Jack Warner fears for his life and will reveal ‘avalanche’ of secrets‘, yet so far, no revelations of any kind, or none that ended up in the hands of the press at present. This is the interesting part, if we go by the Jamaica observer who reported only 2 days ago: “but up to Thursday, the Office of the Attorney General had not received any request for Warner to be extradited to the United States, where he is wanted on wire fraud, racketeering and money laundering charges“, is that not peculiar? Technically it is not, extradition, means the start of a trial, and as such, Jack Warner is too visible, there is no place he can run to (as I see it). In addition, setting up a trial of this magnitude will take some time. However, the initial indictment that I published in ‘Condoning corruption!‘, (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/05/29/condoning-corruption/) almost a month ago, should clearly put him at the top, as the star player in all this. In addition there is (at http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jun/10/john-oliver-trinidad-television-mock-jack-warner-fifa), where you can see the comedian telling the same things I told , but his comical approach is one that is not to be missed!

So why the long silence?

Well, that is the interesting part. There was no silence, when we look at the Guardian in Trinidad (at http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2015-06-23/warner-integrity-commission-has-tapes), we see the headline ‘Warner: Integrity Commission has tapes‘, yet, I have at times doubted the duty of many newspapers all over the place, especially when it is owned by a member of the Murdoch family. Still is it not extremely interesting how many large newspapers have not picked up this news? I would think that the news of audio tapes, FIFA members and bribery would be the stuff of legends for papers like the LA Times, the NY Times, or even the Washington Post, yet none of them had picked up the Breaking news, or should it be broken news? The Washington Post did however pick up the response to John Oliver from Jack Warner (at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2015/06/12/composer-says-jack-warner-stole-his-music-for-video-directed-at-john-oliver/), especially as Jack Warner is also under fire from the composer, whose music he used to drown out his own voice from 1:13 to 2:20. Anyway, his response to the comedian was given on the 12^th of June, the Washington Post possible regarded this as light entertainment (with Greg Dombrowski who is at present the only one who is not amused). After that the Washington Post has nothing. So was it breaking or broken news? I do not know. I have not heard the tapes, yet neither had any of the other news outlets as far as I can tell, so if Jack Warner is bringing evidence out, why ignore it? A half-baked news moment on the ‘MH370 suicide mission’ gets picked up with what was called a ‘reliable source’ by those working for the Barclay Brothers, yet no one is touching the Warner Tapes.

I am quite happy to see Jack Warner Fry for all of this, but the man is entitled to a defence, when the press steers clear to this amount, who are they actually listening to? What is the audience not getting informed on and where are the FIFA puppeteers? Let’s not forget that the full report from Michael Garcia is still being kept locked away. The entire FIFA debacle has people running for the hills and there is a decent indication that the press is aiding some of them by not illuminating the issues at play.

Yet, we must also look beyond Jack Warner, which gets us to CONMEBOL. It is forced to pay 10 million out of its own funds. When we look at http://www.espnfc.com/fifa-world-cup/story/2502646/conmebol-facing-cash-flow-crisis-due-to-fifa-bribery-scandal, we get the following facts:

Sponsors have been asked to pay Conmebol directly
Datisa had only paid Conmebol 35 out of the 80 million, which means it is all short by 4,500,000,000 centavos.

It becomes a little weirder (possibly due to missing facts), when we consider the quote by Bloomberg: “head of international business for Brazil-based sports marketing firm Traffic Group (Jochen Loesch), one of the companies that make up Datisa. Traffic founder Jose Hawilla, 71, pleaded guilty in federal court in Brooklyn to racketeering conspiracy, wire fraud conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy and obstruction of justice. He agreed to forfeit $151 million“, so if he forfeits THAT MUCH, what else did he stuff into ‘a’ matrass? By the way, I had a decent income for a few decades, yet summed up, over my whole working life, pre taxation, I will have made less than 1% of what Hawilla is forfeiting in this event; crime has become THAT rewarding!

Of course, we seem to focus on FIFA alone, yet, when we look at the Boston Globe, we see the indirect fallout, which makes the lashing the FIFA executives a lot more essential. When we read the article ‘FIFA scandal may affect Boston’s 2024 bid‘ (at https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/06/24/fifa-scandal-grows-could-affect-boston-bid/AasXsCJZobZTayvfb06obP/story.html). My issue is not with the article in the Boston Globe, it was with a quote in the Chicago Tribune “Because next Tuesday, if the U.S. Olympic Committee has come to its senses, its board of directors will wisely choose at a regularly scheduled meeting to pull a doomed Boston bid that has been a disaster from the start“. Two parts, one is the question, why it was doomed? That is an actual question, there is no direct answer in my view. The second is that the Olympic committee could, ‘wake up’ is the incorrect term, I do not think that the Olympic Committee is asleep, I mean that they need to refocus their current vision. What could be the problem is the location of the games. You see, no matter how all this goes, the 2024 Olympics will be 2 years AFTER Qatar, actually, due to rescheduling, less than 18 months, which means that there will be all kinds of issues all over Europe (a reeling UEFA after a drenched timeline as part of the 2022 soccer competition will be all over the place is one), the second one is French politics. At this point it is still extremely likely that National Front end up in a new location, when Marine Le Pen moves to 55, Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré, Paris, with the French in a massive wave moving towards European segregation, keeping the Olympics on the US side of the Atlantic river might not be the worst idea. Although, if the American administration does not clean up its tax act, it will be bankrupt making the entire exercise slightly exotic to say the least. If there is one essential part we need to consider in all this, then I would state that the Stability of the Olympics need to be assured, apart from that having them in the US after 28 years is not a bad way to go. With all the troubles Europe is still to face, especially with Greece messing up the European economy (the makers of the Olympics of all things), both Paris and Rome could end up in such a bad state that only Hamburg and Budapest remain a realistic location, considering Boston for the games of 2024 is definitely in my books at present.

So how did I get from FIFA to the Olympics?

That we do get from the Boston Globe, where we see “While longtime FIFA president Sepp Blatter, who has said he’ll resign possibly by year’s end, has not yet been indicted, he is said to be a target of the investigation. Blatter also happens to be an IOC member, which comes with the job of heading one of the planet’s biggest sports, such as track and field, swimming, basketball, and skating“, which is generic information. The second quote has the gem: “If Blatter is indicted, he’d obviously have to resign from the IOC. The question is, will the Justice Department stop with soccer or will it broaden its inquiry to other federations where payoffs likely have been made over the years? And since at least 17 present or honorary IOC members are current or former federation heads, will they have a strong incentive not to vote for Boston for the 2024 Summer Games, lest they be taken into custody upon arrival at Logan“, you see, the quote “at least 17 present or honorary IOC members are current or former federation heads” in that same article is linked to all this. Now, there is absolutely ZERO indication that these members have done anything wrong, but a massive amount of them are Europeans and this FIFA spectacle will grow and touch (read: smear) many European nations, at which point the media, will go on a rampage like hungry rats, ripping whatever they can for the prospect of ‘circulation’, getting the 2024 Olympics out of Europe that time around might be something to seriously consider. As viewers watch matches of all Olympic events, whilst games are overshadowed by all kinds of ‘speculative revelations’ by unnamed sources in newspapers, it would be good to have the Olympic games in a time zone several hours away, so that the games can remain centre in all of this. Is that such a stretch? In addition, all those close friends of Sepp Blatter in the IOC would also benefit from a time zone isolation of what will still be reeling at that point in Europe.

So, I will happily oppose Philip Hersh of the Chicago Tribune regarding “a doomed Boston bid that has been a disaster from the start“, I am not convinced, moreover, defaulting the Olympics to Boston could be the best thing. I’ll be fair, Canada might have been better, but they pulled beforehand, which gives us “Toronto’s Economic development Committee voted against bidding for the 2024 games on 20 January, citing a bid would cost the city $50 to 60 million” (Source Wiki), why does a bid cost them that much? I never really looked into that part of Olympic biddings, so the costs in that are equally disturbing, but that is for another day.

Anyway, if Toronto has an issue with 50 million (which is a truckload of cash) having them in the ground of a few billion might not be a good idea. Sydney had its Olympics in 2000, which is way too recent, from that logic I state, let Boston be the default!

Back to FIFA!

We learn today, via SBS (at http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/06/25/two-argentines-sought-us-fifa-scandal-put-under-house-arrest), that the extradition proceedings are happening and they seem to be accelerating. With guilty pleas in the bag from other members, the options for Hugo and Mariano Jinkis are dwindling down fast. Federal judge Claudio Bonadio rejected their release saying they presented a flight risk given their personal wealth, adding that until last week they had both been fugitives. Their bail which was set at $1.2 million for the both of them might be regarded as a laughing matter when we consider the 151 million Jose Hawilla forfeited, so how much funds do the Jinkis have? Perhaps an electronic tag is for them a mere inconvenience should they decide to move to a nation that will not extradite to either Argentina or the US; I am just phrasing a question here!

So as we hunt facts regarding the FIFA members involved, how come the news on the Trinidad and Tobago Guardian was not picked up anywhere internationally? That is the issue we started with, a question not answered and unlikely to get answered any day soon. There is one more part to consider, it is a part every FIFA executive fears, because with Football (read soccer) is such disarray from the FIFA point, why are the nations involved not inviting UEFA to ascertain in what depth of trouble their local sport is in? Any political move to ignore this can be countered in this as unofficial knowledge of bribes and corruption went unanswered for over a decade, we only need to look at the work of investigative journalist Andrew Jennings to see that the problem is truly Titanic in size. The added fact that one person walked away with $151 million is proof further still. It should feel pretty comfortable for Michel Platini to see UEFA in a consideration to clean up Football. In all this, there needs to be transparency and visibility. Although I was never much of a soccer fan, to me it feels important that in all this both members of the IOC and soccer members like Michel Platini, Jean-Pierre Papin, Johan Cruyff, Marco van Basten, Alan Shearer, David Beckham and Jürgen Klinsmann to seriously sit down and see how FIFA can truly be cleaned up. I personally have zero trust in Sepp Blatter doing anything else than cover his hide at present, because when anyone sitting at the helm remaining THIS unaware of bribery and corruption for such a long time is on all fronts the wrong person to sanitise that system. I would like to add that such an investigation should be headed by three members of Royalty. Soccer is such too strong influence in Europe, to be handed to people loving the limelight for personal reasons. In this I would nominate Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark, King Willem-Alexander of Orange from The Netherlands and Princess Anne from the United Kingdom. It will requires officials and renowned players with managerial knowledge to take a harsh look at all this, having this headed by three members who have lived a life beyond reproach is equally important.

So in the end, consider that in all this, when we look from a distance, you should be appalled on how an organisation so influential in national events on a global scale is given a level of leeway that even the most powerful organised crime organisation could never ever hope for is just too unsettling. And in all this, it is all preparation, the support acts have not started yet and the main event is some time away. It is time to make a massive change and the sooner such actions begin, the better for all those passionate about sports involved.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Alan Shearer, Arkham Knight, Barclay Brothers, bloomberg, Boston Globe, Boston Olympics, Brazil, Budapest, Canada, Chicago Tribune, Claudio Bonadio, CONMEBOL, Crown Prince Frederik, Datisa, David Beckham, Denmark, federal court in Brooklyn, Federal judge Claudio Bonadio, FIFA, France, Greece, Greg Dombrowski, Hamburg, Hugo Jinkis, Italy, Jack Warner, Jürgen Klinsmann, Jean-Pierre Papin, Jochen Loesch, Johan Cruyff, John Oliver, Jose Hawilla, King Willem-Alexander of Orange, LA Times, Marco van Basten, Mariano Jinkis, Marine Le Pen, Michel Platini, Paris, Philip Hersh, Princess Anne, Princess Royal, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Qatar, Rome, Saint-Honoré, Sepp Blatter, the Guardian, the Netherlands, the NY Times, the Washington Post, Toronto, Traffic Group, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, United States

June 23, 2015 · 15:51

Dumping costs

I saw the news two days ago, but I left it on the side as I was looking at other issues (like Euro leaders enabling Greece and so on). Yet, the article ‘Taylor Swift criticises ‘shocking, disappointing’ Apple Music‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/21/taylor-swift-criticises-shocking-disappointing-apple-music) is a lot more important than you think. I was unaware for two reasons. One, I do not use streaming services. I go to the shop and buy those silver coloured circular contraptions. I think that they are called CD’s. For all the ‘security’ claimed to be, I do not trust online providers. If someone ever wipes their records, whatever I owned will be gone. There are other reasons, but they do not matter at this moment. What is the real price now is the light that Taylor Swift throws on big business.

You see the quote “Swift has joined independent labels in attacking Apple’s plans not to pay royalties during the three-month free trial of its new Apple Music streaming service” is pretty important. The richest corporation in the world decided to attempt a new business model. So this corporation, the wealthiest one in the world basically will not pay royalties to new and starving artists (the 99.9999943% who are not Taylor Swift or successful).

How come, it takes one artist to open her mouth whilst the media and so many others remain quiet? One artist speaks up and suddenly we become aware. Can anyone explain to me how it is possible that Rolling Stone Magazine (at http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/apple-introduces-apple-music-streaming-service-24-7-radio-20150608) did not lead with this fact when the article was published on June 8^th 2015?

It is also very interesting how Taylor Swift opened the door for everyone to suddenly give voice, where none were saying anything at all (in this I am referring to the larger news outlets, not the smaller and small digital reviewers who seem to have been asking questions as early as the first week of June, perhaps even longer.

The sheer audacity that a third party seems to have to pay for the cost of a trial business model is plenty of reasons to ask Apple some questions, especially as they are already using tax havens to a planetary maximum. In all this we also see the Wall Street Journal where they (at http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/06/15/apple-to-pay-common-royalty-rates-for-music-service/) that initially the quote “Apple is offering a three-month free trial from June 30. During that period, Apple won’t pay music owners anything for songs that are streamed” (on June 15^th), whilst the people at the Wall Street Journal seem to be devoid of opinion in that article. Consider that this is the Wall Street Journal, and the used business model, a clear model of exploitation is not raising any clear questions on an editorial level is even more astounding.

I am on the fence for two reasons, as I will concede that I might have missed it until it came to the Guardian or BBC, the fact that pages of newspapers in online searches are only now catching on is equally disturbing to me. Why did this issue remain below the radar for so long? I have mentioned before that too many newspapers seem to ‘appease’ (read cater to) their advertising base (read large corporations), this event only seems to enforce the unacceptable trend.

The WWDC2015 did not seem to have any information at all (June 8^th). I understand that Apple might have steered clear from mentioning it, yet that others had not considered these events is equally questionable. The last part is visible in the Guardian article at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/08/apple-streaming-music-regulators-beats-music-spotify. This was on May 8^th, where we see that several questions are being asked, yet not the royalties part, moreover, when we consider those involved, we must take a look at the quote ““Apple has been using its considerable power in the music industry to stop the music labels from renewing Spotify’s license to stream music through its free tier,” claimed its report, which also alleged that Apple had offered to pay major label Universal Music a fee “if the label stopped allowing its songs on YouTube”“, whilst the royalties part was overlooked. Now, it is very valid that royalties issue is initially overlooked, yet consider that Dr Dre (Beats Music) is gunning for Spotify, was he also unaware, if so, keeping many in the dark from that date onwards, does that not point towards another set of questions? Even though the competition Commission was taking a look (at http://nypost.com/2015/04/01/competition-commission-probing-music-streaming-services/), where we see “a probe of Apple and other premium music-streaming services to see if they are working with music labels to unfairly squash no-fee streaming services” yet the fact that Apple in addition would not pay royalties for the first three months is an additional worry, was it not?

So in light of all this, The Wall Street Journal article does not ask questions regarding that business mode and Rolling Stone Magazine, seen as the one place for performers and music lovers refrained from illuminating that issue, so why are questions not asked, more important, why are the bulk of reporters only now shouting their articles regarding all of this? At least as a non-journalist (that be me), who focusses on non-musical issues has a decent excuse, what about all the others? All this illuminates a silent acceptance of events, just like the people seem to respond to FIFA. In that light it seems that the legal field who should be all about justice and social legality should have been a lot more protective against these large corporations a lot sooner, where were they?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Tagged as Apple, Apple Music streaming service, Beats Music, Dr Dre, New York Post, NY Post, premium music-streaming services, Rolling Stone magazine, royalties, Spotify, streaming music, Taylor Swift, Wall Street Journal

June 22, 2015 · 23:57

The News shows its limit of English

It was Sky News that showed a dangerous escalation as per next year if the Conservatives do not change certain parts of their immigration plan. Even though this is now all over the news, the BBC reported this in Feb 2012, it is only that this administration will now be confronted with it. So could this government have made such a blunder?

It is the Guardian that produced the most disturbing quote (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/22/new-immigration-rules-cost-nhs-millions-nursing), stating “Employers have had since 2011 to prepare for the possibility their non-EEA workers may not meet the required salary threshold to remain in the UK permanently.”, as I see it, that quote boils down to “You have 4 years to get rid of them, or get them nationalised“, which is saying a bit much!

Yet, when I look at the immigration rules appendix i (final) i see the following at section 245HF

At (d)(ii)(1) it states:

(1) At or above the appropriate rate for the job, as stated in the Codes of Practice in Appendix J, or

After which we get the 35,000 pound issue, so when we look at appendix J (at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/420539/20150406_immigration_rules_appendix_j_final.pdf) we see the following: on page 18 and 19 we see category 2231 Nurses (the appendices are attached to the story).

So the question becomes, what were the papers making noise about? Sky News, the Guardian, Daily Mail, et al. Is it me, or are they just starting a needless panic?

Section I (at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/420536/20150406_immigration_rules_appendix_i_final.pdf) states: “Pay requirements which the Secretary of State intends to apply to applications for indefinite leave to remain from Tier 2 (General) and Tier 2 (Sportspersons) migrants made on or after 6 April 2016”

Then on page 2 we clearly see the issues reported.

Let’s go by the booklet:

First (a) no unspent convictions (so no criminals, makes sense….yes?)
Second (b) no general grounds for refusal and no illegal entrant (again, makes perfect sense)
Third (c) have spent 5 years lawfully in the UK, which was always a requirement, and in any combination of the following:
As a tier one migrant, excluding the Post Study work, or the Graduate entrepreneur.
As a tier 2 migrant (general migrant); the bulk of all nurses will be a tier 2 migrant.
Then this person also needs a letter from the sponsor (their boss) that they still require the applicant (basically that this person has a job, which as a nurse is pretty much a given).
In addition to this that the applying migrant is paid at or above the Codes of Practice in Appendix J, which gets us to the other appendix (J) which clearly states that a nurse does not need to make 35,000 pounds.

So can anyone tell me why these papers were not read correctly by the writers of the stories (or their editors for that matter)?

The paper clearly indicates that this is the situation with all nurses for 2016. So why are these publications stirring panic amongst the nurses?

Perhaps the journalists are not British citizens and they failed provision 245HF (f), where it states: “The applicant must have sufficient knowledge of the English language”

OK, that was a mean statement to make, but in this day and age where doctors and nurses are nervous enough, adding silly levels of stress are just a little bit too silly for words in my slightly less humble opinion (just for today).

On the other hand, if there are new revisions and I was unaware of them (basically I had not found them at the GOV.UK site), I will be eating humble pie and upgrading this story as soon as I am aware of it.

20150406_immigration_rules_appendix_i_final

20150406_immigration_rules_appendix_j_final

4 Comments

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Conservatives, David Cameron, GOV.UK, Immigration, immigration plan, immigration rules appendix, NHS, Nurses, Sky News, the Guardian

June 21, 2015 · 10:57

Pointing where?

An interesting article is hitting the Guardian, the title ‘Child poverty rise across Britain ‘halts progress made since 1990s’‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/20/child-poverty-rise-uk-halts-progress-charities-claim) is hitting out at choices made, and let us be frank here, we have to point at certain actions and certain choices, but are we pointing at the right one?

In this both Labour and Conservatives are at fault. My own party of choice has made choices (bad ones) in the past, yet is the bedroom tax and are the benefit cuts truly the reason? They might (they do) have an impact, but are they the factors that are central in all this?

The quote “Child poverty is on course for the biggest rise in a generation, reversing years of progress that began in the late 1990s, leading charities and independent experts claimed on Saturday” is important. you see, at minus one and a half trillion cuts need to be made, in all this we need to see that unless the Commonwealth take responsibility in getting a budget, we are all doomed, the children aren’t even the first one to feel this. Both sides of the political isle have squandered their duties to a larger extent. Now, even though the conservatives are working on fixing this, we cannot ignore that certain damage was done under leadership of The Right Honourable Sir John Major. You see, the budget is set on two parts. What is spend and what is received.

It is the ‘what is received’ that is now a global issue. As individual governments were so eager to see industries grow, they decided to give tax breaks as an incentive. It did work, but guess what, it lowered the maximum received coins, which at that point was not a biggie. Now, we have created a different behemoth, as globalisation started stronger in 2002 onwards, no one (me blaming BOTH sides here) was looking at the cookie jar and wondering how continuation of feeding the future would be ensured (or is that insured?). No, many politician went by ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it‘, which gave us a different scenario after 2004. When the banking crises hit, it hit every shore on a global scale. So large corporations decided to maximise their ‘interests’, which I see was divided between shareholders and personal commissions, many combined, merged and used every tax break possible to avoid taxation. Now consider in an age of industry that the largest player (the industry) does not get to be held accountable for the needs of governing. They want their politicians in their pockets, their bonus in the other pocket and protection without invoice. They pulled it off because the parties on both sides did not correctly adjust legislation the way it had to be. Now, 11 years later, much of this legislation is still missing. The corporations see the sustenance of government not their responsibility, it is for the people, let them pay! They might not say it, but they will think it loudly!

So we have created a sea of chaos, and as the larger players avoid taxation, the people will end up with less. Now we get the quote “Ministers were remaining tight-lipped about the release on Thursday of the Ministers were remaining tight-lipped about the release on Thursday of the Households below Average Income statistics. Any increase in the number of children in poverty since 2013 would be an embarrassment. Child poverty fell from 3.4 million in 1998-99 to 2.3 million in 2010-11 – a reduction unparalleled in other wealthy nations over the same period – after the last Labour government promised to eradicate it by 2020. Any increase in the number of children in poverty since 2013 would be an embarrassment. Child poverty fell from 3.4 million in 1998-99 to 2.3 million in 2010-11 – a reduction unparalleled in other wealthy nations over the same period – after the last Labour government promised to eradicate it by 2020“, here is the second reason why Ed Miliband had no chance of winning, moreover, it shows a little more than that. The entire promise of child poverty eradication was never realistic to begin with. You see, by 2007 that given goal was no longer possible under both the economic meltdown as well as the tax evasion numbers, so did either Tony Blair or Gordon Brown inform the people that child poverty was there to stay? I have a hunch that this was not done. You see, ‘Households below Average Income statistics‘ is depending on income and cost of living. Income is still down due to past events, yet cost of living is going up and is going up slightly faster than wage corrections can provide for at present. So as we see these dwindling statistics, there should not be the wondering of how it is happening, we need to look at the way to deal with it. Lowering taxation is not a solution, it must be replaced by other means of taxation, which means that corporations need to pay their fair share, a part still not addressed. By the way, that part is also not addressed in Australia, as we see in the Australian Financial Review, the quote “The Business Council of Australia, comprised of the chief executives of big companies, cautioned the government that “global tax issues require global solutions”“, that the Business council of Australia is working for Global Companies, not for the Australian government. You only need to look at their board to see that they have the Managing Director of Rio Tinto Australia, the Chief Executive Officer & Managing Director of Qantas, the Chief Executive Officer & Managing Director of the Westpac Group, the Managing Director of Origin Energy Limited and a few more, all people very intent on paying as little taxation as possible, for the need of their shareholders and their personal bonuses. Guess, what, the Australian Financial Review does not really state that part, does it? No, they state “The Law Council of Australia has told the government not to enact the laws as they are currently drafted“, which might be a valid part, but valid to what extent? You see, last year I already stated part of the solution, make all purchases taxable at the location of the consumer buying it, or better the point of delivery. You see, the person buying the iTunes track, that video game, those bracelets or that suitcase is buying an item online, instead of in the shop. There might be valid reasons for why it was done, but it affects that nations GDP, so, as such, GST and other taxable parts should be paid there, not in Ireland or another low taxing nation. So, we do not begrudge the sale to be online, but on the same foot, just as a storekeeper pays its fair share of local taxation (read GST and such) the online store should do the same, it is just fair trade).

In all these years, those super clever members of the Law Council of Australia did not come up with this solution? If they did, why did the government not enact it? This directly reflects back to the UK. As taxation is now so unbalanced, the government is forced to scrap things.

No one is happy, everyone complains, but are they complaining in the right direction?

So as we see this article on child poverty, we also see the new Labour run “Yvette Cooper, who has put the fight against child poverty at the heart of her Labour leadership campaign, said the government’s record was a “damning indictment” of its approach and meant many children were being denied the start in life they deserved. “Their policies have delivered the biggest increase in child poverty in a generation and they have abandoned any pretence of even moving towards the target they promised to meet [to all but eradicate it by 2020].”“, no Yvette, this is not about ‘their’ policies, it is about your lack of realism, you should unite with the Tories to find the taxation that halts corporate greed and hold them to account for the protection they receive, the responsibilities that they should face, when that is correctly done, and as the coffers fill up again (move towards less or no debt), that you will see as a result that child poverty goes down again, yet as you ‘advocate’ your ego, realise that eradicating child poverty by 2020 was never realistic, getting it down by a lot is. By the way, whatever promise Yvette Cooper, or any other runner for the Labour Boss chair makes, make sure you realise that the pounding hammer of ‘interest payments’ is stopping many restorations in social projects, cutting and diminishing the debt is a first need, so as you contemplate that the next government should be labour, then also realise that they will spend it all again, they will do a ‘Gordon Brown’ on the treasury coffers! Now you, the reader, consider what is happening in Greece, when that hits the UK shores, it will be a massively larger and poverty will not be the nightmare. It will be that 23:00 news where they found a baby that starved to death, only because certain politicians had to feed their ego instead of realistic common sense. So where are we pointing? I want to point at a solution, which means properly fixing legislation, properly adjusting sentencing and fines. When you consider that some at the banks are still laughing at the 1.5 billion fine for Libor, than wonder how much they made. When the fine is 15 billion, they will wake up and stop feeding greed!

Oh, and before you think I have it simple, these cutbacks are hurting me a lot too, yet I realise that our future will depend on us not being in debt to the levels we are in now.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Average Income statistics, big business, British Labour Party, Business Council of Australia, Child poverty, Conservatives, Ed Miliband, Gordon Brown, John Major, Law Council of Australia, Origin Energy, Qantas, Rio Tinto, the Guardian, Tony Blair, Westpac, Yvette Cooper

June 15, 2015 · 00:18

As the heart thumps

We are only two days away from the E3, those who are into gaming will wonder ‘what will we see next?’ We all feel that way, yet lately, the more I see of Elite: Dangerous, the more I await its arrival on PS4. For now it is a Microsoft exclusive. I remember the day I became ‘dangerous’ I had been playing it for quite some time. Consider the screen below. This was the screen we drooled about. It was on a C-64 and it was ‘da bomb’ in those days!

So many hours, at first jumping short distances, hoping no one would attack me, but after my first pulse laser, I got to be cocky (and got killed in the process). Now we see the next gen pics, one is the PC, the other is as I was told the Xbox One edition (this is not a cut scene, this is actual game view). If you think that ‘it is all about the resolution’ then you are quite frankly a nob (or a dweeb). I have been and will remain a Sony fan (I still love my Xbox 360), there is no denying that this game is beyond amazing!

Most information on the XB1 edition so far, I got from YouTube. As I played the original and have had decades of gaming experience (which is why I knew the flaws Microsoft is fixing now, were a solid known issue for me 6 months before the system was released, and not all have been fixed by the way). Now, most gamers will be the Mario kind, or the Grand Theft Auto kind. This game might not appeal to either, yet, I feel that the flight simulator and Role Playing Game kind will truly love this game, and we are in for a lot more heart elevation than just this game!

To get a good initial look of the game then watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grIGMs3Kj4k. The man talks clear but waffles a little in the beginning. He is going through it all clearly, so bear with his explanation, because it is worth it! If need be, skip the movie to 4:45, now you see the first glimpse on how a mere idea in 1984, becomes something truly amazing when the computers catch up to the imagination of an individual, in this case the imagination of David Braben and Ian Bell.

This is not a 30 hour game, this is a game that will keep you busy for many months, if not years to get it all to a worthy level, but let that not stop you, because as you evolve from one ship to the next one, you will be able to transport more goods, have better protection and go hunt criminals. The openness of the game that was, was already impressive, the size of the new edition is beyond anything you can imagine. We are talking a few million times larger than the original. For those who like the idea of space exploration, this is one of two games to get.

What is amazing is not just what it looks like now, it is the fact on how the navigation systems from 1984 are still at the core of what is now, it was the most innovative look and now, this view is the centre of aligning your ship and weapons systems towards your enemies. And it does not just ‘seem’ to be the best, as you watch the game on YouTube you can see how fluent the controls seem to be, especially as we consider the response from Blitz ‘Oops! We’re going the wrong way’ moments later it is all back to normal.

The other game to get is ‘No Man’s sky’, but that one I will leave alone, because, too many people are hyping this game, based on the same materials most saw (YouTube and so on). So we will wait for actual release date information.

What is interesting is that leaking information is not just limited to the political branch of the media, it seems that Dishonored 2 information has leaked. Dishonored was the stealth game on 360/PS3/PC, which had open levels and had a steampunk look to it all. The interesting part is that there was no set way to do the game, stealth or kill everyone, you got to choose. Another interesting part was hat when I replayed it on the 360 a while after I completed it, I found in more than one level another way to get the game done, which is awesome, because that gives a clean ‘open level’ approach, something that I am a big fan of. There is still question whether it comes and whether it is a leak or a ‘miscommunication’ but gamers live for these moments, because Dishonored 2 was not in the open pipeline and a fan will get overly enthusiastic when a sequel arrives of a game he is a fan of.

At this point, the Bethesda conference is only 12 hours away! 12 hours until the Fallout 4 trailer will get additional support and information to those who love that game (that would be me). 12 hours after that the show takes off for thousands of gaming fans! There will be joy, there will be tears and there will be outrage. The latter part might be a bit much for Ubisoft, but there is no way to tell how they will fix previous blunders and how they will appease the deserting population they have experienced. Time will tell and on that part I will not speculate at present! I still feel that they could turn it around and rebuild what they had lost, it just takes one truly visionary person (often not found in a board of directors).

Ubisoft does its presentation 20 hours after Bethesda, Bethesda has a 12 hour leap on Microsoft too, so whatever news they bring will get unadulterated limelight for the better part of a day. The rumours are ripe and some state there will be more than just Fallout 4 and Doom, but again, they are just rumours and Fallout 4 is pretty massive sized news, especially as it comes out this year, so that means within the next 6 months.

So why more on games? You see, games are getting to be a much more important part in the lives of people, many of them not into gaming at all. Gaming is now a major player for Trademarks and let’s take a look at patents!

You see, IP Australia tells us “Software inventions must be industrially applied. Software that is merely a procedure for solving a given type of mathematical problem is not patentable”, yet when we look at the The Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) we see the following “Under the Act an article is industrially applied when, with the consent of the copyright owner, fifty or more items are made from it, which we see in section 77, 17. If the design is not able to be registered, for example because it is not new and original, it will still lose copyright protection once it is commercialised section 77“, now we get to the part that matters: “By registering a design under the Designs Act 2003 (Cth), for example a design for a kettle, the owner obtains a monopoly in that design but, unlike with copyright, the protection is only for a maximum of ten years and not for the life of the owner. With copyright the owner does not obtain a monopoly. If two people independently prepare a drawing of a kettle neither infringes copyright in the other’s drawing. The registration of a design gives the owner a monopoly in that design and the owner can prevent another applying the design, or any fraudulent or obvious imitation of it, to any article in respect of which the design is registered [see s 71(1)]”

This jewel comes from the Legal Commission of South Australia (at http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch11s12.php).

New we get back to the gem, the jewel of gaming, Elite. I mentioned that navigational part of the game, which is the kettle. Was it registered, is it protected? Let’s not forget that ‘it will still lose copyright protection once it is commercialised [s 77]’, which gets us to the need for protection for these games and the growing powers of trademarks and Patents. Yet, trying to get a Trade Mark or Patent after you gone public is another matter, so what legal protection did these new makers prepare?

Consider the uniqueness of the Elite navigation display, how protected is it? You might think that this is a joke, but it is not. A new game will cost between 20-150 million dollars, so you need to get it right and make sure you have your protection in place. Even though larger productions are less likely to fear Trade Marks or Patent infringement (usually they fear industrial espionage), but having the protection just makes your case stronger. So here is the Crux for some of the new Law firms. If you take time to visit the E3, how many products are in need for protection? Who has actually done the full scope of this? IP is an evolving market, the protection required will increase with every iteration of the game. You see, the gaming industry has arrived in the location, the hardware industry was in 1998. Now that makers will return to an annual release of a game, an iteration of the original, the game will also face the danger of a ‘white’ version. A look that is similar (but not ‘looks alike’) that provides the gameplay the gamer would like. You see, no matter how their marketing division brings it, Assassins Creed 2, AC Brotherhood, AC Revelations, AC3 and AC Black Flag are in many parts similar, as such, game makers have had 5-7 years to catch up, 3-5 years for those who waited for the second one to become a hit. As such, in light of the fact that re-engineering can usually be done in 40% of the timeframe, the need for legal protection will increase almost exponentially. Do you think that no one else is now thinking of a ‘new’ GTA5? The game brought in a billion dollars, so YES! There is someone trying to flog of a new game offering a similar game. It only takes one innovative part for the original to feel the pain of losing a market share. There is however a change, you see, some still feel the following description: “Obtaining a patent is a long, tedious, and expensive process, that it can be challenged by the examiners and later by others in court“. Yet the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), which is internationally accepted, has an international patent, which does not have the same threshold patents used to have, which means filing is easier and most important cheaper!

If we look at the definitions in section 39.1 of the PCT treaty, we see :”(vi) computer programs to the extent that the International Searching Authority is not equipped to search prior art concerning such programs“, yet is that not a failing of the organisation? The fact that a billion in revenue cannot be protected, is perhaps slightly ludicrous. Again, in Robert Bosch v Siemens we see: “However, it is not to be inferred from these rules that searches or examinations in the software field are to be ruled out in international authorities. On the contrary, it seems to the board that according to the PCT searches and, if applicable, examinations of this type can and may very well (perhaps even should) be carried out if the competent authority is appropriately equipped“.

So, the victims remain as international authorities are ‘trying’ to get equipped? There is enough here to see a needed evolution that not unlike Torts will go on a case to case bases. The case on Sega v Fox Interactive, Electronic Arts, and Radical Entertainment regarding a US Patent, which was settled for an undisclosed amount. There the core of the infringement was the navigation system, the copied one was ‘too’ similar.

The core of gaming is expected to exceed 80 billion in 2015, that target is already likely to be exceeded, so as we see that gaming is now expected to overtake BI Intelligence market revenue by 1300% (yes thirteen hundred), we can surely see the short path we have in view as the need for software patents are required to strengthen an iterative market. Even though there will be some protection in Trade Marks as the branding of a game is too similar, consider the quote “if the novel elements are functional, the item cannot be copyrighted: although it might be eligible for patent protection“, which takes us back to Elite as a first example. Its navigation is quite unique, I have not ever seen it anywhere else to that extend and now as the larger masses go to play, such protection is more and more an issue. Take into consideration that the affordability of patents are now a fact, giving an option to patent, until opposed (which still needs to be decided), we have enough to see the change in the gaming industry, IP is taking a foothold, so when you follow the E3, see how often you hear the term, ‘our new IP’, because that part will take centre stage as per last year. So where are you now in all this?

More interesting, which law firms are considering evolving their portfolio with the gaming industry, which is only an $80 billion market for now!

1 Comment

Filed under Gaming, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as AC Black Flag, AC Brotherhood, AC Revelations, AC3, Assassins Creed 2, Copyright Act 1968, David Braben, Designs Act 2003 (Cth), Elite: Dangerous, Ian Bell, IP, Microsoft, PCT treaty, PS4, Robert Bosch v Siemens, Role Playing Game, Sony, xbox 360, Xbox One, Youtube

Category Archives: Law

Recent Posts

Archives