June 2024 - cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

Vape Co. Can't Toss Breeze Smoke's Claims In IP Row
by Gunnar Larson 03 Jun '24

03 Jun '24

Vape Co. Can't Toss Breeze Smoke's Claims In IP Row <https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/1842731?nl_pk=6416fd97-1dc4-4e0…> By Adam Lidgett An Illinois federal judge has rejected vape pen maker Midwest Goods' bid to throw out counterclaims that it infringed competitor Breeze Smoke's trade dress and a design patent, while also denying a bid from Breeze Smoke for a preliminary injunction. Memorandum attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/1842731?nl_pk=6416fd97-1dc4-4e0…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/1842731?nl_pk=6416fd97-1dc4-4e0…>

1 0

'You Didn't Do It': Antitrust Judge Rips Apple's Doc Production
by Gunnar Larson 03 Jun '24

03 Jun '24

'You Didn't Do It': Antitrust Judge Rips Apple's Doc Production <https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/1842949?nl_pk=6416fd97-1dc4-4e0…> By Dorothy Atkins A California federal judge deciding whether Apple complied with her ban on App Store anti-steering rules ordered Apple for a second time Friday to produce documents, telling Apple's counsel "the whole point" is to get documents relevant to Apple's decision-making regarding its new 27% fee "and you didn't do it." Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/1842949?nl_pk=6416fd97-1dc4-4e0…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/1842949?nl_pk=6416fd97-1dc4-4e0…>

1 0

BBVA To Tap Shareholders To Fund €12B Hostile Takeover
by Gunnar Larson 03 Jun '24

03 Jun '24

BBVA To Tap Shareholders To Fund €12B Hostile Takeover <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/1842782?nl_pk=a94fc…> By Tom Fish Spanish banking giant BBVA said Friday that it has called a shareholders' meeting to approve the sale of new shares in a package to finance the €12 billion ($13 billion) hostile takeover of its smaller rival, Banco de Sabadell SA. Read full article » <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/1842782?nl_pk=a94fc…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/1842782?nl_pk=a94fc…>

1 0

Law Firm Denies Promoting Misleading Investment Scheme
by Gunnar Larson 03 Jun '24

03 Jun '24

Law Firm Denies Promoting Misleading Investment Scheme <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/1839295?nl_pk=a94fc…> By Sophia Dourou A law firm has denied an accusation by the Financial Conduct Authority that it assisted a client in promoting a misleading care home investment scheme, arguing it provided legal advice in "good faith" based on the information it was given. Read full article » <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/1839295?nl_pk=a94fc…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.co.uk/financial-services-uk/articles/1839295?nl_pk=a94fc…>

1 0

DOJ's Ad Tech Case May Go To Judge, Not Jury, After All
by Gunnar Larson 03 Jun '24

03 Jun '24

DOJ's Ad Tech Case May Go To Judge, Not Jury, After All <https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/1843000?nl_pk=6416fd97-1dc4-4e0…> By Bryan Koenig A Justice Department lawyer told a Virginia federal judge Friday the government is "perfectly happy" to have a bench trial accusing Google of monopolizing key digital advertising technology after the judge signaled the search giant may have short-circuited the government's original and unusual bid for a jury trial. Brief attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/1843000?nl_pk=6416fd97-1dc4-4e0…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/competition/articles/1843000?nl_pk=6416fd97-1dc4-4e0…>

1 0

Global Anarchist hegemony is now the inescapable horizon of all cypherpunk historical revisionist thought
by pro2rat＠yahoo.com.au 03 Jun '24

03 Jun '24

Thanks to crypto-economics those who take control of the world will then control the cryptoanarchist past. Victors write the histories. And since Btc presently leads its revisionist narrative dominates. In architectural terms it might be compared to minimalist concrete brutalism . . or Stonehenge. Coming in second is the Ether-huffing Imperium. Like the former btc maxi's it coverts the cpunk narrative. Only its stylistically more eclectic. Were it to win it would deepfaked cryptoanarchism. A turd blossom by any other name would smell like Buterin. Not quite a Mongo style fork in the road, since all crypto roads lead to cryptoanarchist Rome, however a little drama always helps sell the story. Some eternal verities remain. If you come at the dominant narrative then you better not miss and those who make revolution half way dig their own grave.

1 0

Fwd: Universal BitLicense Declaration on Virtual Currency & Human Rights
by Gunnar Larson 03 Jun '24

03 Jun '24

In other news, there is a lot of talk with Eric Adams suing social media companies on behalf of New York City. I wonder if some form of the Declaration could be part of the outcome? - to save succeeding generations from financial fraud and corruption, which in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to humanity, and - to reaffirm New York’s faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and - to promote larger social progress by leading global standards, given that New York remains the center of technological innovation and forward-looking...regulation. Gunnar ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Date: Sun, Jan 23, 2022, 7:15 AM Subject: Universal BitLicense Declaration on Virtual Currency & Human Rights To: cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)lists.cpunks.org> Dear Madam Acting Superintendent: Reflecting this week, Ripple once again <https://www.law.com/radar/card/ripple-legal-chief-accuses-sec-of-playing-de…> shares concerning comments and approaches to respecting their Bitlicense award. Even more, many experts are concerned <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-17/nyc-miami-seen-facing-po…> about MIA Coin and resulting NYCCoin disasters. Madam Acting Superintendent, on August 4, 2020 as part of our Conditional BitLicense application we submitted a draft of the Universal BitLicense Declaration on Virtual Currency & Human Rights. - Today this memo is to re-new our obvious approach to virtual currency innovation in New York. Together under your leadership, we should be leading the world in the principles of modern cross-border BitLicense logic. - Madam Acting Superintendent, this type of stuff matters. The Deceleration aims to level the playing field for all and impacts the future of women and girls with respect to financial inclusion. - At the very least, New York and your office should be embracing such thoughtful approaches to support future generations and protect virtual currency from market manipulation. Madam Acting Superintendent, we implore that if some version of the Declaration was enacted in 2020, the world would be a better place today. Kindly find a copy of the Universal BitLicense Declaration on Virtual Currency & Human Rights <https://thecapital.io/article/universal-bitlicense-declaration-on-virtual-c…> below. We will be in contact with your office this coming week to engage in dialogue on the Declaration's feasibility forward. Very respectfully yours, Gunnar Larson *WE THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK DETERMINED* - to pioneer noble advancement of BitLicence theory and regulation, whereas it is essential to safeguard virtual currency and its potential to galvanize international, economic and social advancement of all peoples, and - to ensure clarity, principally New York’s BitLicence being the preeminent institution with mandate of ensuring that virtual currency manipulation (of any sort) shall not burden the common global interest of humanity, and that human rights are protected in the jurisdiction of New York for all peoples *AND FOR THESE ENDS* - to save succeeding generations from financial fraud and corruption, which in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to humanity, and - to reaffirm New York’s faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and - to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from BitLicence regulation and other sources of financial services law can be maintained, and - to promote larger social progress by leading global standards, given that New York remains the center of technological innovation and forward-looking virtual currency regulation *HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS* *Now, therefore this UNIVERSAL BITLICENSE DECLARATION ON VIRTUAL CURRENCY & HUMAN RIGHTS as the common crypto standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive to promote respect for human rights and personal freedoms by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance of New York-based companies accountable to a **universal **BitLicense **standard of virtual currency regulation across all global territories of business, protecting all peoples and all nations.* *Article One* - Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in failed financial frameworks that have outraged the conscience of mankind, and - Whereas the foundational vision of BitLicense theory imagines a world in which human beings shall enjoy safe, reliable and regulated virtual currency tools and financial products, now proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, *Article Two* - Whereas ethical stewardship of virtual currency is inherent to the BitLicence mandate, the invention of blockchain, and virtual currency aimed to secure the equal and inalienable rights of all as foundation to financial freedom and economic prosperity, especially in the developing economies, and - BitLicense members pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the state of New York, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of international human rights fundamental to the integrity of the BitLicense’s virtual currency regulation. - Whereas New York reaffirms faith in the BitLicense’s foundational themes and the general concept of human right protection. The dignity and worth of the human person and the equal rights of men and women are part of New York BitLicense protections and standards which correlates to noble “public-spiritedness” virtual currency regulation with exponential social progress of humanity. *Article Three* *The Purposes of this Declaration are:* - To maintain the protection of BitLicense virtual currency standards, implying any New York- based group or person has no right to engage in “loophole” business activities in global markets out of New York, or to perform any act aimed at bypassing BitLicense virtual currency regulation, and - To take effective collective measures to remove inconsistencies and prevent the suppression of human rights or other breaches of BitLicense regulations of virtual currency, and to bring about conformity with the principles of justice and international human rights laws, adjusting or settling international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of New York BitLicense law; - To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, while executing appropriate measures to close KYC/AML loopholes by strengthen universal virtual currency regulation of New York firms operating in global emerging markets; - To achieve international co-operation in solving international virtual currency problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian nature, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and - To offer New York as centre jurisdiction and the BitLicense as universal to harmonizing smart virtual currency actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. *Article Four* New York BitLicensees (members), in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article One, shall act in accordance with the following Principles: - All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from BitLicense membership, shall fulfill the obligations assumed by them in accordance with this Declaration, and - All Members shall immediately settle their international virtual currency inconsistencies by peaceful means in such a manner that international law and justice are not endangered while meeting this Declaration and overall BitLicense compliance, and - All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the violation of human rights or abuse of virtual currency manipulation *by leveraging territorial loopholes (e.g. Africa) and/or inconsistent jurisdictional integrity and enforcement (e.g. Europe), nor willfully employ political naivete of any state (e.g. New York)*, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of this Declaration, and - Continued membership is contingent on the requirement that BitLicense Members based in New York act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental virtual currency regulation, and finally - Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of human rights or degradation of the BitLicense’s virtual currency statute or mandates set forth in this Declaration. -- *Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xNY.io> | Bank.org <http://Bank.org>* MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107 New York, New York 10001

1 2

The Gov’s Plan from Hell: Disgusted With Wall Street Fees Eating Into Your 401(k), You Can Move It To Even Higher Fees At an Insurance Company
by Gunnar Larson 02 Jun '24

02 Jun '24

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2013/05/the-gov%E2%80%99s-plan-from-hell-dis… By Pam Martens: May 13, 2013 Did you just find out your 401(k) is leaking 8 percent in a hodgepodge of Wall Street management fees, transactions costs, sales commissions, and marketing schemes. Maybe you did the math and realized your account value, without your new additions, is still where it was in 2007. Or did you just check BrightScope and find out that your 401(k) is so abysmal that you’ll need 18 additional years of work to make up for the $215,500 in lost retirement savings. Or maybe you tuned in to the April 23 Frontline documentary on PBS to learn that it is quite possible for Wall Street to gobble up two-thirds of your retirement savings in your 401(k) while keeping you in the dark for the next 50 years. If so, there’s no reason to seethe in silence. The U.S. Department of Labor wants to hear from you about a potential plan to move you from the clutches of Wall Street to the warm embrace of the insurance industry where companies like AIG – that needed a $182 billion bailout from the U.S. taxpayer to avoid defaulting on its annuity payouts to widows and orphans around the world – would be able to take over the slimmed down assets in your 401(k) in exchange for the promise of a fixed income stream in retirement. The U.S. Department of Labor is nothing if not persistent. It rolled out this same idea back in 2010 and received a flood of hate mail for its effort. On February 2, 2010, the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Treasury published a notice in the Federal Register asking for public comment on a multitude of issues pertaining to 401(k) plans. Three of the requests for comment were posed as follows: “Should some form of lifetime income distribution option be required for defined contribution plans (in addition to money purchase pension plans)? If so, should that option be the default distribution option, and should it apply to the entire account balance? To what extent would such a requirement encourage or discourage plan sponsorship? “Should an individual benefit statement present the participant’s accrued benefits as a lifetime income stream of payments in addition to presenting the benefits as an account balance? “If the answer to question [above] is yes, how should a lifetime stream of income payments be expressed on the benefit statement? For example, should payments be expressed as if they are to begin immediately or at specified retirement ages? Should benefit amounts be projected to a future retirement age based on the assumption of continued contributions? Should lifetime income payments be expressed in the form of monthly or annual payments? Should lifetime income payments of a married participant be expressed as a single-life annuity payable to the participant or a joint and survivor-type annuity, or both?” The government received 793, mostly vitriolic, responses with the common refrain that the government should keep its “grubby” hands off private savings. The government, however, was not suggesting that it would take over the accounts, it was asking if the insurance industry should issue an immediate annuity (fixed income stream) as the default option on a 401(k) when the retiree made no other election. More reasoned responses went like this May 19, 2010 one from William Galvin, the highly respected Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: “We note that, at this time, an annuity may not be an effective tool to create a stream of revenue to support retirees. The payouts from fixed annuities are substantially based on prevailing interest rates, and in the current low interest rate environment those payouts will tend to be low. Annuities can also be problematic because they are often complex, high commission, and high-fee products. The Securities Division has seen multiple instances where securities salespeople and advisers have sold older customers annuity products, particularly variable annuities, that were unsuitable for them. My office has taken enforcement action in several such cases. All too often, the high selling compensation payable for these annuities drove these inappropriate recommendations.” An anonymous commenter from the state of Washington posted the following comment on February 21, 2010: “I don’t believe requiring an annuity distribution option to 401k plans will result in consumer change. I have been managing benefits for large employers for more than 20 years. A lifetime annuity was an option in a number of the plans I managed; not once has an employee elected the annuity. Employees have two primary concerns that stand in the way of purchasing an annuity: (1) insurer insolvency (insurer may be stable now but what about 20 years from now?) (2) Desire to leave unused 401k balance to beneficiaries.” Despite the overwhelming outpouring of responses against this idea, like the Dracula option that is never really dead, the Labor Department has tweaked and resurrected the proposal in a May 8, 2013 request for comment in the Federal Register. The tweak reads like this: “…the Department is considering the following ideas: A participant or beneficiary’s pension benefit statement would contain that individual’s current account balance. In addition, the current account balance would be converted to an estimated lifetime income stream of payments. The conversion illustration would assume the participant or beneficiary had reached normal retirement age under the plan as of the date of the benefit statement, even if he or she is much younger. “For participants who have not yet reached normal retirement age, the pension benefit statement would show the projected account balance, as well as the lifetime income stream generated by it. “A participant or beneficiary’s current account balance would be projected to normal retirement age, based on assumed future contribution amounts and investment returns. The projected account balance would be converted to an estimated lifetime income stream of payments, assuming that the person retires at normal retirement age. “Both lifetime income streams (i.e., the one based on the current account balance and the one based on the projected account balance) would be presented as estimated monthly payments based on the expected mortality of the participant or beneficiary. In addition, if the participant or beneficiary has a spouse, the lifetime income streams would be presented based on the joint lives of the participant or beneficiary and his or her spouse.” The Labor Department admits in its background statement that the idea is to force workers to look at how inadequately prepared for retirement they are and save more. That benefits Wall Street now as it lives off the high fees embedded in darkness in the 401(k). (The expense ratios the Labor Department required to appear on statements beginning last Fall fail to capture all the hidden commissions, fees and transaction costs eating away at 401(k) balances like a swarm of locusts.) Down the road, the insurance industry will get the final bite of what’s left as uninformed retirees, mentally brainwashed for decades to expect that lifetime income stream option, take the road of least resistance. None of this addresses the real issue: that the 401(k) has proven itself as a get rich scheme for Wall Street and a poverty driver for retirees. Even JPMorgan admitted in a comment letter that one of its own studies in 2009 found that “Two-thirds of 401(k) plan participants admitted they don’t read the plan information they receive from their employers or providers” and that “58% of participants indicated they did not have enough time to pay attention to their retirement investments on a regular basis.”

1 0

Now That You Know Wall Street Can Eat Up Two-Thirds of Your 401(k) With Fees, You Should Also Know It Formed a Coalition to Block Full Disclosure of That Fact
by Gunnar Larson 02 Jun '24

02 Jun '24

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2013/04/now-that-you-know-wall-street-can-ea… By Pam Martens: April 30, 2013 Last week we reported on a PBS Frontline program showing that a 2 percent mutual fund management fee can gobble up two-thirds of your nest egg for retirement over a span of 50 years of saving. Now comes an equally ugly truth. Since at least 1998 the U.S. Department of Labor, which oversees the nation’s 401(k) plans, has known that fee gouging was eroding the ability of workers to adequately build wealth for retirement in 401(k) plans. It took more than a decade for the Federal agency to pass a regulation mandating that 401(k) recipients receive fee disclosure in an annual mailing. Leading the charge against full disclosure was a coalition of trade associations dominated by Wall Street. On April 13, 1998, the U.S. Department of Labor published a “Study of 401(k) Plan Fees and Expenses,” noting the following: “Expenses of operating and maintaining an investment portfolio that are debited against the participant’s account constitute an opportunity cost in the form of foregone investments in every contribution period. The laws of compound interest dictate that these small reductions in investment are magnified greatly over the decades in which many employees will be 401(k) plan participants. Observers have concluded that some plan providers are charging as much as 100 basis points in fees and expenses over the prevailing average rates (Benna; Butler, November 12, 1997). The effect of such higher levels of expenses would be to reduce the value of potential future account balances for these participants… “A second issue of concern to many observers is that sponsors (and participants) lack adequate information on the structure and extent of fees and expenses to make informed choices about service providers and investment options. Thus, the inadequate disclosure of information may be a factor in the existence of the large variance in fees and expenses of 401(k) plans…” Today, the U.S. Department of Labor web site carries a candid statement of what is happening to the unsophisticated in their efforts to save for retirement in 401(k)s: “Do you or your loved ones know how much you are paying for your retirement accounts? You could be losing tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars because of excessive and hidden fees.” Back in 2007, when the Department of Labor put out for public comment its proposed rules on making fuller and clearer disclosures on 401(k) fees, a swat team of Wall Street related trade associations organized together to beat back too much disclosure. Noteworthy among the members was the infamous U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Financial Services Roundtable and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA). In a letter dated July 24, 2007, the group argued the following points: “More disclosure will not always be better…” “More detail about the components of asset-based fees is not relevant to the total cost of investing…” “Fee information should not be elevated so as to suggest that fees are the most important factor in selecting investments…” “The Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) requires that participants have access to investment education materials and a new requirement in this area is not needed…” The trade coalition produced no surveys, no research to back up the proposition that keeping 401(k) participants blissfully ignorant of grainy fee details was in their best interests. In fact, the preposterous idea that investors already had adequate information or that “more disclosure will not always be better” was discredited in a February 2011 study conducted on behalf of AARP. Titled “401(k) Participants’ Awareness and Understanding of Fees,” the report found that seven in ten (71percent) participants were not aware that they pay fees to their 401(k) plan provider. When participants were told there were fees, 62 percent did not know the amount of fees they pay. Beginning last August, 72 million participants holding some $3 trillion in 401(k) assets were to begin receiving an annual statement of the fees they are being charged. The statements for assets with a varying return (such as stock, bond and money market mutual funds) are to show the total annual operating expenses expressed as both a percentage of assets and a dollar amount for each $1,000 invested. In addition, commissions, front end and back end sales loads, surrender charges, account fees were also to be spelled out. For investment options that have a fixed rate of return (such as fixed-rate annuities), information was to be provided on any shareholder-type fees or restrictions on the ability to purchase or withdraw from the investment. Additional information for the 401(k) investor is provided at the following Department of Labor web pages: Understanding Your Retirement Plan Fees A Look at 401(k) Plan Fees – video A Look at 401(k) Plan Fees – publication FAQs on Disclosure to Help Employees Understand Their Retirement Plan Fees Maximize Your Retirement Savings – Tips on Using the Fee and Investment Information From Your Retirement Plan What You Should Know About Your Retirement Plan Before It’s Too Late Newsletter Retirement Plan Fee Disclosure Rule Fact Sheet

1 0

High Court Ethics Bill In 'High Consideration,' Schumer Says
by Gunnar Larson 02 Jun '24

02 Jun '24

High Court Ethics Bill In 'High Consideration,' Schumer Says <https://www.law360.com/mergersacquisitions/articles/1839562?nl_pk=a34c25b5-…> By Courtney Bublé Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on Tuesday that a bill to institute an ethics code for the U.S. Supreme Court was in "high consideration" to come before the full Senate for a vote, following the report last week that an upside-down flag, which has become a symbol for former President Donald Trump's claims that the 2020 election was stolen, was flown outside Justice Samuel Alito's house after the attack on the U.S. Capitol a month later. Letter attached | Read full article » <https://www.law360.com/mergersacquisitions/articles/1839562?nl_pk=a34c25b5-…> | Save to favorites » <https://www.law360.com/mergersacquisitions/articles/1839562?nl_pk=a34c25b5-…>

1 1