US President Barack Obama has urged visiting Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to accept a Palestinian state.
After their first talks since both took office, Mr Obama restated his support for a two-state plan and said the US would be "engaged in the process".
He also said Israel had an obligation under the 2003 "roadmap" to stop Jewish settlement in the West Bank.
Mr Netanyahu said he was ready to start peace talks "immediately" but refrained from endorsing a Palestinian state.
After their meeting in Washington, Mr Obama said he had suggested the Israeli prime minister had a "historic opportunity to get a serious movement" on Palestinian statehood.
I firmly believe it is not in Iran's interest to develop nuclear weapons
Mr Netanyahu said Israel was ready to live "side by side" with Palestinians and he could resume talks immediately, but any agreement depended on Palestinian acceptance of Israel's right to exist "as a Jewish state", he added.
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat reacted with derision to Mr Netanyahu's remarks.
"How can I govern myself by myself as a Palestinian with his occupation going on on my neck on the hour every hour? With his roadblocks segregating our towns and villages and refugee camps?" he said.
A Hamas official, Musher al-Masri, said the Americans still were not treating Israel and the Palestinians even-handedly.
In Israel itself, right-wingers said they were worried the Americans were moving away from their commitment to Israel's security, while opposition Kadima politicians said Mr Netanyahu had missed the chance to forge real trust with President Obama.
Nuclear Iran
The BBC's Kim Ghattas in Washington says Mr Obama was clearly putting the onus on Mr Netanyahu to accept a Palestinian state
The differences between the two men are still there, she says, adding that the meeting has given Mr Obama an opportunity to assess how big the gap is, and how he can move forward ahead of meetings with Egyptian and Palestinian leaders next week.
Our correspondent says Mr Netanyahu came to Washington with his own list of priorities, topped by Iran's nuclear programme.
"There's never been a time when Arabs and Israelis see a common threat the way we see it today," the Israeli prime minister said.
Mr Obama said "it is not in Iran's interest" to develop nuclear arms, and that the US would keep options open.
He stressed that "we should have some sense by the end of the year" on whether talks with Iran were bearing fruit.
Amid reports from Israel that the authorities were moving ahead with plans to expand a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank, Mr Obama said Israel had an obligation to stop Jewish settlement activity.
Tenders have been issued to build 20 housing units in Maskiot, a former Israeli military base that has been designated for housing settlers removed from Gaza in 2005.
Israeli campaign group Peace Now says this is a clear message to Washington that the Israeli government intends to expand settlements, which are considered illegal under international law.
Monday, May 18, 2009
'Clever' bra lifts boobs on arousal!
The next time you want a man to know that you desire him - just let your "smart memory bra" do the talking!
A brassiere that lifts the bust when a woman is aroused has been unveiled at a lingerie exhibition in Paris.
The "smart memory bras" have heat-sensitive foam which pushes up boobs as sexual attraction causes body temperature to rise, reports The Sun.
As the body cools down, the foam relaxes and the bust appears normal again. Inventors at the Slovenia-based Lisca lingerie firm stumbled on the concept when developing bras that adapt to changing weather conditions.
Designer Suzana Gorisek said: "As the body changes, so does the bra." The revolutionary lingerie will hit British stores in summer for around 25-pound each.
A spokesman for Lisca said: "It's healthier than an ordinary bra because it will always provide the perfect fit."
A brassiere that lifts the bust when a woman is aroused has been unveiled at a lingerie exhibition in Paris.
The "smart memory bras" have heat-sensitive foam which pushes up boobs as sexual attraction causes body temperature to rise, reports The Sun.
As the body cools down, the foam relaxes and the bust appears normal again. Inventors at the Slovenia-based Lisca lingerie firm stumbled on the concept when developing bras that adapt to changing weather conditions.
Designer Suzana Gorisek said: "As the body changes, so does the bra." The revolutionary lingerie will hit British stores in summer for around 25-pound each.
A spokesman for Lisca said: "It's healthier than an ordinary bra because it will always provide the perfect fit."
Sunday, May 17, 2009
A giant leap toward space-based solar power
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. for decades has generated power for its customers by splitting atoms, burning natural gas and capturing the force of falling water. More recently, the San Francisco utility began turning to the sun, wind, boiling geysers and even fermented cow manure to produce electricity.
Now, PG&E wants to turn to outer space.
A Manhattan Beach start-up called Solaren Corp. seeks to launch an array of giant solar power collectors into orbit 23,000 miles above Fresno and beam the energy to Earth. PG&E has signed a contract to buy the power -- if Solaren can make the technology work.
The proposal is a potential energy game-changer, supporters say. But, critics dismiss it as pie in the sky.
The scheme highlights a growing dispute as utilities struggle to meet ambitious requirements for energy from renewable sources: Should electricity come from big, bold projects such as huge desert fields of sunlight-reflecting mirrors or should it come from smaller, close-to-the-user efforts such as rooftop solar panels? Should big power companies handle electron delivery or do-it-yourselfers?
Solaren won't discuss the details or costs of its plan, other than to give a ballpark price tag at more than $2 billion, to generate enough electricity for 150,000 homes across much of Northern and Central California. It has asked utility regulators to keep the information confidential, for now.
But executives say that by 2016 they can put together the technology to harness energy that constantly bathes Earth from 93 million miles away.
"If our numbers are anywhere near where we think they will be, we will be able to provide power at a cost that's comparable with anything on Earth, that is much cleaner and all from space," says Gary Spirnak, Solaren's chief executive.
Spirnak points to a 2007 study by the National Security Space Office as evidence that a such a space-based power system is feasible:
"There is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship, advancement of general space faring and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a space-based solar power capability."
He acknowledges that raising more than $2 billion during a recession won't be easy, but says having a guaranteed power purchase agreement with PG&E should carry some weight with potential investors.
The Public Utilities Commission is reviewing Solaren's contract with PG&E, a unit of PG&E Corp. Regulators are charged with ensuring that the deal helps the utility meet a requirement to get one-fifth of its power from renewable sources by 2012. PG&E has asked for a ruling before Oct. 29.
Consumer advocates and more Earth-bound proponents of renewable energy are extremely skeptical.
California will be unable to meet its looming 20% renewable energy requirement, let alone a more ambitious 30% goal by 2030, if utilities and regulators continually embrace expensive, flashy and unproven technologies, they say. Policymakers, instead, should stick with reliable alternative sources -- such as geothermal, wind and centralized solar, sunlight concentrated by mirrors -- that have been operating commercially for decades.
"There are a lot of speculative plays," says V. John White, director of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technology in Sacramento. "We have a lot of PowerPoints floating around that I don't think will turn into power plants."
The concept behind space-based solar power is simple, Solaren says.
Four or five rocket launches would be needed to put enough solar collectors into a stationary orbit to produce 200 megawatts of power, about half the output of a modern natural-gas-fired plant. The solar energy would be converted radio waves and beamed to a receiving station in Fresno, leaving unscathed any birds or airplanes that get in the way of the highly diffused beam. There, it would be converted to either alternating or direct electric current and dispatched to customers via high-voltage transmission lines.
Spirnak acknowledges that nothing on this scale has been attempted, but the basic technology is proven. Commercial communications satellites have been powered by solar energy for more than four decades. The satellites use the sun's power, available 24 hours a day in space, to make electricity. The electricity is turned into radio waves to bounce television, telephone and other signals around the globe.
Experience with larger scale, experimental radio transmissions converted to electrical power is limited, PG&E wrote in the regulatory filing. In 1975, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory transmitted 34 kilowatts of energy about a mile. Last year, a former JPL scientist, John Mankins, transmitted a small amount of power generated by ground-based solar cells 92 miles between two Hawaiian islands.
"The challenge," PG&E spokesman Jonathan Marshal says, is "putting enough hardware up in space and doing it economically."
Solaren and PG&E emphasize that ratepayers won't pay a penny of Solaren's costs until the company starts streaming power into their homes and businesses. PG&E isn't investing in the project up front, agreeing only to buy power once it's flowing, common practice in the utility business.
"There's no risk to our customers. They'll pay only for the power that's delivered," Marshal says. "We're not investing in the project or paying advance fees."
Consumer advocates say they're heartened that PG&E isn't asking customers to pay up front for what might turn out to be little more than a science fiction fantasy.
"We think the chance of this company ever getting this solar farm -- literally and figuratively -- off the ground is quite remote," says Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, a San Francisco-based group that monitors investor-owned utilities.
PG&E, which gets 12% of its power from renewable sources, is grandstanding when it touts contracts to buy space power, Toney says. It should be putting "more focus into local renewables closer to home," such as placing solar panels on the roofs of homes and businesses, he says.
Solaren's plan is a "very serious" effort to put an admittedly "trial size" power plant in space, says Frederick H. Pickel, an energy consultant and engineering economist in Los Angeles.
"If this works, it changes the whole game," he says. "If they manage to reduce the cost sufficiently for space-based solar generation, the electric game changes, the natural gas game changes and, perhaps, even the oil game changes."
Now, PG&E wants to turn to outer space.
A Manhattan Beach start-up called Solaren Corp. seeks to launch an array of giant solar power collectors into orbit 23,000 miles above Fresno and beam the energy to Earth. PG&E has signed a contract to buy the power -- if Solaren can make the technology work.
The proposal is a potential energy game-changer, supporters say. But, critics dismiss it as pie in the sky.
The scheme highlights a growing dispute as utilities struggle to meet ambitious requirements for energy from renewable sources: Should electricity come from big, bold projects such as huge desert fields of sunlight-reflecting mirrors or should it come from smaller, close-to-the-user efforts such as rooftop solar panels? Should big power companies handle electron delivery or do-it-yourselfers?
Solaren won't discuss the details or costs of its plan, other than to give a ballpark price tag at more than $2 billion, to generate enough electricity for 150,000 homes across much of Northern and Central California. It has asked utility regulators to keep the information confidential, for now.
But executives say that by 2016 they can put together the technology to harness energy that constantly bathes Earth from 93 million miles away.
"If our numbers are anywhere near where we think they will be, we will be able to provide power at a cost that's comparable with anything on Earth, that is much cleaner and all from space," says Gary Spirnak, Solaren's chief executive.
Spirnak points to a 2007 study by the National Security Space Office as evidence that a such a space-based power system is feasible:
"There is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship, advancement of general space faring and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a space-based solar power capability."
He acknowledges that raising more than $2 billion during a recession won't be easy, but says having a guaranteed power purchase agreement with PG&E should carry some weight with potential investors.
The Public Utilities Commission is reviewing Solaren's contract with PG&E, a unit of PG&E Corp. Regulators are charged with ensuring that the deal helps the utility meet a requirement to get one-fifth of its power from renewable sources by 2012. PG&E has asked for a ruling before Oct. 29.
Consumer advocates and more Earth-bound proponents of renewable energy are extremely skeptical.
California will be unable to meet its looming 20% renewable energy requirement, let alone a more ambitious 30% goal by 2030, if utilities and regulators continually embrace expensive, flashy and unproven technologies, they say. Policymakers, instead, should stick with reliable alternative sources -- such as geothermal, wind and centralized solar, sunlight concentrated by mirrors -- that have been operating commercially for decades.
"There are a lot of speculative plays," says V. John White, director of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technology in Sacramento. "We have a lot of PowerPoints floating around that I don't think will turn into power plants."
The concept behind space-based solar power is simple, Solaren says.
Four or five rocket launches would be needed to put enough solar collectors into a stationary orbit to produce 200 megawatts of power, about half the output of a modern natural-gas-fired plant. The solar energy would be converted radio waves and beamed to a receiving station in Fresno, leaving unscathed any birds or airplanes that get in the way of the highly diffused beam. There, it would be converted to either alternating or direct electric current and dispatched to customers via high-voltage transmission lines.
Spirnak acknowledges that nothing on this scale has been attempted, but the basic technology is proven. Commercial communications satellites have been powered by solar energy for more than four decades. The satellites use the sun's power, available 24 hours a day in space, to make electricity. The electricity is turned into radio waves to bounce television, telephone and other signals around the globe.
Experience with larger scale, experimental radio transmissions converted to electrical power is limited, PG&E wrote in the regulatory filing. In 1975, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory transmitted 34 kilowatts of energy about a mile. Last year, a former JPL scientist, John Mankins, transmitted a small amount of power generated by ground-based solar cells 92 miles between two Hawaiian islands.
"The challenge," PG&E spokesman Jonathan Marshal says, is "putting enough hardware up in space and doing it economically."
Solaren and PG&E emphasize that ratepayers won't pay a penny of Solaren's costs until the company starts streaming power into their homes and businesses. PG&E isn't investing in the project up front, agreeing only to buy power once it's flowing, common practice in the utility business.
"There's no risk to our customers. They'll pay only for the power that's delivered," Marshal says. "We're not investing in the project or paying advance fees."
Consumer advocates say they're heartened that PG&E isn't asking customers to pay up front for what might turn out to be little more than a science fiction fantasy.
"We think the chance of this company ever getting this solar farm -- literally and figuratively -- off the ground is quite remote," says Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, a San Francisco-based group that monitors investor-owned utilities.
PG&E, which gets 12% of its power from renewable sources, is grandstanding when it touts contracts to buy space power, Toney says. It should be putting "more focus into local renewables closer to home," such as placing solar panels on the roofs of homes and businesses, he says.
Solaren's plan is a "very serious" effort to put an admittedly "trial size" power plant in space, says Frederick H. Pickel, an energy consultant and engineering economist in Los Angeles.
"If this works, it changes the whole game," he says. "If they manage to reduce the cost sufficiently for space-based solar generation, the electric game changes, the natural gas game changes and, perhaps, even the oil game changes."
Fiancee identifies man killed by Inglewood police
man killed by Inglewood police this morning as they broke up a party has been identified as Marcus Smith, 31, of Compton, by a woman who said she was the man’s fiancee.
The Los Angeles County coroner’s office confirmed Smith’s identity.
Kalonna LaCount, 30, a secretary at Kaiser Permanente, said she and Smith were at a birthday party in the 800 block of South Osage Avenue when police officers showed up and told guests to disperse. LaCount said she and Smith were walking down a stairway together when Smith slipped. LaCount said she then saw Smith’s body jerk as police fired their weapons.
She said she did not see Smith brandishing a weapon, although she was not certain whether Smith was armed or owned a gun.
"He had his hands in the air," LaCount said. "The more he stumbled, the more they shot."
LaCount spoke hours after Inglewood police released a statement that there had been an officer-involved shooting on Osage Avenue. The statement said the suspect was killed and an officer injured.
A police spokesman later said that the suspect had a loaded semi-automatic handgun.
LaCount, wearing a green dress splattered with her fiancé’s blood, sat on the steps of the apartment building where the shooting occurred and wept as she recounted the moments before Smith’s death. LaCount said she and Smith had been together for 17 years and have three girls, all under age 12.
As she spoke, she turned to her brother, Taqwa LaCount, 25, and said: "He’s dead. Can you believe it? What am I going to do?"
Another witness account of the shooting came from Inglewood resident Charisma Bailey, 28, who lives at the apartment where the party was held. Bailey said party-goers were wearing masks and beads for the event’s Mardi Gras theme.
Bailey said she was standing next to the window of her second-story apartment, looking down the stairs when officers approached the property, holding flashlights and guns. "The next thing you know they’re shooting and he’s falling down the steps," she said of Smith.
The Los Angeles County coroner’s office confirmed Smith’s identity.
Kalonna LaCount, 30, a secretary at Kaiser Permanente, said she and Smith were at a birthday party in the 800 block of South Osage Avenue when police officers showed up and told guests to disperse. LaCount said she and Smith were walking down a stairway together when Smith slipped. LaCount said she then saw Smith’s body jerk as police fired their weapons.
She said she did not see Smith brandishing a weapon, although she was not certain whether Smith was armed or owned a gun.
"He had his hands in the air," LaCount said. "The more he stumbled, the more they shot."
LaCount spoke hours after Inglewood police released a statement that there had been an officer-involved shooting on Osage Avenue. The statement said the suspect was killed and an officer injured.
A police spokesman later said that the suspect had a loaded semi-automatic handgun.
LaCount, wearing a green dress splattered with her fiancé’s blood, sat on the steps of the apartment building where the shooting occurred and wept as she recounted the moments before Smith’s death. LaCount said she and Smith had been together for 17 years and have three girls, all under age 12.
As she spoke, she turned to her brother, Taqwa LaCount, 25, and said: "He’s dead. Can you believe it? What am I going to do?"
Another witness account of the shooting came from Inglewood resident Charisma Bailey, 28, who lives at the apartment where the party was held. Bailey said party-goers were wearing masks and beads for the event’s Mardi Gras theme.
Bailey said she was standing next to the window of her second-story apartment, looking down the stairs when officers approached the property, holding flashlights and guns. "The next thing you know they’re shooting and he’s falling down the steps," she said of Smith.
This Mom Didn’t Have to Die
On this trip through West Africa with my “win-a-trip” contest winner, I was reminded of one of the grimmest risks to human life here. Despite threats from warlords and exotic disease, it’s something even deadlier: motherhood.
One of the most dangerous things an African woman can do is become pregnant. So, along with the winner of my contest for college students, Paul Bowers, I have been visiting the forlorn hospitals here in West Africa. According to the World Health Organization, Sierra Leone has the highest maternal mortality in the world, and in several African countries, 1 woman in 10 ends up dying in childbirth.
It’s pretty clear that if men were dying at these rates, the United Nations Security Council would be holding urgent consultations, and a country such as this would appoint a minister of paternal mortality. Yet half-a-million women die annually from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth without attracting much interest because the victims are typically among the most voiceless people in the world: impoverished, rural, uneducated and female.
Take Mariama, a 21-year-old pregnant woman with a 3-year-old child living in a village here in southern Sierra Leone. Mariama started bleeding one afternoon before we arrived, but her family had no money and was reluctant to seek medical care. When she was already half-dead, she was finally taken into the government hospital in Bo.
She was off-the-charts anemic, but there was no blood available for a transfusion. In that situation, the woman’s relatives are checked to see if they are of the same type and can give, but Mariama was accompanied only by her mother, who was too fragile to donate blood.
The only obstetrician, serving an area with two million people, was away, so nurses suggested that in the absence of a transfusion, Mariama receive a plasma expander for her blood. But that would have cost $4, and Mariama and her mother had no money at all.
So Mariama continued to hemorrhage right there in the maternity ward. At 1 a.m. the next morning, she died.
“We did our best to save her,” said Regina Horton, a nurse-midwife at the hospital. “But we had no blood.”
I’ve seen women dying like this in many countries — on the first win-a-trip journey in 2006, a student and I watched a mother of three dying in front of us in Cameroon — and it’s not only shattering but also infuriating. It’s no mystery how to save the lives of pregnant women; what’s lacking is the will and resources.
Indeed, Sierra Leone is now making progress with the help of the United Nations Population Fund, which is renovating hospital wards, providing free medicines and trying to ensure that poor women don’t die because they can’t pay $100 for a Caesarian section. The Bush administration cut off all American funds for the U.N. Population Fund, hobbling it, but this year President Obama has moved to restore the money. Other organizations that are focused on this issue include the White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood, CARE and Averting Maternal Death and Disability.
A bill introduced in Congress in March — the Newborn, Child, and Mother Survival Act — would establish American leadership in this area. But it has attracted pathetically little attention.
If the lives of women like Mariama were a priority, there would be many simple ways to keep them alive. For example, they could routinely be given anti-malarials and deworming medicine during pregnancy to flush out parasites. They should also receive daily iron tablets to overcome anemia, and a bed net. All this would cost just a few dollars and would leave pregnant women far less likely to die of hemorrhages.
Caesarian sections are necessary for perhaps 1 in 10 births worldwide, but village women put their trust in traditional birth attendants (partly because the attendants also perform genital cutting on girls, creating a bond). Doctors and nurses often are harsh and contemptuous toward uneducated women so that patients stay away until it is too late. If doctors and nurses had as good a bedside manner as the birth attendants, hospitals would be better used and lives saved.
Still, one sees the — limited — progress in Mabinti Kamara, who is 25 and went into labor in her village. When an arm came out, it was apparent that the fetus was sideways, so the birth attendant pushed hard on Mabinti’s abdomen to complete the process.
On Mabinti’s fourth day of labor, she was finally taken to a hospital in the city of Makeni, where a surgeon found that she had a ruptured uterus. The surgeon removed the dead fetus and repaired the uterus. Mabinti then lay on her bed in pain, disconsolate at losing her child. Still, the maternity ward was filled with women like her. Just a few years ago, they all would have died. They are reminders that women can be saved in childbirth — but only if their lives become a prioriority
nytimes.com
One of the most dangerous things an African woman can do is become pregnant. So, along with the winner of my contest for college students, Paul Bowers, I have been visiting the forlorn hospitals here in West Africa. According to the World Health Organization, Sierra Leone has the highest maternal mortality in the world, and in several African countries, 1 woman in 10 ends up dying in childbirth.
It’s pretty clear that if men were dying at these rates, the United Nations Security Council would be holding urgent consultations, and a country such as this would appoint a minister of paternal mortality. Yet half-a-million women die annually from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth without attracting much interest because the victims are typically among the most voiceless people in the world: impoverished, rural, uneducated and female.
Take Mariama, a 21-year-old pregnant woman with a 3-year-old child living in a village here in southern Sierra Leone. Mariama started bleeding one afternoon before we arrived, but her family had no money and was reluctant to seek medical care. When she was already half-dead, she was finally taken into the government hospital in Bo.
She was off-the-charts anemic, but there was no blood available for a transfusion. In that situation, the woman’s relatives are checked to see if they are of the same type and can give, but Mariama was accompanied only by her mother, who was too fragile to donate blood.
The only obstetrician, serving an area with two million people, was away, so nurses suggested that in the absence of a transfusion, Mariama receive a plasma expander for her blood. But that would have cost $4, and Mariama and her mother had no money at all.
So Mariama continued to hemorrhage right there in the maternity ward. At 1 a.m. the next morning, she died.
“We did our best to save her,” said Regina Horton, a nurse-midwife at the hospital. “But we had no blood.”
I’ve seen women dying like this in many countries — on the first win-a-trip journey in 2006, a student and I watched a mother of three dying in front of us in Cameroon — and it’s not only shattering but also infuriating. It’s no mystery how to save the lives of pregnant women; what’s lacking is the will and resources.
Indeed, Sierra Leone is now making progress with the help of the United Nations Population Fund, which is renovating hospital wards, providing free medicines and trying to ensure that poor women don’t die because they can’t pay $100 for a Caesarian section. The Bush administration cut off all American funds for the U.N. Population Fund, hobbling it, but this year President Obama has moved to restore the money. Other organizations that are focused on this issue include the White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood, CARE and Averting Maternal Death and Disability.
A bill introduced in Congress in March — the Newborn, Child, and Mother Survival Act — would establish American leadership in this area. But it has attracted pathetically little attention.
If the lives of women like Mariama were a priority, there would be many simple ways to keep them alive. For example, they could routinely be given anti-malarials and deworming medicine during pregnancy to flush out parasites. They should also receive daily iron tablets to overcome anemia, and a bed net. All this would cost just a few dollars and would leave pregnant women far less likely to die of hemorrhages.
Caesarian sections are necessary for perhaps 1 in 10 births worldwide, but village women put their trust in traditional birth attendants (partly because the attendants also perform genital cutting on girls, creating a bond). Doctors and nurses often are harsh and contemptuous toward uneducated women so that patients stay away until it is too late. If doctors and nurses had as good a bedside manner as the birth attendants, hospitals would be better used and lives saved.
Still, one sees the — limited — progress in Mabinti Kamara, who is 25 and went into labor in her village. When an arm came out, it was apparent that the fetus was sideways, so the birth attendant pushed hard on Mabinti’s abdomen to complete the process.
On Mabinti’s fourth day of labor, she was finally taken to a hospital in the city of Makeni, where a surgeon found that she had a ruptured uterus. The surgeon removed the dead fetus and repaired the uterus. Mabinti then lay on her bed in pain, disconsolate at losing her child. Still, the maternity ward was filled with women like her. Just a few years ago, they all would have died. They are reminders that women can be saved in childbirth — but only if their lives become a prioriority
nytimes.com
New Mood in Antitrust May Target Google
For decades, the nation’s biggest antitrust cases have centered on technology companies. And they have all been efforts by the government to deal with powerful companies with far-reaching influence, like AT&T, the telephone monopoly; I.B.M., the mainframe computer giant; and Microsoft, the powerhouse of personal computer software.
Last week, the Obama administration declared a sharp break with the Bush years, vowing to toughen antitrust enforcement, especially for dominant companies. The approach is closer to that of the European Union, where regulators last week fined Intel $1.45 billion for abusing its power in the chip market.
In this new climate, the stakes appear to be highest for Google, the rising power of the Internet economy.
The new antitrust leadership, legal experts say, is likely to scrutinize networks — technology platforms that become so dominant that everyone feels the need to plug into them. The advantages to the companies that control such networks snowball as they attract more users, advertisers or software developers.
Internet search and search advertising, like personal computer operating software, is one example, said Herbert Hovenkamp, an antitrust expert at the University of Iowa law school. “Google is a dominant network, as is Microsoft,” Mr. Hovenkamp said. “Networks become competitive only if everyone has the same chance.”
Google’s corporate behavior is already being closely monitored. Last year, Google abandoned a planned search advertising partnership with Yahoo, after the Justice Department said it intended to file suit to block the agreement on antitrust grounds. Google has 64 percent of the Web search market in America, while Yahoo has 21 percent and Microsoft 8 percent, according to comScore, a research firm.
In recent weeks, antitrust officials have opened two inquiries. The Justice Department is looking into Google’s settlement with authors and publishers for its book-search service to see if it violates antitrust laws. And the Federal Trade Commission is examining whether Google’s sharing two board members with Apple reduces competition, since both companies offer Web browsers and phone operating systems.
Eric E. Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, said earlier this month that the close scrutiny was not surprising. “Information is incredibly important, and we should expect governments around the world to pay attention to what we do,” he said.
Google’s power is a cause of worry in many industries — media, advertising, telecommunications and software. Yet being large, successful and ambitious is not an antitrust violation. “You’ve got to be big, and you have to be bad,” observed Andrew I. Gavil, a law professor at Howard University. “You have to be both.”
In the Microsoft case, the software giant’s monopoly in personal computer operating systems was not an antitrust problem. It was its corporate actions, including using contracts and bullying tactics to stifle competition, that broke the law, the federal courts ruled. Such strong-arm practices, legal experts say, have not been part of the Google story.
Unless Google is shown to engage in a pattern of anticompetitive conduct, the company is likely to face constant scrutiny, but not a major federal suit, antitrust experts say. Even with misconduct, they say, complex antitrust cases like the one against Microsoft take years to come to fruition. “There will be a lot of agonizing about Google, and it will raise concerns, but I don’t see a big Google case in the offing,” said Michael Katz, an economist at New York University’s Stern School of Business.
Instead, Google is likely to be watched step by step. One area to watch, antitrust experts say, is whether Google uses its search engine to give it a leg up in new businesses.
Last month, the company announced that Google Profiles, a service that gives people a page to publish their name, photo and other personal information, would be featured below Google’s search results when someone typed in a name. That could give Google Profiles an edge over profiles from Facebook and other social networks, which have to earn their search result rankings.
Google, according to Randal C. Picker, an antitrust expert at the University of Chicago law school, is using its search engine to “leverage” another Google service. Such tactics, he said, echo Microsoft’s linking of its Windows operating system to its Web browser. “It is the kind of thing that is likely to get antitrust attention,” Mr. Picker said.
The company says Google Profiles is an effort to improve Web search, and comes in response to users’ requests for greater control over their online identities. Google also says its software scans other social networks, and those results typically appear near the top of a search for a person’s name. “We designed Profiles to encourage user choice, not limit it,” said Adam Kovacevich, a Google spokesman.
In her speech last week, Christine A. Varney, head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, said the touchstone of antitrust policy should be “the protection of consumer welfare.”
By that standard, Google seems an elusive target for antitrust enforcers, since most of its services are free. And in the new markets it is entering, including cellphone software and online alternatives to desktop programs, Google is an insurgent going up against large, well-heeled rivals, notably Microsoft.
“If what Google really has is an enormous scale advantage in Internet search and advertising — and it is not engaged in exclusionary or other bad behavior — I would be very reluctant to step in,” said Mr. Hovenkamp of the University of Iowa.
Last week, the Obama administration declared a sharp break with the Bush years, vowing to toughen antitrust enforcement, especially for dominant companies. The approach is closer to that of the European Union, where regulators last week fined Intel $1.45 billion for abusing its power in the chip market.
In this new climate, the stakes appear to be highest for Google, the rising power of the Internet economy.
The new antitrust leadership, legal experts say, is likely to scrutinize networks — technology platforms that become so dominant that everyone feels the need to plug into them. The advantages to the companies that control such networks snowball as they attract more users, advertisers or software developers.
Internet search and search advertising, like personal computer operating software, is one example, said Herbert Hovenkamp, an antitrust expert at the University of Iowa law school. “Google is a dominant network, as is Microsoft,” Mr. Hovenkamp said. “Networks become competitive only if everyone has the same chance.”
Google’s corporate behavior is already being closely monitored. Last year, Google abandoned a planned search advertising partnership with Yahoo, after the Justice Department said it intended to file suit to block the agreement on antitrust grounds. Google has 64 percent of the Web search market in America, while Yahoo has 21 percent and Microsoft 8 percent, according to comScore, a research firm.
In recent weeks, antitrust officials have opened two inquiries. The Justice Department is looking into Google’s settlement with authors and publishers for its book-search service to see if it violates antitrust laws. And the Federal Trade Commission is examining whether Google’s sharing two board members with Apple reduces competition, since both companies offer Web browsers and phone operating systems.
Eric E. Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, said earlier this month that the close scrutiny was not surprising. “Information is incredibly important, and we should expect governments around the world to pay attention to what we do,” he said.
Google’s power is a cause of worry in many industries — media, advertising, telecommunications and software. Yet being large, successful and ambitious is not an antitrust violation. “You’ve got to be big, and you have to be bad,” observed Andrew I. Gavil, a law professor at Howard University. “You have to be both.”
In the Microsoft case, the software giant’s monopoly in personal computer operating systems was not an antitrust problem. It was its corporate actions, including using contracts and bullying tactics to stifle competition, that broke the law, the federal courts ruled. Such strong-arm practices, legal experts say, have not been part of the Google story.
Unless Google is shown to engage in a pattern of anticompetitive conduct, the company is likely to face constant scrutiny, but not a major federal suit, antitrust experts say. Even with misconduct, they say, complex antitrust cases like the one against Microsoft take years to come to fruition. “There will be a lot of agonizing about Google, and it will raise concerns, but I don’t see a big Google case in the offing,” said Michael Katz, an economist at New York University’s Stern School of Business.
Instead, Google is likely to be watched step by step. One area to watch, antitrust experts say, is whether Google uses its search engine to give it a leg up in new businesses.
Last month, the company announced that Google Profiles, a service that gives people a page to publish their name, photo and other personal information, would be featured below Google’s search results when someone typed in a name. That could give Google Profiles an edge over profiles from Facebook and other social networks, which have to earn their search result rankings.
Google, according to Randal C. Picker, an antitrust expert at the University of Chicago law school, is using its search engine to “leverage” another Google service. Such tactics, he said, echo Microsoft’s linking of its Windows operating system to its Web browser. “It is the kind of thing that is likely to get antitrust attention,” Mr. Picker said.
The company says Google Profiles is an effort to improve Web search, and comes in response to users’ requests for greater control over their online identities. Google also says its software scans other social networks, and those results typically appear near the top of a search for a person’s name. “We designed Profiles to encourage user choice, not limit it,” said Adam Kovacevich, a Google spokesman.
In her speech last week, Christine A. Varney, head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, said the touchstone of antitrust policy should be “the protection of consumer welfare.”
By that standard, Google seems an elusive target for antitrust enforcers, since most of its services are free. And in the new markets it is entering, including cellphone software and online alternatives to desktop programs, Google is an insurgent going up against large, well-heeled rivals, notably Microsoft.
“If what Google really has is an enormous scale advantage in Internet search and advertising — and it is not engaged in exclusionary or other bad behavior — I would be very reluctant to step in,” said Mr. Hovenkamp of the University of Iowa.
Republicans in Senate Lower Expectations of a Court Fight
While there is growing anticipation that the summer will bring the spectacle of a pitched Supreme Court confirmation battle, some Senate Republicans are lowering expectations that they are planning any major political fight.
President Obama has not yet named his choice to succeed Justice David H. Souter, but several Republicans acknowledge that it is unlikely they will be able to derail the nomination absent some startling revelation about the candidate.
Those Republicans, including senior staff aides and some senators, suggested in interviews that they believed Mr. Obama’s first nominee for the court would be confirmed without great difficulty no matter how they framed the issues during the confirmation process.
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, has said he would not necessarily be opposed to a nominee who is gay or an abortion rights advocate. In a recent interview, Mr. Sessions made it clear that whatever his preferences for resistance on the nominee, he could count the numbers.
“Well, the Democrats have a strong majority on the committee,” he said, referring to the fact that with Senator Arlen Specter’s switch to the Democratic Party, the majority increased to 12 to 7, from 11 to 8.
Mr. Sessions said he expected that Mr. Obama would take care to avoid selecting a nominee with any personal problems involving issues like ethics or taxes.
“Assuming no serious problems, we should have a good discussion about the role of a judge,” Mr. Sessions said. Asked what kind of candidate could be rejected, he replied that the Senate should not confirm anyone who would take personal views to the bench or who wanted “to promote a political agenda.”
Mr. Obama’s candidate is certain to declaim, as do all judicial nominees, that he or she will interpret the law and not promote any personal agendas.
A senior Republican Senate official not connected to Mr. Sessions said, “Everyone up here can see the political pieces on the board.” The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss the situation candidly, added, “No one is talking about the possibility of defeating any nominee, barring something coming out of left field.”
The official said that not only did Democrats have command of the committee and a strong majority in the Senate, but that any nomination would also come at a time when the president’s public standing was high.
A second top Republican Senate aide, also not connected to Mr. Sessions, said, referring to Mr. Obama, “Elections have consequences; he won.”
“Obviously, we’re going to stand up for our principles,” the aide continued, “but the other side has won this right to choose someone this time.”
Some other aides and one senator other than Mr. Sessions who asked not to be quoted all referred in interviews to the coming confirmation process as an “educational opportunity,” a description that suggests a more modest political goal than attacking or defeating a nominee.
But all of those interviewed said they understood that Senate Republicans would have to be sensitive to the concerns of outside conservative advocacy groups that will take a sharply adversarial position on the nominee. Some networks of conservatives have already been mapping outlines of strategy to oppose potential nominees, compiling and distributing brief dossiers on what they believe are the weak points of candidates on speculative lists.
The difference in the fervor of the conservative advocacy groups (the outsiders) and the Senate Republicans (the insiders) mirrors in some ways the situation Democrats faced for many years. Liberal advocacy groups mounted several campaigns against the nominees of President George W. Bush and his Republican predecessors that were not taken up in a full-throated way by Senate Democrats.
A result was chronic friction between the two groups, with senators complaining that the liberal groups were unrealistic and the advocates describing the senators as timid and even supine in the face of efforts to tilt the courts in a conservative direction.
Some of the senior Republican Senate officials said there was a widespread understanding that the conservative groups would use the occasion of a Supreme Court nominee by a Democratic president as an issue both to rally supporters and to raise political donations, much as liberal groups did with Republican court nominees.
“We’re not lowering expectations as much as setting them realistically,” one aide said. “They have their own agendas as well,” the aide added, referring to the use by outside groups of a Supreme Court nomination to fire up supporters. Republican officials all said that they expected Mr. Obama’s nominee to be a supporter of abortion rights and that that fact by itself would not be an obstacle to confirmation.
Mr. Sessions said anticipation over the confirmation process was inevitable because the issues were inherently important.
“We’re choosing someone with the power to redefine the Constitution,” he said. “That’s a big deal.”
And while that has always been so, the modern Supreme Court confirmation process first took on the drama of a special political moment with the 1987 battle over President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork. The nomination, which was defeated, featured an all-out fight with both sides deploying modern political tactics.
The scene was repeated four years later when the confirmation battle over Clarence Thomas riveted the nation and resulted in his confirmation.
President Obama has not yet named his choice to succeed Justice David H. Souter, but several Republicans acknowledge that it is unlikely they will be able to derail the nomination absent some startling revelation about the candidate.
Those Republicans, including senior staff aides and some senators, suggested in interviews that they believed Mr. Obama’s first nominee for the court would be confirmed without great difficulty no matter how they framed the issues during the confirmation process.
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, has said he would not necessarily be opposed to a nominee who is gay or an abortion rights advocate. In a recent interview, Mr. Sessions made it clear that whatever his preferences for resistance on the nominee, he could count the numbers.
“Well, the Democrats have a strong majority on the committee,” he said, referring to the fact that with Senator Arlen Specter’s switch to the Democratic Party, the majority increased to 12 to 7, from 11 to 8.
Mr. Sessions said he expected that Mr. Obama would take care to avoid selecting a nominee with any personal problems involving issues like ethics or taxes.
“Assuming no serious problems, we should have a good discussion about the role of a judge,” Mr. Sessions said. Asked what kind of candidate could be rejected, he replied that the Senate should not confirm anyone who would take personal views to the bench or who wanted “to promote a political agenda.”
Mr. Obama’s candidate is certain to declaim, as do all judicial nominees, that he or she will interpret the law and not promote any personal agendas.
A senior Republican Senate official not connected to Mr. Sessions said, “Everyone up here can see the political pieces on the board.” The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss the situation candidly, added, “No one is talking about the possibility of defeating any nominee, barring something coming out of left field.”
The official said that not only did Democrats have command of the committee and a strong majority in the Senate, but that any nomination would also come at a time when the president’s public standing was high.
A second top Republican Senate aide, also not connected to Mr. Sessions, said, referring to Mr. Obama, “Elections have consequences; he won.”
“Obviously, we’re going to stand up for our principles,” the aide continued, “but the other side has won this right to choose someone this time.”
Some other aides and one senator other than Mr. Sessions who asked not to be quoted all referred in interviews to the coming confirmation process as an “educational opportunity,” a description that suggests a more modest political goal than attacking or defeating a nominee.
But all of those interviewed said they understood that Senate Republicans would have to be sensitive to the concerns of outside conservative advocacy groups that will take a sharply adversarial position on the nominee. Some networks of conservatives have already been mapping outlines of strategy to oppose potential nominees, compiling and distributing brief dossiers on what they believe are the weak points of candidates on speculative lists.
The difference in the fervor of the conservative advocacy groups (the outsiders) and the Senate Republicans (the insiders) mirrors in some ways the situation Democrats faced for many years. Liberal advocacy groups mounted several campaigns against the nominees of President George W. Bush and his Republican predecessors that were not taken up in a full-throated way by Senate Democrats.
A result was chronic friction between the two groups, with senators complaining that the liberal groups were unrealistic and the advocates describing the senators as timid and even supine in the face of efforts to tilt the courts in a conservative direction.
Some of the senior Republican Senate officials said there was a widespread understanding that the conservative groups would use the occasion of a Supreme Court nominee by a Democratic president as an issue both to rally supporters and to raise political donations, much as liberal groups did with Republican court nominees.
“We’re not lowering expectations as much as setting them realistically,” one aide said. “They have their own agendas as well,” the aide added, referring to the use by outside groups of a Supreme Court nomination to fire up supporters. Republican officials all said that they expected Mr. Obama’s nominee to be a supporter of abortion rights and that that fact by itself would not be an obstacle to confirmation.
Mr. Sessions said anticipation over the confirmation process was inevitable because the issues were inherently important.
“We’re choosing someone with the power to redefine the Constitution,” he said. “That’s a big deal.”
And while that has always been so, the modern Supreme Court confirmation process first took on the drama of a special political moment with the 1987 battle over President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork. The nomination, which was defeated, featured an all-out fight with both sides deploying modern political tactics.
The scene was repeated four years later when the confirmation battle over Clarence Thomas riveted the nation and resulted in his confirmation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)