text:
Sunday, June 15, 2008
The PRO Life
Suffering is the glamorous part of being a PRO. The visage of a PRO is never more dramatic or memorable than when juxtaposed against his immaculate PRO kit and state-of-the-art carbon machine with complementarily colored saddle, pristine white tape and gleaming chain. With his face twisted in a sweat dripping, snot slathered, lactic grimace, he is the epitome of effort.
We acknowledge the training the PROs do to reach their fitness, but rarely do we speak of the sacrifices they make beyond the restrictive diet. Sure, we know they can't eat donuts and drink beer with every meal, but pedaling a bicycle at 40 mph to win in front of thousands and in front of television cameras that will broadcast your exploits into tens of millions of homes around the world requires sacrifices most of us are unwilling to make.
After all, the training is only part of the equation. Rest is equally important; under a 30-hour-per-week workload, PROs nap daily and sleep hours of which we can only dream. The routines of a PRO are simple, monastic: Eat, train, sleep. Repeat.
Strolling through shops in the afternoon: not PRO. Hiking in the woods with the girlfriend: not PRO. Driking margaritas on the beach at sunset: not PRO. Dancing at discos at midnight: not PRO. Taking recreational drugs: not PRO.
These are the basic, the elemental refusals a PRO must make his peace with if he wishes to reach the top. It is not so different from getting married: marriage means not playing the field, not if you wish to do marriage well.
What the riders want is not at issue. The crisis the sport faces is one of perception. The specter of performance enhancing drugs makes the athlete look like a cheat and cheating is unacceptable to the vast majority of fans and sponsors. Cheating is uncovered often enough that it is unpalatable to most sponsors.
If, indeed, all that was at stake was bicycle riding, no one would care. Pedro Delgado, Frank Vandenbroucke and Bjarne Riis would all have stayed at home were that the case. But this isn't just bicycle riding; that's what we, the television audience do. While we may race, for whatever reason we chose not to pursue the PRO life and its many sacrifices.
No, Delgado, Vandenbroucke, Riis, etc. were in pursuit of the age-old draw: fame and fortune. It may be that cheating doesn't upset everyone, but most folks like to know that an athlete's glory was achieved without outside assistance.
It is true that big money sponsorship has brought increased scrutiny to cycling. But no one has complained about the increased television exposure and salaries that came with those sponsorships. Were cycling still the sport of peasants sponsored 100 francs at a time, few would care. However, multinational corporations have an image (whether accurate or honed by the PR machine) they wish to protect. A company like Nike has enough problems with accusations of slave-wage labor not to want to battle the added image problem brought on by the scandal of a doped-up athlete.
Back when dope was an individual affair, which is to say, before science and organization entered the picture, stimulants and analgesics were the name of the game. "Pot Belge" has usually been described as a mixture of amphetamines, cocaine, heroine and caffeine. Recreational drugs, all. There's been some speculation about just how much Pot Belge can help one's performance, but whether it really helps or not, isn't the point. The riders believed it helped and that's enough to cast it in the dark light of performance enhancing.
With the advent of the biological passport and longitudinal testing as tools to verify that riders who race (that is, all riders, not just the ones who win) are clean, there are no vacations from the PRO life. That's the deal.
There's an implicit understanding when you get married: no hookers, no ex-girlfriends (or boyfriends). The same thing goes for cycling: no drugs. It's a simple formula, really. The audience and the sponsors don't want to ask questions about the nature of the win. If you have to ask which drugs, you don't quite get the picture.
Longitudinal testing is intended to show that riders know the difference, that they understand the definition of cheating from the fans' view. With fans and sponsors leaving the sport, there are no small infractions. There are no acceptable drugs. If drug testing profiles the substance, chances are it shouldn't be in you, not if you want to be a PRO.
How Tom Boonen might be penalized for his transgression is pretty unimportant. He's not going to the Tour de France. The green jersey will not be at the Tour de France. That's a big deal. Would a two-year suspension teach him something more than missing the Tour de France? It seems unlikely.
Boonen needs to get a clue. Every time one rider tests positive, the whole of the peloton is cast in suspicion. It may not be fair, and the dedicated fan might be able to see through it, but big-dollar sponsorships and television coverage demand that price be paid.
Morality is not the subject here. We sit not in judgement. If you need to party like Lindsay Lohan, that's for you to decide, but because a PRO's body can be tested 24/7/365, a PRO is on duty for the duration. Those are the stakes of the game. Play it well and adulation and riches will be yours. Play it poorly and embarrassment will be thy middle name.
Image courtesy John Pierce, Photosport International
33 comments:
It seems BKW is a bit pissed at ol' Tom. Sure, he did something incredibly stupid. It is also readily apparent that he is having difficulty dealing with the amount of pressure he's under every day. He's like the Brett Favre of Belgium, though he career has not gone on nearly as long as Favre's yet, of course. Though I am no huge football fan (Fall is for 'cross) Favre knows a thing or too about suffering. He suffered through an addiction himself. Should we remember Favre for his pill-popping, or for playing at the level he did for as long as he did? Tom needs some damned help. Let's hope he gets it, so we can remember his career as one notable for amazing sprints and cobbled classics and not as a preamble to a tragedy a la that of "Il Pirata." I also hope my favorite blog on the internet doesn't feel the need to reproach the man in a third post. There's some great racing going on across the pond and in our own back yards. Is it not PRO to acknowledge a sad fact and move on to real business?
- June 16, 2008 at 12:04:00 AM CDT
"Though I am no huge football fan (Fall is for 'cross) Favre knows a thing or two about suffering." - June 16, 2008 at 12:07:00 AM CDT
It was cocaine, not EPO. Get over it.
- June 16, 2008 at 12:24:00 AM CDT
although drinking beer on the beach = PRO. Just ask Bert Contador!
- June 16, 2008 at 12:26:00 AM CDT
Wow, This is probably the worst blog entry I've ever seen here. Way to support prohibition and the ASO's attempts at disneyfying cycling. Boo on you. (FYI: Non drug using elite racer)
PS: cocaine != EPO
PPS: Out of competition (hence the non UCI santion!) - June 16, 2008 at 1:26:00 AM CDT
surprised by the entry.
can't say I agree. - June 16, 2008 at 1:35:00 AM CDT
It's been repeated many times, but cocaine use is a sporting violation only when used during competition, and this was taken outside competition, so there was no doping violation. The result shouldn't have even been reported in the media, because it's merely gossip: that is, exposing the personal life of a celebrity for no reason other than public curiosity.
The media obsession with celebrity scandals is much more to blame for causing trouble here than any individual's partying. Let's allow riders to have a private life and focus our attention on their cycling persona. - June 16, 2008 at 3:06:00 AM CDT
- bikesgonewild said...
...thank you, padraig...i can't for the life of me, believe so many people w/ in the cycling community just don't get it...
...adding the adjective "recreational" to the noun "drug" does not or at least should not, lessen the reality to an intelligent person...
...educate yourselves...being off-handed about drugs is foolish & dangerous...understand the health aspects of drug usage...
...& if that's not enough, then understand the criminal consequences...people lie, cheat, steal, ruin their own lives & the lives of family & friends...
...tommeke is the biggest belgian sports 'hero' since merckx...like it or not, that means he's a role model...& that should say it all... - June 16, 2008 at 4:28:00 AM CDT
Twice, caught driving at very destructive speed, doing cocaine while a PRO under intense scrutiny of the sport, sounds like a cry for help, a little self destructive or something. I hope the guy gets some help.
The attention goes with the wins, I don't want to spend everyday on the subject, but humans can't not look at a car wreck. Tom you seem a wreck. Get well. - June 16, 2008 at 6:19:00 AM CDT
get over it guys,
i used to like this blog, but now you just seem like little girls.
you say:
"It may not be fair, and the dedicated fan might be able to see through it, but big-dollar sponsorships and television coverage demand that price be paid"
i say:
do i want this sport to be ruled by money? NO
fairness is worth a thousand times more than money or big audiences.
so we need to fight DOPING,
not a guy having fun after wining Paris - Roubaix.
if human behaviour scares off the big money, i don't have a problem with that.
most off us don't want a sterile sport.
it is the personality, humanity that makes this sport so great. - June 16, 2008 at 9:19:00 AM CDT
oh where 'o where has my bkw gone?
- June 16, 2008 at 9:52:00 AM CDT
Obviously drug-taking of any kind really bothers you. But, PROs are people too. While most of the time their routines are "simple" and "monastic," they are still people and, believe it or not, occassionaly blow off steam. Just because Boonen is talented enough and has worked hard enough to become a PRO, should he now be held to the standard of perfection (and therefore not human) you've set forth?
Taking illegal recreational drugs is clearly not the intelligent thing to do, but it really doesn't have anything to do with Boonen being a PRO.
Rather than requiring athletes to be monks and nuns, we should be focusing on what matters -- making the use of performance-enhancing drugs non-viable. The standard they should be held to is simple: don't cheat. Everything else they do just makes them more human and more interesting. - June 16, 2008 at 9:56:00 AM CDT
perhaps it's because i stopped idol-worshiping these guys and the lifestyle 15yrs ago that i simply see this whole incident for what it is. poor judgment on the part of a guy who rides a bike for a living. hopefully tom figures it out.
the rest is noise.
i believe the general sentiment was stated here some time ago, somewhere:
many of us live cleaner lives than pro athletes.
go outside and ride. - June 16, 2008 at 9:58:00 AM CDT
anon 9:56 & anon 9:58 have it right.
What's with the deifying of "PRO"? Once you realize that heros and supermen only exist in myths and fairy tales, you will find that you can still enjoy watching the sport. Sure, it will look a little different to you, but you might even get a little more out of it. - June 16, 2008 at 10:16:00 AM CDT
secondary gain:
one some level in a culture of testing, you know everything you do registers in your blood.
no matter who we are, there's always a desire to be someone else. being this young, this famous, this fetishized by the masses, this accountable.. maybe the psyche needs a way out. maybe part of yourself needs a portal out of something that's really a guilded prison.
maybe a part of him realizes now that he's set for life, that there is no there there.
the subconscious is an elegant thing. its true motives are never fully discovered in the moment.
noel - June 16, 2008 at 10:59:00 AM CDT
- Jim said...
If Boonen wants to go into a back room and shoot himself up until he starves to death, I'm fine with that. But I really resent people who insist that it's jackassery to criticize his extremely public involvment in fairly serious illegal drugs, not to mention the reckless (drunk?) driving and his claims about banging an underage girl for two years, claims he now says were a joke.
If he wants the right to act like an enormous ass, it seems to me that the rest of us at least have the right to criticize him for doing so. I'm a fan of Boonen's racing, but find it inexplicable that people are ready to go off on Padraig for criticizing Boonen for doing stuff that would cost most of us our jobs and possibly our families. If you don't criticize really bad behavior, then tolerating egregious public displays of that behavior will tend to legitimize it. - June 16, 2008 at 11:14:00 AM CDT
- Padraig said...
Our personal feelings--both for BKW and the readers--pro or con, aren't what's at stake here. To say BKW is pissed at Boonen misses the point entirely. If our readers--all of them--think Tom snorting coke when he's not racing is okay, that's perfectly fine. However, everyone needs to understand that the larger prevailing view doesn't share their laissez-faire attitude. And that prevailing attitude has a firm grasp on the purse strings.
Also, it seems unlikely that young Tom is in such a lost state that he needs rehab, which is what's being suggested any time someone advocates "help."
Put another way, it's unlikely that Boonen has a drug problem, small d. He is, however, now another footnote to cycling's Drug problem, capital D.
The point of the posts is to demonstrate the way his behavior is viewed in the larger context in which cycling is considered.
We can say that we're okay with big money walking away from cycling, but the logical endpoint of that line of thinking (and march of dollars) would be to return to the days when results for a stage of the Tour de France could only be found (in America) the day after in the New York Times.
Who really wants to go back to that? - June 16, 2008 at 12:10:00 PM CDT
- jza said...
If your need role models for clean living, professional sports is the WRONG place to look.
Holding up cycling to some imagined standard of purity is ridiculous. Every great rider has their share of baggage, some just hide it better.
It's one thing to take a stand against ATHLETES WHO USE PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS (which any famous cyclist has). It's quite another to NITPICK ABOUT WHAT A YOUNG MILLIONAIRE IS DOING IN HIS FREE TIME.
Unlike most young millionaires, Tommy does have to pay some consequences. - June 16, 2008 at 12:32:00 PM CDT
Not to further beat this horse but "disgusted" 5:47 makes a distinction between caffeine and cocaine that unintentionally sheds light on the shades of grey at stake here. In Rough Ride, Paul Kimmage describes taking caffeine suppositories at a crucial point in a criterium. Low-level doping right? Probably didn't make much of a difference anyway. That's a little different than the common (and sacred) practice of drinking espresso before a race, because caffeine intake in those quantities and that setting is socially normalized, unlike illicit caffeine intake through an "unconventional" orifice. But although sipping black gold isn't metabolic or cardiovascular doping, it IS performance enhancement, AND a drug. It perks you up, and I certainly love a pull before a ride, but nobody's going to call it dope. So, the in-competition belts of espresso are fine, but in-competition caffeine suppositories and out-of-competition bumps of coke aren't? That makes perfect sense to most people, but for cultural, rather than logical, reasons.
It really comes down to the social interpretation of the timing, intent and quantity, of drug intake, as well as the type of drug. Padraig seems to be one of the only ones here who chides Boonen but actually understands what the confluence of all these factors means to the sport of cycling. Most of the rest are limited to a moral outrage at the type of drug and little to no analysis of any other factors. I agree with Padraig in some respects, but only in the context of what the sport has already been through.
With respect to the "monkish" PRO life, however, being "on-call" for a drug test seems trivial when cast in stark relief against actual on-call surgeons who may be interrupted during their fourth glass of wine to go cut someone open. This logic should suggest controls on physician drug intake of all types, and we all know that reports of alcoholic and drug-addicted doctors are legion. - June 16, 2008 at 12:52:00 PM CDT
- Andrew J. Bernstein said...
Boonen is one of the most electrifying racers on the road. When he races we all win.
If Boonen had been caught using a performance enhancing drug in competition (or a non-performance enhancing drug in competition) I would have been the first to turn my back on him. But that was not the case. I believe that pro riders should be allowed to live their private lives in private (with the exception of out-of-competition tests for performance enhancers, obviously).
The point being, part of what has made Boonen such a successful racer has been his attitude. That attitude is forged, just like all of ours, in part by the people he surrounds himself with and the way he spends his time.
So he likes cocaine? Who's he hurting? If it clears his head and helps him get focused for the races, the benefit is for everyone: fans, sponsors, promoters, etc...
If he broke the law, punish him for that, but if not, let the guy race or we all loose out. - June 16, 2008 at 1:04:00 PM CDT
The rules as they are to be interpreted and written pertain to banned, performance enhancing drugs used in competition; given the fact that this is was an out of competition positive, the cycling powers-that-be, have no jurisdiction in banning a rider who has not violated any in-competition doping controls. Then again, the rules are dependent upon the whims of the head's of state's. How fitting that those demanding protocol be followed are the first to proclaim, "Protocol?!"
Perhaps I'm being semantic here, but in my mind this is yet another example of the ASO/WADA/Pro Cycling overstepping its reach and trying to wrangle greater political control by attempting to overstate their relevance by sticking their noses in what is, by definition, a civil matter outside their jurisdiction but certainly not outside their (presumptuous) sphere of influence.
The reasonable person sees how hypocritical, irrational and flippant the ASO, et al have been behaving, especially in the last two years, and how these "judgments" are simply another example of the ad-hock, flight by the seat of their asses, "conviction" that they've passed without unified direction.
As for the civil issues that Boonen faces, these are issues that if any of us faced, we'd be be afforded the luxury of privacy and discretion; the fact that this is aired to the world, simply because he's a professional athlete, once again points to the lack of class and professionalism currently at work in the ranks of Pro Cycling's management structure (and the media in general). And it speaks toward the erosion of credibility of that same structure; this type of billboard, broadcast witch hunt not only makes the cycling community look ridiculous, but it erodes the credibility of that community as a responsible business - don't air your dirty laundry if you want to be taken seriously and don't create sensationalistic press dramas if corporate image (and money) is at stake.
For the record, I am not arguing against the civil consequences of his actions, for which he is responsible, like any of use would be; what I am against is the obvious use of this incident for political posturing, infighting, self-righteous judgments and finger pointing. - June 16, 2008 at 1:31:00 PM CDT
also, when you look at this stuff it immediately loses context and it gets out of scale and the conversation becomes misaligned with the fact that this is really a personal story.
there's almost no way to talk about it on a public scale without it being lost the act of being consumed.
and that sets up all kinds of political crap and personal agenda and it all becomes meaningless. a guy did some coke. he got caught, there are consequences for him both visible and invisible.
in truth this is really a private issue and the only meaning that matters is for boonen to work out. it just doesn't really have any true global meaning or significance. it isn't about us, it isn't about cycling, and its insignificant to the rest of the world.
noel. - June 16, 2008 at 3:11:00 PM CDT
- RMM said...
Quite obviously, you are trying to justify your previous "Tornado Tom" post with this post. You can expound upon the "PRO" concept all day, but that does not change the fact that what Tom did was a personal matter. If his sponsors choose to penalize him, that is a business decision. If Tom faces legal sanction for a criminal drug violation, then that is a personal legal issue. If you, as a fan, choose not to purchase products that Tom endorses, then that is a consumer decision. But to try to say that what Tom has done is tantamount to doping is absolutely ridiculous, no matter how you spin it. Just because Tom's behavior does not fit YOUR definition or PRO, does not mean that Tom should face any sanctions from the world cycling community.
Tom is still a great bicycle rider and, as far as we know, is fast IN SPITE OF his use of illicit non-performance enhancing drugs. - June 16, 2008 at 3:45:00 PM CDT
FREDDY, FREDDY, where are you??
- June 16, 2008 at 4:24:00 PM CDT
argh... BKW grows less interesting by the post.
doping won't kill the sport; lack of interest will kill bicycle racing. the break-down in urban planning and a [growing] global love of the automobile is the real threat to the sport. quite frankly fewer and fewer young people ride bicycles. as such it's just not on their radar. fast-forward to young adulthood: the high cost of the *right* gear, the pissy attitude of more experienced riders, and the daunting prospect of mixing it up on decaying roadways with latte-swilling/cell-phone chatting/ tinted-window suv-driving soccer moms late for the pilates session with that new instructor ("i wonder if he'd go for me if i wasn't married like on that episode of desperate housewives...")...
boonen made a mistake in his personal life -- like everyone else that ever read this blog. the difference is that the vast majority of us are not -- and will never be -- interesting enough for others to blog about our transgressions.
if BKW wants to go straight-edge and dress-down everyone for substance-abuse problems that's fine. but warn us so that we can make a decision whether to tune in or not.
"disneyfying" cycling as one writer put it -- sums it up...
at the end of the day, i love cycling and will continue to ride and follow the sport. but we have to quit taking ourselves so seriously if we care about the sport like we say that we do. - June 16, 2008 at 4:27:00 PM CDT
I am usually stirred into heated agreement by what oldfonzie has to say. He hasn't yet posted, and I suspect because of time differences. Nevertheless, it seems to me that enough has really been said on both sides of a polarised debate. Call Boonen an idiot, foolish, disappointing, irresponsible and not PRO and you are probably well right and no doubt justified. Say that he has a lot of pressure, faces huge personal and public demands and feels compelled to "escape", is crying for help and again you are probably right.
We can re-heat these debates over and over again, but they do not much more than further polarise. Debate is healthy. Overworking the same questions, however, is tiresome.
We'll have to agree to disagree . . . but lets sit down, analyse and have polarised views on what always turns out to be an interesting European season of racing.
Aussie Joe. - June 16, 2008 at 5:11:00 PM CDT
"My name has been in the news recently and in a negative way. I realize that I have ashamed the confidence of my family, my friends, my team and my fans. I wish to stress my apologies for all this."
"I myself am not perfect and I will accept the consequences. I hope you understand that despite all what has been said and written, right or wrong, I will not make my case here now."
"The next few days I will take things easy and get some perspective on all the emotions. I'm lucky to be able to count on support from people close to me. I know I can count on the confidence of the team as well, for which I'm very grateful."
"I also hope I can count on some understanding from my fans, I assure them I'll do anything I can to be back on top and they should be looking forward to my utter engagement in this."
Tornado - June 16, 2008 at 7:03:00 PM CDT
Lance inhaled...
- June 16, 2008 at 7:53:00 PM CDT
''Put me back on my bike....''
Tom. - June 16, 2008 at 9:49:00 PM CDT
- Old Fonzie said...
The standard explanation one reads for the definition of Omerta is silence, a defiance in the face of authority. This didn't seem to tell the whole story, it sounded to Sopranos.
So I looked it up. It's pretty interesting. It comes from the Sicilian word for man, and means manliness. Even more interesting, it is derived from the latin word for humility.
So it's taken me awhile to figure this out. I mean doping has taken over the sport. It has become the defacto authority. So technically, the manly thing to do is to stick it to the man and just say no. This is the new revolt we are under.
I am glad Tom is not taking the rap for the drugs. He's come out saying it was slipped in his drink and he went home feeling ill. I'll accept that. Give him an out. It could be true, either way I hope he's going to take things a bit more seriously when he's home watching someone else don the green jersey. I mean everyone knows you have to keep your eye on your drink. Even Lemond preached that years ago.
PRO, as cool and showy as it may seem, is at its heart a show of humility. Good sportsmanship is about humility, omerta. It's all part of being a bike monk as my college room mate used to call it. - June 16, 2008 at 10:09:00 PM CDT
there will always be someone who even with a hangover, jetlag and a cold can drop and the bike monks in the pack...we can all think of that guy who can outparty and outride everybody
love 'em or h8 'em - June 16, 2008 at 10:25:00 PM CDT
looks like ole fonzie is as easily swayed as they come. pretty pathetic, but typical! hey clinton didn't inhale fonzie, you believe that?
- June 17, 2008 at 11:30:00 PM CDT
At first I enjoyed this blog, but it's gotten to the point where it's taking itself waaay too seriously. Simper on all you like about not eating chocolate EVER and excercising restraint when someone offers you half a glass of red wine when you've already had what you've allowed yourself this week, just because it doesn't fit in with this romanticised ideal of what you call the PRO lifestyle; fact is, Boonen demonstrated he can party a little and still smash all comers. Get out and ride your bike for f***'s sake. Come over to my place for beers after if you like.
- June 18, 2008 at 12:31:00 AM CDT


text: WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY?Scientology Definiton: Scio (Latin) "knowing, in the fullest sense of the word," logos (Greek) "study of." Thus Scientology means "knowing how to know." Developed by L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology is a religion that offers a precise path leading to a complete and certain understanding of one's true spiritual nature and one's relationship to self, family, groups, Mankind, all life forms, the material universe, the spiritual universe and the Supreme Being. Scientology addresses the spirit—not the body or mind—and believes that Man is far more than a product of his environment, or his genes. Scientology comprises a body of knowledge which extends from certain fundamental truths. Prime among these are: Man is an immortal spiritual being. His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime. His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized. SCIENTOLOGY BELIEFSWithin the vast amount of data which makes up Scientology's religious beliefs and practices there are many principles which, when learned, give one a new and broader view of life. Knowing the Tone Scale, for instance, a person can see how best to deal with a grumpy child, mollify an upset friend or get an idea across to a staid employer. These principles amount to a huge area of observation in the humanities. It is a body of knowledge there for the learning. There is nothing authoritarian in it. It is valuable purely as a body of knowledge. More on Scientology Beliefs & Practices SUNDAY SERVICEScientology helps each being to regain awareness of himself or herself as an immortal spiritual being and the rehabilitation of full spiritual potential—to achieve a recognition of spiritual existence and one's relationship to the Supreme Being. God is identified in Scientology as the Eighth Dynamic. All Scientology services bring people closer to the Eighth Dynamic, and the congregational services especially focus on this. It is a bringing together of many beings in a joint spiritual experience and an occasion to recognize the ultimate which is the Eighth Dynamic or God. The Church of Scientology Sunday service consists of a reciting of the Creed of the Church, a sermon based on the writings of the Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard, congregational group auditing and prayer. There may also be music and singing, as well as announcements of Church events and programs. CHRONOLOGY

subset: commoncrawl


text:
We're hearing for the first time today from one of the people caught up in the story that led to retired Gen. David Petraeus' resignation from the post of CIA director last November.
Jill Kelley, the Florida woman who got what she felt were threatening emails from Petraeus biographer Paula Broadwell — emails that led to an FBI investigation that exposed Petraeus' affair with Broadwell — has spoken with The Daily Beast's Howard Kurtz. Among the bits of news in Kurtz's account of their conversation:
"Contradicting virtually every published account of the saga, Kelley indicates that the anonymous emails did not warn her to stay away from Petraeus, as is commonly assumed. And yet the press depicted the two of them as 'romantic rivals. Think how bizarre that is,' Kelley says."
The ripple effects of the Petraeus affair also touched Gen. John Allen, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, when it was reported that he and Kelley had been in frequent contact. Kurtz writes that:
"Kelley, 37, would find herself the subject of fevered speculation that she was carrying on with [Allen] ... which she flatly denies. Allen also has denied wrongdoing. Kelley bristles at those eye-catching media reports that she and Allen exchanged as many as 30,000 emails, calling the figure 'outrageous.' While Kelley will not provide an estimate, she says she believes the emails totaled in the hundreds."
There's much more from Kelley in Kurtz's report. And there's this, from Clinton-era White House spokeswoman Dee Dee Myers, who represents Broadwell:
"The Justice Department thoroughly looked at [the emails] and declined to prosecute." That decision, says Myers, "makes a pretty bold statement about the content of the emails. ... People can make their own judgments based on that."
Copyright 2021 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.


text:
Julia Gillard calls September 14 federal election
The Prime Minister's decision to announce the election date eight months out has upset some in the Labor caucus but other MPs, from both sides of politics, say it's a masterstroke.
Julia Gillard says she hopes her decision to announce the September 14 election date will force debate on policy.
Treasurer Wayne Swan hopes it draws attention to the Coalition's lack of policy costings.
"They cannot be allowed to get to the election without detailing the costing of their policies," he said.
"From the May budget on there is absolutely no excuse for the Opposition to fail to put forward costed policies."
Privately some Coalition MPs say the announcement was a savvy political move but Opposition frontbencher Barnaby Joyce says it should not be taken seriously.
"It's all so irrelevant, what happens if there's a change of leadership in the Labor Party there will be an election straight away," he said.
But at least one supporter of former prime minister Kevin Rudd believes the move will lock in support for Ms Gillard, "virtually ruling out" any chance of a leadership change.
Ms Gillard made the election announcement during a speech to the National Press Club.
"I do so not to start the nation's longest election campaign - quite the opposite," she told the audience.
"It should be clear to all which are the days of governing and which are the days of campaigning.
"Announcing the election date now enables individuals and business, investors and consumers to plan their year."
Watch Julia Gillard's full speech to the National Press Club
Ms Gillard says she will advise Governor-General Quentin Bryce to issue writs on Monday, August 12 to dissolve the House of Representatives.
As part of her agreement with independent MPs Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor, Ms Gillard had agreed to hold the election in either September or October.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has welcomed the election date announcement and declared the Coalition ready to lead.
Mr Abbott says the Coalition is offering "positive plans for a stronger economy", including scrapping the carbon and mining taxes.
"As I've often said, we are a great country and a great people let down by a poor government," he said.
Opposition frontbencher Arthur Sinodinos says the coalition will make a series of policy announcements in the coming months, with full costings available before the election.
"There'll be a sequence of policy releases over the next few months," he said.
"That's been the consistent strategy of the Opposition with full costings available before the election which will take into account the latest official numbers which the government can provide."
Look back at the reaction to Ms Gillard's announcement earlier this afternoon (all times AEDT):
The Australian Electoral Commission is encouraging people to ensure they are enrolled to vote, given the election date has now been announced.
People who are 17 but will be 18 on or before September 14, can enrol now.
If you have moved and need to update your details, you can go to www.aec.gov.au.
The AEC says about 1.5 million people are missing from the electoral roll.
Labor MP Michael Danby, who is Jewish, says he is aware that the election date coincides with Yom Kippur, the most holy day on the Jewish calendar.
"As a matter of personal conscience I will be unable to participate on election day," he said in an email.
"It is my practice, with my wife Amanda, to observe Yom Kippur (the Jewish Day of Atonement)."
Mr Danby says he's contacted Special Minister of State Gary Gray to help ensure the "fullest participation" of Australia's 120,000 Jews through things like postal voting and pre-polling.
Mr Danby ends his email by noting: "Yom Kippur 2013 is the 40th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, when a tough female PM, after initial setbacks, won a great victory."
Independent MP Bob Katter, who has started Katter's Australian Party, says he is glad to have extended notification of when the election is.
"Our party needs time," he told reporters in Bundaberg.
"Every week that goes by we're rolling out an extra five branches. So, the more time we've got, the more happy we are."
Mr Katter says he did not have the slightest hint that Ms Gillard would be announcing the election date, despite assuring reporters that he has "very good ears to the ground in Canberra".
The Opposition's education spokesman, Christopher Pyne, spoke earlier to ABC News 24 political editor Lyndal Curtis.
He says a September 14 election date is too early to see the final budget outcome for this financial year.
One group breathing a sigh of relief with an early election announcement is the Australian Electoral Commission.
AEC spokesman Phil Diak spoke to ABC News 24 earlier this afternoon:
Nationals Leader Warren Truss says the September 14 election will be an opportunity for regional Australia to get its fair share of attention and funding.
He has highlighted a number of issues including the need for better telecommunications "at a price people can afford" and better regional health services.
"For more than five years now, regional Australia has been treated as the ignored poor cousin of the capital cities," he said.
"We know that what is good for regional Australia is good for all of Australia. When the regions are prosperous, so is our nation."
The ACTU wants the election campaign to focus on job security.
"(Ms Gillard) rightly pointed to global pressures that affects Australia," ACTU president Ged Kearney said in a statement.
"While we can't control the globe, we can influence the policies and laws that protect and serve the Australian people, the most important of which is fairness in the workplace."
The union movement says Mr Abbott now has no excuse for withholding the Coalition's industrial relations policy from the public.
Here is video of Tony Abbott's press conference:
Tony Abbott's opening statement - declaring that the election would be about trust - is a clear reference to former prime minister John Howard's statement when announcing the 2004 election.
Mr Howard said:
This election, ladies and gentlemen, will be about trust. Who do you trust to keep the economy strong and protect family living standards?
Who do you trust to keep interest rates low? Who do you trust to lead the fight on Australia's behalf against international terrorism?
Who do you trust to keep the budget strong so that we can afford to spend more on health and education?
Mr Abbott says the Coalition is offering "positive plans for a stronger economy", including scrapping the carbon and mining taxes.
He says the Coalition also has "positive plans" for education, communities, a cleaner environment and border protection.
"As I've often said, we are a great country and a great people let down by a poor government," he said.
Mr Abbott declined to answer media questions, saying he would answer them at the National Press Club tomorrow.
Bookmakers have been honing their markets following the announcement of the election date.
By the looks of it they already consider the result a forgone conclusion.
Some betting agencies have the Coalition at the Black Caviar odds of around $1.22.
Labor is rated the outsider in the two-horse race at $4.15.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has welcomed the election date announcement and has declared the Coalition ready to lead.
He says voters will face a clear choice when they go to the polls.
"This election will be about trust," he told reporters in Canberra.
"Who do you trust to reduce cost-of-living pressures? Who do you trust to boost small businesses and to boost job security? And who do you trust to secure our borders?
"That's what this election will be all about."
Antony Green says Julia Gillard's early election announcement follows the trend towards certainty seen across Westminster governments and robs political pundits of their chance to speculate.
Read his column for The Drum here
Just to recap on the Prime Minister's speech.
Obviously, she announced the election date, but she also foreshadowed some "substantial" cuts to government spending to pay for significant commitments, including the National Disability Insurance Scheme and an overhaul of school funding.
Ms Gillard says those cuts will be announced in the lead up to the budget and in the budget itself.
Here is video of the media conference held by Greens leader Christine Milne earlier this afternoon:
Since Ms Gillard made the election date announcement just before 1pm (AEDT), the stock market has given up some of the morning's gains.
At 3:25pm, the All Ordinaries index was up 0.2 per cent for the day to 4,918.3.
The election is 226 days away. That's 5,424 hours. Or 325,440 minutes.
Click here for some more interesting election facts.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) says the real advantage of the early announcement is that the final quarter of the year will not be interrupted by the politics of the campaign.
"With the early election announcement, it would be the business community's preference for an early disclosure of the policies, the programs, and the vision of both the Opposition and the Government for Australia's economy to become stronger and more competitive," ACCI's Peter Anderson told reporters in Canberra.
"We want a bidding war between Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott and their parties over who can make the economy more prosperous, more competitive and create more jobs by supporting the private sector."
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has called a press conference for 3.40pm (AEDT).
The federal Member for O'Connor, Tony Crook, says while he is surprised by the Government's early announcement of the election date, he thinks it creates certainty.
"I think in many respects it's a good thing. It gives us some certainty about where we're heading," the WA Nationals MP said.
"People can plan, people can make up their own minds about why it has been done.
"For me, it's business as usual."
Antony Green has listed every electorate on his blog and what the margins are.
If you're interested, you can check it out here
Independent MP Andrew Wilkie says he will recontest his Hobart seat of Denison, which he holds by a 1.2 per cent margin on two-party preferred basis.
"My best re-election strategy has always been, and continues to be, to just do my job well."
He says setting an election date early will be good for businesses and investors, but it will be wasted if it leads to a very long election campaign.
"There's still a significant period of this parliament left to run and that demands the Government stay focused on running the country and the Opposition on holding the Government to account."
Greens leader Christine Milne says the Prime Minister's office gave her a half-hour heads up that Ms Gillard would be announcing the election date in her speech today.
Senator Milne says now's a good time to introduce three-year fixed terms, so that future elections will always be held in the second week of September.
"Wouldn't that be a great thing for the Australian people, so that we didn't have all the game-playing that has gone on in the past," Senator Milne told reporters in Melbourne.
She wants Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott to agree to the change.
Independent senator Nick Xenophon tells Lyndal Curtis that the PM has "put all of us out of our misery by announcing the election date".
"I think it's good for there to be some advanced notice. It's good for independents and minor parties, I guess, but it also gives some certainty rather than having months of speculation as to when the election will be held.
"We now know the date and I think that's probably a good thing in the context of the marathon that now awaits us."
Senator Xenophon's term expires in 2014 and he says that "I'll announce what I'm doing in the next few weeks."
Independent Rob Oakeshott plans to announce whether he'll recontest his New South Wales electorate of Lyne in mid-March.
He says it would be a "huge battle" to hold on to his seat.
"I'm certainly at the centre of this 43rd Parliament and decisions made and I stand by all of them," Mr Oakeshott told ABC News 24.
"I fully accept that in some peoples' eyes, I'm hero. In some peoples' eyes, I'm villain. So, it's a very polarised mood that this Parliament has... created, and I accept I'm part of that."
Independent MP Tony Windsor says he intends to contest the election. The Coalition has preselected independent NSW MP Richard Torbay as its candidate for Mr Windsor's seat of New England. Mr Windsor says he's not sure whether he'll win the contest, but adds that "the mood feels pretty good out there".
Liberal MP Josh Frydenberg, who is Jewish, has criticised the decision to hold the election on September 14 - which is Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year for Jewish people.
"In choosing the 14th of September... she disenfranchises many Jewish Australians, it's incredibly sloppy on her part, it's a knee-jerk reaction to pressure that she's coming under within the Labor party," he told ABC News.
"It's going to be very difficult for Jewish Australians to participate in election day activities - they spend most of the day in prayer and also they fast."
Ms Gillard says she understands the significance of the day for the Jewish community, but says there are only a limited number of days on which to hold an election because of international commitments and football finals.
She says anyone who cannot vote on that day has the option of casting a pre-poll ballot.
Greens leader Christine Milne has called a media conference for 2:20pm where she will call for fixed-term elections.
Ms Gillard expects there'll be some debate about the idea, but says it's not a priority for her.
"For me, it's not the upper most policy matter on my mind. I'm very focused on jobs, opportunity, fairness, on getting done the big things that will shape this nation for the future."
According to the ABC's election analyst Antony Green, the last time a federal election was held in September was in 1946. The most common month for a federal poll is December. Constitutionally speaking, the last date on which this year's election could have been held was November 30.
The Prime Minister says she announced the election date early so that the nation can focus on "policies, not petty politics".
The move will add pressure on the Coalition to release more of its policies early.
On Sunday, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott launched a "mini-campaign" and released a 50-page policy document.
Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey has said on Twitter: "Election on Sept. 14 is before the final budget outcome is revealed for the current year".
However, under the Charter of Budget Honesty Act, Treasury will release a Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook (PEFO) during the campaign, which provides an update on the budget situation.
Here's video of the PM making the surprise announcement:
Ms Gillard used the speech to the National Press Club to lay the groundwork for an election year battle focused on the economy, arguing that a strong economy is necessary to ensure fairness in education and disability services.
One of the key planks of the Government's 2013 agenda will be overhauling how the education system is funded, in line with the Gonski report.
In today's speech, she's described it as a "moral cause - a crusade".
Independent MP Tony Windsor says the early announcement of the election date will help provide certainty and stability to the community, but also most importantly to businesses.
"Today's announcement will remove the media speculation of a date and reduce the space devoted to the hype surrounding the choice of a date usually until six weeks before an election.
"Putting paid to this practice will encourage the media to present the policy choices allowing Australians to consider their options over a longer period of time."
Ms Gillard says she spoke with Mr Windsor and Mr Oakeshott by phone, to advise them of when the election would be held.
Antony Green on Twitter:
@AntonyGreenABC : PM copies NZ PM John Key by announcing election day more than half a year in advance ... 9 months notice of the election date. Longer than the 3 months Menzies gave in 1958 and 1961.
Independent MP Rob Oakeshott says the announcement of the election date will allow the Parliament to run its full term without ongoing speculation.
In a statement, he said:
"There are nine more important sitting weeks of this Parliament, and the challenge now is for this time to be spent focused on the ongoing policy and reform detail - such as the Gonski reforms in education - that many Australians want to see delivered before the year is over.
"Campaigning and electioneering throughout these nine final sitting weeks, while this detailed work is being done, should be seen for what it is - serving the interests of political parties, not the interests of the nation."


text:
Dessert first please! And the rest will fall into place. When planning my menus for dinners I am usually the type who starts with dessert. The sweeter side of life and the best first has been somewhat of a motto for me. It probably goes back to the days I was training in a pastry kitchen.
Working in a large hotel kitchen was always fast paced and extremely exciting. The adrenaline buzz I got was immense and the high that the hustle and bustle usually gave me would keep me alive and agile for hours.
In the pastry kitchen, however, the pace was different and the adrenaline worked in various ways. Artists came together to work on individual masterpieces made of sugar, chocolate, flour and butter, creating a canvas colored with rich, vibrant and exotic sweet treats to capture the fancy of any sweet tooth.
Christmas was a special time in the pastry kitchen and I often felt Santa and his elves would have been envious of the commotion we caused in the kitchen during this festive time. Sure Santa brings toys for the children amongst us, but we were creating sinfully decadent desserts and bringing them to all living on the sweeter side of life.
How could Santa not be jealous? We came in early morning to the aromas of vanilla, cinnamon, ginger, bitter almond, saffron and everyday we worked with butter, chocolate, flour, sugar, and eggs making, luscious mousse, cakes, cookies, puddings and pastries. Picking the best ingredients to make supreme creations the adrenaline worked its magic on many levels.
What I loved about the pastry kitchen at the Sheraton in Doha was the magnificent influences from various parts of the world. The desserts of an entire world were created everyday in a sweet cosmos of a large squarish room tucked away in the back of a massive maze like main kitchen of a busy resort hotel.
I learnt about the decadent desserts of the world and studied with fervor, practicing and experimenting. I still do that today.
I was never much for the typical British pudding. In my opinion there were far more exciting desserts for me to discover. Then I discovered the ONE. The one Brit. Pud for me. Made of sweet dates, sprinkled with enticing spices and drizzled with a sticky toffee sauce – the Sticky Toffee Pudding was my pudding hero.
It was a start to a new discovery and I embarked on a journey, tasting and testing a variety of British puddings.
While Great Britain boasts of a plethora of traditional puddings from sweet to savory, it is probably the mere mention of a sticky toffee pudding that will get the juices in the mouth flowing. It truly is one of the stars of British cuisine.
Francis Coulson, chef and owner of the Sharrow Bay Country House Hotel, in England's Lake District, popularized the sticky toffee pudding in the early 1960. Today, the sticky toffee pudding is found on menus in restaurants throughout the U.K. From the humblest cafeterias to the finest restaurants, each has a delectable recipe to tempt their guests with.
Chefs in Great Britain are giving the traditional pudding a facelift, with innovative ideas like this exquisite Christmas pudding created by Michelin star chef Heston Blumenthal. The Christmas pudding encases a whole candied orange and has quickly become the star amongst Christmas puddings. So much so that it seems Waitrose did not expect such a run on this creation and the Hidden Orange Pudding is running out. Apparently one can still buy some on e-bay for £129.
Jamie and I got lucky! While we were in London last month visiting Jeanne, we had the opportunity to indulge in this decadent dessert. Jeanne had received a box of the pudding and after a delicious meal of chili and cornbread we cut out generous portions and enjoyed it with scoops of vanilla ice-cream.
Well if you missed out on getting your Christmas pudding or are not to pleased by the thought of spending such a large sum of money on dessert, Kavey of Kavey Eats did us the great favor of testing several Christmas puddings available in the UK – it's an awesome read!
Or you can allow me to cajole you into the sticky toffee pudding.
Sticky Toffee Pudding is a light, moist cake flavored with chopped sticky dates and vanilla, which is then served warm, soaked in a sticky toffee sauce made of butter, cream and brown sugar.
If you can buy Medjool dates, they are soft, sticky and full of intensive flavor that resembles toffee.
In other words – heaven!
Sticky Toffee Pudding
Printable version of recipe here
200g dried Medjool dates , stoned and chopped
175g all-purpose flour
1 ½ teaspoon baking powder
½ tsp bicarbonate of soda
¼ teaspoon ground mixed spices. I used ground allspice, ginger, cinnamon, cardamom, cloves.
85g butter , softened
175g brown sugar
2 eggs , beatenFor the toffee sauce
100g muscovado sugar
100g butter
14oml heavy cream
- Heat the oven to 180 degrees C. Butter an ovenproof dish or individual ramekin bowls.
- Put the dates in a bowl with the bicarbonate of soda and cover with 200ml of boiling water. Leave to stand for a couple of minutes to soften, then drain.
Process the dates in a food processer to a thick purée.
- Beat the butter and brown sugar together with electric beaters until pale, thick and creamy, then beat in the eggs, flour, baking powder and spices. Fold in the date mixture and pour into the buttered ovenproof dish. Bake for 30-35 minutes or until the top is springy and just firm to touch.
- In the meantime make the toffee sauce by putting the muscovado sugar, butter and cream in a saucepan over low heat and simmer until the sugar has dissolved. Cook until the sauce takes on a divine toffee color. Cut the pudding into squares, or turn the pudding out on plates if baked in individual bowls. Drizzle with the warm sauce and serve with a scoop of vanilla ice cream.
Rich, sticky, sweet and incredibly addictive – the components that make a dessert memorable. I know there are a few who will share my sentiments. I love the concentrated flavor of toffee in this. It is smoky, rich and caramel-y. The sponge pudding is light and fluffy aromatized with the seductive spices. Perfect to have dessert first – don't you think?
I'd like to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas! May you have a blessed and relaxed time with your family and hope Santa is exceptionally generous. I'm in the midst of preparing my Christmas Eve menu and doing last minute shopping.
I'll see you next week with a luxurious chocolate breakfast! In the meantime I leave you with a few more dessert ideas below and a dreamy winter morning scene in Weimar.
From Plate to Page
We invite you over to the From Plate to Page blog as we showcase brilliant food photographer William Brinson. He shares a few secrets and tips and tells us how How Food Found Him.
You might like these Christmas Desserts from WFLH:
White Chocolate Cardamom Mousse with Spekulatius Crumbs | Layered Cranberry and Mango Mousse | Chocolate & Coconut French Yule Log |
All photographs and written content on What's For Lunch, Honey? © 2006-2010 Meeta Khurana Wolff unless otherwise indicated. | All rights reserved | Please Ask First


text:
For the days when you just can't be bothered to give a fuck; express your anger, frustration, or just your indifference with K.Bell's Middle Finger Socks.
One Size Fits Most (Sock Size 9-11)
Women's Shoe Size US: 5-10.5 // UK: 3-8.5 // EU: 36-41
Men's Shoe Size US: 3-8.5 // UK: 2.5-8 // EU: 36-41
60% Cotton, 37% Nylon, 3% Spandex
FREE SHIPPING on all orders over $45 shipped within the United States! We offer a variety of domestic and international shipping options at checkout and you can click here for details.
(415) 386-5400
© 2024, Sockshop Haight Street Powered by Shopify


text:
Pre-order Now at http://www.transformersgame.com/#!/buy
RELEASE DATE: August 21st 2012 for Xbox 360, PS3 and PC.
Transformers: Fall of Cybertron is the sequel to War for Cybertron, the highest rated Transformers game ever. Coming Fall 2012 for Xbox 360, PS3, & PC. Join the epic battle for survival as the Autobots take their last stand to defend their legendary home planet from the Decepticons.
Transformers: Fall of Cybertron transports you to the final days of the planet Cybertron where you will experience the darkest hours of the apocalyptic war between the Autobots and Decepticons. Embark on an adrenaline-fueled journey through a wide range of missions and massive environments designed around each character's unique abilities. With the stakes higher than ever before, you play as a variety of Transformers, including Grimlock's nearly indestructible T-Rex form and the legendary Combaticons forming into the colossal Bruticus. Fight through both sides of the Transformers' most epic battles leading to their legendary exodus from their homeworld.


text:
Strickler appointed executive director for administrative planning
Laura Strickler, associate director for administration at the Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment since 2011, has been named executive director for administrative planning in the Office of the Executive Vice President at Princeton University.
The appointment was announced Tuesday, Feb. 4, by Executive Vice President Treby Williams, to whom Strickler will report.
"Laura Strickler has an unwavering commitment to excellence in all that she does and a deep dedication to serving the University," Williams said, noting that Strickler received the President's Achievement Award in 2013 for exceptional performance. "Laura's achievements at the Andlinger Center, which included leading the center's first strategic planning process with its faculty executive committee, are emblematic of the outstanding work she has done in every position that she has held at Princeton over the last 18 years. I am very pleased that Laura is returning to the Office of the Executive Vice President as its executive director."
Prior to joining the Andlinger Center, Strickler was associate director for administrative planning on the executive vice president staff from 2006 to 2011.
In her new role effective March 3, Strickler will work closely with officers and other senior administrators to implement major University initiatives, lead cross-University projects, and represent the Office of the Executive Vice President on University committees and working groups. She will also supervise two associate directors for administrative planning and an associate director for emergency preparedness planning, who occupies a three-year term position.
As Strickler takes up her new role, she will support the Andlinger Center in its transition to a new associate director for administration, a position for which applications are currently being accepted.
Strickler joined the University in 1996 in the Office of Human Resources and has held a variety of positions, including project coordinator and process improvement coordinator, in the Office of Information Technology. She is on the board of the Princeton Federal Credit Union and served from 2010 to 2012 on the Vice President for Finance and Treasurer's finance advisory council.
From 1994 to 1995, she was assistant director of admissions at Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, N.Y.
Strickler has a master's degree in organizational dynamics from the University of Pennsylvania and a bachelor's degree in English and art history from William Smith College.


text:
This scheme is designed to reduce the cost of complying with VAT obligations by simplifying the way small businesses calculate their VAT. It is available to businesses that expect their VAT exclusive turnover in the next 12 months to be no more than £150,000 in taxable supplies.
Taxable supplies are calculated by looking at the total of supplies at the positive and zero rates, excluding VAT and the value of any capital assets expected to be sold. Total business income includes taxable supplies and the value of exempt and other non-taxable income.
A business must leave the scheme when turnover increases to £230,000. However, a business can remain in the scheme with HMRC's written agreement provided it can be shown that total sales in the following 12 months will be less than £191,500 including VAT.
The flat rate scheme saves time by removing the need to calculate and record output tax and input tax in calculating the net VAT due to HMRC. The VAT in a period is calculated by applying the flat rate percentage to the tax inclusive turnover for the period. No input tax is then available for reclaim, unless the business buys capital items exceeding £2,000.
The flat rate scheme can cost extra VAT if you make supplies which are exempt from VAT as flat rate VAT will be payable on the value of all supplies made, including exempt supplies. This is particularly an issue if you also own buy to let property as the rent may have to be included in your flat rate turnover.
HMRC has published a table showing rates applicable to many business sectors. Some examples are:
Category of business carried on | Appropriate percentage |
Retail of food, newspapers, confectionery | 4 |
Retail of vehicles or fuel | 6.5 |
Photography | 11 |
Estate agency | 12 |
Hairdressing | 13 |
Legal services | 14.5 |
Computer and IT consultancy | 14.5 |
Limited cost trader (see below) | 16.5 |
Speak to us about rates for the VAT flat rate scheme |
If you are making supplies to other VAT registered businesses, you give them a VAT invoice charging VAT at the normal rate for the supply (not the flat rate percentage).
Most traders with qualifying turnover are eligible to join the scheme, but there are a number of exclusions designed to prevent abuse of the scheme as well as a few to avoid complex interaction with other schemes. The scheme is optional, but traders wishing to join should complete Form VAT 600 (FRS) online (if they used HMRC's online services to register for VAT) or download and print off the form, then complete and post it to HMRC.
Businesses can voluntarily register for VAT before their turnover reaches the £85,000 VAT registration threshold so they can make use of the flat rate scheme and have a cash advantage.
Limited cost traders
Businesses with a very low cost base are classed as "limited cost traders" if they spend:
- less than 2% of their VAT inclusive turnover on relevant goods in an accounting period; or
- more than 2% of their VAT inclusive turnover but less then £1,000 a year.
The amount spent on relevant goods does not include the purchase of capital goods such as new equipment, food and drink and vehicles or parts of vehicles.
Limited cost traders who participate in the flat rate scheme have a fixed rate of 16.5%. This means that work sold for £120 with £20 of VAT will result in a flat rate VAT charge of £19.80.
As a result of this change, some businesses would be well advised to leave the flat rate scheme and account for VAT under the normal arrangements, or alternatively to deregister for VAT if their turnover is below the threshold of £83,000.
Who will be affected?
The measure will increase the VAT bill of businesses that are labour-intensive but spend little on goods.
Examples of the kind of entities that may be affected are IT contractors, consultants and construction workers who supply their labour but are not responsible for purchasing the raw materials.
Contact us if you would like further help or advice on this subject.


text:
Absolutely fantastic article by Tracey Lien.
If the selection at the average retailer is anything to go by, girls don't play video games. If cultural stereotypes are anything to go by, video games are for males. They're the makers, the buyers and the players.
There is often truth to stereotypes. But whatever truth there may be, the stereotype does not show the long and complicated path taken to formulate it, spread it and have it come back to shape societal views.
The attitude towards women in video games is even worse when you take online multiplayer into consideration. One of my team mates in League of Legends is a woman, and I've seen some absolutely terrible things being thrown her way in chat – during and even after the game is over. I've also pretended to be female in League of Legends just to see what would happen, and it was just as bad. However, I could just shrug it off – hearing the things guys say while you're pretending to be a woman as an experiment is a hell of a lot different than hearing these things when you're actually a woman.
I even caught myself thinking 'my female team mate should just pretend to be a guy' – but you know what? That's expletive ridiculous. As Lien details in her article, changing the way video games are being marketed would be a very good first step that could most certainly snowball into the future.


text:
The Federal Trade Commission yesterday closed its investigation of Google's search business (see my comment here) without taking action. The FTC did, however, enter into a settlement with Google over the licensing of Motorola Mobility's standards-essential patents (SEPs). The FTC intends that agreement to impose some limits on an area of great complexity and vigorous debate among industry, patent experts and global standards bodies: The allowable process for enforcing FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing of SEPs, particularly the use of injunctions by patent holders to do so. According to Chairman Leibowitz, "[t]oday's landmark enforcement action will set a template for resolution of SEP licensing disputes across many industries." That effort may or may not be successful. It also may be misguided.
In general, a FRAND commitment incentivizes innovation by allowing a SEP owner to recoup its investments and the value of its technology through licensing, while, at the same, promoting competition and avoiding patent holdup by ensuring that licensing agreements are reasonable. When the process works, and patent holders negotiate licensing rights in good faith, patents are licensed, industries advance and consumers benefit.
FRAND terms are inherently indeterminate and flexible—indeed, they often apply precisely in situations where licensors and licensees need flexibility because each licensing circumstance is nuanced and a one-size-fits-all approach isn't workable. Superimposing process restraints from above isn't necessarily the best thing in dealing with what amounts to a contract dispute. But few can doubt the benefits of greater clarity in this process; the question is whether the FTC's particular approach to the problem sacrifices too much in exchange for such clarity.
The crux of the issue in the Google consent decree—and the most controversial aspect of SEP licensing negotiations—is the role of injunctions. The consent decree requires that, before Google sues to enjoin a manufacturer from using its SEPs without a license, the company must follow a prescribed path in licensing negotiations. In particular:
Under this Order, before seeking an injunction on FRAND-encumbered SEPs, Google must: (1) provide a potential licensee with a written offer containing all of the material license terms necessary to license its SEPs, and (2) provide a potential licensee with an offer of binding arbitration to determine the terms of a license that are not agreed upon. Furthermore, if a potential licensee seeks judicial relief for a FRAND determination, Google must not seek an injunction during the pendency of the proceeding, including appeals.
There are a few exceptions, summarized by Commissioner Ohlhausen:
These limitations include when the potential licensee (a) is outside the jurisdiction of the United States; (b) has stated in writing or sworn testimony that it will not license the SEP on any terms [in other words, is not a "willing licensee"]; (c) refuses to enter a license agreement on terms set in a final ruling of a court – which includes any appeals – or binding arbitration; or (d) fails to provide written confirmation to a SEP owner after receipt of a terms letter in the form specified by the Commission. They also include certain instances when a potential licensee has brought its own action seeking injunctive relief on its FRAND-encumbered SEPs.
To the extent that the settlement reinforces what Google (and other licensors) would do anyway, and even to the extent that it imposes nothing more than an obligation to inject a neutral third party into FRAND negotiations to assist the parties in resolving rate disputes, there is little to complain about. Indeed, this is the core of the agreement, and, importantly, it seems to preserve Google's right to seek injunctions to enforce its patents, subject to the agreement's process requirements.
Industry participants and standard-setting organizations have supported injunctions, and the seeking and obtaining of injunctions against infringers is not in conflict with SEP patentees' obligations. Even the FTC, in its public comments, has stated that patent owners should be able to obtain injunctions on SEPs when an infringer has rejected a reasonable license offer. Thus, the long-anticipated announcement by the FTC in the Google case may help to provide some clarity to the future negotiation of SEP licenses, the possible use of binding arbitration, and the conditions under which seeking injunctive relief will be permissible (as an antitrust matter).
Nevertheless, U.S. regulators, including the FTC, have sometimes opined that seeking injunctions on products that infringe SEPs is not in the spirit of FRAND. Everyone seems to agree that more certainty is preferable; the real issue is whether and when injunctions further that aim or not (and whether and when they are anticompetitive).
In October, Renata Hesse, then Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, remarked during a patent roundtable that
[I]t would seem appropriate to limit a patent holder's right to seek an injunction to situations where the standards implementer is unwilling to have a neutral third-party determine the appropriate F/RAND terms or is unwilling to accept the F/RAND terms approved by such a third-party.
In its own 2011 Report on the "IP Marketplace," the FTC acknowledged the fluidity and ambiguity surrounding the meaning of "reasonable" licensing terms and the problems of patent enforcement. While noting that injunctions may confer a costly "hold-up" power on licensors that wield them, the FTC nevertheless acknowledged the important role of injunctions in preserving the value of patents and in encouraging efficient private negotiation:
Three characteristics of injunctions that affect innovation support generally granting an injunction. The first and most fundamental is an injunction's ability to preserve the exclusivity that provides the foundation of the patent system's incentives to innovate. Second, the credible threat of an injunction deters infringement in the first place. This results from the serious consequences of an injunction for an infringer, including the loss of sunk investment. Third, a predictable injunction threat will promote licensing by the parties. Private contracting is generally preferable to a compulsory licensing regime because the parties will have better information about the appropriate terms of a license than would a court, and more flexibility in fashioning efficient agreements.
* * *
But denying an injunction every time an infringer's switching costs exceed the economic value of the invention would dramatically undermine the ability of a patent to deter infringement and encourage innovation. For this reason, courts should grant injunctions in the majority of cases.…
Consistent with this view, the European Commission's Deputy Director-General for Antitrust, Cecilio Madero Villarejo, recently expressed concern that some technology companies that complain of being denied a license on FRAND terms never truly intend to acquire licenses, but rather "want[] to create conditions for a competition case to be brought."
But with the Google case, the Commission appears to back away from its seeming support for injunctions, claiming that:
Seeking and threatening injunctions against willing licensees of FRAND-encumbered SEPs undermines the integrity and efficiency of the standard-setting process and decreases the incentives to participate in the process and implement published standards. Such conduct reduces the value of standard setting, as firms will be less likely to rely on the standard-setting process.
Reconciling the FTC's seemingly disparate views turns on the question of what a "willing licensee" is. And while the Google settlement itself may not magnify the problems surrounding the definition of that term, it doesn't provide any additional clarity, either.
The problem is that, even in its 2011 Report, in which FTC noted the importance of injunctions, it defines a willing licensee as one who would license at a hypothetical, ex ante rate absent the threat of an injunction and with a different risk profile than an after-the-fact infringer. In other words, the FTC's definition of willing licensee assumes a willingness to license only at a rate determined when an injunction is not available, and under the unrealistic assumption that the true value of a SEP can be known ex ante. Not surprisingly, then, the Commission finds it easy to declare an injunction invalid when a patentee demands a (higher) royalty rate in an actual negotiation, with actual knowledge of a patent's value and under threat of an injunction.
As Richard Epstein, Scott Kieff and Dan Spulber discuss in critiquing the FTC's 2011 Report:
In short, there is no economic basis to equate a manufacturer that is willing to commit to license terms before the adoption and launch of a standard, with one that instead expropriates patent rights at a later time through infringement. The two bear different risks and the late infringer should not pay the same low royalty as a party that sat down at the bargaining table and may actually have contributed to the value of the patent through its early activities. There is no economically meaningful sense in which any royalty set higher than that which a "willing licensee would have paid" at the pre-standardization moment somehow "overcompensates patentees by awarding more than the economic value of the patent."
* * *
Even with a RAND commitment, the patent owner retains the valuable right to exclude (not merely receive later compensation from) manufacturers who are unwilling to accept reasonable license terms. Indeed, the right to exclude influences how those terms should be calculated, because it is quite likely that prior licensees in at least some areas will pay less if larger numbers of parties are allowed to use the same technology. Those interactive effects are ignored in the FTC calculations.
With this circular logic, all efforts by patentees to negotiate royalty rates after infringement has occurred can be effectively rendered anticompetitive if the patentee uses an injunction or the threat of an injunction against the infringer to secure its reasonable royalty.
The idea behind FRAND is rather simple (reward inventors; protect competition), but the practice of SEP licensing is much more complicated. Circumstances differ from case to case, and, more importantly, so do the parties' views on what may constitute an appropriate licensing rate under FRAND. As I have written elsewhere, a single company may have very different views on the meaning of FRAND depending on whether it is the licensor or licensee in a given negotiation—and depending on whether it has already implemented a standard or not. As one court looking at the very SEPs at issue in the Google case has pointed out:
[T]he court is mindful that at the time of an initial offer, it is difficult for the offeror to know what would in fact constitute RAND terms for the offeree. Thus, what may appear to be RAND terms from the offeror's perspective may be rejected out-of-pocket as non-RAND terms by the offeree. Indeed, it would appear that at any point in the negotiation process, the parties may have a genuine disagreement as to what terms and conditions of a license constitute RAND under the parties' unique circumstances.
The fact that many firms engaged in SEP negotiations are simultaneously and repeatedly both licensors and licensees of patents governed by multiple SSOs further complicates the process—but also helps to ensure that it will reach a conclusion that promotes innovation and ensures that consumers reap the rewards.
In fact, an important issue in assessing the propriety of injunctions is the recognition that, in most cases, firms would rather license their patents and receive royalties than exclude access to their IP and receive no compensation (and incur the costs of protracted litigation, to boot). Importantly, for firms that both license out their own patents and license in those held by other firms (the majority of IT firms and certainly the norm for firms participating in SSOs), continued interactions on both sides of such deals help to ensure that licensing—not withholding—is the norm.
Companies are waging the smartphone patent wars with very different track records on SSO participation. Apple, for example, is relatively new to the mobile communications space and has relatively few SEPs, while other firms, like Samsung, are long-time players in the space with histories of extensive licensing (in both directions). But, current posturing aside, both firms have an incentive to license their patents, as Mark Summerfield notes:
Apple's best course of action will most likely be to enter into licensing agreements with its competitors, which will not only result in significant revenues, but also push up the prices (or reduce the margins) on competitive products.
While some commentators make it sound as if injunctions threaten to cripple smartphone makers by preventing them from licensing essential technology on viable terms, companies in this space have been perfectly capable of orchestrating large-scale patent licensing campaigns. That these may increase costs to competitors is a feature—not a bug—of the system, representing the return on innovation that patents are intended to secure. Microsoft has wielded its sizeable patent portfolio to drive up the licensing fees paid by Android device manufacturers, and some commentators have even speculated that Microsoft makes more revenue from Android than Google does. But while Microsoft might prefer to kill Android with its patents, given the unlikeliness of this, as MG Siegler notes,
[T]he next best option is to catch a free ride on the Android train. Patent licensing deals already in place with HTC, General Dynamics, and others could mean revenues of over $1 billion by next year, as Forbes reports. And if they're able to convince Samsung to sign one as well (which could effectively force every Android partner to sign one), we could be talking multiple billions of dollars of revenue each year.
Hand-wringing about patents is the norm, but so is licensing, and your smartphone exists, despite the thousands of patents that read on it, because the firms that hold those patents—some SEPs and some not—have, in fact, agreed to license them.
The inability to seek an injunction against an infringer, however, would ensure instead that patentees operate with reduced incentives to invest in technology and to enter into standards because they are precluded from benefiting from any subsequent increase in the value of their patents once they do so. As Epstein, Kieff and Spulber write:
The simple reality is that before a standard is set, it just is not clear whether a patent might become more or less valuable. Some upward pressure on value may be created later to the extent that the patent is important to a standard that is important to the market. In addition, some downward pressure may be caused by a later RAND commitment or some other factor, such as repeat play. The FTC seems to want to give manufacturers all of the benefits of both of these dynamic effects by in effect giving the manufacturer the free option of picking different focal points for elements of the damages calculations. The patentee is forced to surrender all of the benefit of the upward pressure while the manufacturer is allowed to get all of the benefit of the downward pressure.
Thus the problem with even the limited constraints imposed by the Google settlement: To the extent that the FTC's settlement amounts to a prohibition on Google seeking injunctions against infringers unless the company accepts the infringer's definition of "reasonable," the settlement will harm the industry. It will reinforce a precedent that will likely reduce the incentives for companies and individuals to innovate, to participate in SSOs, and to negotiate in good faith.
Contrary to most assumptions about the patent system, it needs stronger, not weaker, property rules. With a no-injunction rule (whether explicit or de facto (as the Google settlement's definition of "willing licensee" unfolds)), a potential licensee has little incentive to negotiate with a patent holder and can instead refuse to license, infringe, try its hand in court, avoid royalties entirely until litigation is finished (and sometimes even longer), and, in the end, never be forced to pay a higher royalty than it would have if it had negotiated before the true value of the patents was known.
Flooding the courts and discouraging innovation and peaceful negotiations hardly seem like benefits to the patent system or the market. Unfortunately, the FTC's approach to SEP licensing exemplified by the Google settlement may do just that.
In her dissent in Google, Comissioner Ohlhausen articulates the problems with the FTC's settlement. First, writes Commissioner Ohlhausen,
[T]he majority says little about what "appropriate circumstances" may trigger an FTC lawsuit other than to say that a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") commitment generally prohibits seeking an injunction. By articulating only narrow circumstances when the Commission deems a licensee unwilling (limitations added since Bosch), and not addressing the ambiguity in the market about what constitutes a FRAND commitment, the Commission will leave patent owners to guess in most circumstances whether they can safely seek an injunction on a SEP.
As Commissioner Ohlhausen points out, the FTC's treatment of Apple as a "willing licensee" betrays the complexity of such issues and the confusion this settlement may engender. While the FTC acknowledges that injunctions are appropriate when a patentee is faced with a licensee who is unwilling to license its patents at a reasonable rate, if even Apple is here considered a "willing licensee," then such an acknowledgement is a null set. As Ohlhausen points out, in treating Apple as a willing licensee, the Commission
[D]isregard[s] a federal judge's decision that Apple revealed itself as unwilling on the eve of trial. As the judge wrote: "[Apple's intentions] became clear only when Apple informed the court . . . that it did not intend to be bound by any rate that the court determined." The judge further concluded Apple was trying to use the FRAND rate litigation simply to determine "a ceiling on the potential license rate that it could use for negotiating purposes.…"
The Order allows Google to seek injunctive relief if a party "has stated in writing or in sworn testimony that it will not license the FRAND Patent on any terms"—as Apple did in federal district court. But the Complaint attempts to skirt this issue by vaguely claiming that "[a]t all times relevant to this Complaint, these implementers [including Apple] were willing licensees.… " I believe it is quite "relevant" that Apple told a federal judge after years of negotiation and litigation with Motorola that it would only abide by the court-determined royalty rates to the extent it saw fit. I cannot endorse characterizing this conduct as that of a willing licensee.
This sort of strategic behavior by licensees is precisely why injunctions are necessary and appropriate in such cases. To turn them into antitrust violations seriously threatens to undermine the licensors' appropriate bargaining power and the efficient functioning of SEP licensing.
Perhaps most significant, the Commission's settlement continues the agency's recent trend of making a hash of its Section 5 authority. As Commissioner Ohlhausen has noted once before (in dissenting from the Commission's settlement in the Bosch case)—on the same day, as it happens, that Berin Szoka and I did—the FTC is charting a dangerously unprincipled course on Section 5, particularly with respect to its interpretation of its unfairness jurisdiction. In his Separate Statement in Google, Commissioner Rosch sounds a similar concern about the absence of "limiting principles" on the scope of the Commission's authority to bring Section 5 cases under the Act's unfair methods of competition prong.
In the Google case, the Commission asserts unfairness jurisdiction without even the minimal limitations the agency itself has adopted. As Commissioner Ohlhausen notes:
[T]he Commission gives no principled basis for expanding liability beyond an unfair method of competition to include an "unfair act or practice" on what is essentially the same conduct here as in Bosch. This expansion of liability sows additional seeds of confusion as to what can create liability and even the statutory basis of that liability.
* * *
The allegations in the complaint that Google and Motorola's conduct constitutes an "unfair act or practice" fail this agency's unfairness standard. To show an unfair act or practice, the Commission must prove that the challenged conduct "causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition." In this matter, we are essentially treating sophisticated technology companies, rather than end-users, as "consumers" under our consumer protection authority.… Further, the unfairness count in the complaint alleges merely speculative consumer harm, at best, and thus fails to comply with the Commission's Unfairness Statement.
Summing up, Commissioner Ohlhausen writes:
In sum, I disagree with my colleagues about whether the alleged conduct violates Section 5 but, more importantly, believe the Commission's actions fail to provide meaningful limiting principles regarding what is a Section 5 violation in the standard-setting context, as evidenced by its shifting positions in N-Data, Bosch, and this matter.
Ohlhausen is correct that, with the Google settlement, the FTC continues to operate in this realm without meaningful limits—a problem that some in Congress have begun to notice, as well, as Berin and I point out.
A significant problem with the SEP settlement as configured by the FTC is that it seems to make illegal the use of injunctions even to enforce perfectly reasonable royalty rates. Motorola has, since before it was purchased by Google, sought a royalty rate of 2.25% for its SEPs—an amount well in-line with rates charged by others with SEPs that read on the same standards. In its litigation with Microsoft, it is precisely this royalty that Motorola was seeking to enforce—and Microsoft was refusing to pay. There is a legitimate dispute over how that amount is to be calculated, but this is the very definition of a contract dispute, and both Motorola's past practice as well as overall industry practice suggest it is perfectly consistent with Motorola's FRAND obligation to seek such royalties.
To turn Motorola's effort to receive a reasonable royalty for its patents by means of an injunction against a willing—but not willing enough—licensee into an antitrust problem seems directly to undermine the standard-setting process. It also seems to have no basis in law.
As Bruce Kobayahsi and Josh Wright pointed out in discussing the FTC's N-Data case (cited by the Commission in its Analysis to Aid Public Comment on the Google Complaint):
What is left is the view that the theory in N-Data could be extended to any breach of a contractual commitment that might result in increased royalties, or even a good faith modification of a FRAND commitment to the same effect, always violates the antitrust laws. Perhaps a showing of market power would be required to succeed on such a theory under Section 2, but not Section 5. But it is worth considering when such a breach or modification would not result in liability under the N-Data analysis under either statute? The breach itself is the exclusionary act and evidence of the requisite monopoly power. No evidence of consumer harm is required. An attempt to renegotiate higher royalty rates is all that is needed. This is unsound antitrust policy. A basic lesson of the holdup literature is that the very asset specificity creating the potential for ex-post opportunism also creates the incentives for parties to build flexibility into their contractual relationships, which allows them to reasonably deal with unanticipated post- contractual shocks. However, even good faith modifications of SSO contractual commitments, whether those commitments relate to pricing or other elements of the agreement, would satisfy the N-Data standard for liability.
Thus, there is no principle that would prevent the extension of the N-Data theory to the breach of any contractual commitment by a firm resulting in higher prices to some consumers.
This seems to be precisely the case here—made all the more poignant by the fact that, arguably unlike N-Data, Motorola was seeking not an increase from previously agreed-to royalty rates, but rather the enforcement of royalty rates perfectly consistent with its past practice.
As I have noted before in discussing this issue:
One of the clearest statements of the need for antitrust restraint in the standard setting context comes from a June 2011 comment filed with the FTC:
[T]he existence of a RAND commitment to offer patent licenses should not preclude a patent holder from seeking preliminary injunctive relief.… Any uniform declaration that such relief would not be available if the patent holder has made a commitment to offer a RAND license for its essential patent claims in connection with a standard may reduce any incentives that implementers might have to engage in good faith negotiations with the patent holder.
Most of the SSOs and their stakeholders that have considered these proposals over the years have determined that there are only a limited number of situations where patent hold-up takes place in the context of standards-setting. The industry has determined that those situations generally are best addressed through bi-lateral negotiation (and, in rare cases, litigation) as opposed to modifying the SSO's IPR policy [by precluding injunctions or mandating a particular negotiation process].
The statement's author? Why, Microsoft, of course.
Patents are an important tool for encouraging the development and commercialization of advanced technology, as are standard setting organizations. Antitrust authorities should exercise great restraint before intervening in the complex commercial negotiations over technology patents and standards. In Motorola's case, the evidence of conduct that might harm competition is absent, and all that remains are, in essence, allegations that Motorola is bargaining hard and enforcing its property rights.
But the Commission actually explicitly adopts this interventionist posture in defending itself against Commissioner Ohlhausen's criticism. Writes the Commission:
We also disagree with Commissioner Ohlhausen's claim that the proposed settlement with Google creates uncertainty for market participants. In our view, it does just the opposite. By taking action that may deter the owners of standard-essential patents from unilaterally defining the terms of FRAND agreements through the exercise of leverage acquired solely through the standard-setting process, we protect the integrity of that process. [Emphasis added].
As Kobayashi and Wright make clear in discussing the N-Data case and its relationship to Supreme Court precedent set by the NYNEX case (and Trinko):
[In NYNEX] the Court distinguished the attempt to evade the pricing constraint from the unlawful acquisition or exercise of monopoly power by pointing out that "consumer injury flowed…from the exercise of market power that is lawfully in the hands of a monopolist."
This is a fatal problem for the "evasion of a pricing constraint" monopolization theory of patent holdup based on renegotiation or modification of ex-ante contractual commitments made in good faith and in the absence of deception.…
Consider the application of NYNEX to the theory of patent holdup without deception in N-Data. The Commission's theory of antitrust liability was not that N-Data acquired monopoly power when [its technology was adopted into the standard]. Rather, the theory was that N-Data unlawfully acquired monopoly power at the moment that it violated [a] contractual pricing constraint with its attempt to renegotiate those prior $1,000 licensing commitments. The proponents of this theory cannot argue that monopoly power was acquired at the time the technology was incorporated into the standard because Trinko clearly allows the setting of monopoly prices after monopoly power was lawfully obtained. The alternative is to rely on the evasion of pricing constraint theory, which asserts that the exclusionary conduct and acquisition of monopoly power occur at the moment N-Data attempts to evade its licensing commitments. However, the Court's reasoning in NYNEX indicates that it would have concluded that N-Data lawfully obtained monopoly power at the time its technology was included in the standard and would characterize the renegotiation as the exercise of that power. Indeed, NYNEX concludes that regulatory fraud by a monopolist, conduct far less economically meritorious than breach of contract, which can be efficient, is not exclusionary even when it generates actual harm to consumers. In sum, there should be little doubt that the Court's decision in NYNEX compels the conclusion that ex-post opportunism without deception is not exclusionary conduct and not actionable under Section 2.
And thus we come back, full circle, to the problem of Section 5. While Section 2 does not permit a case based on "the exercise of leverage acquired solely through the standard-setting process," the FTC interprets Section 5 to operate without the sensible economic constraints imposed by the Court on Section 2 cases. As Kobayashi and Wright note:
The truth is that there was little chance the FTC could have prevailed [in N-Data] under the more rigorous Section 2 standard that anchors the liability rule to a demanding standard requiring proof of both exclusionary conduct and competitive harm. One must either accept the proposition that the FTC sought Section 5 liability precisely because there was no evidence of consumer harm or that the FTC believed there was evidence of consumer harm but elected to file the Complaint based only upon the Section 5 theory to encourage an expansive application of that Section, a position several Commissioners joining the Majority Statement have taken in recent years. Neither of these interpretations offers much evidence that N-Data is sound as a matter of prosecutorial discretion or antitrust policy.
Precisely the same could be said of the Google settlement. Whatever its merits in bringing clarity to the licensing of SEPs, the case (and others like it, including Bosch), it really is Time for Congress to Cancel the FTC's Section 5 Antitrust Blank Check.


text:
Discover sturdy simplicity in a convenient and lightweight package. This Economy View Binder's 1-1/2" round rings hold up to 275 pages of 8-1/2" x 11" paper to offer a handy solution to your organization needs. Open and close the rings with ease to add or remove papers as needed. Tuck important handouts, pamphlets and other loose or unpunched paperwork into the two interior pockets for quick access. Put your personal stamp on the binder by designing a customized cover. You can find inspiration in the free, easy-to-use templates available at avery.com. Perfect for light use, this slim binder is the friend your papers never knew they were missing.
Product # | 02-AVE5726 |
Manufacturer | Avery |


text:
You can pay for extra baggage in the bus.
If you have an open return ticket, secure your seat in the bus on time and book a return reservation online, 48 hours before departure. When entering the bus, you need to show return ticket and seat reservation to the driver.


text:
Shows tracks of navigators, e.g. Cook, Magellan, La Perouse, Dumont d'Urville
We promise to never spam you, and just use your email address to identify you as a valid customer.
This product hasn't received any reviews yet. Be the first to review this product!
Write review
All prices are in AUD.
Click the button below to add the Planisphère Babinet, 1864 to your wish list.