Panel de la Cámara de Representantes buscará la disolución de los gigantes tecnológicos, dice un miembro del Partido Republicano, el 6 de octubre de 2020 a las 12:51 am

By
En octubre 6, 2020
Tags:

(Bloomberg) — A House panel led by Democrats investigating competition in the technology sector is poised to propose sweeping reforms to block giants such as Amazon.com Inc. y Apple Inc. from both owning marketplaces and selling their own products on them, according to a critique of the recommendations by one Republican member of the subcommittee.The critique and the panel’s report are still drafts and the contents of both could change. It’s not clear which members will endorse the report, whose release has been delayed because of last-minute information regarding Facebook Inc., CNBC reported earlier. The report was expected this week, but it’s been pushed back, according to a person familiar with the matter.The recommendations, which would represent the most dramatic overhaul of competition law in decades if approved, are the result of a yearlong investigation by the House antitrust panel led by Democratic Representative David Cicilline. That probe is coming to its conclusion as federal and state antitrust enforcers are also investigating Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Facebook.Cicilline’s recommendations would include what he has called a Glass-Steagall law for technology platforms, according to the draft discussion paper from Republican Representative Ken Buck of Colorado, which was reported on earlier by Politico and obtained by Bloomberg. Buck said that recommendation and some others in the staff report would be “non-starters” for the GOP. Glass-Steagall refers to the Depression-era law separating commercial and investment banking.Cicilline’s proposal would prohibit tech companies from entering different lines of business and amount to a breakup of the companies, according to Buck. Amazon, for example, would be prevented from selling its own products on its marketplace, while Google couldn’t own both the world’s biggest search engine and YouTube. And Apple would be barred from owning the App Store and offering its own apps.“The majority’s primary remedy to create competition in the tech marketplace is to enact legislation creating structural separation,” Buck wrote in the discussion. Buck said he agrees with Cicilline on the need to rein in the power of technology companies and agrees with certain remedies such as giving more resources to competition enforcers.Spokespeople for Cicilline and Buck didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.Cicilline told Bloomberg in an interview in August that the companies are engaging in “deeply disturbing” abuse of their dominance to crush competitors. The panel issued information requests that yielded millions of pages of documents and held seven hearings, including one in July that featured testimony by the chief executives of Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple.The draft report would also recommend legislation that would require the tech companies to allow users to easily move their data from one website to another, according to Buck. It also recommends legislation to shift the burden of proof in merger cases to the tech companies, cap the market share in some mergers to 25% for buyers, overturn Supreme Court and other decisions that critics say have hampered enforcement agencies from blocking mergers and eliminate arbitration clauses in terms of service.In addition to Cicilline’s investigation, federal and state antitrust enforcers are poised to file a historic monopolization lawsuit against Google, and additional cases could be in the pipeline, Bloomberg has reported. Las Federal Trade Commission is preparing a possible case against Facebook. And Amazon and Apple are facing inquiries by federal antitrust authorities.It wasn’t immediately clear whether other committee Republicans, including its top-ranking GOP members, would join Buck’s recommendations. Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, who is the top Republican on the subcommittee, said in an Oct. 1 hearing that he and Cicilline “ultimately disagree on the future of antitrust laws.”Representative Jim Jordan, who is the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee that includes the antitrust panel, has repeatedly used the investigation’s hearings to rail against the companies for allegedly silencing conservatives. Buck, in the report, expressed concern about “censorship” across the political spectrum and cited “bias against conservative outlets and personalities” in particular.Buck said the Democrats will recommend imposing restrictions that would make it tougher for tech companies to grow by acquiring other firms. While Buck didn’t provide details of the majority’s proposal, he described it as “shifting the burden of proof in merger cases.”During their investigation, committee members often complained that the tech companies have been able to solidify their dominance by acquiring promising startups with little or no scrutiny from antitrust enforcers.At a recent hearing, a former head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division said that courts have made it nearly impossible for the government to stop dominant companies from acquiring nascent competitors and suggested one fix would be to put the burden on buyers to prove that the deals would be good for competition. That could make it easier for antitrust enforcers to block deals.While Buck said he supported a burden-shifting approach, he said Congress should gather more information on another proposal by the Democrats: a ban on acquisitions of future rivals and start-ups, like Facebook’s takeover of Instagram. Such a ban would prevent start-ups from profiting from their ideas by selling to another company, and reduce incentives for investors to back start-ups, Buck said.The report’s recommendations face an uphill battle. With time running out in this Congress, any real legislative action wont happen until 2021. They’ll likely run into Republicans’ longtime skepticism about changing antitrust law. Even if the election hands the Senate majority to the Democrats, Republicans can still use procedural tools to block bills from passing.(Updates with more recommendations, status of federal probes and likelihood of action from 10th paragraph.

House Panel to Seek Breakup of Tech Giants, GOP Member Says(Bloomberg) — A House panel led by Democrats investigating competition in the technology sector is poised to propose sweeping reforms to block giants such as Amazon.com Inc. y Apple Inc. from both owning marketplaces and selling their own products on them, according to a critique of the recommendations by one Republican member of the subcommittee.The critique and the panel’s report are still drafts and the contents of both could change. It’s not clear which members will endorse the report, whose release has been delayed because of last-minute information regarding Facebook Inc., CNBC reported earlier. The report was expected this week, but it’s been pushed back, according to a person familiar with the matter.The recommendations, which would represent the most dramatic overhaul of competition law in decades if approved, are the result of a yearlong investigation by the House antitrust panel led by Democratic Representative David Cicilline. That probe is coming to its conclusion as federal and state antitrust enforcers are also investigating Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Facebook.Cicilline’s recommendations would include what he has called a Glass-Steagall law for technology platforms, according to the draft discussion paper from Republican Representative Ken Buck of Colorado, which was reported on earlier by Politico and obtained by Bloomberg. Buck said that recommendation and some others in the staff report would be “non-starters” for the GOP. Glass-Steagall refers to the Depression-era law separating commercial and investment banking.Cicilline’s proposal would prohibit tech companies from entering different lines of business and amount to a breakup of the companies, according to Buck. Amazon, for example, would be prevented from selling its own products on its marketplace, while Google couldn’t own both the world’s biggest search engine and YouTube. And Apple would be barred from owning the App Store and offering its own apps.“The majority’s primary remedy to create competition in the tech marketplace is to enact legislation creating structural separation,” Buck wrote in the discussion. Buck said he agrees with Cicilline on the need to rein in the power of technology companies and agrees with certain remedies such as giving more resources to competition enforcers.Spokespeople for Cicilline and Buck didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.Cicilline told Bloomberg in an interview in August that the companies are engaging in “deeply disturbing” abuse of their dominance to crush competitors. The panel issued information requests that yielded millions of pages of documents and held seven hearings, including one in July that featured testimony by the chief executives of Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple.The draft report would also recommend legislation that would require the tech companies to allow users to easily move their data from one website to another, according to Buck. It also recommends legislation to shift the burden of proof in merger cases to the tech companies, cap the market share in some mergers to 25% for buyers, overturn Supreme Court and other decisions that critics say have hampered enforcement agencies from blocking mergers and eliminate arbitration clauses in terms of service.In addition to Cicilline’s investigation, federal and state antitrust enforcers are poised to file a historic monopolization lawsuit against Google, and additional cases could be in the pipeline, Bloomberg has reported. Las Federal Trade Commission is preparing a possible case against Facebook. And Amazon and Apple are facing inquiries by federal antitrust authorities.It wasn’t immediately clear whether other committee Republicans, including its top-ranking GOP members, would join Buck’s recommendations. Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, who is the top Republican on the subcommittee, said in an Oct. 1 hearing that he and Cicilline “ultimately disagree on the future of antitrust laws.”Representative Jim Jordan, who is the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee that includes the antitrust panel, has repeatedly used the investigation’s hearings to rail against the companies for allegedly silencing conservatives. Buck, in the report, expressed concern about “censorship” across the political spectrum and cited “bias against conservative outlets and personalities” in particular.Buck said the Democrats will recommend imposing restrictions that would make it tougher for tech companies to grow by acquiring other firms. While Buck didn’t provide details of the majority’s proposal, he described it as “shifting the burden of proof in merger cases.”During their investigation, committee members often complained that the tech companies have been able to solidify their dominance by acquiring promising startups with little or no scrutiny from antitrust enforcers.At a recent hearing, a former head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division said that courts have made it nearly impossible for the government to stop dominant companies from acquiring nascent competitors and suggested one fix would be to put the burden on buyers to prove that the deals would be good for competition. That could make it easier for antitrust enforcers to block deals.While Buck said he supported a burden-shifting approach, he said Congress should gather more information on another proposal by the Democrats: a ban on acquisitions of future rivals and start-ups, like Facebook’s takeover of Instagram. Such a ban would prevent start-ups from profiting from their ideas by selling to another company, and reduce incentives for investors to back start-ups, Buck said.The report’s recommendations face an uphill battle. With time running out in this Congress, any real legislative action wont happen until 2021. They’ll likely run into Republicans’ longtime skepticism about changing antitrust law. Even if the election hands the Senate majority to the Democrats, Republicans can still use procedural tools to block bills from passing.(Updates with more recommendations, status of federal probes and likelihood of action from 10th paragraph.

,

Cita instantánea

Ingrese el símbolo de acciones.

Seleccione el intercambio.

Seleccione el tipo de seguridad.

Por favor, introduzca su nombre de pila.

Por favor ingrese su apellido.

Por favor, introduzca su número de teléfono.

Por favor, introduzca su dirección de correo electrónico.

Ingrese o seleccione el número total de acciones que posee.

Ingrese o seleccione el monto del préstamo deseado que está buscando.

Seleccione el propósito del préstamo.

Seleccione si es funcionario/director.

High West Capital Partners, LLC solo puede ofrecer cierta información a personas que sean "inversores acreditados" y/o "clientes calificados", según se definen esos términos en las leyes federales de valores aplicables. Para ser un “Inversor acreditado” y/o un “Cliente calificado”, debe cumplir con los criterios identificados en UNA O MÁS de las siguientes categorías/párrafos numerados del 1 al 20 a continuación.

High West Capital Partners, LLC no puede proporcionarle ninguna información sobre sus programas de préstamos o productos de inversión a menos que cumpla con uno o más de los siguientes criterios. Además, los ciudadanos extranjeros que puedan estar exentos de calificar como inversionista acreditado de EE. UU. aún deben cumplir con los criterios establecidos, de acuerdo con las políticas de préstamos internas de High West Capital Partners, LLC. High West Capital Partners, LLC no proporcionará información ni prestará a ningún individuo y/o entidad que no cumpla con uno o más de los siguientes criterios:

1) Individuo con patrimonio neto superior a $1.0 millón. Una persona física (no una entidad) cuyo patrimonio neto, o patrimonio neto conjunto con su cónyuge, al momento de la compra exceda $1,000,000 USD. (Al calcular el patrimonio neto, puede incluir su patrimonio en bienes muebles y bienes inmuebles, incluida su residencia principal, efectivo, inversiones a corto plazo, acciones y valores. Su inclusión del patrimonio en bienes muebles y bienes inmuebles debe basarse en la equidad valor de mercado de dicha propiedad menos la deuda garantizada por dicha propiedad).

2) Individuo con Ingreso Anual individual de $200,000. Una persona natural (no una entidad) que tuvo ingresos individuales de más de $200,000 en cada uno de los dos años calendario anteriores y tiene una expectativa razonable de alcanzar el mismo nivel de ingresos en el año actual.

3) Individuo con ingreso anual conjunto de $300,000. Una persona física (no una entidad) que tuvo ingresos conjuntos con su cónyuge superiores a $300,000 en cada uno de los dos años calendario anteriores y tiene una expectativa razonable de alcanzar el mismo nivel de ingresos en el año en curso.

4) Corporaciones o Sociedades. Una corporación, sociedad o entidad similar que tiene más de $5 millones en activos y no se formó con el propósito específico de adquirir una participación en la corporación o sociedad.

5) Fideicomiso Revocable. Un fideicomiso que es revocable por sus otorgantes y cada uno de cuyos otorgantes es un Inversionista Acreditado como se define en una o más de las otras categorías/párrafos numerados en este documento.

6) Fideicomiso Irrevocable. Un fideicomiso (que no sea un plan ERISA) que (a) no es revocable por sus otorgantes, (b) tiene más de $5 millones de dólares en activos, (c) no se formó con el propósito específico de adquirir un interés, y (d ) está dirigido por una persona que tiene tal conocimiento y experiencia en asuntos financieros y comerciales que dicha persona es capaz de evaluar los méritos y riesgos de una inversión en el Fideicomiso.

7) IRA o plan de beneficios similar. Un plan de beneficios IRA, Keogh o similar que cubre solo a una persona física que sea un Inversor acreditado, según se define en una o más de las otras categorías/párrafos numerados en este documento.

8) Cuenta del Plan de Beneficios para Empleados Dirigido por el Participante. Un plan de beneficios para empleados dirigido por el participante que invierte bajo la dirección y por cuenta de un participante que es un Inversor acreditado, según se define ese término en una o más de las otras categorías/párrafos numerados en este documento.

9) Otro Plan ERISA. Un plan de beneficios para empleados dentro del significado del Título I de la Ley ERISA que no sea un plan dirigido por los participantes con activos totales superiores a $5 millones o para el cual las decisiones de inversión (incluida la decisión de comprar un interés) las toma un banco, registrado asesor de inversiones, asociación de ahorro y préstamo o compañía de seguros.

10) Plan de Beneficios Gubernamentales. Un plan establecido y mantenido por un estado, municipio o cualquier agencia de un estado o municipio, para beneficio de sus empleados, con activos totales superiores a $5 millones.

11) Entidad sin fines de lucro. Una organización descrita en la Sección 501(c)(3) del Código de Rentas Internas, según enmendado, con activos totales superiores a $5 millones (incluidos fondos de dotación, anualidades e ingresos vitalicios), como lo muestran los estados financieros auditados más recientes de la organización. .

12) Un banco, según se define en la Sección 3(a)(2) de la Ley de Valores (ya sea que actúe por cuenta propia o en calidad de fiduciario).

13) Una asociación de ahorros y préstamos o institución similar, según se define en la Sección 3(a)(5)(A) de la Ley de Valores (ya sea que actúe por cuenta propia o en calidad de fiduciario).

14) Un corredor de bolsa registrado bajo la Ley de Bolsa.

15) Una compañía de seguros, según se define en la Sección 2(13) de la Ley de Valores.

16) Una “empresa de desarrollo empresarial”, según se define en la Sección 2(a)(48) de la Ley de Sociedades de Inversión.

17) Una empresa de inversión para pequeñas empresas con licencia según la Sección 301 (c) o (d) de la Ley de Inversiones para Pequeñas Empresas de 1958.

18) Una “empresa privada de desarrollo empresarial” según se define en la Sección 202(a)(22) de la Ley de Asesores.

19) Director Ejecutivo o Director. Una persona natural que es funcionario ejecutivo, director o socio general de la Sociedad o del Socio General, y es un Inversionista Acreditado según se define ese término en una o más de las categorías/párrafos numerados en este documento.

20) Entidad de propiedad total de inversionistas acreditados. Una corporación, sociedad, compañía de inversión privada o entidad similar, cada uno de cuyos propietarios de capital es una persona física que es un Inversionista Acreditado, según se define ese término en una o más de las categorías/párrafos numerados en este documento.

Lea el aviso anterior y marque la casilla a continuación para continuar.

Singapur

+65 3105 1295

Taiwán

¡Próximamente!

香港

R91, 3er piso,
Torre Eton, 8 avenida Hysan.
Causeway Bay, Hong Kong
+852 3002 4462

Cobertura del mercado