RUSSIA officially says “Google is a manipulative monopoly!”

Russian court turns down Google appeal in anti-monopoly case

Laptop screen shows the homepage of in Beijing
A laptop screen shows the homepage of Google in Beijing June 8, 2006. REUTERS/Jason Lee/Files

MOSCOW (Reuters) – The Moscow Arbitration court on Monday rejected an appeal from Google and upheld a ruling that the U.S. firm broke anti-monopoly laws by abusing its dominant position with its Android mobile platform, Russia’s competition watchdog said.

FAS, the watchdog, ruled last September that Google had broken the law by requiring pre-installation of certain applications on mobile devices running on Android, following a complaint by Russia’s Yandex.

Google filed an appeal, but FAS said on Monday the court had fully supported its decision.

The company now has to amend its contracts with smartphone manufacturers in order to comply with the ruling, and pay a fine.

(Reporting by Maria Kiselyova)





San Francisco – A suite of lawsuits describes Google’s indiscretions in intimate detail. The charges include: PATENT INFRINGEMENT, INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS, INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, CYBER-STALKING, FRAUD, INVASION OF PRIVACY and UNFAIR COMPETITION as a CLASS ACTION relative to Defendants ongoing activities relative to violations of Anti-Trustlaws. The latter seeks to bring the “Right-To-Be-Forgotten” law to the United States. A jury trial is being demanded. The cases are being brought in the state of California, home to both Plaintiffs and Defendants. Google/Alphabet and various “John Does”., 1 to 20, are being sued based on revelations from U.S. Senate, law enforcement and private investigators, as well as recent leaks and whistle-blower tips from ex-employees and associates of Google.



The timeliness of the cases directly connect to a number of concurrent historical incidents which include the European Union investigations of Google, The Hulk Hogan and Erin Andrews privacy lawsuits, and the winning of smaller similar cases against Defendants
(ie: ) , the Snowden, HSBC and Guccifer Leaks, and the thinly disguised expose on Google in the Netflix TV series HOUSE OF CARDS, ie:
( )


( ).


CASE OVERVIEW – Update 2.4:



While Plaintiffs are bi-partisan, non politically affiliated engineers, the case has previously been exploited by third parties with political intent. Plaintiffs have only one goal: Justice and fair compensation.



The case describes how in 2005, the Plaintiffs received, in recognition by the United States Congress. They received the award in the “Iraq War Bill” as a Congressional commendation and a federal grant issued by the United States Congress and the United States Department of Energy. Plaintiffs also received additional access to technical resources for their development of fuel cell and energy storage technology to be used in connection with the research and development of electric cars which were to be deployed by the Department of Defense and the American retail automotive market in order to create domestic jobs, enhance national security and provide a domestic energy solution derived from entirely domestic fuel sources. Plaintiff’s had been asked, by government leaders, to help develop a manner to reduce reliance on foreign fuel sources due to perceived increasing unrest in Middle East regions.



Beginning in, or about, July of 2006, the Plaintiffs, were contacted by various investors representing the venture capital officers and investors of the Defendants posing as agents of Defendants RechargeIT project, Kleiner Perkins Group, In-Q-Tel and associated other parties funded by, and reporting to, Defendants. These investors feigned interest in the emerging technology and requested further information from the Plaintiffs in this regard. In or about August of 2009, the fuel cell and electric vehicle project of the Plaintiffs, was suddenly de-funded as to the Plaintiffs. The same funds for the research and development of electric car technology was then, subsequently in the same year, awarded to the Defendants, and their investors, for the exploitation of non-domestic energy materials which Defendants hold stock and managing control of the source and supply chain for, via a sophisticated series of relationships between Defendants and competing electric vehicle efforts to Plaintiffs. SEC and regulatory investigations have now tracked Defendants, and the public policy figures who they paid, to stock ownerships in lithium and indium mining operations in overseas locations such as Afghanistan: A surprising development since Plaintiffs had been told, by some Government leaders that they wanted to decrease reliance on overseas domestic fuel options. Those mining efforts supply raw materials to companies such as Tesla, Solyndra, Abound, Fisker, and others which Defendants own interest and stock market valuation incentives in, and which are the direct competitors of Plaintiffs. Defendants had planned to make “hundreds of billions of dollars”: in monopolistic market exclusives arranged for with political officials they had financed. As the 60 Minutes episode called: “The Cleantech Crash”, The U.S. Senate and GAO investigation reports, the FBI raid of a company called Solyndra and hundreds of thousands of damning news articles has shown, that plan crashed-and-burned.

In, or about September, 2009 the Plaintiffs, were contacted by the Government Accountability Office of the United States with a request that they participate in an investigation being conducted by that entity into the business practices of the Defendants and their associates, pursuant to anti-trust and corruption allegations. Beginning in or about January, 2010, the Plaintiffs, did, in fact, provide testimony to the Government Accountability Office of the United States, The Department of Justice, The Federal Bureau of Investigation, NHTSA Administrator David L. Strickland (Who suddenly quit thereafter), Robert Gibbs (Who suddenly quit thereafter), and their staff at the White House Press Office and the Washington Post White House Correspondent. The testimony provided by the Plaintiffs, was, in fact, truthful and did, in fact, tend to support the veracity of the anti-trust and corruption allegations alleged by the Government Accountability Office and other investigatory agencies. It appeared that Defendants had bribed state and federal public officials.



READ MORE ( ) ..…