buy or sell – the big q

These companies have an advantage over the country.It is important for regulators to understand that they can not shape the economy, and if they want to formulate the right policy, they should be aware of their capabilities – but also recognize their limitations.Even in terms of the legal battle – for every strong attorney in the US government, companies have a stronger lawyer, the government can always offer less money than companies, and it also has less access to information. The government has almost unlimited power to ask for discovery of documents, but the analysis of the information is very complex – it requires high-level data capabilities and a server farm to store the information. “Loss of jobs and not high pricesOrbach (49) studied for a bachelor’s degree at Tel Aviv University, and received his second and third degrees from Harvard University. At the University of Arizona he has been teaching for 15 years. Twenty years ago, he did internship at the so-called Antitrust Authority in Israel. “At the time, Microsoft controlled the personal computer market, sending them a letter that we were considering announcing as a monopoly, and we received letters from lawyers who did not have a physical place to hold, so in the future people would not believe it was a company that held 95% of the market. The direction of the economy – there are many such companies that reach huge market segments – so much so that we are no longer talking about market shares but about parts of the entire economy, “he says.

What are the current complaints about technology giants? In general, that they have accumulated too much power, leading them mainly to harm to competition, along with infringement of privacy. However, if in the past damage to competition led to price increases, in the new economy this is not the case. “In terms of antitrust laws, Amazon contributes to competition, it does not eliminate it.” At the end of the 19th century, the crushing of competition led to high prices, and today the result is a loss of jobs. The consumer can buy at a lower price on Amazon, but the store owner – loss of business or workplace is traumatic.is largely a reconstruction of history – the industrial revolution led to the establishment of large companies because technology gave economies of scale, until then all the businesses were small – a shop, a farmer, a wagon driver etc. The combination of machines in business caused panic among the public because they really thought there would be no jobs. Indeed, many people have lost their jobs or become employees of companies owned by others, and for the first time they have seen giant companies, and they have taken them as the source of evil, and now we are back in such an era. Economic development”People who lose their jobs have a political right to vote, so politicians can get support from a broad public, Donald Trump was elected because of people who lost their jobs or their jobs are at high risk. The problem is that politicians speak in dramatic language – ‘We’ll break these companies,’ but the jobs will not come back, and we have to think about what to do to protect the current workers. “Users pay Facebook a lot, but with their information and attention. The economic tools we have today do not deal well with this situation. Of course, we need to develop tools for this, perhaps with business restrictions, but most of them do not – the issue of privacy, for example, is not under the realm of antitrust. This of course does not mean that you do not have to deal with it. “

The separation between bodies such as the Antitrust Authority and the Privacy Authority does not serve the giants?In the United States, the FTC is responsible both for privacy and for antitrust – and the unified body has both advantages and disadvantages. The question is how we deal with the best changes. Theoretically, the unified body should allow for more achievements, but it can not be expected that such a body will necessarily work better. In general, everyone will agree to change the regulatory structure, but not necessarily agree on the new structure. How do you move to a point that changes? There will never be a broad consensus, so we need to think about ‘second best reality’ because the arguments themselves have a high price. “The antitrust people fell asleep on duty?We have been late for many years, we missed the real cost of people’s economic distress, the perception was that the market would correct the situation, and today we understand that it will take time and have very high costs … It’s very hard to be the first to promote change, In the past, income or capital gaps would seem like something unrealistic, because people thought they were making less money because they did not do anything good in life or worked less hardHowever, Auerbach warns of the gap that exists today between the public perception and that of the Supreme Court. “One of the most famous judgments in history, Lochner, dealt with New York State legislation in the early 20th century that forbade bakers from working in the bakery for more than a certain number of hours in order to prevent them from sleeping in the bakery. The Supreme Court was quite radical at the time and canceled the law because it was against regulation – and this is known as the black period of the American court … Today we are back at the same time – the Supreme Court is radical and the public is in a completely different situation. “

There are claims to Amazon that it is doing cross-subsidization – it can lower prices in the retail market thanks to profits from its cloud activity. Does the Antitrust Authority have the tools to deal with this?The antitrust analysis does not deal with these things, because it deals with equilibrium in a certain market, not with influences on another market,” he says, adding that the analysis of the cigarette market does not take into account harm to health. The cross-impact, and was concerned about excessive power in a number of markets, for example, if a shoe manufacturer bought shoe stores, then they were afraid of leveraging his power. “Users pay Facebook a lot, but with their information and attention. The economic tools we have today do not deal well with this situation. Of course, we need to develop tools for this, perhaps with business restrictions, but most of them do not – the issue of privacy, for example, is not under the realm of antitrust. This of course does not mean that you do not have to deal with it. “The separation between bodies such as the Antitrust Authority and the Privacy Authority does not serve the giants?In the United States, the FTC is responsible both for privacy and for antitrust – and the unified body has both advantages and disadvantages. The question is how we deal with the best changes. Theoretically, the unified body should allow for more achievements, but it can not be expected that such a body will necessarily work better. In general, everyone will agree to change the regulatory structure, but not necessarily agree on the new structure. How do you move to a point that changes? There will never be a broad consensus, so we need to think about ‘second best reality’ because the arguments themselves have a high price. “

The antitrust people fell asleep on duty?”We have been late for many years, we missed the real cost of people’s economic distress, the perception was that the market would correct the situation, and today we understand that it will take time and have very high costs … It’s very hard to be the first to promote change, In the past, income or capital gaps would seem like something unrealistic, because people thought they were making less money because they did not do anything good in life or worked less hard.However, Auerbach warns of the gap that exists today between the public perception and that of the Supreme Court. “One of the most famous judgments in history, Lochner, dealt with New York State legislation in the early 20th century that forbade bakers from working in the bakery for more than a certain number of hours in order to prevent them from sleeping in the bakery. The Supreme Court was quite radical at the time and canceled the law because it was against regulation – and this is known as the black period of the American court … Today we are back at the same time – the Supreme Court is radical and the public is in a completely different situation. “There are claims to Amazon that it is doing cross-subsidization – it can lower prices in the retail market thanks to profits from its cloud activity. Does the Antitrust Authority have the tools to deal with this?The antitrust analysis does not deal with these things, because it deals with equilibrium in a certain market, not with influences on another market,” he says, adding that the analysis of the cigarette market does not take into account harm to health. The cross-impact, and was concerned about excessive power in a number of markets, for example, if a shoe manufacturer bought shoe stores, then they were afraid of leveraging his power. “…There are about 3500 active satellites in space today, and there are hundreds of satellites in the sky, because we are a customer that will transmit a lot of information: We bring a lot of small satellites and high quality. Can bring “.

For continuous and continuous access to information or satellite networks, satellite connections are required. The connection of satellites to networks is carried out through ground stations to satellites, which transmit to satellites and receive information from them via antennas on the one hand, and from communications to the Internet on the other.Continuous communication with the satellites depends on the fact that they can communicate with many antennas in a wide deployment around the world. However, the construction and operation of a satellite land station requires a large financial investment, which delays the work of various satellite companies. According to Amazon, using a network of cloud-based ground stations like this would cost companies 80 percent less than building, operating and maintaining a single station.

Established in 2006 by Yitzhaki, CEO of the company, Yitzhaki founded the small satellites department at IAI in 2006, along with Daniel Rockberger and Danny Spiritus, both of whom have experience in the space industry, and have raised $ 15 million from JVP, Liberty, Everkraod, Cockpit and GF Hawk, and the space agency, which currently has about 20 employees in its offices at the airport, and is expected to launch its first satellite in space in the coming months based on Amazon’s infrastructure.Communication should be a basic right that every person has, in fact all civilization has evolved around communication routes, and our social vision is that lowering communications prices will enable everyone to be connected to the Internet,” says Yitzhaki. “The cost of satellite communications is made up of three factors: production, launch and operation, we handle the first two, and for us, Amazon gets into an operation.”To launch a communications satellite could cost half a billion dollars, but the size of the satellite limits the size of the antenna, and if I reduce the antenna I can not provide much communication,” he told “Globes” The challenge that NSLComm technology is designed to solve. “Our antenna is folded inside the satellite, it is made of a material that remembers its shape – we can fold it into a very very small volume and the moment it is launched into space, the antenna is deployed, so we can provide communications at the lowest cost.”The other companies that work with the platform are; Maxar Technologies, which operates high-resolution star imagery; Thales Alenia Space offers low cost solutions, telecommunications, navigation, environmental management and more; Myriota, which provides satellite connectivity to low-cost Internet devices from anywhere in the world; Capella Space, which provides data from Earth observations; D-Orbit, which develops nanovoltaic transport services; Spire Glob, a Data Analytics company that analyzes data from space to solve problems on Earth; And Open Cosmos, which provides enterprise space technologies.

Gal said Tuesday it will continue to work with China’s Waui in the next 90 days, but the announcement comes only a short time after the Tramp government announced it would ease restrictions on the world’s second-largest smartphone maker.Google has announced that it will sever its ties with Wavi after the White House’s decision to blacklist it. However, after Washington announced temporary easing in order to prevent damage to Wavi customers around the world, Google decided to allow Wavai to continue receiving updates to the Android operating system this August.Keeping phones up-to-date and secure is at the top of everyone’s list of interests, and this license allows us to continue to provide software and security updates to the existing WAVE models in the next 90 days, “a Google spokesman said.

you may like Best deals for you and....
Scroll Up