The Wall Street Journal has reported that an Indian company is suing a blogger for defamation. A Wired blog is predicting a win for that company.

In case you aren’t familiar with the case. Here’s a quick run-down:

• “Toxic Writer”, an anonymous blogger, made some comments about the company
• The company, Gremach Infrastructure Equipments & Projects Ltd., is based in Mumbai, India
• The allegation is that the blogger is engaging in “hate speech”
• The blog’s been removed, but the Blogger.com subsidiary, based in India, is claiming no responsibility

According to some legal experts, countries that were once a British colony see these types of lawsuits often. This is perhaps the most high profile of the cases of this sort. What makes it so special, however, is one simple fact of the law: Any company doing business in any country in the world is subject to the local laws, regardless of its country of origin.

Google is a U.S. company. If the same suit happened in the U.S. then Google would likely win. But India has no first amendment and companies fighting this type of suit in those countries typically lose. That means Google will have to change its operating policies for bloggers in that country. But this is where it gets sticky.

The blogger is being threatened with loss of anonymity. Doesn’t he have a right to privacy? The real issue here is the crossroad between a blogger’s right to blog anonymously and the right of the company to have nothing defamatory said about it. If the blogger wins then all is well (except for the company). If the company wins, the blogger not only loses anonymity in India, but in every country in the world.

What if a U.S. citizen, blogging anonymously, makes an off-hand comment about an international company headquartered in India, or another country with no first amendment law? Which court has jurisdiction? Furthermore, which nation’s laws will be applied to the situation?

Will the U.S. blogger be subject to Indian laws? Will Google? Since search engine results can theoretically be viewed in any country, based on personal preferences and geographic concerns as applied by Google’s algorithms, you can see how these situations could lead to some sticky case law. Either every search engine headquartered in every country will have to adopt a different policy to reflect the local laws of each nation in which it operates or an international body governing Internet search and publishing will need to be created to maintain a consistent legal policy that governs the entire world’s policy regarding defamation, copyright, and related issues.

The only question left to answer is, Which path will be taken?

This story was first published at Blogger News Network.

Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the largest media conglomerate in the world, is expanding his media empire to India. Is anyone surprised?

I believe this will be the new wave for U.S. and British media companies. Having already saturated the U.S. market with advertising and media garbage, it’s time to work on the rest of the world, to export American shallowness abroad. The Internet will undoubtedly play a part in that since News Corp also owns MySpace.

Murdoch’s plan is to build six regional TV stations in India. After fully saturating India with shallow TV media targeted toward the Indian culture, I’m sure Murdoch will continue to expand into other parts of the world. And so will other media empires. Ted Turner and Time-Warner can’t be far behind.

OMD Worldwide today announced that it has been awarded the global media planning and buying business for Intel(R) Corporation, following a review that began in December.

It is the agency’s second consecutive global win in 2008. In first quarter, OMD was awarded the Visa global media business.

Other finalists included incumbent Universal McCann and Starcom Digitas.

Rest of the Story Here

United Business Media, the specialist publishing and events group, is abandoning the UK after 90 years to take advantage of the more favourable tax regime in Ireland.

The move by the company is the second snub to the UK’s tax regime in a month following the decision of drugs group Shire said to move its parent company to Ireland. Other companies including GlaxoSmithKline have also warned that the UK’s business environment may not be conducive to their staying registered here.

Rest of the Story

The battle of the corporate giants wages on. Yahoo! is strong, but they need backing power. A merger with the right company could increase profits and share value.

Microsoft approached Yahoo! earlier this year with a $42,000,000,000 offer to purchase and take over the company. Yahoo! feels they are worth more based on the latest reports.

Google has been in negotiations with Yahoo! to purchase all its search advertising for a broader search-ad outsourcing arrangement. This may cause regulatory problems though.

Time Warner AOL has recently entered negotiations with Yahoo! to purchase a 20% stake in the company. Yahoo! has not confirmed anything with AOL as of yet.

Which company has the best chance? Click the link below to find out more.

The Rest of The Story here

Millennial Media Adds Verizon as a Client
Mobile advertising company Millennial Media announced a strategic agreement with Verizon Wireless to manage a large portion of the company’s mobile advertising inventory.

Verizon Wireless used to only work with AOL’s Platform A, which includes Advertising.com and Third Screen Media.

The agreement will allow Millenial Media, a cross-platform mobile advertising company, to deliver its banner and text ads to Verizon’s mobile web users.

Paul Palmieri, president and CEO of Millennial Media said, “Verizon Wireless has long been a leader in consumer mobile services, and we are excited to add them to our industry-leading networks of brand-name, premium publishers and carriers.”

I just find it funny that some of the very people who say that porn is evil or that gambling is evil do not mind buying stock in companies that produce or distribute porn.

For instance, President Bush signed a law that makes it illegal for a US bank to transfer money to an online gambling company on behalf of a US citizen to try and enforce that online gambling is illegal. Yet, a US broker can buy stock in these companies on behalf of a US citizen and make that transfer just fine.

So, it’s sort of illegal but we wouldn’t want investors to be out of the opportunity to make money on gambling.

DirecTV is one of the largest distributors of pornography in the US. It used to be owned by General Motors, then Newscorp, and now it is changing hands once again.

Liberty Media gets FCC OK for control of DirecTV
Denver Business Journal

Liberty Media LLC’s stock swap to gain control of leading satellite broadcaster DirecTV Group Inc. received approval from federal regulators Monday. The Federal Communications Commission voted to authorize the deal more than a year after the deal was first announced.

The Englewood-based media and Internet company arranged in December 2006 to trade its 16 percent ownership of stock in Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. for News Corp.’s 39 percent ownership of El Segundo, Calif.-based DirecTV.

The swap gives dealmaker John Malone, Liberty Media’s founder, ownership of a domestic television network on a scale he has not had since the TCI cable empire he ran was bought by AT&T Inc.

By the way, AT&T is or was also one of the biggest pornography distribution companies as well. Their cable networks are the ones that provide you with all that great porn in your hotel rooms.

So, just buy stock in AT&T or Liberty Media and you too can make money from porn while denouncing it at your local church. After all, it’s the American way right?

For more than 100 years, any time we thought of Hershey we thought of chocolate. The worldwide famous chocolate gets its name from its found, Milton Hershey, and is located in Hershey, Pa. Recently, the candy manufacturer announced that it would cut almost 1,500 jobs. The move has Hershey residents and people in surrounding areas concerned about the local economy. But Hershey is simply following the latest trend in corporate governance.

The global economy is all but forcing American corporations to cut expenses. Because of the competitive nature of the global business marketplace, U.S. companies must compete against companies in other nations that pay their employees less and offer few benefits, if any at all. In order to maintain market share, thus ensure profits, most U.S. companies have to make some tough decisions and that includes layoffs. Why chocolate manufacturers be immune?

Hershey is battling something other than layoffs. However, a recent news story has the company fighting for control of itself. Mergers and acquisitions can sometimes be hostile as competitors seek to gain a footing in and control over company assets. This news story alludes to a possible such environment at the American mainstay.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Hershey Co.’s (NYSE:HSY - news) controlling shareholder on Sunday said it has no interest in giving up its voting power, damping speculation the largest U.S. chocolate maker might combine with Britain’s Cadbury Schweppes Plc (CBRY.L).

LeRoy Zimmerman, chairman of Hershey Trust Co., said the trust has “absolute confidence” in Hershey management, including Chief Executive Richard Lenny, and its plans to cut costs and regain market share from rivals including Mars Inc.

Faced with global expansion opportunities, Hershey is trying to give the appearance that hooking up with a foreign corporation is not affecting its marriage to American consumers. Only time will tell whether Hershey can survive its foray into international markets or whether the homegrown chocolate will make globalism sweeter for all.

News and Media