You’re probably aware that the DOJ delivered a blow on Thursday with its takedown of major filesharing site MegaUpload. Just hours later, government websites ranging from the DOJ to the U.S. Copyright Office were taken down as well as sites of SOPA supporting organizations like the MPAA and RIAA. Anonymous quickly claimed credit, and #OpMegaUpload was born.

When Thursday was all said and done, it ended up being the biggest coordinated attack in the history of Anonymous – more than a dozen major websites down and over 5,000 worldwide participants. Many on the interwebs rejoiced.

However since yesterday’s attack, there has been growing backlash toward Anonymous’ actions. When Anonymous went buck wild with their DDoS attacks, did it actually do more harm than good? As wonderful as they feel to some, are revenge attacks on government properties actually counterproductive?

Molly Wood at CNET expresses this sentiment, saying that the U.S. Government purposefully scheduled the MegaUpload takedown to occur right after the successful SOPA Blackout protests, to do away with any credibility engendered by the opposition movement.

I’ll post the entire relevant chunk of her argument because it is rather elegant:

My sources tell me the timing of the Megaupload arrests was no accident. The federal government, they say, was spoiling for a fight after the apparent defeat of SOPA/PIPA and not a little humiliation at the hands of the Web. And what better way to bolster the cause for cyber-crackdown than by pointing to a massive display of cyber-terrorism at the hands of everyone’s favorite Internet boogeyman: Anonymous?

If the SOPA/PIPA protests were the Web’s moment of inspiring, non-violent, hand-holding civil disobedience, #OpMegaUpload feels like the unsettling wave of car-burning hooligans that sweep in and incite the riot portion of the play. The result is always riot gear, tear gas, arrests, injury, and a sea of knee-jerk policies, laws, and reactions that address the destructive actions of a few, and not the good intentions of the many.

I don’t truly know whether Anonymous was cleverly goaded into #OpMegaUpload. But I do know that an attack this big on this many government sites will effectively erase those good Internet vibrations that were rattling around Capitol Hill this week and harden the perspective of legislators and law enforcement who want to believe that the Web community is made up of wild, law-breaking pirates. That, ultimately, may help strengthen the business–and the emotional–case for the pro-SOPA, pro-PIPA lobby. Did the feds just get the last lulz?

Now, I have no reason to doubt her sources or her argument. I actually agree to some extent. The timing of the MegaUpload takedown was too perfect. Will #OpMegaUpload erase some of those “good internet vibrations” and embolden members of Congress and the DOJ to push for harsher laws to crackdown on what they perceive as “cyber-terrorism?” Possibly.

And was that their goal all along? To trick Anonymous into a reaction and then use that reaction to paint them as the enemy? Again, possibly.

But this argument assumes that all of this is news to Anonymous – that they were somehow tricked into all of this. My point is (this might sound a little Inception-ey): What if Anonymous began #OpMegaUpload with the full understanding that it would elicit a tough response from the DOJ and other parts of the U.S. government. A plan within a plan, if you will.

Think about it: when’s the last time that you saw the internet community rally around a cause in such a massive and effective manner? Maybe Anonymous feels that this overflow of outrage capital can be used to fire up the community even more.

“Sure, go ahead and try to come up with harsher internet restrictions right now. Try to make more arrests.” With some many eyes on the cause of internet freedom because of SOPA & PIPA, is Anonymous daring the other side to make a drastic move? Have they seen the internet community pissed off and united in a meaningful way and realized that it’s just the tip of the iceberg – the collective minds of the web have so much more to offer when it comes to protest?

So, a trap set by the federal government or not, maybe Anonymous felt that this was the time for something big.

Or maybe we’re all just over-thinking this.

UPDATE 3: Down go the RIAA and the MPAA’s sites as well.

The DOJ’s website (www.justice.gov) is currently down, and Anonymous (or at least some arm of it) is taking credit. Check out this tweet:

As you can see, they reference the DOJ / ICE takedown of popular filesharing site Megaupload, which happened earlier today.

Of course, this is all taking place just one day after the internet-wide SOPA / PIPA protest.

More to come…

UPDATE: 4:28 pm EST, justice.gov is still down. Other anonymous Twitter accounts are tweeting about the outage:

UPDATE 2: Universal Music has also been hit by Anonymous, also in retribution for the MegaUpload takedown:

AT&T toe-tagged the deal earlier today with a press release, which was posted on their website, that said they have agreed with Deutsche Telekom AG, T-Mobile’s parent company, to end the bid for acquisition. Typical of all sore losers, AT&T did not shy from indicating who it believed were the villains that prevented them from prevailing in this corporate drama:

The actions by the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice to block this transaction do not change the realities of the U.S. wireless industry. It is one of the most fiercely competitive industries in the world, with a mounting need for more spectrum that has not diminished and must be addressed immediately. The AT&T and T-Mobile USA combination would have offered an interim solution to this spectrum shortage. In the absence of such steps, customers will be harmed and needed investment will be stifled.

According to All Things D, AT&T will “have to pay a giant breakup fee to Deutsche Telekom” on top of eating the cost of all the legal costs the company has already put forth during its efforts to acquire T-Mobile. The Wall Street Journal adds that AT&T “will record a $4 billion pretax accounting charge in the fourth quarter, to reflect the value of the breakup fee it owes to Deutsche Telekom” but that it will work with Deutsche Telekom to develop a “mutually beneficial” roaming agreement.

But then reality settles back into its worn recliner, kicks up its feet and tells you, “Not so fast, AT&T. I’m not done with you yet.”

That’s essentially what happened today as the U.S. Department of Justice has asked to delay or dismiss its lawsuit against AT&T, which was originally scheduled to begin in February. The DoJ cites AT&T’s decision last month to withdraw its application from the FCC as the reason for filing the request to postpone the trial. Joseph Wayland, the lead litigator for the Justice Department’s case, said that there was no longer any reason for the DoJ to pursue the case after AT&T withdrew its application because the merger isn’t a “real transaction until they file with the FCC.”

So really, the DoJ is treating the AT&T/T-Mobile merger as a make-believe merger.

Trying to sustain the appearance that AT&T is still seriously pursuing the merger, Mark Hensen, an attorney for AT&T, reassured the trial judge that the deal to acquire T-Mobile was still the same in spite of reports that his client could renegotiate the acquisition to make it more agreeable to regulators.

Really, what cards could AT&T possibly have up their sleeve at this point. Going the Defiant Teenager route didn’t really do them any good, so now will they simply accept the fact that this deal is pushing daisies? Or maybe AT&T is holding out for the miracle of Christmas where, in addition to being allowed to gobble up T-Mobile, the lame will walk and the blind will see again.

Reuters reports that it has obviated a copy of a grand jury subpoena as an old civil dispute turns into a criminal investigation. Reuters quotes an eBay spokeswoman as saying in an email, “EBay believes that Craigslist’s allegations against eBay are without merit. We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves, and we will aggressively pursue our claims against Craigslist.”

She also said eBay would cooperate in any inquiry related to the dispute. Bloomberg reports:

The Sept. 7 grand jury subpoena of Craigslist seeks information pertaining to “incidents where EBay employees engaged in alleged criminal activities and misconduct focused around the misappropriation of proprietary/confidential information from Craigslist.”

The incidents include a February 2005 request by Pierre Omidyar, EBay’s chairman and founder, for information about Craigslist’s approach to adding new cities and advance notice of plans to launch new cities, according to the subpoena.

eBay’s rival site would be eBayClassifieds.com.

eBay purchased a 28% stake in Craigslist all the way back in 2004.

“Sprint opposes AT&T’s proposed takeover of T-Mobile,” said Susan Z. Haller, vice president-Litigation at Sprint. “With today’s legal action, we are continuing that advocacy on behalf of consumers and competition, and expect to contribute our expertise and resources in proving that the proposed transaction is illegal.”

Sprint says in today’s announcement:

Sprint’s lawsuit focuses on the competitive and consumer harms which would result from a takeover of T-Mobile by AT&T. The proposed takeover would:

This comes about a week after the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit to block the acquisition. AT&T has maintained that the deal would create jobs, though this has been disputed by Sprint via a study.

AT&T, is gearing up to present a two-pronged solution to the DoJ, with the hopes of getting the acquisition passed, according to a report from Reuters, citing “people close to the matter”. This would reportedly let AT&T try to find a settlement before the suit actually reaches the courtroom.

AT&T said the following in a statement on Wednesday:

We are surprised and disappointed by today’s action, particularly since we have met repeatedly with the Department of Justice and there was no indication from the DOJ that this action was being contemplated.

We remain confident that this merger is in the best interest of consumers and our country, and the facts will prevail in court.

Sprint released the following statement on that day: “The DOJ today delivered a decisive victory for consumers, competition and our country. By filing suit to block AT&T’s proposed takeover of T-Mobile, the DOJ has put consumers’ interests first. Sprint applauds the DOJ for conducting a careful and thorough review and for reaching a just decision – one which will ensure that consumers continue to reap the benefits of a competitive U.S. wireless industry. Contrary to AT&T’s assertions, today’s action will preserve American jobs, strengthen the American economy, and encourage innovation.”

Now, Sprint has put out a study aimed at debunking AT&T’s claims about increasing jobs. Summaries of the conclusions it draws are as follows:

• The EPI analysis claiming that the AT&T/T-Mobile merger will create jobs because of increased capital investment is completely unfounded. It is based solely on a claim by AT&T that it will increase its capital expenditures. But it appears to ignore reductions in capital expenditures that T-Mobile would have undertaken, and the strong likelihood that net capital expenditures would decline as a result of the merger. Indeed AT&T has told the federal government and its investors that the merger would lead to reduced capital expenditures. By EPI’s own logic, the net reduction in capital expenditures would lead to
  fewer jobs.
• The past record of employment changes following AT&T acquisitions of other mobile carriers indicates that these acquisitions led to reductions in employment among the workforces of AT&T and the acquired company.
• AT&T itself acknowledges that the merger will entail force reductions. Given the first two conclusions, there is no reason not to take them at their word.
• The AT&T/T-Mobile merger offers more jobs for the CWA, and probably higher wages for those CWA members employed by the post-merger AT&T who do not lose their jobs as a result of the merger. Overall, though, it will almost surely act to directly reduce jobs for American workers

You can see the whole thing here (pdf).

T-Mobile USA CEO and President Philipp Humm reportedly sent out an email to employees addressing the DoJ’s move. This is My Next has shared the email with additional commentary. The email itself says:

Colleagues,

Regards,

Philipp Humm

CEO & President
T-Mobile USA

Sprint is applauding the DoJ’s move. The company released the following statement from Vonya B. McCann, senior vice president of Government Affairs for Sprint:

“The DOJ today delivered a decisive victory for consumers, competition and our country. By filing suit to block AT&T’s proposed takeover of T-Mobile, the DOJ has put consumers’ interests first. Sprint applauds the DOJ for conducting a careful and thorough review and for reaching a just decision – one which will ensure that consumers continue to reap the benefits of a competitive U.S. wireless industry. Contrary to AT&T’s assertions, today’s action will preserve American jobs, strengthen the American economy, and encourage innovation.”

“The combination of AT&T and T-Mobile would result in tens of millions of consumers all across the United States facing higher prices, fewer choices and lower quality products for mobile wireless services,” said Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole.   “Consumers across the country, including those in rural areas and those with lower incomes, benefit from competition among the nation’s wireless carriers, particularly the four remaining national carriers.   This lawsuit seeks to ensure that everyone can continue to receive the benefits of that competition.”

“T-Mobile has been an important source of competition among the national carriers, including through innovation and quality enhancements such as the roll-out of the first nationwide high-speed data network,” said Sharis A. Pozen, Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division.   “Unless this merger is blocked, competition and innovation will be reduced, and consumers will suffer.”  

The DoJ filed the suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The complaint says that the two companies compete head to head nationwide (including in 97 of the nation’s largest 100 cellular markets, as well as compete for business and government customers. “AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile would eliminate a company that has been a disruptive force through low pricing and innovation by competing aggressively in the mobile wireless telecommunications services marketplace,” the DoJ says.

From the press release:

The complaint cites a T-Mobile document in which T-Mobile explains that it has been responsible for a number of significant “firsts” in the U.S. mobile wireless industry, including the first handset using the Android operating system, Blackberry wireless email, the Sidekick, national Wi-Fi “hotspot” access, and a variety of unlimited service plans.   T-Mobile was also the first company to roll out a nationwide high-speed data network based on advanced HSPA+ (High-Speed Packet Access) technology.  The complaint states that by January 2011, an AT&T employee was observing that “[T-Mobile] was first to have HSPA+ devices in their portfolio…we added them in reaction to potential loss of speed claims.”

The department said that it gave serious consideration to the efficiencies that the merging parties claim would result from the transaction.   The department concluded AT&T had not demonstrated that the proposed transaction promised any efficiencies that would be sufficient to outweigh the transaction’s substantial adverse impact on competition and consumers.   Moreover, the department said that AT&T could obtain substantially the same network enhancements that it claims will come from the transaction if it simply invested in its own network without eliminating a close competitor.

AT&T said that it would bring back 5,000 U.S. jobs if the merger is approved, according to Retuers. The company, however, has not specified where these jobs would be located.

The DoJ’s announcement has already proven to be good news for Sprint:

Update: Vonya B. McCann, senior vice president of Government Affairs for Sprint, issued the following statement:

“The DOJ today delivered a decisive victory for consumers, competition and our country. By filing suit to block AT&T’s proposed takeover of T-Mobile, the DOJ has put consumers’ interests first. Sprint applauds the DOJ for conducting a careful and thorough review and for reaching a just decision – one which will ensure that consumers continue to reap the benefits of a competitive U.S. wireless industry. Contrary to AT&T’s assertions, today’s action will preserve American jobs, strengthen the American economy, and encourage innovation.”

As Google pays an enormous $500 million fine for allowing Canadian pharmacies to place ads through AdWords, targeting consumers int he US (as announced by the Department of Justice last week), it appears that Google CEO Larry Page may be narrowly avoiding criminal prosecution.

According to the Wall Street Journal, prosecutors claim to have found emails and documents indicating that Google CEO Larry Page “was aware of the allegedly illicit ad sales.” The publication quotes:

“Larry Page knew what was going on,” Peter Neronha, the Rhode Island U.S. Attorney who led the probe, said in an interview. “We know it from the investigation. We simply know it from the documents we reviewed, witnesses that we interviewed, that Larry Page knew what was going on.”

Mr. Neronha didn’t say when the Justice Department believes Mr. Page learned of the matter, though people familiar with the investigation allege it was several years ago. He declined to discuss the content of the emails, citing grand jury secrecy.

That part about not saying whether the DoJ believe Page knew is a key factor. Unsurprisingly, Google isn’t talking about it, with a spokesperson quoted as saying, “We have settled and we are moving on.”

According to the WSJ, Neronha said there aren’t any plans to prosecute Page, but that “they weren’t off limits.”

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904787404576532692988751366.html#ixzz1WQjDJu7a

Meanwhile, in another angle to this story, Candian Drug Company Jan Drugs, which claims to have been an advertiser involved in the issue at hand has shared with WebProNews a letter from its president to Google, which I’ll simply include here in its entirety:

Dear Google,

David Janeson and the Jan Drugs team

A lot of people think the fine is unreasonably high as well. It is one of the largest such forfeitures ever in the US, but the DoJ says it “represents the gross revenue received by Google as a result of Canadian pharmacies advertising through Google’s AdWords program, plus gross revenue made by Canadian pharmacies from their sales to U.S. consumers.”

Surprisingly, Google hasn’t posted anything to its Public Policy blog since the DoJ’s announcement.