Mediaboss Marketing

Enlarge / Donald Trump's sons, Donald Trump Jr. (L) and Eric Trump, walk in Trump Tower on November 14, 2016 in New York City. They will be in charge of the Trump Organization's myriad businesses while Donald Trump is president.

Getty Images

Before President Donald Trump took the oath of office in January, he handed offmanagement of the Trump Organization's business interests to his two eldest sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump. The family-owned company has been in variouslines of business over the yearsmost famously, there are hotels, casinos, andgolf resorts, some owned and others licensed. Ties, steaks, and a controversial seminar business have also borne the Trump name.

But DonaldTrump Jr. has also been involved with one particular business withrealimplications for the technology sector: patent enforcement. Beginning in 2011, Trump Jr. worked forand owned part ofa company called MacroSolve. While MacroSolve had supported itself selling software for more than a decade, by 2011 its focus had shifted to patent lawsuits as the company'smain source of profit.

MacroSolve's actions soon made it part ofa longstanding debate in the tech industry over"patent trolls," companies that do little or no business other than filing patent lawsuits. ButMacroSolve management never accepted the idea that the company was a "troll," and it said so in interviews.

"If you enforce your rights, you're a troll," MacroSolve CEO Jim McGill saidin a 2014 interview with Ars Technica. "If you don't, big companies will walk all over you."

Whatever youcall it, MacroSolve's brand of patent enforcement had initial successits lawsuitsearned the company close to$5 million. When thelitigation campaign eventually collapsed in 2014, MacroSolve was absorbed by a defense contractor called Drone Aviation Holding Corporation. That organization has its own close ties to the Trump presidency, and there's no tellingwhether, or if, Drone Aviation will try to enforce old MacroSolve patents or its own patents.

President Trump's views on patents and patent reform stillaren't clear, but family members have strongly influenced his policy views in other areas so farand there's a bit more clarity as to whereTrump Jr. stands on this topic. Afterbrowsing through MacroSolve's litigation history, reading every MacroSolve 10-K, and looking through every news clip and press release that mentionedthe words "MacroSolve" and "Trump"via the Nexis database, a pro-patent vantage point emerges. Ontop of all that, public statements from Trump Jr. himself revealsomestrongly held personal views on patent policy that emerged duringhis work for MacroSolve.

MacroSolve was originally known as Anyware Mobile Solutions, an Oklahoma company founded in 1997 by David Payne. The plan was to create applications for PDAs and cellphones, according to a Tulsa Worldstory on MacroSolve's "rise and fall."In 2008, the company went public, hoping to profit by helping businesses embrace the era of the smartphone.

It didn't work out. Between 2008 and 2010, sales plunged from $2.7 million to $638,000. But MacroSolve got one last, great chanceUS Patent No.7,822,816, issued in October 2010. At the time, MacroSolve's chairman said the patent could make the company into a billion-dollar business. The patent describes a "remote computing device" that sends out a questionnaire to a user, gets answers, and makes those answers available on the Web. Thus, in MacroSolve's view, it applies to anyone using questionnaireson a mobile app.

In early 2011, MacroSolve embraced patent litigation as a means of making money. The company went in big: overthe course of a year, MacroSolve filed dozens of lawsuits against 59 different companies, all filed in the patent-friendly Eastern District of Texas.Patent trolling had hit a peak, and it was easier than ever to squeeze money from companies afraid of litigating in East Texas. Discovery rules in that district were tough on defendants, and judges rarely decided cases on summary judgment, making patent litigation hugely expensive.After just a few months of filing lawsuits, MacroSolve reaped more than $1 million in settlementsmuch more than its struggling software business was worth.

Perhaps fearingblowback from its aggressive litigation campaign, MacroSolve's board decided to make someone else the company's public face. That's when it turned to Donald Trump Jr., who was hired on as the new spokesman in September 2011. Trump Jr. strucka deal to do two years of PR work, and he received at least $45,000 and 5,000,000 shares of MacroSolve stock as an initial payment, according to company financial reports.

In interviews and comments made at the time, Trump Jr., then executive vice president of the Trump Organization, described MacroSolve as a "pioneer" that he was excited to partner with. He called mobile apps "digital real estate." He said the Trump Organization would be integrating MacroSolve technology into its businesses.

"Just as in physical real estate, digital real estate is location, location, location," Trump Jr. said in a statement after he was hired in 2011."Having a company's brand and logo on the screen of mobile devices is a valuable place to be for a company looking to drive revenues and productivity."

In an interview with Oklahoma City'sJournal-Record, Trump Jr. said that he would be "opening his Rolodex" to help MacroSolve expand beyond Oklahoma. The company's patent was set tobe a big part of that effort. MacroSolve owned "a landmark patent with stability and very high growth potential as one of the few publicly traded companies in the industry," the new spokespersontold the newspaper.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Trump Jr. immediately took on a public role in pushing the newly patent-focused company.In November 2011, heintroduced MacroSolve CEO Steve Signoff to investors at the New York City Small Cap Conference.

"On our show Celebrity Apprentice, it really only takes one single factor to set an apprentice apart from another," Trump Jr. told the crowd. "It isnt their popularity, their appearance, their famous or infamous name... Its their edge."

For businesses, that "edge" is a good"mobility solution," said Trump Jr. "That is why it was so important for me and Trump-branded businesses to find a mobility-solutions company with that edge in the digital world. That's MacroSolve."

MacroSolve had "that hunter's nose," a proven record in mobile, and "their patent portfolio puts them years ahead in innovation," he added.

If the company's patent was innovative, that innovation wasn't translating into sales of products or services. Thecompany'ssales plummeted through the end of 2011, but MacroSolve executives told investors to hang onthe Trump "edge" was just around the corner.

"These third quarter revenues do not yet reflect the significant and strategic business development agreements we've put in place in Q2 and Q3 with Donald Trump Jr. and The Richards Group, both of which we expect will yield us major national accounts and sales that will create a very positive impact," MacroSolve CEOSteve Signoff told investors in December 2011, explaining away dismal financial results.

Sales of the company's products kept slowing as MacroSolve's docket of East Texas cases grew. It filed 10 more lawsuits in December 2011, puttingglobal travel companies on notice that their apps infringed the '816 patent. Four airlines got suedSouthwest, United, Continental, and American. So, too, did Priceline, Hotels.com, Travelocity, Hertz, and Avis.

Inearly 2012, MacroSolve filedlawsuits against a new batch of corporate defendants, including Facebook, Walmart, Yelp, Geico, Marriott, AOL, and Inter-Continental Hotels. It also sued Newegg, a retailer whose top brass had spoken out against patent trolls. Lawyers at Newegg and Geicowould ultimately bring together a coalition of companiesto fight MacroSolve's patent.

See the article here:
MacroSolve: Donald Trump Jr.'s favorite patent enforcer - Ars Technica

When German and American political leaders strongly disagree about a crucial issue in public it normally sounds something like this.

"This country under my leadership is not available for adventure," German Chancellor Gerhard Schrder said at a campaign event of his Social Democratic Party in the summer of 2002. He was of course referring to the potential US invasion of Iraq which ultimately began under President George W. Bush in 2003. Schroeder's public rebuke is said to not only have seriously irked Bush, but also to have damaged their personal relationship beyond repair.

Read: Trump and Merkel to talks NATO, Ukraine and climate change

"I am not convinced, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer famously told US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at the Munich Security Conference in February 2003, one month before the American invasion of Iraq would begin.

Fischer openly rebuking the case for war made by Rumsfeld in front of a slew of global luminaries was highly unusual in the context of the traditionally close and at least publicly harmonious relationship between leaders of both countries.

Libya, Cuba and Germany

"I believe Libya, Cuba and Germany are ones that have indicated they won't help in any respect," Pentagon chief Rumsfeld, also not once to mince words, said about Germanyin February 2003, incensing Berlin by likening the country's stance vis-a-vis the Iraq invasion to that of two nations traditionally hostile towards the US.

After his first travel ban was slapped down by several courts, Trump issued a revised order banning travel from six Muslim-majority countries. This time, Trump dropped Iraq from a list that included seven blacklisted countries first time around. The new order temporarily suspended the entire US refugee program, but exempted those with visas and who had already been formally accepted as refugees.

From February and into March, President Trump further advanced his political objectives through a combination of executive orders, memoranda, memos, and the signing of bills into law. He also used his executive authority to undo guidelines issued under the Obama administration.

In February, Trump signed 11 new executive orders (broad ranging directives that help the executive branch manage federal government operations) and issued one memorandum (a more direct executive action aimed at a specific agency) targeting the Department of Labor. The US President also signed five bills sent to his Oval Office desk by Congress, which will now become law.

President Trump's first February executive order established "core principles" for regulating the financial system and requires the Treasury Department to review and report on key provisions of the Dodd-Frank financial reform act. Republicans had criticized the act, which was implemented in the aftermath of the Great Recession, for strangling financial flexibility and inhibiting economic growth.

Through a series of three executive orders, Trump followed up on his campaign promise to crack down on what he had described as rampant crime in the US. He ordered Attorney General Jeff Sessions to create a Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety and heralded stronger combating of transnational crime. Trump also called for new federal crime criteria to prevent violence against police.

On February 9, Trump signed Executive Order 13775 reversing changes to the Justice Department's line of succession that President Obama had made mere days before leaving office. Trump had already side-stepped Obama's order when he removed and replaced acting Attorney General Sally Yates after she had refused to defend Trump's travel ban.

Executive Order 13777, signed February 24, builds off of his previous January 30 order prioritizing massive deregulation across the federal government. The February order introduces Regulatory Reform Officers into federal agencies and creates reform task forces. Together, these bodies will advise on the "repeal, replacement or modification" of regulations perceived as prohibitive or ineffective.

Trump began undoing environmental protections on two fronts. Firstly, he issued an executive order directing the Environmental Protection Agency to review a rule that empowers the federal government to protect waterways. Though unlikely to have immediate effects, the order could eventually weaken the 1972 Clean Water Act. Trump also signed a bill invalidating an Obama-era stream protection rule.

Surronded in the Oval Office by leaders from historically black educational institutions, Trump signed Executive Order 13779 in order to "promote excellence and innovation" at HBCUs. Primary goals including increasing private-sector participation in the institutions, broadly improving HBCUs capabilities, improving the relationships between HBCUs and the federal government.

In a two-page letter to US public schoos, the Trump administration revoked a controversial Obama-era federal directive allowing transgender students to use the bathroom of their choosing. The White House jusitified the action through a pending court case, despite the guidelines already being on hold. The letter did not lay out new guidelines, meaning states can choose their policies.

On February 28 Trump signed a measure to block an Obama-era regulation that would have prevented about 75,000 people with mental disorders from purchasing firearms. In an effort to curb gun violence, the Obama administration asked the Social Security Administration to disclose information about people with certain mental illnesses to the gun background system.

In the third week of February the Department of Homeland Security released Trump's plans to aggressively enforce deportation policies regardless of the severity of an immigrant's criminal history. The guidelines kicked off a nationwide crackdown on undocumented immigrants.

Trump signed two bills promoting women in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). One required NASA to encourage young women to study STEM fields and pursue careers that will help advance science and space exploration. The second required the National Science Foundation to encourage its entrepreneurial programs to recruit and support women to work in the commercial world.

Author: Cristina Burack

Against that historical backdrop the number and ferocity of Donald Trump's unprovoked verbal attacks during the presidential campaign against Chancellor Merkel were truly unprecedented.

"I always thought Merkel was, like, this great leader," he said in an interview in October 2015 about her decision to allow more than a million refugees into the country. "What she's done in Germany is insane," he added and predicted: "They're going to have riots in Germany."

Ruining Germany

Two months later, after Time magazine made Merkel its person of the year Trump took to Twitter to declare, that the outlet picked the person "who is ruining Germany".

In March 2016, referring to the Cologne New Year's Eve assaultson hundreds of women, Trump during a rally in Iowa again predicted unrest in Germany and lashed out against Merkel. "The German people are going to riot. The German people are going to end up overthrowing this woman [Angela Merkel]. I don't know what the hell she is thinking."

In June last year during remarks about Brexit, Trump mused about Germans emigrating: "These are people that were very proud Germans that were beyond belief, they thought the greatest that there ever was and now they're talking about leaving Germany."

But then in September 2016 after having repeatedly savaged Merkel for months, Trump suddenly heaped praise on the Chancellor, albeit with some key qualifiers.

A Merkel person

"Well, I think Merkel is a really great world leader," he said in an interview. "But I was very disappointed that, when she, this move with the whole thing on immigration, I think it's a big problem and really, you know, to look at what she's done in the last year and a half.I was always a Merkel person.I thought really fantastic. But I think she made a very tragic mistake a year and a half ago."

Unlike, some of her cabinet members, Merkel kept her cool and did not directly counter Trump's criticism during the presidential election campaign.

Instead, Merkel waited until after his election to deliver a message to the new president.

Chancellor Merkel had a noteworthy congratulatory message for President-elect Trump

Public lecture

In a remarkable statement from the chancellery congratulating him on his victory she went on to offer Trump close cooperation based on shared values which she then explicitly listed one by one: "democracy, freedom, the respect for the law and the dignity of human beings, independent of their origin, skin color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or political position".

While this may seem tame in comparison to Trump's attacks on her, for a German Chancellor to not just offer cooperation under specified terms to a US president, but to do it in way that could be perceived as lecturing him on Western values, was as stark a rebuke of an incoming US president as could be expected of Merkel or any German chancellor.

No screaming

And Merkel did not stop there,but since also came out strongly against President Trump's travel ban against several predominantly Muslim nations. "The necessary and decisive battle against terrorism does not in any way justify putting groups of certain people under general suspicion, in this case people of Muslim belief or of a certain origin,"she said in January in Berlin.

Keeping theirprior rhetorical struggle in mind, it seems fair to describe the first Trump-Merkel meeting as potentially loaded. It also makes clear why an experienced US foreign policy analyst was only half-joking when he recently commented that he considered italready a success if Trump behaved himself and the get-together ended without screaming.

Link:
Things Donald Trump said about Angela Merkel and vice versa - Deutsche Welle

The San Luis Obispo Tribune

What would Mark Twain think of Donald Trump? The San Luis Obispo Tribune Thanks to the criticisms they've leveled in articles, interviews, tweets and letters to the editor, we know that many contemporary authors, from Philip Roth to J.K. Rowling, have a dim view of Donald J. Trump. But what would leading writers of the past ...

Go here to read the rest:
What would Mark Twain think of Donald Trump? - The San Luis Obispo Tribune

The momentum of far-right populist Geert Wilders has been slipping. Even if he were to win, there are obstacles to his taking over outright leadership of this NATO nation. Wilders' platform is a fun-house mirror of Trump and adviser Stephen Bannon's darkest views -- pushing the bar on all Muslim immigration, shuttering all mosques (Wilders calls them "Nazi temples") and asylum centers, banning the Quran and taking the Netherlands out of the European Union in a move dubbed Nexit, following Britain's ill-considered Brexit vote last year. For some time, the Dutch politician found himself with apparently unstoppable momentum. After all, it was Wilders who last April began tweeting, "MAKE THE NETHERLANDS GREAT AGAIN!" Wilders has expended some effort trying to emulate Trump's rise in the United States. He even attended the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, and in response to Trump's shocking November victory, Wilders tweeted, "The people are taking their country back. So will we."

These kinds of remarks have enlarged his political appeal, or at least acceptability, to a large number of voters. Now, however, as Trump sinks more deeply into the morass of governing, many may be having some second thoughts.

Much of today's European political spectrum is less a straight right-left line. It's an oval track with candidates running around it in the direction of the popular will at the moment, with both extremes connecting as they round the circle. The challenge for any political candidate, but especially those at the extremes, is to snatch the checkered flag before someone else crosses the finish line going the other way.

Hopefully, Dutch voters and the politicians they finally send to The Hague will have the good sense to assemble a government without any of the extremes that seem so seductive in the short run, but pose an existential threat to Europe and the peace of democracies. And if Trump continues to surprise and horrify Europeans in the weeks to come, that good sense could sweep across the continent, burying the populist wave before it has a chance to take charge of a major nation.

Excerpt from:
Donald Trump casts long shadow over Dutch election - CNN

WASHINGTON With the election of President Donald Trump and their long-awaited attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act finally at hand, Republicans find themselves facing peril of historic proportions.

Lets call it their Jimmy Carter problem.

After the outsider peanut farmer-turned-politician from Georgia won the White House in 1976s post-Watergate election, he took office with near historic majorities in both chambers ofCongress 61 Democrats in the Senate and a 292 to 143 edge in the House.

Democrats had high hopes for the optimistic, famously toothy embodiment of the New South. What they got was underwhelming a leader who feuded with Congress, and scored some foreign policy successes, but never managed to pull off anything especially ambitious.

He got some stuff through, but it was certainly not another Great Society, said Princeton University historian Julian Zelizer, referring to achievements of former President Lyndon B. Johnson, who also presided over one-party government. I think Democrats feel he wasted an opportunity that existed, and that helped open the door to the right.

There were certainly economic and international crises beyond Carters control, but his failure to achieve big-ticket success paved the way for former President Ronald Reagans revolution from which liberals still havent entirely recovered.

Now, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and his fellow Republicans can see the historic writing on the wall with their own outsider reality-TV-star-turned-politician occupying the White House. Its the first time since former President George W. Bushs second election that the Republicans are starting a fresh four-year presidential term with unified control of government.

And theyve got something big they want to do. Or, more accurately, that they want to undo. Their signature promise for the last six years has been to repeal Obamacare.

Even as the GOP proposal to deliver on that promise got Ishtar level pans from the left, right and experts, Ryan and many of his colleagues made clear this past week how vital they think it is to propel their deconstructive blueprint into law.

Ryan told reporters on Capitol Hill that repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act should come first, before the GOP can pursue any other cherished goals. He offered an especially stark explanation in a radio interview Friday with conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt.

I do agree that this is momentum-killing, the speaker said. If we dont do this and reduce or get rid of the trillion-dollar tax increases in Obamacare, that just puts tax reform a trillion dollars further out of our reach. So theres a lot that rides on this, not to mention just the schedule.

While Ryan cast it in practical terms, other Republicans were blunter, and recognized a global importance to their and Trumps agenda in revoking former President Barack Obamas signature achievement.

This is so basic to what we have promised over the last few elections, said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the second ranking Republican in the Senate. I think if we fail to keep this promise then I think it makes the rest of our work much, much more difficult to accomplish.

Failing to accomplish goals has electoral consequences. Historian Zelizer points to former President Bill Clintons first term, when he managed to boost taxes but failed utterly at health care reform, and the country answered with the Republican revolution ofNewt Gingrich, who was speaker from 1995 to 1999.

A similar tale was told when Bush won his second term in 2004.

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

His big push was for privatizing Social Security, Zelizer said. That falls apart, he gets nowhere on immigration reform and he, too, is not able to really capitalize on united government, and, in that case re-election, which is in some ways even a better situation.

The wave election that that hit the nation in 2006 washed away the GOP majorities.

Republicans arent eager to entertain the possibility that they could fail to repeal and replace Obamacare, but they do see electoral doom in failure.

They are not willing to acknowledge that Americans might grow angry at the GOP for even pursuing a plan that, as it stands now, would cut health care for millions and dramatically raise costs for millions more if it passes.

But they are highly cognizant of how the more zealous portions of their electoral base will react.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) sees the need to satisfy that contingent as so important that his side would be best off simply repealing Obamacare and worrying about the replacement later.

We have to repeal it, and if we dont repeal it, were going to split with our base, he said. Thats a dangerous political thing to do.

Republicans have been talking for six years that were going to repeal and replace, and thats got to be the top category cause we may only get one chance, said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

In the House, where conservatives make up an even more powerful block, some lawmakers believe passing a hard-right health care plan is so pressing a requirement that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) should take the extraordinary step of rewriting Senate rules to end the filibuster.

Arizona Rep. Trent Franks (R) told The Huffington Post he doesnt especially like the House replacement plan, but he was inclined to support it because hes sure a more conservative alternative cannot get through a filibuster by Democrats.

The current GOP plan is being advanced as a budgetary measure under a process known as reconciliation. Such measures cannot be filibustered. But they are meant to deal only with budgetary matters. While the GOP has tried to craft their reconciliation plan as broadly as possible, there are still policy issues that cannot be addressed with a budget bill.

Franks said that leaves the House leaders in the terrible position of trying to satisfy a potentially furious GOP base and Senate rules that actually grant the Democratic minority power. This is like trying to walk a tightrope in an earthquake. Its just an untenable circumstance for them, he said.

Failure even if Senate Democrats cause it playing by the rules could doom his party, Franks added.

I think that Senate rule has the potential of putting both houses in the hands of Democrats next time, he said, referring to the 2018 elections.

Franks argued the consequences make it essential for the GOP to do whatever it can.

It just means whether or not Republicans are going to take this last best hope theyve had in a long time, and at least give the American people a snapshot of what Republican policy looks like, he said. Or if were going to become victims of our own traditions and send the Republican ideals down the corridors of history.

NBC via Getty Images

Its not just the Republican representatives and senators who would suffer under such failure.

Trump would also find himself in a precarious spot, even if his voters heap blame on Congress. Because members of Congress will blame Trump if he cant use the bully pulpit to help them succeed with legislation.

I think a lot of Republicans figured he was just going to blitz them with lots of legislation, and he hasnt. And its not even clear the White House is working on it, Zelizer said. I think theyre comfortable using executive action and causing a lot of chaos.

But that is not what the GOP lawmakers need. They need success, not some Trump-concocted blend of rhetorical and executive mayhem.

If nothing happens on ACA, if its just one big disaster, this whole effort in the next few weeks, it will soften or weaken Republican support on Capitol Hill for the president, Zelizer said.

If Republicans cannot count on Trump, the president may no longer be able to rely on the people who are holding back Democratic demands for probes of everything from his still ill-understood ties to Russia to his many and conflicted business entanglements.

This president could start entering a danger zone where members of his own party are willing to go after him, Zelizer said.

Just imagine an election in 2018 where Republicans have angered their base by failing to pass an Obamacare replacement, and their president is facing bipartisan investigations on multiple fronts.

Republicans certainly can, and the result doesnt leave them and their man remembered in history at all like previous titans of unified government an LBJ, JFK or FDR.

Instead, its more like JEC, and who even knows Jimmy Carters middle name?

Read the original post:
Donald Trump And The GOP Are Facing A Jimmy Carter Problem - Huffington Post