Global Update: GlaxoSmithKline Tops Access to Medicines Index

Sang Tan/Associated Press

GlaxoSmithKline hung on to its perennial top spot in the new Access to Medicines Index released last week, but its competitors are closing in.

Every two years, the index ranks the world’s top 20 pharmaceutical companies based on how readily they get medicines they hold patents on to the world’s poor, how much research they do on tropical diseases, how ethically they conduct clinical trials in poor countries, and similar issues.

Johnson & Johnson shot up to second place, while AstraZeneca fell to 16th from 7th. AstraZeneca has had major management shake-ups. It did not do less, but the industry is improving so rapidly that others outscored it, the report said.

The index was greeted with skepticism by some drugmakers when it was introduced in 2008. But now 19 of the 20 companies have a board member or subcommittee tracking how well they do at what the index measures, said David Sampson, the chief author.

The one exception was a Japanese company. As before, Japanese drugmakers ranked at or near the index’s bottom, and European companies clustered near the top. Generic companies — most of them Indian — that export to poor countries are ranked separately.

Johnson & Johnson moved up because it created an access team, disclosed more and bought Crucell, a vaccine company.

The foundation that creates the index now has enough money to continue for five more years, said its founder, Wim Leereveld, a former pharmaceutical executive.

Read More..

Global Update: GlaxoSmithKline Tops Access to Medicines Index

Sang Tan/Associated Press

GlaxoSmithKline hung on to its perennial top spot in the new Access to Medicines Index released last week, but its competitors are closing in.

Every two years, the index ranks the world’s top 20 pharmaceutical companies based on how readily they get medicines they hold patents on to the world’s poor, how much research they do on tropical diseases, how ethically they conduct clinical trials in poor countries, and similar issues.

Johnson & Johnson shot up to second place, while AstraZeneca fell to 16th from 7th. AstraZeneca has had major management shake-ups. It did not do less, but the industry is improving so rapidly that others outscored it, the report said.

The index was greeted with skepticism by some drugmakers when it was introduced in 2008. But now 19 of the 20 companies have a board member or subcommittee tracking how well they do at what the index measures, said David Sampson, the chief author.

The one exception was a Japanese company. As before, Japanese drugmakers ranked at or near the index’s bottom, and European companies clustered near the top. Generic companies — most of them Indian — that export to poor countries are ranked separately.

Johnson & Johnson moved up because it created an access team, disclosed more and bought Crucell, a vaccine company.

The foundation that creates the index now has enough money to continue for five more years, said its founder, Wim Leereveld, a former pharmaceutical executive.

Read More..

Court Cases Challenge Border Searches of Laptops and Phones

The government has historically had broad power to search travelers and their property at the border. But that prerogative is being challenged as more people travel with extensive personal and business information on devices that would typically require a warrant to examine.

Several court cases seek to limit the ability of border agents to search, copy and even seize travelers’ laptops, cameras and phones without suspicion of illegal activity.

“What we are asking is for a court to rule that the government must have a good reason to believe that someone has engaged in wrongdoing before it is allowed to go through their electronic devices,” said Catherine Crump, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who is representing plaintiffs in two lawsuits challenging digital border searches.

A decision in one of those suits, Abidor v. Napolitano, is expected soon, according to the case manager for Judge Edward R. Korman, who is writing the opinion for the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

In that case, Pascal Abidor, who is studying for his doctorate in Islamic studies, sued the government after he was handcuffed and detained at the border during an Amtrak trip from Montreal to New York. He was questioned and placed in a cell for several hours. His laptop was searched and kept for 11 days.

According to government data, these types of searches are rare: about 36,000 people are referred to secondary screening by United States Customs and Border Protection daily, and roughly a dozen of those travelers are subject to a search of their electronic devices.

Courts have long held that Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches do not apply at the border, based on the government’s interest in combating crime and terrorism. But Mr. Pascal’s lawsuit and similar cases question whether confiscating a laptop for days or weeks and analyzing its data at another site goes beyond the typical border searches. They also depart from the justification used in other digital searches, possession of child pornography.

“We’re getting more into whether this is targeting political speech,” Ms. Crump said.

In another case the A.C.L.U. is arguing, House v. Napolitano, border officials at Chicago O’Hare Airport confiscated a laptop, camera and USB drive belonging to David House, a computer programmer, and kept his devices for seven weeks.

The lawsuit charges that Mr. House was singled out because of his association with the Bradley Manning Support Network. Pfc. Bradley Manning is a former military intelligence analyst accused of leaking thousands of military and diplomatic documents to the antisecrecy group WikiLeaks.

In March, Judge Denise J. Casper of Federal District Court in Massachusetts denied the government’s motion to dismiss the suit, saying that although the government did not need reasonable suspicion to search someone’s laptop at the border, that power did not strip Mr. House of his First Amendment rights. Legal scholars say this ruling could set the stage for the courts to place some limits on how the government conducts digital searches.

“The District Court basically said you don’t need individualized suspicion to search an electronic device at the border,” said Patrick E. Corbett, a professor of criminal law and procedure at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Mich. “What they were troubled with was the fact that the government held these devices for 49 days.”

Customs and Border Protection, part of the Department of Homeland Security, declined to discuss the policy in an interview, but a spokeswoman for the agency said in an e-mail: “Keeping Americans safe and enforcing our nation’s laws in an increasingly digital world depends on our ability to lawfully screen all materials — electronic or otherwise — entering the United States. We are committed to ensuring the rights and privacies of all people while making certain that D.H.S. can take the lawful actions necessary to secure our borders.”

The statement also referred to the agency’s policy on border searches of electronic devices, which says that officers can keep these devices for a “reasonable period of time,” including at an off-site location, and seek help from other government agencies to decrypt, translate or interpret the information they contain. If travelers choose not to share a password for a device, the government may hold it to find a way to gain access to the data.

Read More..

U.K. Backers of Europe Want Business to Speak Up

LONDON — The chairman of the London Stock Exchange, Chris Gibson-Smith, simply does not have the time to speak. Christopher North, the boss of Amazon in Britain, is too busy as well. And Charles Dunstone, the founder of mobile phone retailer Carphone Warehouse, also has an exceptionally full agenda.

All three are among a dozen or so top business and financial leaders concerned enough about Britain’s future in the European Union to join the advisory council of a group campaigning to keep the country in the bloc.

But not many of them seem ready to explain why in public.

Bringing access to an economic area of about 500 million people, membership in the Union is vital to many British businesses. Yet with the public — including shareholders and customers — divided over Britain’s ties to the bloc, most business leaders prefer a discreet silence to risking criticism, not least in the euro-skeptic British news media.

But recently the stakes have increased, with Prime Minister David Cameron promising to loosen British ties to the Union and possibly to hold a referendum after negotiating a more arms-length relationship. After almost three years of crisis in the euro zone, there is more speculation than ever about a possible British withdrawal.

Britons have never been enthusiastic about the idea of European integration. So pro-Europeans are frustrated by the reluctance of business to stress the commercial benefits, particularly since, in private, company bosses can be outspoken about the risks of withdrawal.

“What they say to me when I meet them is this would be disastrous for British business,” said Glenis Willmott, leader of the British Labour Party members of the European Parliament.

Last month Roger Carr, chairman of the main business lobbying organization, the Confederation of British Industry, appealed to his colleagues to break their silence or risk a scenario — once thought unimaginable — which now goes by the catchy shorthand “Brixit”: British exit.

On Europe it was “essential that the voice of British business is loud and clear in extolling the virtues of future engagement,” he said.

A poll of business leaders by Ipsos MORI, commissioned in 2011 by Business for New Europe in 2011, a lobbying group campaigning for continued British membership, showed that 33 percent said they strongly agreed that a British exit from the European Union would damage business.

So why the silence when the stakes are so high?

“I ask myself why are these people not willing to be more outspoken?” said Phillip Souta, director of Business for New Europe. Its advisory council includes Mr. Gibson-Smith, Mr. North and Mr. Dunstone as well as Richard Cousins, chief executive of the catering group Compass; Philip Hampton, chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland; and Anthony Salz, executive vice chairman of Rothschild — all of whom also declined to be interviewed.

“But I understand why they are not willing to be more outspoken is because it is so politically divisive,” he added. “Boards are divided on all of these issues. If you don’t have consensus they will agree not to talk.”

Meanwhile, some business leaders who supported earlier pro-European initiatives have been compromised by having advocated British membership in the now struggling euro.

Martin Sorrell, chief executive office of the advertising group WPP, and one of a handful of business figures happy to go on television to make a pro-European case, says many colleagues find the Union too politically charged.

“Business leaders don’t want to speak out on these controversial issues. They’ve got enough to do trying to run their own businesses and focusing on their own businesses and challenges,” he said.

And even pro-European company bosses tend to have some reservations about the way the European Union is run, including the level of bureaucracy, the “more extreme” pieces of European legislation and the increases demanded by some in the bloc’s budget, he said.

Nevertheless, Mr. Sorrell believes that Europe’s internal market is “a major economic opportunity that we would live to regret passing up” and Britain has a better chance of resolving its problems with the Union if it argues from within.

With the debate moving so swiftly in a euro-skeptic direction, pro-E.U. campaigners are beginning to organize a counteroffensive.

If there is a referendum on Britain’s relations with the Union, Mr. Sorrell believes that his business colleagues will stir. “When they are faced with a vote on a major issue I’m sure that the forces will be mobilized,” he said.

Ms. Willmott thinks there’s no time like the present.

“They say this to us privately, why not say it publicly?” Ms. Willmott said. “It’s about time we heard these arguments.”

Read More..

Deficit Talks Stumble Over Down Payment

WASHINGTON — For all the growing angst over the state of negotiations to head off a fiscal crisis in January, the parties are farthest apart on a relatively small part of the overall deficit reduction program — the down payment.

President Obama and the House speaker, John A. Boehner, are in general agreement that the relevant Congressional committees must sit down next year and work out changes to the tax code and entitlement programs to save well more than $1 trillion over the next decade.

But before that work begins, both men want Congress to approve a first installment on deficit reduction in the coming weeks. The installment would replace the automatic spending cuts and tax increases that make up the “fiscal cliff,” while signaling Washington’s seriousness about getting its fiscal house in order. That is where the chasm lies in size and scope.

Mr. Obama says the down payment should be large and made up almost completely of tax increases on top incomes, partly because he and Congressional leaders last year agreed on some spending cuts over the next decade but have yet to agree on any tax increases.

Republicans have countered by arguing for a smaller down payment that must include immediate savings from Medicare and other social programs. Republicans, using almost mirror-image language, have said that they do not want to agree to specific tax increases and vague promises of future spending cuts.

Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, chairman of the Budget Committee and part of a bipartisan “Gang of Six” senators who devised the two-stage process, said: “I think there’s a lot of confusion between the initial down payment and the framework. That’s for sure.”

The two biggest areas of dispute are tax increases and the big government health insurance programs, Medicare and Medicaid. On the health programs, neither side believes Congress could meaningfully overhaul them in the four weeks that remain before the fiscal deadline.

“Entitlement reform is a big step, and it affects tens of millions of people,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, another architect of the two-stage framework. “It’s not just a matter of cutting spending in an appropriation. It’s changing policy. And that’s why I was reluctant to include it in the down-payment conversation. I want this to be a thoughtful effort on both sides that doesn’t jeopardize this program.”

But Republicans say that it is possible to make some initial changes to the programs in coming weeks. “There are simpler things that can be done,” said Senator Michael D. Crapo, Republican of Idaho and another Gang of Six member. “The real structural changes would come later.”

Mr. Crapo said Congress could agree on some additional cuts to health care providers and change the way inflation is calculated to slow not only automatic increases in Medicare and Social Security benefits, but also the annual rise in tax brackets.

Democrats instead argue that the down payment should consist of a combination of tax increases and cuts to programs outside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, like farm programs. Mr. Obama has pushed for a return to the top tax rates under President Bill Clinton.

Republican leaders have said that they are willing to raise new tax revenues — albeit not as much as Democrats want — but Republicans want taxes to rise by closing loopholes and curbing tax deductions and credits.

If the two sides are able to come to an agreement on the down payment, it would also likely fix targets for larger savings in the tax code and entitlement programs. The White House and Congress would then spend much of the next year trying to hash out the specific policy changes needed to hit those targets.

Read More..

Unboxed: Stand-Up Desks Gaining Favor in the Workplace

THE health studies that conclude that people should sit less, and get up and move around more, have always struck me as fitting into the “well, duh” category.

But a closer look at the accumulating research on sitting reveals something more intriguing, and disturbing: the health hazards of sitting for long stretches are significant even for people who are quite active when they’re not sitting down. That point was reiterated recently in two studies, published in The British Journal of Sports Medicine and in Diabetologia, a journal of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Suppose you stick to a five-times-a-week gym regimen, as I do, and have put in a lifetime of hard cardio exercise, and have a resting heart rate that’s a significant fraction below the norm. That doesn’t inoculate you, apparently, from the perils of sitting.

The research comes more from observing the health results of people’s behavior than from discovering the biological and genetic triggers that may be associated with extended sitting. Still, scientists have determined that after an hour or more of sitting, the production of enzymes that burn fat in the body declines by as much as 90 percent. Extended sitting, they add, slows the body’s metabolism of glucose and lowers the levels of good (HDL) cholesterol in the blood. Those are risk factors toward developing heart disease and Type 2 diabetes.

“The science is still evolving, but we believe that sitting is harmful in itself,” says Dr. Toni Yancey, a professor of health services at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Yet many of us still spend long hours each day sitting in front of a computer.

The good news is that when creative capitalism is working as it should, problems open the door to opportunity. New knowledge spreads, attitudes shift, consumer demand emerges and companies and entrepreneurs develop new products. That process is under way, addressing what might be called the sitting crisis. The results have been workstations that allow modern information workers to stand, even walk, while toiling at a keyboard.

Dr. Yancey goes further. She has a treadmill desk in the office and works on her recumbent bike at home.

If there is a movement toward ergonomic diversity and upright work in the information age, it will also be a return to the past. Today, the diligent worker tends to be defined as a person who puts in long hours crouched in front of a screen. But in the 19th and early 20th centuries, office workers, like clerks, accountants and managers, mostly stood. Sitting was slacking. And if you stand at work today, you join a distinguished lineage — Leonardo da Vinci, Ben Franklin, Winston Churchill, Vladimir Nabokov and, according to a recent profile in The New York Times, Philip Roth.

DR. JAMES A. LEVINE of the Mayo Clinic is a leading researcher in the field of inactivity studies. When he began his research 15 years ago, he says, it was seen as a novelty.

“But it’s totally mainstream now,” he says. “There’s been an explosion of research in this area, because the health care cost implications are so enormous.”

Steelcase, the big maker of office furniture, has seen a similar trend in the emerging marketplace for adjustable workstations, which allow workers to sit or stand during the day, and for workstations with a treadmill underneath for walking. (Its treadmill model was inspired by Dr. Levine, who built his own and shared his research with Steelcase.)

The company offered its first models of height-adjustable desks in 2004. In the last five years, sales of its lines of adjustable desks and the treadmill desk have surged fivefold, to more than $40 million. Its models for stand-up work range from about $1,600 to more than $4,000 for a desk that includes an actual treadmill. Corporate customers include Chevron, Intel, Allstate, Boeing, Apple and Google.

“It started out very small, but it’s not a niche market anymore,” says Allan Smith, vice president for product marketing at Steelcase.

The Steelcase offerings are the Mercedes-Benzes and Cadillacs of upright workstations, but there are plenty of Chevys as well, especially from small, entrepreneurial companies.

In 2009, Daniel Sharkey was laid off as a plant manager of a tool-and-die factory, after nearly 30 years with the company. A garage tinkerer, Mr. Sharkey had designed his own adjustable desk for standing. On a whim, he called it the kangaroo desk, because “it holds things, and goes up and down.” He says that when he lost his job, his wife, Kathy, told him, “People think that kangaroo thing is pretty neat.”

Today, Mr. Sharkey’s company, Ergo Desktop, employs 16 people at its 8,000-square-foot assembly factory in Celina, Ohio. Sales of its several models, priced from $260 to $600, have quadrupled in the last year, and it now ships tens of thousands of workstations a year.

Steve Bordley of Scottsdale, Ariz., also designed a solution for himself that became a full-time business. After a leg injury left him unable to run, he gained weight. So he fixed up a desktop that could be mounted on a treadmill he already owned. He walked slowly on the treadmill while making phone calls and working on a computer. In six weeks, Mr. Bordley says, he lost 25 pounds and his nagging back pain vanished.

He quit the commercial real estate business and founded TrekDesk in 2007. He began shipping his desk the next year. (The treadmill must be supplied by the user.) Sales have grown tenfold from 2008, with several thousand of the desks, priced at $479, now sold annually.

“It’s gone from being treated as a laughingstock to a product that many people find genuinely interesting,” Mr. Bordley says.

There is also a growing collection of do-it-yourself solutions for stand-up work. Many are posted on Web sites like howtogeek.com, and freely shared like recipes. For example, Colin Nederkoorn, chief executive of an e-mail marketing start-up, Customer.io, has posted one such design on his blog. Such setups can cost as little as $30 or even less, if cobbled together with available materials.

UPRIGHT workstations were hailed recently by no less a trend spotter of modern work habits and gadgetry than Wired magazine. In its October issue, it chose “Get a Standing Desk” as one of its “18 Data-Driven Ways to Be Happier, Healthier and Even a Little Smarter.”

The magazine has kept tabs on the evolving standing-desk research and marketplace, and several staff members have become converts themselves in the last few months.

“And we’re all universally happy about it,” Thomas Goetz, Wired’s executive editor, wrote in an e-mail — sent from his new standing desk.

Read More..

Unboxed: Stand-Up Desks Gaining Favor in the Workplace

THE health studies that conclude that people should sit less, and get up and move around more, have always struck me as fitting into the “well, duh” category.

But a closer look at the accumulating research on sitting reveals something more intriguing, and disturbing: the health hazards of sitting for long stretches are significant even for people who are quite active when they’re not sitting down. That point was reiterated recently in two studies, published in The British Journal of Sports Medicine and in Diabetologia, a journal of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Suppose you stick to a five-times-a-week gym regimen, as I do, and have put in a lifetime of hard cardio exercise, and have a resting heart rate that’s a significant fraction below the norm. That doesn’t inoculate you, apparently, from the perils of sitting.

The research comes more from observing the health results of people’s behavior than from discovering the biological and genetic triggers that may be associated with extended sitting. Still, scientists have determined that after an hour or more of sitting, the production of enzymes that burn fat in the body declines by as much as 90 percent. Extended sitting, they add, slows the body’s metabolism of glucose and lowers the levels of good (HDL) cholesterol in the blood. Those are risk factors toward developing heart disease and Type 2 diabetes.

“The science is still evolving, but we believe that sitting is harmful in itself,” says Dr. Toni Yancey, a professor of health services at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Yet many of us still spend long hours each day sitting in front of a computer.

The good news is that when creative capitalism is working as it should, problems open the door to opportunity. New knowledge spreads, attitudes shift, consumer demand emerges and companies and entrepreneurs develop new products. That process is under way, addressing what might be called the sitting crisis. The results have been workstations that allow modern information workers to stand, even walk, while toiling at a keyboard.

Dr. Yancey goes further. She has a treadmill desk in the office and works on her recumbent bike at home.

If there is a movement toward ergonomic diversity and upright work in the information age, it will also be a return to the past. Today, the diligent worker tends to be defined as a person who puts in long hours crouched in front of a screen. But in the 19th and early 20th centuries, office workers, like clerks, accountants and managers, mostly stood. Sitting was slacking. And if you stand at work today, you join a distinguished lineage — Leonardo da Vinci, Ben Franklin, Winston Churchill, Vladimir Nabokov and, according to a recent profile in The New York Times, Philip Roth.

DR. JAMES A. LEVINE of the Mayo Clinic is a leading researcher in the field of inactivity studies. When he began his research 15 years ago, he says, it was seen as a novelty.

“But it’s totally mainstream now,” he says. “There’s been an explosion of research in this area, because the health care cost implications are so enormous.”

Steelcase, the big maker of office furniture, has seen a similar trend in the emerging marketplace for adjustable workstations, which allow workers to sit or stand during the day, and for workstations with a treadmill underneath for walking. (Its treadmill model was inspired by Dr. Levine, who built his own and shared his research with Steelcase.)

The company offered its first models of height-adjustable desks in 2004. In the last five years, sales of its lines of adjustable desks and the treadmill desk have surged fivefold, to more than $40 million. Its models for stand-up work range from about $1,600 to more than $4,000 for a desk that includes an actual treadmill. Corporate customers include Chevron, Intel, Allstate, Boeing, Apple and Google.

“It started out very small, but it’s not a niche market anymore,” says Allan Smith, vice president for product marketing at Steelcase.

The Steelcase offerings are the Mercedes-Benzes and Cadillacs of upright workstations, but there are plenty of Chevys as well, especially from small, entrepreneurial companies.

In 2009, Daniel Sharkey was laid off as a plant manager of a tool-and-die factory, after nearly 30 years with the company. A garage tinkerer, Mr. Sharkey had designed his own adjustable desk for standing. On a whim, he called it the kangaroo desk, because “it holds things, and goes up and down.” He says that when he lost his job, his wife, Kathy, told him, “People think that kangaroo thing is pretty neat.”

Today, Mr. Sharkey’s company, Ergo Desktop, employs 16 people at its 8,000-square-foot assembly factory in Celina, Ohio. Sales of its several models, priced from $260 to $600, have quadrupled in the last year, and it now ships tens of thousands of workstations a year.

Steve Bordley of Scottsdale, Ariz., also designed a solution for himself that became a full-time business. After a leg injury left him unable to run, he gained weight. So he fixed up a desktop that could be mounted on a treadmill he already owned. He walked slowly on the treadmill while making phone calls and working on a computer. In six weeks, Mr. Bordley says, he lost 25 pounds and his nagging back pain vanished.

He quit the commercial real estate business and founded TrekDesk in 2007. He began shipping his desk the next year. (The treadmill must be supplied by the user.) Sales have grown tenfold from 2008, with several thousand of the desks, priced at $479, now sold annually.

“It’s gone from being treated as a laughingstock to a product that many people find genuinely interesting,” Mr. Bordley says.

There is also a growing collection of do-it-yourself solutions for stand-up work. Many are posted on Web sites like howtogeek.com, and freely shared like recipes. For example, Colin Nederkoorn, chief executive of an e-mail marketing start-up, Customer.io, has posted one such design on his blog. Such setups can cost as little as $30 or even less, if cobbled together with available materials.

UPRIGHT workstations were hailed recently by no less a trend spotter of modern work habits and gadgetry than Wired magazine. In its October issue, it chose “Get a Standing Desk” as one of its “18 Data-Driven Ways to Be Happier, Healthier and Even a Little Smarter.”

The magazine has kept tabs on the evolving standing-desk research and marketplace, and several staff members have become converts themselves in the last few months.

“And we’re all universally happy about it,” Thomas Goetz, Wired’s executive editor, wrote in an e-mail — sent from his new standing desk.

Read More..

App Maker Uber Hits Regulatory Snarl

Jack Atley for The New York Times

The Uber car-hiring app was introduced in Sydney last month.

WASHINGTON — Summoning a taxi or car service with your smartphone feels like the future. City governments around the world can agree on that. But many of them are proposing new rules that would run Uber, one of the most prominent ride-requesting apps, off the road.

James Best Jr./The New York Times

The battle between Uber and city governments underscores the tension between lawmakers and technology companies at a time when Web sites and mobile apps can outmaneuver old rules.

At a recent conference here, transportation regulators and car service operators from cities in the United States and Europe met to talk about how smartphone apps were changing the hire-a-car business. Some of these apps are integrated with dispatching systems run by the car companies, while others allow drivers to directly connect with passengers, phone to phone.

While the regulators discussed ways to clarify the legality of these apps, they also proposed guidelines that would effectively force Uber, a San Francisco start-up, to cease operations in the United States. Uber also faces new lawsuits filed by San Francisco cabdrivers and Chicago car service companies, and a $20,000 fine from the California Public Utilities Commission.

The battle between Uber and city governments underscores the tension between lawmakers and technology companies at a time when Web sites and mobile apps can outmaneuver old rules. Services like Uber, Airbnb and Craigslist can cut out the middleman and lead to more efficient markets. But regulators say they could also put consumers at risk.

Uber has rattled regulators in many cities with its unusual approach to expansion. It says that it first consults a transportation lawyer in a city on whether it is legal to operate there. When it comes to town, its employees contact local car service companies to discuss working with them; in cities where Uber works with cabs, employees put up fliers or approach drivers at airports and gas stations. Participating drivers get free iPhones that run Uber’s navigation software, which helps them find people nearby who are requesting rides with their smartphones.

The start-up, which has raised $50 million since 2010, generally does not consult transportation regulators before it starts rolling in each city. Because it is not an actual provider of rides, it says that it is not subject to such regulation. To date, this approach has generally worked for it in 18 cities, including San Francisco, Washington, New York, Chicago, Paris and Amsterdam.

Uber suffered its first serious setback in New York, where it was forced to cease its fledgling yellow cab operation in October because of what the city said were exclusive contracts with payment processors. But the company continues to work with luxury sedan companies and drivers there.

Matthew W. Daus, former chairman of New York’s taxi and limousine commission and current president of the International Association of Transportation Regulators, is one of Uber’s most vocal critics, saying the company isn’t above regulation. With the support of 15 city governments that formed a task force called the Smartphone Apps Committee, he wrote up the guidelines on laws that, if passed by the cities, would outlaw Uber’s operations.

In an interview, Mr. Daus, who practices law part-time with the firm Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, said that Uber was a “rogue” app, and that the company was behaving in an unauthorized, unusual and destructive way.

As an example, he pointed to Uber’s doubling of fares in New York after Hurricane Sandy in what the company calls surge pricing, a move that the start-up said was necessary to get more drivers on the storm-ravaged roads.

He said, “New Yorkers deserve an apology from Uber for price-gouging them during the hurricane.”

There are dozens of other car-summoning apps, some even more unconventional than Uber. Lyft, released in May by a start-up called Zimride, allows ordinary citizens to give rides to others in their own cars in return for “donations.” SideCar, another start-up, offers a similar service. Like Uber, these companies are also facing a $20,000 fine from the California Public Utilities Commission for operating without a license.

Regulators say new laws are required to protect consumers from being harmed by such apps. But Uber, aside from the hurricane troubles, is generally adored by customers who say they are willing to pay extra to summon a ride without much wait, especially in cities where cabs are scarce.

In Apple’s App Store, the Uber app has hundreds of five-star ratings. And when Washington tried to pass rules that would make Uber illegal, customers bombarded City Council members with thousands of e-mails in protest.

Uber’s 36-year-old co-founder and chief, Travis Kalanick, has a history of controversy. Scour, the file-sharing start-up he helped found, shut down after it was sued for $250 billion by media companies on complaints of copyright infringement.

He draws attention to Uber by framing it as a story of David vs. Goliath — a lean technology start-up revolutionizing a creaky business. He once referred to Cambridge, Mass., as “home to Harvard, M.I.T. and some of the most anticompetitive, corrupt transportation laws in the country.”

To Mr. Kalanick, the rules being proposed by Mr. Daus’s committee are a classic example of regulators trying to stifle innovation. He says those making the rules are more interested in protecting the taxi and limousine businesses than in helping consumers. And he says Uber’s strategy of marching into new cities without asking permission is necessary.

Read More..

Amid Euphoria Over U.N. Vote, Palestinians Still Face Familiar Challenges

Majdi Mohammed/Associated Press

Palestinians held pictures of President Mahmoud Abbas  in the West Bank city of Ramallah on Sunday, as they celebrated the recent United Nations vote.

RAMALLAH, West Bank — “Now we have become a state!” Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, announced Sunday to a crowd of thousands in the courtyard of his headquarters in this Palestinian city.

Flags and balloons, a marching band, and a huge poster on the outside wall of the compound proclaiming “You are now in the State of Palestine” added a festive touch as Mr. Abbas returned home triumphant days after the United Nations General Assembly voted to enhance the standing of the Palestinians in the face of heavy Israeli and American opposition.

But an airplane flying high above the compound served as a reminder that the Palestinians have no airport, and they depend on Israeli ports for access to the high seas for shipping. The traffic was as clogged as usual around the Israeli-controlled Qalandia checkpoint, which largely seals off Ramallah from Jerusalem, the eastern part of which has now been widely endorsed as the future Palestinian capital.

At least in the short term, with Israeli elections scheduled for January, things are likely to get tougher for the Palestinians before they get better.

In Jerusalem on Sunday, the Israeli government unanimously rejected the General Assembly’s decision to upgrade the status of Palestine to a nonmember observer state of the United Nations. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the Palestinian move as “a gross violation of the agreements that have been signed with the State of Israel.”

In its latest response, Israel said it would not transfer tax revenues it collected on behalf of the Palestinian Authority last month, instead using the money, about $100 million, to pay off about half the debt run up by the authority to the Israel Electric Corporation.

The Palestinian Authority has already been suffering through a financial crisis, often unable to pay the salaries of its employees on time. Palestinian officials said that Arab countries had promised to donate funds and make up for any losses caused by punitive Israeli actions, though it was a shortfall in donor money, largely from Arab nations, that caused the financial crisis in the first place.

Israel’s financial sanctions followed a government decision to build 3,000 previously planned housing units in contested areas of Jerusalem and in parts of the West Bank that Israel intends to keep under any future arrangement with the Palestinians. The Palestinians have long refused to return to the negotiating table unless Israel halts the construction of settlements.

The government has also decided to continue planning and zoning work for the development of a particularly contentious area of East Jerusalem known as E1, a project long condemned by Washington because it would harm the prospects for a contiguous Palestinian state, though privately, Israeli and Palestinian officials said that this last decision could be easily reversed.

Mr. Abbas, for his part, was expected to hold meetings with the members of his leadership to discuss how to begin to translate the Palestinians’ new status into practical steps.

“We are celebrating our dignity,” said Xavier Abu Eid, a Palestinian spokesman. “Our small nation withstood a lot of pressure for something that is our right.”

But the way forward may be fraught with legal obstacles as the Palestinians try to balance their diplomatic victory with the demands of their previous, more concrete achievements.

Israel signed its agreements with the Palestine Liberation Organization, which resulted in the creation of an interim self-rule body, the Palestinian Authority. Asked whether the Palestinian Authority would remain the Palestinian Authority in name, Mr. Abu Eid said: “That requires a decision of the leadership. I think it will not be changed in a day.”

Palestinian officials have insisted that they will not give up the option of seeking to join the International Criminal Court and pursuing claims against Israel, and some Palestinians now expect their leaders to take legal action against the Israelis’ settlement building.

Letters of application for membership in various United Nations bodies and international agencies have been signed “The State of Palestine.”

But the Palestinians may not rush to change the name on the front of their passports to Palestine. Even Mr. Abbas is dependent on Israel’s good graces to be allowed to travel through checkpoints and across borders.

Many Palestinians were hoping that Mr. Abbas would now seek genuine reconciliation with his rivals in Hamas, the Islamic militant group that controls Gaza.

“Unity is the most important step,” said Malik Barghouti, an employee of the authority’s Finance Ministry in Ramallah. “We are one people.”

But if there is no tangible change on the ground, some Palestinians warned, the celebrations could eventually be eclipsed by frustration.

“Most people here think we now have lots of rights,” said Mahmoud Mansour, 22, a student of electrical engineering from Jenin in the northern West Bank, who attended the welcome rally. “When they realize that nothing has changed, they will be angry.”

Khaled Abu Aker contributed reporting.

Read More..

The Media Equation: John Huey, Editor in Chief of Time Inc., Prepares to Leave

In the decade I’ve covered John Huey, I’d never once been to his magisterial office on the 34th floor of the Time & Life building. It is large and imposing in a way its occupant is not, an unlikely landing spot for an old newspaper hack. On the wall is a photograph of William Faulkner, “the patron saint of all hard-drinking Southern writers,” as Mr. Huey, a native of Atlanta, describes him.

At the end of the year, Mr. Huey will vacate the office and leave his position as Time Inc.’s editor in chief. Martha Nelson, the editorial director of the company, will move in and become the first woman to hold the job.

Mr. Huey says he won’t miss the perch and I believe him, partly because the job now has brutal aspects. Besides, he is a reporter by nature, and seemed happy to be at-large whenever I saw him at events.

Mr. Huey, who had his start as a reporter at The Atlanta Constitution before heading to The Wall Street Journal and then Time Inc., is only the sixth editor in chief in the company’s history, a job that the writer Kurt Andersen once described as having “papal luster.” These days? Not so much.

“There’s been a fair amount of unpleasantness at that table,” Mr. Huey said, pointing to a big one in the corner. Rather than using it to plan magazine start-ups or acquisitions, he found himself going over lists of staff cuts necessitated by print’s collapse.

In his seven years as the top editor, the core magazines — like Time, Fortune, People and Money — have lost almost a third of their employees, and the future is no brighter. Overall revenue at Time Inc. fell 6 percent last quarter, to $838 million, although operating income increased 2 percent, thanks to the constant cost-cutting.

“Google sort of sucked all of the honey out of our business,” he said with a shrug, not complaining, just saying.

“When it was good, it was really good, but there were a lot of rough patches,” he said. “But I never wondered why I got into journalism during any of it. I still believe in the kind of storytelling we do here.”

But that confidence had limits. In the 11 years Mr. Huey helped run the editorial side of Time Inc. — first as editorial director, then as editor in chief — he commuted to his home and family in Charleston, S.C., on weekends, partly because he always felt he was on the cusp of being fired.

“There have been bullets flying since I got here, way back when I first came as a writer at Fortune,” he said, referring to his first job at the company, in 1988. “I came to work when it was just Time Inc., then it became part of Time Warner, and then it was Time Warner with Turner, and then it became AOL Time Warner and then just Time Warner again. I always figured my time might be up. Came close, but it never happened.”

As the editor of Fortune, Mr. Huey was a consummate magazine maker, turning out a product that was modern, knowing and highly decorated. A former naval intelligence officer, he displayed a remarkable understanding of how power operates in corporate America, which served him well as he navigated his way to the top of Time Inc.

“Media can be a very dangerous and political business — I am not an innocent in such matters, by the way — but I always had enough information to stay away from the more obvious hazards,” he said. “And we did O.K. We avoided major conflagrations, there were no $1 billion lawsuits, and no compromise in the journalism we were doing at our magazines.”

He had excellent relationships with Richard Parsons and Jeffrey Bewkes, the former and current chief executives of Time Warner, which came in handy, given that the leadership at Time Inc. became somewhat chaotic after the departure of Don Logan, the former chief executive of Time Inc. and a mentor of Mr. Huey.

Ann S. Moore, the chief executive when Mr. Huey became editor in chief in 2006, eliminated potential rivals and a lot of talent in the process. Jack Griffin replaced Ms. Moore in 2010 and quickly began remaking Time Inc. He grew tired of Mr. Huey’s resistance and took aim at him, according to executives at Time Warner, and was out after five months.

It fell to Mr. Huey, along with the company’s chief financial officer and its general counsel, to run the company until earlier this year, when Laura Lang, a newcomer to publishing, was selected as chief executive.

“It’s odd that a former newspaper guy ended up helping run the place, but it turned into a job for a ‘mudder,’ and I can run in the mud if I have to,” he said.

Approaching 65, he decided it was time to move on. He will not leave to a herald of trumpets, but he has had his wins: by some measure, Time and Money are the last players standing in their categories.

Mr. Huey installed a bureau in Detroit when the rest of the country was trying to forget about it, and he scrambled the jets so Time Inc. magazines had a presence in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

He also brokered a deal with Turner Broadcasting to set up CNN/Money, which used the editorial content and staff of Money and Fortune to create a highly profitable Web site that makes more money than both those magazines. He was, in the main, an anchor for a company that often needed one.

“John is a very funny, self-deprecating guy, and none of that gets in the way of him being a very serious person,” said Daniel Okrent, who worked with Mr. Huey for many years. “He preserved the editorial independence of the magazines at a time when it was hard to resist the constant economic pressure to do stories that would help advertising.”

Now Mr. Huey is packing his stuff to prepare for a fellowship at Harvard. “I’m looking forward to getting back closer to the keyboard than I have been,” he said. Before he goes, he will probably slip Merle Haggard’s “Big City” into the CD player, an album whose title track frequently kept him company in his corner office.

I’m tired of this dirty old city.

Entirely too much work and never enough play.

And I’m tired of these dirty old sidewalks.

Think I’ll walk off my steady job today.

Gesturing at the magazines on the table, Mr. Huey said: “We still make a great deal of money because consumers pay us money for the products that we give them.”

“But I can’t look anybody in the eye who is coming into the business and tell them that they are going to end up in an office like this,” he added, with a wave at its expanse. “But who is to say that anybody should live like this anyway?”

E-mail: carr@nytimes.com;

Twitter: @carr2n

Read More..