WASHINGTON | Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:12pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. authorities on Wednesday announced charges against a research analyst for trading and tipping others ahead of a 2009 acquisition by computer giant IBM, expanding a related insider trading case filed last month.

Federal prosecutors charged Trent Martin, who worked at a Connecticut brokerage firm, for purchasing shares of SPSS before IBM agreed to the $1.2 billion deal. He was also charged with passing the information to others, including his roommate.

On November 29 the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission charged two former stockbrokers, including Martin's roommate, for their roles in the alleged insider trading scheme.

The three and others made more than $1 million by trading ahead of the acquisition, prosecutors said.

Martin was specifically named as the source of the information in instant messages between the two brokers, Thomas Conradt and David Weishaus, authorities said.

In a July 2009 message, referring to Martin by name, Conradt wrote: "holy f*** . . . god trent told me not to tell anyone . . . big mistake," according to the indictment unsealed on Wednesday.

Weishaus responded, "eh, we'll get rich."

Martin, an Australian citizen, was arrested on December 22 in Hong Kong, the Justice Department said. Martin could not immediately be reached for comment.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, which filed related civil charges against Martin on Wednesday, said he fled the United States to Australia soon after learning about the SEC's investigation.

IBM agreed to pay $50 per share for SPSS, a 42 percent premium to SPSS' closing price on the day before the purchase was announced.

(Reporting by Aruna Viswanatha; Editing by Dan Grebler)

View the original article here

Samsung flags are set up at the main entrance to the Berlin fair ground before the IFA consumer electronics fair in Berlin, August 28, 2012.

BRUSSELS | Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:57pm EST

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Commission charged Samsung Electronics on Friday with abusing its dominant position in seeking to bar rival Apple from using a patent deemed essential to mobile phone use.

The Commission sent a "statement of objections" to the South Korean group, with its preliminary view that Samsung was not acting fairly.

"Intellectual property rights are an important cornerstone of the single market. However, such rights should not be misused when they are essential to implement industry standards, which bring huge benefits to businesses and consumers alike," Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said in statement.

Apple and Samsung, the world's top two smartphone makers, are locked in patent disputes in at least 10 countries as they vie to dominate the lucrative mobile market and win over customers with their latest gadgets.

The filing of competition objections is the latest step in the Commission's investigation. After notifying Samsung in writing, the company will have a chance to reply and request a hearing before regulators.

If the Commission then concludes that the firm has violated the rules, it could impose a fine of up to 10 percent of the electronics firm's total annual turnover.

Technology companies are increasingly turning to the European Commission as the European Union's competition authority, to resolve their disputes. The Commission is also investigating Google and Microsoft.

In the case of Samsung, its standard-essential patents (SEPs) relate to the EU's 3G UMTS standard. When this was adopted in Europe, Samsung committed to license the patents fairly to competitors, the Commission said.

However, it began seeking an injunction in 2011 in various EU member states against Apple's use of these patents. The Commission opened its investigation in January 2012.

Samsung said it was studying the Commission's statement. It said it would cooperate fully and "firmly defend ourselves against any misconceived allegations".

"Samsung is confident that, in due course, the Commission will conclude that we have acted in compliance with European Union competition laws."

(Reporting By Philip Blenkinsop and Barbara Lewis; Editing by Helen Massy-Beresford and Mike Nesbit)

View the original article here