Timesdelhi.com

December 12, 2018
Category archive

chairman

A long and winding road to new copyright legislation

in apple music/chairman/Column/Congress/copyright/copyright law/data/Delhi/Economy/Electronic Frontier Foundation/general counsel/Gracenote/India/law/Music/music modernization act/Patent Law/Politics/president/senate/Spotify/United States by

Back in May, as part of a settlement, Spotify agreed to pay more than $112 million to clean up some copyright problems. Even for a service with millions of users, that had to leave a mark. No one wants to be dragged into court all the time, not even bold, disruptive technology start-ups.

On October 11th, the President signed the Hatch-Goodlatte Music Modernization Act (the “Act”, or “MMA”). The MMA goes back, legislatively, to at least 2013, when Chairman Goodlatte (R-VA) announced that, as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, he planned to conduct a “comprehensive” review of issues in US copyright law. Ranking Member Jerry Nadler (D-NY) was also deeply involved in this process, as were Senators Hatch (R-UT) Leahy (D-VT), and Wyden (D-OR). But this legislation didn’t fall from the sky; far from it.

After many hearings, several “roadshow” panels around the country, and a couple of elections, in early 2018 Goodlatte announced his intent to move forward on addressing several looming issues in music copyright before his planned retirement from Congress at the end of his current term (January 2019).  With that deadline in place, the push was on, and through the spring and summer, the House Judiciary Committee and their colleagues in the Senate worked to complete the text of the legislation and move it through to process. By late September, the House and Senate versions had been reconciled and the bill moved to the President’s desk.

What’s all this about streaming?

As enacted, the Act instantiates several changes to music copyright in the US, especially as regards streaming music services. What does “streaming” refer to in this context? Basically, it occurs when a provider makes music available to listeners, over the internet, without creating a downloadable or storable copy: “Streaming differs from downloads in that no copy of the music is saved to your hard drive.”

“It’s all about the Benjamins.”

One part, by far the largest change in terms of money, provides that a new royalty regime be created for digital streaming of musical works, e.g. by services like Spotify and Apple Music. Pre-1972 recordings — and the creators involved in making them (including, for the first time, for audio engineers, studio mixers and record producers) — are also brought under this royalty umbrella.

These are significant, generally beneficial results for a piece of legislation. But to make this revenue bounty fully effective, a to-be-created licensing entity will have to be set up with the ability to first collect, and then distribute, the money. Think “ASCAP/BMI for streaming.” This new non-profit will be the first such “collective licensing” copyright organization set up in the US in quite some time.

Collective Licensing: It’s not “Money for Nothing”, right?

What do we mean by “collective licensing” in this context, and how will this new organization be created and organized to engage in it? Collective licensing is primarily an economically efficient mechanism for (A) gathering up monies due for certain uses of works under copyright– in this case, digital streaming of musical recordings, and (B) distributing the royalty checks back to the rights-holding parties ( e.g. recording artists, their estates in some cases, and record labels).  Generally speaking, in collective licensing:

 “…rights holders collect money that would otherwise be in tiny little bits that they could not afford to collect, and in that way they are able to protect their copyright rights. On the flip side, substantial users of lots of other people’s copyrighted materials are prepared to pay for it, as long as the transaction costs are not extreme.”

—Fred Haber, VP and Corporate Counsel, Copyright Clearance Center

The Act envisions the new organization as setting up and implementing a new, extensive —and, publicly accessible —database of musical works and the rights attached to them. Nothing quite like this is currently available, although resources like SONY’s Gracenote suggest a good start along those lines. After it is set up and the initial database has a sufficient number of records, the new collective licensing agency will then get down to the business of offering licenses:

“…a blanket statutory license administered by a nonprofit mechanical licensing collective. This collective will collect and distribute royalties, work to identify songs and their owners for payment, and maintain a comprehensive, publicly accessible database for music ownership information.”

— Regan A. Smith, General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights

(AP Photo) The Liverpool beat group The Beatles, with John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, take it easy resting their feet on a table, during a break in rehearsals for the Royal variety show at the Prince of Wales Theater, London, England, November 4, 1963. (AP Photo)

You “Can’t Buy Me Love”, so who is all this going to benefit?

In theory, the listening public should be the primary beneficiary. More music available through digital streaming services means more exposure —and potentially more money —for recording artists. For students of music, the new database of recorded works and licenses will serve to clarify who is (or was) responsible for what. Another public benefit will be fewer actions on digital streaming issues clogging up the courts.

There’s an interesting wrinkle in the Act providing for the otherwise authorized use of “orphaned” musical works such that these can now be played in library or archival (i.e. non-profit) contexts. “Orphan works” are those which may still protected under copyright, but for which the legitimate rights holders are unknown, and, sometimes, undiscoverable. This is the first implementation of orphan works authorization in US copyright law.  Cultural services – like Open Culture – can look forward to being able to stream more musical works without incurring risk or hindrance (provided that the proper forms are filled out) and this implies that some great music is now more likely to find new audiences and thereby be preserved for posterity. Even the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), generally no great fan of new copyright legislation, finds something to like in the Act.

In the land of copyright wonks, and in another line of infringement suits, this resolution of the copyright status of musical recordings released before 1972 seems, in my opinion, fair and workable. In order to accomplish that, the Act also had to address the matter of the duration of these new copyright protections, which is always (post-1998) a touchy subject:

  • For recordings first published before 1923, the additional time period ends on December 31, 2021.
  • For recordings created between 1923-1946, the additional time period is 5 years after the general 95-year term.
  • For recordings created between 1947-1956, the additional time period is 15 years after the general 95-year term.
  • For works first published between 1957-February 15, 1972 the additional time period ends on February 15, 2067.

(Source: US Copyright Office)

 (Photo by Theo Wargo/Getty Images for Live Nation)

Money (That’s What I Want – and lots and lots of listeners, too.)

For the digital music services themselves, this statutory or ‘blanket’ license arrangement should mean fewer infringement actions being brought; this might even help their prospects for investment and encourage  new and more innovative services to come into the mix.

“And, in The End…”

This new legislation, now the law of the land, extends the history of American copyright law in new and substantial ways. Its actual implementation is only now beginning. Although five years might seem like a lifetime in popular culture, in politics it amounts to several eons. And let’s not lose sight of the fact that the industry got over its perceived short-term self-interests enough, this time, to agree to support something that Congress could pass. That’s rare enough to take note of and applaud.

This law lacks perfection, as all laws do. The licensing regime it envisions will not satisfy everyone, but every constituent, every stakeholder, got something. From the perspective of right now, chances seem good that, a few years from now, the achievement of the Hatch-Goodlatte Music Modernization Act will be viewed as a net positive for creators of music, for the distributors of music, for scholars, fans of ‘open culture’, and for the listening public. In copyright, you can’t do better than that.

News Source = techcrunch.com

Investors like Walmart and Microsoft back Team8’s cybersecurity venture studio with $85 million

in airbus/alcatel-lucent/Barclays/Bessemer Venture Partners/chairman/Cisco Investments/corporate venture capital/Delhi/Economy/Eric Schmidt/Finance/illusive networks/India/Israel/machine learning/Marker LLC/money/Munich Re/partner/Politics/scotiabank/Security/SoftBank/spokesperson/Sygnia/Team8/Tel Aviv/temasek/Venture Capital/Walmart by

The Israeli cybersecurity venture studio Team8 has raised $85 million in new financing from a clutch of new and returning strategic investors including Walmart, Airbus, SoftBank, and Microsoft’s investment arm, M-12.

The studio’s plans to raise a larger fund were first reported by PEHub in May.

Team8 has long believed that by combining the strengths and security interests of strategic corporate partners it could develop better cybersecurity solutions (or companies) that would be attractive to its investors and clients.

Indeed, that was the thesis behind the $23 million that Team8 raised in 2016 when it was still proving out the model.

The company’s previous rounds of funding managed to bring Cisco Investments, Bessemer Venture Partners, Innovation Endeavors and Alcatel-Lucent into the fold. Now banks like Scotiabank and Barclays, ratings agencies like Moody’s, and insurers like Munich Re are coming on board to add their voices to the chorus of wants and needs that keep the crack cybersecurity experts from Team8 churning out new companies.

This model, of partnering with the corporate clients who will become the customers of the startups that Team8 creates isn’t confined to the security industry, but it’s where the idea has already created successful outcomes for all parties.

Earlier this month, Temasek (also a Team8 investor) acquired Sygnia, a company from the venture studio’s portfolio that had only emerged from stealth a year ago, for $250 million.

As we’d written at the time, Sygnia was typical of a Team8 investment. The company had only secured $4.3 million in funding and it was staffed by elite security specialists from Israel. Shachar Levy (who was the chief executive), Ariel Smoler, Arick Goomanovsky and Ami Kor, with its chairman Nadav Zafrir, the co-founder and CEO of Team8 and a former commander of Unit 8200.

Zafrir and Sachar are both full-time members of Team8 along with Israel Grimberg, Liran Grinberg, Assaf Mischari, a former technology leader in Unit 8200, and Lluís Pedragosa, former partner at Marker LLC.

The Tel Aviv-based company has invested in four companies that are currently selling their wares on the open market and has another four that are still operating in stealth mode. IN all, the group has raised $260 million to date, and employs 370 people around the world.

What is seemingly unprecedented is the level of cooperation among organizations with the Team8 organizations to identify threats and develop technologies that can respond to them.

According to a statement announcing the fund’s launch, companies investing into Team8 will be required to contribute insights from their Chief Information, Technology, Data and Security Officer to identify problems, develop solutions, and work on sales and marketing services for these new businesses.

“Rogue states, hackers, terrorists and criminals are intent on wreaking physical, financial and societal havoc and catastrophic damage on governments, corporations and individuals,” said Eric Schmidt, Founding Partner of Innovation Endeavors, a lead investor in Team8, in a statement. “As data continues to proliferate and our technical capabilities expand, cyber attacks and wars will increase in number and intensity.”

Vector of Internet Security Systems

Team8 investors are required to nominate a “senior champion” from their business unit in addition to the corporate venture capital or corporate development team, to guide the partnership and provide executive mindshare for the mutual work together.

As shared owners in Team8 companies, these investors are deeply invested in ensuring only the best ideas, technologies and companies are created. Besides meeting in person and as a group throughout the development process of new companies, strategic investors bring their chief executives to Israel as well as host Team8 and its portfolio companies for workshops at their headquarters for continuous knowledge-sharing and strategy building, according to a Team8 spokesperson.

And the company will be expanding its focus beyond just cyberdefense thanks to its latest funding and its new partners.

“Going forward, we will continue to focus on the enterprise, but not necessarily just defense,” a spokesperson for the company wrote in an email. “The indirect impact of cyber on the enterprises are the missed opportunities to experiment, integrate and onboard new technologies because of security, compliance and fear of exposure. We’re currently working on zero-trust networks for multi-cloud environments, secure on-ramping of blockchain, safe collaboration on sensitive data; and rethinking how machine learning can significantly impact the business. These are designed with built in security, data science, and intelligence, to allow companies to prosper and not be inhibited by security controls.”

News Source = techcrunch.com

Alibaba goes big on Russia with joint venture focused on gaming, shopping and more

in alibaba/alibaba group/AliExpress/alipay/Asia/ceo/chairman/China/daniel zhang/Delhi/digital banking/e-commerce/Economy/Europe/food delivery/funding/Fundings & Exits/Getty-Images/India/jack ma/mail/mail.ru/Mail.ru Group/megafon/online marketplaces/Paytm/Politics/Russia/smartphones/social media/Southeast Asia/Turkey/world wide web by

Alibaba is doubling down on Russia after the Chinese e-commerce giant launched a joint venture with one of the country’s leading internet companies.

Russia is said to have over 70 million internet users, around half of its population, with countless more attracted from Russian-speaking neighboring countries. The numbers are projected to rise as, like in many parts of the world, the growth of smartphones brings more people online. Now Alibaba is moving in to ensure it is well placed to take advantage.

Mail.ru, the Russia firm that offers a range of internet services including social media, email and food delivery to 100 million registered users, has teamed up with Alibaba to launch AliExpress Russia, a JV that they hope will function as a “one-stop destination” for communication, social media, shopping and games. Mail.ru backer MegaFon, a telecom firm, and the country’s sovereign wealth fund RDIF (Russian Direct Investment Fund) have also invested undisclosed amounts into the newly-formed organization.

To recap: Alibaba — which launched its AliExpress service in Russia some years ago — will hold 48 percent of the business, with 24 percent for MegaFon, 15 percent for Mail.ru and the remaining 13 percent take by RDIF. In addition, MegaFon has agreed to trade its 10 percent stake in Mail.ru to Alibaba in a transaction that (alone) is likely to be worth north of $500 million.

That figure doesn’t include other investments in the venture.

“The parties will inject capital, strategic assets, leadership, resources and expertise into a joint venture that leverages AliExpress’ existing businesses in Russia,” Alibaba explained on its Alizila blog.

Alibaba looks to have picked its horse in Russia’s internet race: Mail.ru [Image via KIRILL KUDRYAVTSEV/AFP/Getty Images]

The strategy, it seems, is to pair Mail.ru’s consumer services with AliExpress, Alibaba’s international e-commerce marketplace. That’ll allow Russian consumers to buy from AliExpress merchants in China, but also overseas markets like Southeast Asia, India, Turkey (where Alibaba recently backed an e-commerce firm) and other parts of Europe where it has a presence. Likewise, Russian online sellers will gain access to consumers in those markets. Alibaba’s ‘branded mall’ — TMall — is also a part of the AliExpress Russia offering.

This deal suggests that Alibaba has picked its ‘horse’ in Russia’s internet race, much the same way that it has repeatedly backed Paytm — the company offering payments, e-commerce and digital banking — in India with funding and integrations.

Already, Alibaba said that Russia has been a “vital market for the growth” for its Alipay mobile payment service. It didn’t provide any raw figures to back that up, but you can bet that it will be pushing Alipay hard as it runs AliExpress Russia, alongside Mail.ru’s own offering, which is called Money.Mail.Ru.

“Most Russian consumers are already our users, and this partnership will enable us to significantly increase the access to various segments of the e-commerce offering, including both cross-border and local merchants. The combination of our ecosystems allows us to leverage our distribution through our merchant base and goods as well as product integrations,” said Mail.Ru Group CEO Boris Dobrodeev in a statement.

This is the second strategic alliance that MegaFon has struck this year. It formed a joint venture with Gazprombank in May through a deal that saw it offload five percent of its stake in Mail.ru. MegaFon acquired 15.2 percent of Mail.ru for $740 million in February 2017.

The Russia deal comes a day after Alibaba co-founder and executive chairman Jack Ma — the public face of the company — announced plans to step down over the next year. Current CEO Daniel Zhang will replace him as chairman, meaning that the company will also need to appoint a new CEO.

News Source = techcrunch.com

Security tokens will be coming soon to an exchange near you

in alipay/Bitcoin/chairman/coinbase/Column/cryptocurrencies/cryptocurrency/Delhi/Economy/Finance/homer simpson/India/initial coin offering/Jeremy Allaire/Josh Stein/laser/money/payment network/Politics/polymath/Real estate/security token/switzerland/TC/tokenization/tzero/U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission/university of oregon/Venmo by

While cryptocurrencies have generated the lion’s share of investment and attention to date, I’m more excited about the potential for another blockchain-based digital asset: security tokens.

Security tokens are defined as “any blockchain-based representation of value that is subject to regulation under security laws.” In other words, they represent ownership in a real-world asset, whether that is equity, debt or even real estate. (They also encompass certain pre-launch utility tokens.)

With $256 trillion of real-world assets in the world, the opportunity for crypto-securities is truly massive, especially with regards to asset classes like real estate and fine art that have historically suffered from limited commerce and liquidity. As I’ve written previously, imagine if real estate was tokenized into security tokens that you could trade as safely and easily as you do stocks. That’s where we’re headed.

There’s a lot of forward momentum around tokenized securities, so much so that based on their current trajectory, I believe security tokens are going to become a common part of Wall Street parlance in the near future. Investors won’t just be able to buy and sell tokens on mainstream exchanges, however; “crypto-native” companies are also throwing their hats into this ring.

The starter pistol has been fired

The race is on to bring security tokens to the masses

 

Because Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are not classified as securities, it’s been much easier to facilitate trading on a large scale. Security tokens are more complex, requiring not just capabilities around trading, but also issuance and, critically, compliance. (See more of my thoughts on compliance here.) It’s a major undertaking, which is why we haven’t seen the Coinbase or Circle of security token trading emerge yet (or seen these companies expand their platforms to address this—more on that later).

Meanwhile, regular exchanges are blazing the trail and moving into providing tokens trading. The founder and chairman of the company that owns the NYSE announced a new venture, Bakkt, that would provide an on-ramp for institutional investors interested in purchasing cryptocurrencies. Last month, the SIX Swiss Exchange—Switzerland’s principal stock trading exchange—announced plans to build a regulated exchange for tokenized securities. The trading and issuing platform, SIX Digital Exchange, will adhere to the same regulatory standards as the non-digital exchanges and be overseen by Swiss financial regulators.

This announcement confirms a few things:

  1. Most assets (stocks, bonds, real estate, etc) will be tokenized and supported on regulated trading platforms.

  2. Incumbents like SIX have a head start due to their size, regulatory licensing and built-in user base. They are likely to use this advantage to defend their position of power.

  3. Most investors will never know they are using distributed ledger technology, let alone trading tokenized assets. They will simply buy and sell assets as they always have.

I expect other major financial exchanges to follow SIX’s lead and onboard crypto trading before long. I can imagine them salivating over the trading fees now, Homer Simpson style.

Live shot of financial exchanges drooling over crypto trading fees

 

Crypto companies are revving their engines

The big crypto companies are preparing to enter the security token arena

Stock exchanges won’t have the space to themselves, however. Crypto companies like Polymath and tZERO have already debuted dedicated platforms for security tokens, and all signs indicate announcements from Circle and Coinbase unveiling their own tokenized asset exchanges are not far behind.

Coinbase is much closer to offering security token products after acquiring a FINRA-registered broker-dealer in June, effectively backward-somersaulting its way into a state of regulatory compliance. President and COO Asiff Hirji all but confirmed crypto-securities are in the company’s roadmap, saying that Coinbase “can envision a world where we may even work with regulators to tokenize existing types of securities.”

Circle is also laser-focused on security tokens. Circle CEO and co-founder Jeremy Allaire explained the company’s acquisition of crypto exchange Poloniex and launch of app Circle Invest in terms of the “tokenization of everything.” In addition, it is pursuing registration as a broker-dealer with the SEC to facilitate token trading—it could also attempt to take the same backdoor acquisition approach as Coinbase.

If there’s a reason Circle and Coinbase haven’t moved into security token services even more rapidly, it’s that there simply aren’t that many security tokens yet. Much of this is due to the lack of compliance and issuance platforms, keeping high-quality securities on legacy systems issuers feel more comfortable with. As projects like Harbor ramp up more, this comfort gap will grow smaller and smaller, driving the big crypto players deeper into security token services.

The old guard vs. the new wave

Expect a battle between traditional and crypto exchanges.

 

This showdown between traditional finance incumbents and crypto giants will be worth watching. One is incentivized to preserve the status quo, while the other is looking to create a new, more global financial system.

The Swiss SIX Exchanges of the world enjoy some distinct advantages over the likes of Coinbase — they have decades of traditional financial operating experience, deep relationships throughout the industry and a head start on regulatory compliance. Those advantages probably mean that such incumbents will probably be the first to make infrastructural and logistical upgrades to their systems using security tokens. The first time you interact with a security token, it is likely to be through the Nasdaq.

Having said that, incumbents’ greatest disadvantage will be transporting an old-finance-world mentality to these innovations. Coinbase, Circle, Polymath, Robinhood and other newer players are better suited to harnessing the stepchange elements of security tokens — particularly asset interoperability and imaginative security design.

University of Oregon Professor Stephen McKeon, an authority on security tokens, told me that “the potential for programmable securities to enable the expression of new investment types is the most exciting feature.” Harbor CEO Josh Stein explained why private securities in particular will be transformed: “by automating compliance, issuers can allow their investors to trade to the limit of their liquidity across multiple exchanges. Now imagine a world where buyers and sellers around the world can trade 24/7/365 with near instantaneous settlement and no counterparty risk – that is something only possible through blockchain.”

Those hypergrowth startups are going to experiment with these new paradigms in ways that older firms won’t think of. You can see evidence of this forward thinking in Circle’s efforts to build a payment network that allows Venmo users to send value to Alipay users — exactly embracing interoperability, if not in an asset sense.

The race is on

As Polymath’s Trevor Koverko and Anthony “Pomp” Pompliano have been saying for the past year, the financial services world is moving towards security tokens. As the crypto economy matures, we’re inching closer to a new era of real-world assets being securitized on the blockchain in a regulatory compliant manner.

The challenge for both traditional and crypto exchanges will be to educate investors about this new way to buy and sell investments while powering these securities transactions via a smooth, seamless experience. Ultimately, security tokens lay the groundwork for granting investors their biggest wish — the ability to trade equity, debt, real estate and digital assets all on the same platform.

News Source = techcrunch.com

Golden Gate Ventures hits first close on new $100M fund for Southeast Asia

in Asia/Business/Carousell/carro/chairman/Co-founder/Delhi/e-commerce/Economy/Eduardo Saverin/Facebook/Finance/funding/Fundings & Exits/go-jek/golden gate ventures/India/jeffrey paine/jungle ventures/Masayoshi Son/nsi ventures/Politics/Priceline/Singapore/SoftBank/South Korea/Southeast Asia/temasek/Tokopedia/traveloka/vinnie lauria by

One of the fascinating things about watching an emerging startup ecosystem is that it isn’t just companies that are scaling, the very VC firms that feed them are growing themselves, too. That’s perhaps best embodied by Golden Gate Ventures, a Singapore-based firm founded by three Silicon Valley entrepreneurs in 2011 which is about to close a huge new fund for Southeast Asia.

Golden Gate started out with a small seed investment fund before raising a second worth $60 million in 2015. Now it is in the closes stages of finalizing a new $100 million fund, which has completed a first close of over $65 million in commitments, a source with knowledge of discussions told TechCrunch.

A filing lodged with the SEC in June first showed the firm’s intent to raise $100 million. The source told TechCrunch that a number of LPs from Golden Gate’s previous funds have already signed up, including Naver, while Mistletoe, the firm run by SoftBank Chairman Masayoshi Son’s brother Taizo, is among the new backers joining.

Golden Gate’s existing LP base also includes Singapore sovereign fund Temasek, Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin, and South Korea’s Hanwha.

A full close for the fund is expected before the end of the year.

The firm has made over 40 investments to date and its portfolio includes mobile classifieds service Carousell, automotive sales startup Carro, real estate site 99.co, and payment gateway Omise. TechCrunch understands that the firm’s investment thesis will remain the same with this new fund. When it raised its second fund, founding partner Vinnie Lauria told us that Golden Gate had found its match at early-stage investing and it will remain lean and nimble like the companies it backs.

One significant change internally, however, sees Justin Hall promoted to partner at the fund. He joins Lauria, fellow founding partner Jeffrey Paine, and Michael Lints at partner level.

Hall first joined Golden Gate in 2012 as an intern while still a student, before signing on full-time in 2013. His rise through the ranks exemplifies the growth and development within Southeast Asia’s startup scene over that period — it isn’t just limited to startups themselves.

The Golden Gate Ventures team circa 2016 — it has since added new members

With the advent of unicorns such as ride-sharing firms Grab and Go-Jek, travel startup Traveloka, and e-commerce companies like Tokopedia, Southeast Asia has begun to show potential for homegrown tech companies in a market that includes over 650 million consumers and more than 300 million internet users. The emergence of these companies has spiked investor interest, which provides the capital that is the lifeblood for VCs and their funds.

Golden Gate is the only one raising big. Openspace, formerly NSI Ventures, is raising $125 million for its second fund, Jungle Ventures is said to be planning a $150 million fund, and Singapore’s Golden Equator and Korea Investment Partners have a joint $88 million fund, while Temasek-linked Vertex closed a record $210 million fund last year.

Growth potential is leading the charge but at the same time funds are beginning to focus on realizing returns for LPs through exits, which is challenging since there have been few acquisitions of meaningful size or public listings out of Southeast Asia so far. But, for smaller funds, the results are already promising.

Data from Prequin, which tracks investment money worldwide, shows that Golden Gate’s first fund has already returned a multiple of over 4X, while its second is at 1.3 despite a final close in 2016.

Beyond any secondary sales — it is not uncommon for early-stage backers to sell a minority portion of equity as more investment capital pours in — Golden Gate’s exits have included the sale of Redmart to Lazada (although not a blockbuster), Priceline’s acquisition of Woomoo, Line’s acquisition of Temanjalan and the sale of Mapan (formerly Ruma) to Go-Jek.

News Source = techcrunch.com

Go to Top