Activision Blizzard’s ex-CEO Bobby Kotick reportedly wants to buy TikTok

Bobby Kotick, the former CEO of Activision Blizzard who stepped down at the end of last year, is apparently interested in buying TikTok as a new bill in the US threatens to ban the app or force its sale. According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, Kotick mentioned the idea of partnering on such a purchase to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and others seated with him at a conference dinner last week, and brought it up with ByteDance Executive Chair Zhang Yiming. If TikTok is sold, the WSJ notes, it would likely go for hundreds of billions of dollars.

Kotick led Activision for over 30 years but didn’t exactly leave on a good note. The company has faced multiple lawsuits in recent years, including one it settled with the California Civil Rights Department over alleged pay discrimination in December. In 2021, Activision Blizzard employees staged a walkout and demanded Kotick resign, but that didn’t happen. Kotick ultimately stayed on as head of Activision Blizzard until the completion of Microsoft’s acquisition in 2023.

Kotick’s alleged interest in TikTok comes at a tumultuous moment for the immensely popular platform after lawmakers introduced the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” last week, which President Biden said he would sign, if it passes. Under the bill, which goes to the House floor on Wednesday for a vote, TikTok’s China-based parent company, ByteDance, would have to sell the app within six months. Otherwise, it’ll be banned from US app stores.

TikTok has been trying to get its millions of US users to rally behind it in wake of the bill’s sudden momentum, and sent out push notifications last week asking users to call their representatives. After the House vote, where it’s expected to be approved after clearing the Energy and Commerce Committee in a unanimous vote last week, the bill would move on to the Senate. While lawmakers’ concerns about TikTok center on fears of data privacy and its connection to China, WSJ notes that involving Altman in its purchase could open the app up to the possibility of being used by OpenAI to train its AI models, which doesn't exactly sound ideal for users, either.

Update, March 22 2024, 12:59PM ET: This article has been updated to clarify the nature of Activision’s settlement with the CRD, and to remove a reference to an unrelated allegation about former CEO Bobby Kotick. While the CRD lawsuit initially included allegations that Activision fostered sexual harassment, the CRD in January filed an amendment withdrawing these claims, and the publicly-filed settlement agreement stated: “No court or any independent investigation has substantiated any allegations that: there has been systemic or widespread sexual harassment at Activision Blizzard; … or that Activision Blizzard’s Board of Directors, including its Chief Executive Officer, Robert Kotick, acted improperly with regard to the handling of any instances of workplace misconduct.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/activision-blizzards-ex-ceo-bobby-kotick-reportedly-wants-to-buy-tiktok-210826589.html?src=rss

How 19 years of Amazon Prime has satisfied our need for speed

Just as Engadget was hitting publish on its first posts, I was putting a freshly minted English degree to use working at an indie bookshop in Los Angeles. In seemingly unrelated news, Amazon had just reported its first profitable year after switching from selling books to selling “everything” four years before. (It still sold a lot of books.)

Our bookstore did a good job keeping shelves stocked with a balance of the more worthy popular hits and smaller, better fare. But we couldn’t have every book a customer might want, so we offered to order any in-print title. If a distributor had it, it’d take about a week to get in, longer if we had to go through the publisher. That seemed fine for most customers.

But sometimes “about a week” was too long. A few people came right out and said, “Nah, I’ll order it on Amazon.” In 2005, Amazon launched Prime, the membership program that, for $79 a year, gave customers unlimited two-day shipping on most orders. At launch, CEO Jeff Bezos called it “‘all-you-can-eat’ express shipping.” No one knew at the time how hungry the world was for Amazon’s brand of convenience. And now, nearly two decades later, we’ve seen the shifts that accommodate that buffet — in labor, retail and the entire customer experience.

Prime wasn’t an overnight success. It’s estimated that six years after launch, just four million households paid for the service. But 10 years later, in 2021, Bezos claimed it had accrued 200 million members worldwide. Outside of that milestone, Amazon hasn’t made its membership numbers public, but it’s likely the figure is higher now.

That shipping should be both free and fast has become an expectation, and no company has done more to alter the landscape of logistics than Amazon. On its own, the company operates over a hundred warehouses in the US, each ranging from 600,000 to four million square feet. Each one employs between 1,000 and 1,500 people, and an army of around 750,000 robots works alongside humans in many locations.

The company operates a fleet of cargo planes, is experimenting with drone deliveries and deploys thousands of delivery vans — though none of those Amazon-branded vans are driven by actual employees. Rather, separate companies, known as delivery service partners (DSP), subcontract drivers to operate those vans. Amazon employs 1.5 million people either full or part time (with one million in the US), but those figures don’t include independent contractors and temporary personnel. In addition to the DSP program, Amazon Flex lets individuals use their own cars to deliver smile-emblazoned packages to porches. The company outsources delivery to traditional providers too, relying on both UPS and the US Postal Service, the latter it has compelled to deliver packages on Sundays since 2013.

Such vast orchestration to deliver Stanley Quenchers and pimple patches faster than anyone has paid off. However, it’s hard to look at growth and revenue numbers without considering the human costs. Contracted drivers pee in bottles because meeting quotas leaves no time for bathroom breaks. Workers sustain serious injuries at automated warehouses. The company has been sued for retaliatory firing, intrusive employee surveillance practices and failure to follow COVID safety guidelines. Amazon again made the dirty dozen list in 2023 for workplace safety, according to the advocacy group National COSH. And while it has taken steps to improve, with better compensation, the company takes anti-union actions typical of a massive corporation, joining others in calling the National Labor Relations Board “unconstitutional.”

Apart from worker issues, Amazon’s dominance has made life harder for retail businesses in general, particularly the big chains. The Amazon Effect became shorthand for the mall-emptying squeeze of e-commerce on traditional retail. Even businesses that team up with Amazon don’t fare well. Third-party sellers on the site are subject to punitive measures and must contend with increasing fees, which sometimes put them out of business. Sellers who do perform well have seen products copied and sold by Amazon’s private label. Notable partnerships have had dismal results, such as when Borders outsourced its early web sales or the exclusivity deal with Toys ‘R’ Us. Of course, Borders no longer exists, and Toys ‘R’ Us filed for bankruptcy in 2017.

Trying to beat Amazon on speed and price is pointless. Joining them is unwise. So retailers compete in other ways. At the bookstore, we focused on our strengths: a varied, multi-talented staff who could size up a customer’s reading tastes and stick a good book in their hands. If someone came into our store circa 2005 and said they were into fantasy, there’s a good chance our book buyer would pass them a copy of George R.R. Martin’s latest, years before HBO had anything to do with it.

We had a curated ‘zine section and hosted live events with bestselling authors, cult magazine founders and local writers. But mostly, we capitalized on folks who wanted something more from their shopping experience than just speed and convenience, people who didn’t mind if it took a week to get a book, as long as it came with a little local community. Some just wanted to browse books while sitting under the tree (there’s a tree in the middle of the store), petting a cat (in my day, that was Lucy) and listening to what we felt were pretty wicked playlists.

Today, Skylight Books is still a force of creativity and verve in the Los Feliz neighborhood, and it has even expanded into an annex next door. In general, after the initial casualties from the retail apocalypse and COVID, independent bookstores are doing OK, with established names staying put and new stores opening. Elsewhere in the retail industry, big chains continue to close locations, but independent retail seems to be growing. Personally, I enjoy the new bakeries, brewpubs and bulk stores that have sprung up around the neighborhoods where I now live.

I can’t, as a commerce writer, ignore that a decent portion of my job directs readers to Amazon’s website. The company is playing a part in displaying the very words you’re reading, as Engadget’s site is facilitated by Amazon Web Services (AWS) through Yahoo’s cloud partnership. The company is one of the biggest on the planet, the second largest employer in the US and a good portion of every retail dollar spent in the US goes into Amazon’s revenue chest.

With its acquisition of Whole Foods’ 500+ stores, Amazon is doing fine in the physical retail sector. Yet the company doesn’t tend to win when it tries to fabricate other retail experiences. Amazon Books, Amazon Style and Amazon 4-Star were all small-scale retail spaces that tried to leverage Amazon’s brand, massive trove of buyer data and cutting-edge retail technology. At their peak, those stores comprised about 70 brick-and-mortar locations, all of which are now closed. The cashierless Amazon Go still has more than 20 locations in the US, but Amazon shut down nine of them in 2023 and hasn’t announced plans to open more.

Those misfires could be statistically inevitable; more than half of new businesses go under before they hit the 10-year mark. But perhaps those stores failed because, as physical spaces, they couldn’t capitalize on Amazon’s primary strength: zero-effort buying. Shopping at Amazon.com isn’t particularly pleasant. The website is cluttered and confusing. Suspect products and fake reviews erode shoppers’ trust. It isn’t even the cheapest place to shop. But that 1-Click™ buy button and turbo delivery makes stuff appear on our doorsteps like it slid there on greased rails.

Yet when people get up the energy to leave their homes, they may hope for more: human experiences created by people from their own neighborhoods who do what they do out of passion, not because market data indicates dollars to be had in a given sector. With its trillion-dollar valuation, Amazon isn’t going anywhere, but under its massive shadow, there’s still room for businesses that focus on the human element of commercial transactions, places where people might want to spend some of the time Amazon’s speed and convenience may have saved them.


To celebrate Engadget's 20th anniversary, we're taking a look back at the products and services that have changed the industry since March 2, 2004.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/how-19-years-of-amazon-prime-has-satisfied-our-need-for-speed-141557261.html?src=rss

How 19 years of Amazon Prime has satisfied our need for speed

Just as Engadget was hitting publish on its first posts, I was putting a freshly minted English degree to use working at an indie bookshop in Los Angeles. In seemingly unrelated news, Amazon had just reported its first profitable year after switching from selling books to selling “everything” four years before. (It still sold a lot of books.)

Our bookstore did a good job keeping shelves stocked with a balance of the more worthy popular hits and smaller, better fare. But we couldn’t have every book a customer might want, so we offered to order any in-print title. If a distributor had it, it’d take about a week to get in, longer if we had to go through the publisher. That seemed fine for most customers.

But sometimes “about a week” was too long. A few people came right out and said, “Nah, I’ll order it on Amazon.” In 2005, Amazon launched Prime, the membership program that, for $79 a year, gave customers unlimited two-day shipping on most orders. At launch, CEO Jeff Bezos called it “‘all-you-can-eat’ express shipping.” No one knew at the time how hungry the world was for Amazon’s brand of convenience. And now, nearly two decades later, we’ve seen the shifts that accommodate that buffet — in labor, retail and the entire customer experience.

Prime wasn’t an overnight success. It’s estimated that six years after launch, just four million households paid for the service. But 10 years later, in 2021, Bezos claimed it had accrued 200 million members worldwide. Outside of that milestone, Amazon hasn’t made its membership numbers public, but it’s likely the figure is higher now.

That shipping should be both free and fast has become an expectation, and no company has done more to alter the landscape of logistics than Amazon. On its own, the company operates over a hundred warehouses in the US, each ranging from 600,000 to four million square feet. Each one employs between 1,000 and 1,500 people, and an army of around 750,000 robots works alongside humans in many locations.

The company operates a fleet of cargo planes, is experimenting with drone deliveries and deploys thousands of delivery vans — though none of those Amazon-branded vans are driven by actual employees. Rather, separate companies, known as delivery service partners (DSP), subcontract drivers to operate those vans. Amazon employs 1.5 million people either full or part time (with one million in the US), but those figures don’t include independent contractors and temporary personnel. In addition to the DSP program, Amazon Flex lets individuals use their own cars to deliver smile-emblazoned packages to porches. The company outsources delivery to traditional providers too, relying on both UPS and the US Postal Service, the latter it has compelled to deliver packages on Sundays since 2013.

Such vast orchestration to deliver Stanley Quenchers and pimple patches faster than anyone has paid off. However, it’s hard to look at growth and revenue numbers without considering the human costs. Contracted drivers pee in bottles because meeting quotas leaves no time for bathroom breaks. Workers sustain serious injuries at automated warehouses. The company has been sued for retaliatory firing, intrusive employee surveillance practices and failure to follow COVID safety guidelines. Amazon again made the dirty dozen list in 2023 for workplace safety, according to the advocacy group National COSH. And while it has taken steps to improve, with better compensation, the company takes anti-union actions typical of a massive corporation, joining others in calling the National Labor Relations Board “unconstitutional.”

Apart from worker issues, Amazon’s dominance has made life harder for retail businesses in general, particularly the big chains. The Amazon Effect became shorthand for the mall-emptying squeeze of e-commerce on traditional retail. Even businesses that team up with Amazon don’t fare well. Third-party sellers on the site are subject to punitive measures and must contend with increasing fees, which sometimes put them out of business. Sellers who do perform well have seen products copied and sold by Amazon’s private label. Notable partnerships have had dismal results, such as when Borders outsourced its early web sales or the exclusivity deal with Toys ‘R’ Us. Of course, Borders no longer exists, and Toys ‘R’ Us filed for bankruptcy in 2017.

Trying to beat Amazon on speed and price is pointless. Joining them is unwise. So retailers compete in other ways. At the bookstore, we focused on our strengths: a varied, multi-talented staff who could size up a customer’s reading tastes and stick a good book in their hands. If someone came into our store circa 2005 and said they were into fantasy, there’s a good chance our book buyer would pass them a copy of George R.R. Martin’s latest, years before HBO had anything to do with it.

We had a curated ‘zine section and hosted live events with bestselling authors, cult magazine founders and local writers. But mostly, we capitalized on folks who wanted something more from their shopping experience than just speed and convenience, people who didn’t mind if it took a week to get a book, as long as it came with a little local community. Some just wanted to browse books while sitting under the tree (there’s a tree in the middle of the store), petting a cat (in my day, that was Lucy) and listening to what we felt were pretty wicked playlists.

Today, Skylight Books is still a force of creativity and verve in the Los Feliz neighborhood, and it has even expanded into an annex next door. In general, after the initial casualties from the retail apocalypse and COVID, independent bookstores are doing OK, with established names staying put and new stores opening. Elsewhere in the retail industry, big chains continue to close locations, but independent retail seems to be growing. Personally, I enjoy the new bakeries, brewpubs and bulk stores that have sprung up around the neighborhoods where I now live.

I can’t, as a commerce writer, ignore that a decent portion of my job directs readers to Amazon’s website. The company is playing a part in displaying the very words you’re reading, as Engadget’s site is facilitated by Amazon Web Services (AWS) through Yahoo’s cloud partnership. The company is one of the biggest on the planet, the second largest employer in the US and a good portion of every retail dollar spent in the US goes into Amazon’s revenue chest.

With its acquisition of Whole Foods’ 500+ stores, Amazon is doing fine in the physical retail sector. Yet the company doesn’t tend to win when it tries to fabricate other retail experiences. Amazon Books, Amazon Style and Amazon 4-Star were all small-scale retail spaces that tried to leverage Amazon’s brand, massive trove of buyer data and cutting-edge retail technology. At their peak, those stores comprised about 70 brick-and-mortar locations, all of which are now closed. The cashierless Amazon Go still has more than 20 locations in the US, but Amazon shut down nine of them in 2023 and hasn’t announced plans to open more.

Those misfires could be statistically inevitable; more than half of new businesses go under before they hit the 10-year mark. But perhaps those stores failed because, as physical spaces, they couldn’t capitalize on Amazon’s primary strength: zero-effort buying. Shopping at Amazon.com isn’t particularly pleasant. The website is cluttered and confusing. Suspect products and fake reviews erode shoppers’ trust. It isn’t even the cheapest place to shop. But that 1-Click™ buy button and turbo delivery makes stuff appear on our doorsteps like it slid there on greased rails.

Yet when people get up the energy to leave their homes, they may hope for more: human experiences created by people from their own neighborhoods who do what they do out of passion, not because market data indicates dollars to be had in a given sector. With its trillion-dollar valuation, Amazon isn’t going anywhere, but under its massive shadow, there’s still room for businesses that focus on the human element of commercial transactions, places where people might want to spend some of the time Amazon’s speed and convenience may have saved them.


To celebrate Engadget's 20th anniversary, we're taking a look back at the products and services that have changed the industry since March 2, 2004.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/how-19-years-of-amazon-prime-has-satisfied-our-need-for-speed-141557261.html?src=rss

SpaceX lawsuit claims repeated instances of gender discrimination and basic safeguarding failures

Warning: The following article covers matters of a sensitive nature.

A SpaceX employee has filed a lawsuit against the company, accusing it of siding with a supervisor who pressured her into having sexual relations with him. The plaintiff said that she and other female employees also had to endure "humiliating comments" questioning their credentials, that she was passed up for promotions in favor of male candidates and that she experienced retaliation when she complained about being paid less than her male counterparts. 

The plaintiff, Michelle Dopak, has been working at the aerospace corporation's headquarters in California since 2017. According to her complaint, she experienced discrimination early on in her employment when she was passed up for job opportunities in favor of external male candidates. Her male colleagues allegedly spread rumors about their female coworkers, as well, claiming that they only got their jobs because of their looks. Dopak and two of her female colleagues met with Gwynne Shotwell to complain about both issues — "an action that no male colleague or employee at SpaceX would ever feel the need to do to justify their hiring and stop such discriminatory actions," the lawsuit reads. The SpaceX president, however, apparently didn't take any action. 

After a reorganization in 2019, the plaintiff was placed under the supervision of a male boss who allegedly pressured her into having a sexual relationship that lasted years. When she got pregnant as a result, she said her married supervisor offered her $100,000 to have an abortion, which she had refused. She also accused SpaceX of colluding with her boss to transfer 48,289 shares worth $3,718,253 out of his name so that he could get out of paying child support. 

Her complaints didn't end there. After getting promoted to a position she had been chasing for years, she found out that a male colleague who was hired at the same time was being paid $5,000 more. The company officials she talked to about the pay disparity couldn't justify it and allegedly offered her only $2,500 more if she also took a reduction in stock benefits. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff said the offer was "a message that if you complain at SpaceX, we will just retaliate against you and find other ways to punish you."

The lawsuit accuses SpaceX of forcing female employees who have claims of sexual harassment and discrimination into bringing their claims to arbitration so that they could be kept secret from the public. "SpaceX has also attempted to coerce and force [the plaintiff] into only bringing her claims in arbitration even though such claims are barred from being forced to arbitration," the complaint continues.

The plaintiff is asking for general, compensatory and consequential damages, including lost wages, earnings and other employee benefits. She's also asking the court to prohibit SpaceX from continuing any "unfair and unlawful business practices." SpaceX is currently facing another proposed class action lawsuit that claims it pays women and minorities tens of thousands less than what it pays white male employees. In January, the National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint against SpaceX, as well, accusing it for illegally firing a group of engineers who criticized Elon Musk for making crude jokes on X about the sexual misconduct accusations against him.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/spacex-lawsuit-claims-repeated-instances-of-gender-discrimination-and-basic-safeguarding-failures-133014753.html?src=rss

SpaceX lawsuit claims repeated instances of gender discrimination and basic safeguarding failures

Warning: The following article covers matters of a sensitive nature.

A SpaceX employee has filed a lawsuit against the company, accusing it of siding with a supervisor who pressured her into having sexual relations with him. The plaintiff said that she and other female employees also had to endure "humiliating comments" questioning their credentials, that she was passed up for promotions in favor of male candidates and that she experienced retaliation when she complained about being paid less than her male counterparts. 

The plaintiff, Michelle Dopak, has been working at the aerospace corporation's headquarters in California since 2017. According to her complaint, she experienced discrimination early on in her employment when she was passed up for job opportunities in favor of external male candidates. Her male colleagues allegedly spread rumors about their female coworkers, as well, claiming that they only got their jobs because of their looks. Dopak and two of her female colleagues met with Gwynne Shotwell to complain about both issues — "an action that no male colleague or employee at SpaceX would ever feel the need to do to justify their hiring and stop such discriminatory actions," the lawsuit reads. The SpaceX president, however, apparently didn't take any action. 

After a reorganization in 2019, the plaintiff was placed under the supervision of a male boss who allegedly pressured her into having a sexual relationship that lasted years. When she got pregnant as a result, she said her married supervisor offered her $100,000 to have an abortion, which she had refused. She also accused SpaceX of colluding with her boss to transfer 48,289 shares worth $3,718,253 out of his name so that he could get out of paying child support. 

Her complaints didn't end there. After getting promoted to a position she had been chasing for years, she found out that a male colleague who was hired at the same time was being paid $5,000 more. The company officials she talked to about the pay disparity couldn't justify it and allegedly offered her only $2,500 more if she also took a reduction in stock benefits. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff said the offer was "a message that if you complain at SpaceX, we will just retaliate against you and find other ways to punish you."

The lawsuit accuses SpaceX of forcing female employees who have claims of sexual harassment and discrimination into bringing their claims to arbitration so that they could be kept secret from the public. "SpaceX has also attempted to coerce and force [the plaintiff] into only bringing her claims in arbitration even though such claims are barred from being forced to arbitration," the complaint continues.

The plaintiff is asking for general, compensatory and consequential damages, including lost wages, earnings and other employee benefits. She's also asking the court to prohibit SpaceX from continuing any "unfair and unlawful business practices." SpaceX is currently facing another proposed class action lawsuit that claims it pays women and minorities tens of thousands less than what it pays white male employees. In January, the National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint against SpaceX, as well, accusing it for illegally firing a group of engineers who criticized Elon Musk for making crude jokes on X about the sexual misconduct accusations against him.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/spacex-lawsuit-claims-repeated-instances-of-gender-discrimination-and-basic-safeguarding-failures-133014753.html?src=rss

Nikon buys high-end cinema camera company RED

Nikon has announced it is buying RED, the high-end cinema camera company, for an undisclosed sum. In a statement, the camera giant, which has suffered along with most of the imaging industry in recent years, said RED will become a wholly-owned subsidiary, as found by The Verge. RED currently has about 220 employees, and no layoff plans have been made public in response to the sale. 

RED was founded in 2005 and has since had its cameras used in popular productions, including Squid Game, Peaky Blinders and Captain Marvel — a market Nikon plans to expand into with this acquisition. Nikon has withdrawn from less profitable areas of the camera market in recent years, including ending development on new DSLRs

The move could benefit both parties, as RED's president Jarred Lang shared on Facebook: "This strategic partnership brings together Nikon's extensive history and expertise in product development, know-how in image processing, as well as optical technology and user interface with RED's revolutionary digital cinema cameras and award-winning technologies." RED's 2018 attempt to expand on its own (into smartphones, no less) didn't last long, and the products soon were discontinued. 

Interestingly, RED sued its new owner in 2022, claiming that Nikon knowingly used RED's patented data compression technology in its Z9 camera. Nikon, in turn, argued the legitimacy of RED's patents before the two companies agreed to a dismissal. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/nikon-buys-high-end-cinema-camera-company-red-100243796.html?src=rss

Nikon buys high-end cinema camera company RED

Nikon has announced it is buying RED, the high-end cinema camera company, for an undisclosed sum. In a statement, the camera giant, which has suffered along with most of the imaging industry in recent years, said RED will become a wholly-owned subsidiary, as found by The Verge. RED currently has about 220 employees, and no layoff plans have been made public in response to the sale. 

RED was founded in 2005 and has since had its cameras used in popular productions, including Squid Game, Peaky Blinders and Captain Marvel — a market Nikon plans to expand into with this acquisition. Nikon has withdrawn from less profitable areas of the camera market in recent years, including ending development on new DSLRs

The move could benefit both parties, as RED's president Jarred Lang shared on Facebook: "This strategic partnership brings together Nikon's extensive history and expertise in product development, know-how in image processing, as well as optical technology and user interface with RED's revolutionary digital cinema cameras and award-winning technologies." RED's 2018 attempt to expand on its own (into smartphones, no less) didn't last long, and the products soon were discontinued. 

Interestingly, RED sued its new owner in 2022, claiming that Nikon knowingly used RED's patented data compression technology in its Z9 camera. Nikon, in turn, argued the legitimacy of RED's patents before the two companies agreed to a dismissal. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/nikon-buys-high-end-cinema-camera-company-red-100243796.html?src=rss

OpenAI says Elon Musk wanted it to merge with Tesla to create a for-profit entity

Elon Musk, who sued OpenAI for violating its non-profit mission and chasing profits, allegedly wanted the organization to merge with Tesla when it was starting to plan its transition into a for-profit entity in order to accomplish its goals. Well, either that or get full control of the company, OpenAI said in a blog post. The organization responded to Musk's lawsuit by publishing old emails from 2015 to 2018 when he was still involved in its operations. 

When OpenAI introduced itself to the world back in 2015, it announced that it had $1 billion in funding. Apparently, Musk was the one who suggested that figure, even though OpenAI had raised less than $45 million from him and around $90 million from other donors. "We need to go with a much bigger number than $100M to avoid sounding hopeless... I think we should say that we are starting with a $1B funding commitment... I will cover whatever anyone else doesn't provide," he wrote, according to the company. 

In 2017, OpenAI's leaders realized that they truly did need a lot more money — billions of dollars — because artificial intelligence required vast quantities of computing power. That's when they started discussing its transition into a for-profit structure. OpenAI said Musk was involved in the planning and originally wanted majority equity, control of the initial board of directors and the CEO position. However, the organization felt that it was against its mission to give one person absolute control over it. They couldn't get to an agreement, and Musk reportedly withheld funding while talks were ongoing.

Musk then forwarded an email to OpenAI in 2018, which suggested attaching the organization to Tesla so that the automaker could provide its funding. He explained in his letter that he believed it was "the only path that could even hope to hold a candle to Google." OpenAI didn't say how their discussions progressed after that, but Musk's idea obviously didn't push through, and he soon left the company. In the last email from Musk that the organization posted, he said his "probability assessment of OpenAI being relevant to DeepMind/Google without a dramatic change in execution and resources is 0%." 

In his lawsuit, Musk accused OpenAI of being a "closed-source de facto subsidiary" of Microsoft, which uses its AI technology for products like Bing after investing $13 billion into the company. "Microsoft stands to make a fortune selling GPT-4 to the public, which would not be possible if OpenAI — as it is required to do — makes the technology freely available to the public," the lawsuit argued. OpenAI said Musk was aware its mission did not imply open sourcing its artificial intelligence technology, though. It released an email in which Ilya Sutskever, its co-founder and chief scientist, told Musk: "As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in OpenAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science." Musk then responded with "Yup."

"We're sad that it's come to this with someone whom we've deeply admired — someone who inspired us to aim higher, then told us we would fail, started a competitor, and then sued us when we started making meaningful progress towards OpenAI's mission without him," the company wrote in its post. After Musk filed his lawsuit, the company sent internal memos to its staff denying his allegations. Chief Strategy Officer Jason Kwon said in one memo that Musk's claims "may stem from [his] regrets about not being involved with the company today." Sam Altman said in another memo that he misses the person he knew who competed with others by building better technology. He also responded to a five-year old tweet from Musk thanking him for defending Tesla.

Musk's lawsuit accuses OpenAI of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition. He is currently seeking a jury trial and wants the court to order OpenAI to follow its "longstanding practice of making AI research and technology" available to the public, as well as to prohibit it from using its technology for the financial benefit of Microsoft and any other particular organization or individual. Musk has yet to respond to OpenAI's post.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/openai-says-elon-musk-wanted-it-to-merge-with-tesla-to-create-a-for-profit-entity-063050178.html?src=rss

Microsoft accuses the New York Times of doom-mongering in OpenAI lawsuit

Microsoft has filed a motion seeking to dismiss key parts of a lawsuit The New York Times filed against the company and Open AI, accusing them of copyright infringement. If you'll recall, The Times sued both companies for using its published articles to train their GPT large language models (LLMs) without permission and compensation. In its filing, the company has accused The Times of pushing "doomsday futurology" by claiming that AI technologies pose a threat to independent journalism. It follows OpenAI's court filing from late February that's also seeking to dismiss some important elements on the case. 

Like OpenAI before it, Microsoft accused The Times of crafting "unrealistic prompts" in an effort to "coax the GPT-based tools" to spit out responses matching its content. It also compared the media organization's lawsuit to Hollywood studios' efforts to " stop a groundbreaking new technology:" The VCR. Instead of destroying Hollywood, Microsoft explained, the VCR helped the entertainment industry flourish by opening up revenue streams. LLMs are a breakthrough in artificial intelligence, it continued, and Microsoft collaborated with OpenAI to "help bring their extraordinary power to the public" because it "firmly believes in LLMs' capacity to improve the way people live and work."

The company is asking the court to dismiss three claims, including one saying it's liable for end-user copyright infringement through the use of GPT-based tools and another that says it violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Microsoft also wants the court to dismiss the element of the case wherein The Times accused it of misappropriating time-sensitive breaking news and consumer purchasing recommendations. As an example, The Times argued in its lawsuit that it will lose revenue if users ask ChatGPT to research articles on Wirecutter, which the news company owns, because potential buyers will no longer click on its referral links. But that's "mere speculation about what The Times apparently fears might happen," and it didn't give a single real-world example in its complaint, Microsoft said.

"Microsoft doesn't dispute that it worked with OpenAI to copy millions of The Times's works without its permission to build its tools," Ian Crosby, lead counsel for The Times, told the publication." Instead, it oddly compares L.L.M.s to the VCR even though VCR makers never argued that it was necessary to engage in massive copyright infringement to build their products."

OpenAI and Microsoft are facing more lawsuits related to the content used to train the former's LLMs other than this particular one. Nonfiction writers and fiction authors, including Michael Chabon, George R.R. Martin, John Grisham and Jodi Picoult, accused the companies of stealing their work for AI training. More recently, The Intercept, Raw Story and AlterNet filed separate lawsuits against the company, because ChatGPT allegedly reproduces their content "verbatim or nearly verbatim" while removing proper attribution. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/microsoft-accuses-the-new-york-times-of-doom-mongering-in-openai-lawsuit-133025748.html?src=rss

Microsoft accuses the New York Times of doom-mongering in OpenAI lawsuit

Microsoft has filed a motion seeking to dismiss key parts of a lawsuit The New York Times filed against the company and Open AI, accusing them of copyright infringement. If you'll recall, The Times sued both companies for using its published articles to train their GPT large language models (LLMs) without permission and compensation. In its filing, the company has accused The Times of pushing "doomsday futurology" by claiming that AI technologies pose a threat to independent journalism. It follows OpenAI's court filing from late February that's also seeking to dismiss some important elements on the case. 

Like OpenAI before it, Microsoft accused The Times of crafting "unrealistic prompts" in an effort to "coax the GPT-based tools" to spit out responses matching its content. It also compared the media organization's lawsuit to Hollywood studios' efforts to " stop a groundbreaking new technology:" The VCR. Instead of destroying Hollywood, Microsoft explained, the VCR helped the entertainment industry flourish by opening up revenue streams. LLMs are a breakthrough in artificial intelligence, it continued, and Microsoft collaborated with OpenAI to "help bring their extraordinary power to the public" because it "firmly believes in LLMs' capacity to improve the way people live and work."

The company is asking the court to dismiss three claims, including one saying it's liable for end-user copyright infringement through the use of GPT-based tools and another that says it violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Microsoft also wants the court to dismiss the element of the case wherein The Times accused it of misappropriating time-sensitive breaking news and consumer purchasing recommendations. As an example, The Times argued in its lawsuit that it will lose revenue if users ask ChatGPT to research articles on Wirecutter, which the news company owns, because potential buyers will no longer click on its referral links. But that's "mere speculation about what The Times apparently fears might happen," and it didn't give a single real-world example in its complaint, Microsoft said.

"Microsoft doesn't dispute that it worked with OpenAI to copy millions of The Times's works without its permission to build its tools," Ian Crosby, lead counsel for The Times, told the publication." Instead, it oddly compares L.L.M.s to the VCR even though VCR makers never argued that it was necessary to engage in massive copyright infringement to build their products."

OpenAI and Microsoft are facing more lawsuits related to the content used to train the former's LLMs other than this particular one. Nonfiction writers and fiction authors, including Michael Chabon, George R.R. Martin, John Grisham and Jodi Picoult, accused the companies of stealing their work for AI training. More recently, The Intercept, Raw Story and AlterNet filed separate lawsuits against the company, because ChatGPT allegedly reproduces their content "verbatim or nearly verbatim" while removing proper attribution. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/microsoft-accuses-the-new-york-times-of-doom-mongering-in-openai-lawsuit-133025748.html?src=rss