Proposed class action lawsuit accuses Apple of monopolizing cloud storage for its devices

A class action complaint filed against Apple on Friday in the northern California court has accused the company of creating unfair conditions to ensure iCloud remains the dominant cloud storage choice for its devices, according to Bloomberg Law. By placing “surgical technological restraints” on the types of files other cloud providers can host, Apple has made it so only iCloud can offer Apple device users full-service storage, the complaint argues. According to the complaint, this has also allowed Apple to charge higher fees in the absence of “any real threat to iCloud’s dominance.”

The proposed class, represented by Hagens Berman, would cover tens of millions of customers in the US, Bloomberg Law notes. While iPhone and iPad users do have the option to store certain types of files with non-Apple cloud storage providers, there are some things — including app data and device settings — that only iCloud has permission to host. This leaves users to choose either the “unattractive” option of juggling multiple cloud storage accounts to fully cover their backup needs, or iCloud’s full-service convenience. The complaint argues that Apple’s restrictions are arbitrary and work to stifle competition.

Apple “does not dominate because it built a superior cloud-storage product,” the complaint states. “From a security and functionality standpoint, iCloud is no better (and often inferior) to other cloud storage platforms. Instead, Apple has achieved market dominance by rigging the competitive playing field so that only iCloud can win.” The case was only just filed and hasn’t yet been granted class action status, but anyone who thinks they may be eligible to get in on it can fill out a form on the Hagens Berman website to find out more information.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/proposed-class-action-lawsuit-accuses-apple-of-monopolizing-cloud-storage-for-its-devices-190822242.html?src=rss

Proposed class action lawsuit accuses Apple of monopolizing cloud storage for its devices

A class action complaint filed against Apple on Friday in the northern California court has accused the company of creating unfair conditions to ensure iCloud remains the dominant cloud storage choice for its devices, according to Bloomberg Law. By placing “surgical technological restraints” on the types of files other cloud providers can host, Apple has made it so only iCloud can offer Apple device users full-service storage, the complaint argues. According to the complaint, this has also allowed Apple to charge higher fees in the absence of “any real threat to iCloud’s dominance.”

The proposed class, represented by Hagens Berman, would cover tens of millions of customers in the US, Bloomberg Law notes. While iPhone and iPad users do have the option to store certain types of files with non-Apple cloud storage providers, there are some things — including app data and device settings — that only iCloud has permission to host. This leaves users to choose either the “unattractive” option of juggling multiple cloud storage accounts to fully cover their backup needs, or iCloud’s full-service convenience. The complaint argues that Apple’s restrictions are arbitrary and work to stifle competition.

Apple “does not dominate because it built a superior cloud-storage product,” the complaint states. “From a security and functionality standpoint, iCloud is no better (and often inferior) to other cloud storage platforms. Instead, Apple has achieved market dominance by rigging the competitive playing field so that only iCloud can win.” The case was only just filed and hasn’t yet been granted class action status, but anyone who thinks they may be eligible to get in on it can fill out a form on the Hagens Berman website to find out more information.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/proposed-class-action-lawsuit-accuses-apple-of-monopolizing-cloud-storage-for-its-devices-190822242.html?src=rss

Elon Musk sues OpenAI and Sam Altman for allegedly ditching non-profit mission

OpenAI co-founder Elon Musk has sued the company, his fellow co-founders, associated businesses and unidentified others. He claims that, by chasing profits, they’re violating OpenAI’s status as a non-profit and its foundational contractual agreements to develop AI “for the benefit of humanity.”

The suit alleges that OpenAI has become a “closed-source de facto subsidiary” of Microsoft, which has invested $13 billion and holds a 49 percent stake. Microsoft uses OpenAI tech to power generative AI tools such as Copilot.

According to the filing, under OpenAI’s current board, it is allegedly developing and refining an artificial general intelligence (AGI) “to maximize profits for Microsoft, rather than for the benefit of humanity. This was a stark betrayal of the Founding Agreement.”

The suit defines AGI as "a machine having intelligence for a wide variety of tasks like a human." Musk argues in the suit that GPT-4, which is purportedly "better at reasoning than average humans," is tantamount to AGI and is "a de facto Microsoft proprietary algorithm."

Musk has long expressed concerns over AGI. He claims the theoretical tech posits "a grave threat to humanity," particularly "in the hands of a closed, for-profit company like Google."

According to the filing, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and fellow co-founder Greg Brockman persuaded Musk to help them start the non-profit and to fund its early operations in a bid to counter Google's advancements in the AGI space with DeepMind. He noted that their initial agreement called for OpenAI's tech to be "freely available" to the public. Musk claims to have donated $44 million to the non-profit between 2016 and 2020 (he stepped down as an OpenAI board member in 2018). As TechCrunch reports, Musk previously said he was offered a stake in OpenAI's for-profit subsidiary, but rejected it due to "a principled stand."

Muskl, of course, has some skin in the game. Since the public debut of OpenAI's ChatGPT in November 2022, there's been a battle between tech giants to offer the best generative AI tools. Musk joined that rat race when his AI company, xAI, rolled out ChatGPT rival Grok to Premium+ subscribers on his X social network last year.

When Altman swiftly returned to power after OpenAI's board shockingly fired him in November, he's said to have appointed a new group of directors that is less technically minded and more business-focused. Microsoft was appointed as a non-voting observer. “The new board consisted of members with more experience in profit-centric enterprises or politics than in AI ethics and governance,” the lawsuit alleges.

The suit accuses the defendants of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and unfair business practices. Musk is seeking a jury trial and a ruling that forces OpenAI to stick to its original non-profit mission. He also wants it to be banned from monetizing tech it developed as a non-profit for the benefit of OpenAI leadership as well as Microsoft and other partners.

Competition regulators in the US, the UK and European Union are said to be examining OpenAI's partnership with Microsoft. It was reported this week that the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating whether OpenAI misled investors. Several news organizations have sued OpenAI and Microsoft as well, alleging that ChatGPT repurposes their work "verbatim or nearly verbatim" without attribution, infringing upon their copyright in the process.

In a couple of internal memos seen by Bloomberg, OpenAI said it "categorically disagrees" with the lawsuit Musk has filed. Chief Strategy Officer Jason Kwon denied that OpenAI has become a "de facto subsidiary" of Microsoft and said that Musk's claims "may stem from [his] regrets about not being involved with the company today." Altman also said in another memo that Musk is his hero and that he misses the person he knew who competed with others by building better technology.

Update, March 02, 2023, 1:47AM ET: This story has been updated to include OpenAI's internal memos about the lawsuit.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/elon-musk-sues-openai-and-sam-altman-for-allegedly-ditching-non-profit-mission-160722736.html?src=rss

Meta is starting to test the Threads API with third-party developers

Meta is starting to bring the Threads API online, though it will still be some time before it’s widely accessible to developers. The company has begun testing its new developer tools with a handful of companies, Meta engineer Jesse Chen shared in a post on Threads.

According to Chen, whose post was first spotted by TechCrunch, the API is currently in “beta” but a wider rollout could come “by the end of June.” The initial group of companies testing out the beta version of the API include social media management platforms Sprinklr, Hootsuite, Social News Desk and Sprout Social. Meta is also working with tech news aggregator Techmeme and live video platform Grabyo. For now, it sounds like the API will primarily enable the publishing of content to Threads from these services, but Chen said there are also plans to “enable reply moderation and insights capabilities.”

Having an API could help Threads attract more publishers and power users, who often rely on third-party software for posting and analytics. Instagram head Adam Mosseri has previously expressed some reluctance to woo publishers, saying that his “concern” was that a dedicated API would “mean a lot more publisher content and not much more creator content.” (Mosseri has also said he doesn’t want to “amplify news on the platform.”)

But with 130 million users, Threads is starting to look more and more like a viable alternative to X, and offering professional-level tools is a good way to get publishers and brands to post more to the platform. Having an API could also, potentially, aid the company’s plans to support interoperability with Mastodon and the rest of the fediverse, though Meta hasn’t publicly discussed its API in that context,.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/meta-is-starting-to-test-the-threads-api-with-third-party-developers-200125403.html?src=rss

Meta is starting to test the Threads API with third-party developers

Meta is starting to bring the Threads API online, though it will still be some time before it’s widely accessible to developers. The company has begun testing its new developer tools with a handful of companies, Meta engineer Jesse Chen shared in a post on Threads.

According to Chen, whose post was first spotted by TechCrunch, the API is currently in “beta” but a wider rollout could come “by the end of June.” The initial group of companies testing out the beta version of the API include social media management platforms Sprinklr, Hootsuite, Social News Desk and Sprout Social. Meta is also working with tech news aggregator Techmeme and live video platform Grabyo. For now, it sounds like the API will primarily enable the publishing of content to Threads from these services, but Chen said there are also plans to “enable reply moderation and insights capabilities.”

Having an API could help Threads attract more publishers and power users, who often rely on third-party software for posting and analytics. Instagram head Adam Mosseri has previously expressed some reluctance to woo publishers, saying that his “concern” was that a dedicated API would “mean a lot more publisher content and not much more creator content.” (Mosseri has also said he doesn’t want to “amplify news on the platform.”)

But with 130 million users, Threads is starting to look more and more like a viable alternative to X, and offering professional-level tools is a good way to get publishers and brands to post more to the platform. Having an API could also, potentially, aid the company’s plans to support interoperability with Mastodon and the rest of the fediverse, though Meta hasn’t publicly discussed its API in that context,.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/meta-is-starting-to-test-the-threads-api-with-third-party-developers-200125403.html?src=rss

Elon Musk sues OpenAI and Sam Altman for allegedly ditching non-profit mission

OpenAI co-founder Elon Musk has sued the company, his fellow co-founders, associated businesses and unidentified others. He claims that, by chasing profits, they’re violating OpenAI’s status as a non-profit and its foundational contractual agreements to develop AI “for the benefit of humanity.”

The suit alleges that OpenAI has become a “closed-source de facto subsidiary” of Microsoft, which has invested $13 billion and holds a 49 percent stake. Microsoft uses OpenAI tech to power generative AI tools such as Copilot.

According to the filing, under OpenAI’s current board, it is allegedly developing and refining an artificial general intelligence (AGI) “to maximize profits for Microsoft, rather than for the benefit of humanity. This was a stark betrayal of the Founding Agreement.”

The suit defines AGI as "a machine having intelligence for a wide variety of tasks like a human." Musk argues in the suit that GPT-4, which is purportedly "better at reasoning than average humans," is tantamount to AGI and is "a de facto Microsoft proprietary algorithm."

Musk has long expressed concerns over AGI. He claims the theoretical tech posits "a grave threat to humanity," particularly "in the hands of a closed, for-profit company like Google."

According to the filing, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and fellow co-founder Greg Brockman persuaded Musk to help them start the non-profit and to fund its early operations in a bid to counter Google's advancements in the AGI space with DeepMind. He noted that their initial agreement called for OpenAI's tech to be "freely available" to the public. Musk claims to have donated $44 million to the non-profit between 2016 and 2020 (he stepped down as an OpenAI board member in 2018). As TechCrunch reports, Musk previously said he was offered a stake in OpenAI's for-profit subsidiary, but rejected it due to "a principled stand."

Muskl, of course, has some skin in the game. Since the public debut of OpenAI's ChatGPT in November 2022, there's been a battle between tech giants to offer the best generative AI tools. Musk joined that rat race when his AI company, xAI, rolled out ChatGPT rival Grok to Premium+ subscribers on his X social network last year.

When Altman swiftly returned to power after OpenAI's board shockingly fired him in November, he's said to have appointed a new group of directors that is less technically minded and more business-focused. Microsoft was appointed as a non-voting observer. “The new board consisted of members with more experience in profit-centric enterprises or politics than in AI ethics and governance,” the lawsuit alleges.

The suit accuses the defendants of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and unfair business practices. Musk is seeking a jury trial and a ruling that forces OpenAI to stick to its original non-profit mission. He also wants it to be banned from monetizing tech it developed as a non-profit for the benefit of OpenAI leadership as well as Microsoft and other partners.

Competition regulators in the US, the UK and European Union are said to be examining OpenAI's partnership with Microsoft. It was reported this week that the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating whether OpenAI misled investors. Several news organizations have sued OpenAI and Microsoft as well, alleging that ChatGPT repurposes their work "verbatim or nearly verbatim" without attribution, infringing upon their copyright in the process.

In a couple of internal memos seen by Bloomberg, OpenAI said it "categorically disagrees" with the lawsuit Musk has filed. Chief Strategy Officer Jason Kwon denied that OpenAI has become a "de facto subsidiary" of Microsoft and said that Musk's claims "may stem from [his] regrets about not being involved with the company today." Altman also said in another memo that Musk is his hero and that he misses the person he knew who competed with others by building better technology.

Update, March 02, 2023, 1:47AM ET: This story has been updated to include OpenAI's internal memos about the lawsuit.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/elon-musk-sues-openai-and-sam-altman-for-allegedly-ditching-non-profit-mission-160722736.html?src=rss

More news organizations sue OpenAI and Microsoft over copyright infringement

Legal claims are starting to pile up against Microsoft and OpenAI, as three more news sites have sued the firms over copyright infringement, The Verge reported. The Intercept, Raw Story and AlterNet filed separate lawsuits accusing ChatGPT of reproducing news content "verbatim or nearly verbatim" while stripping out important attribution like the author's name.

The sites, all represented by the same law firm, said that if ChatGPT trained on copyright material, it "would have learned to communicate that information when providing responses." Raw Story and AlterNet added that OpenAI and Microsoft must have known that the chatbot would be less popular and generate lower revenue if "users believed that ChatGPT responses violated third-party copyrights." 

The news organizations note in the lawsuit that OpenAI offers an opt-out system for website owners, meaning that the company must be aware of potential copyright infringement. Microsoft and OpenAI have also said that they'll defend customers against legal claims around copyright infringement that might arise from using their products, and even pay for incurred costs.

Late last year, The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement, saying it "seeks to hold them responsible for the billions of dollars in statutory and actual damages". OpenAI asked a court to dismiss that claim, saying the NYT took advantage of a ChatGPT bug that made it recite articles word for word.

The companies also face lawsuits from multiple non-fiction authors accusing them of "massive and deliberate theft of copyrighted works," and by comedian Sarah Silverman over similar claims. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/more-news-organizations-sue-openai-and-microsoft-over-copyright-infringement-061103178.html?src=rss

More news organizations sue OpenAI and Microsoft over copyright infringement

Legal claims are starting to pile up against Microsoft and OpenAI, as three more news sites have sued the firms over copyright infringement, The Verge reported. The Intercept, Raw Story and AlterNet filed separate lawsuits accusing ChatGPT of reproducing news content "verbatim or nearly verbatim" while stripping out important attribution like the author's name.

The sites, all represented by the same law firm, said that if ChatGPT trained on copyright material, it "would have learned to communicate that information when providing responses." Raw Story and AlterNet added that OpenAI and Microsoft must have known that the chatbot would be less popular and generate lower revenue if "users believed that ChatGPT responses violated third-party copyrights." 

The news organizations note in the lawsuit that OpenAI offers an opt-out system for website owners, meaning that the company must be aware of potential copyright infringement. Microsoft and OpenAI have also said that they'll defend customers against legal claims around copyright infringement that might arise from using their products, and even pay for incurred costs.

Late last year, The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement, saying it "seeks to hold them responsible for the billions of dollars in statutory and actual damages". OpenAI asked a court to dismiss that claim, saying the NYT took advantage of a ChatGPT bug that made it recite articles word for word.

The companies also face lawsuits from multiple non-fiction authors accusing them of "massive and deliberate theft of copyrighted works," and by comedian Sarah Silverman over similar claims. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/more-news-organizations-sue-openai-and-microsoft-over-copyright-infringement-061103178.html?src=rss

Nintendo lawsuit accuses Switch emulator creators of ‘piracy at a colossal scale’

Nintendo has filed a lawsuit against the creators of a popular Switch emulator called Yuzu, which gives users a way to play games developed for the platform on their PCs and Android devices. In the lawsuit shared by Game File's Stephen Totilo, the company argued that Yuzu violates the anti-circumvention and anti-trafficking provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). 

Nintendo explained that it protects its games with encryption and other security features meant to prevent people from playing pirated copies. Yuzu has the capability to defeat those security measures and to decrypt Nintendo games. "[W]ithout Yuzu's decryption of Nintendo's encryption, unauthorized copies of games could not be played on PCs or Android devices," the company wrote in its complaint. 

It's illegal to "circumvent technological measures put into place by copyright owners to protect against unlawful access to and copying of copyrighted works" under the DMCA, Nintendo continued. And distributing "software primarily designed to circumvent technological measures" also constitutes unlawful trafficking. The defendants are, thus, "facilitating piracy at a colossal scale," the lawsuit argued. This case could set a precedent for future lawsuits against emulators, which aren't illegal in and of them themselves. As Ars Technica notes, Nintendo's arguments are calling their very nature unlawful. 

To illustrate how much Yuzu has affected its business, Nintendo revealed in its complaint that The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom was illegally distributed a week and a half before its official release. It was apparently downloaded over a million times from pirated websites, which specifically noted that people can play the game file through Yuzu. The company also mentioned that Yuzu's creators are making money from their emulator. They're getting around $30,000 a month from their Patreon supporters and have earned around $50,000 from the paid version of their software on Google Play, so far. 

Nintendo is asking the court to stop Yuzu's creators from promoting and distributing the software. It's also asking for an unspecified amount in "equitable relief and damages."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/nintendo-lawsuit-accuses-switch-emulator-creators-of-piracy-at-a-colossal-scale-093157736.html?src=rss

Nintendo lawsuit accuses Switch emulator creators of ‘piracy at a colossal scale’

Nintendo has filed a lawsuit against the creators of a popular Switch emulator called Yuzu, which gives users a way to play games developed for the platform on their PCs and Android devices. In the lawsuit shared by Game File's Stephen Totilo, the company argued that Yuzu violates the anti-circumvention and anti-trafficking provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). 

Nintendo explained that it protects its games with encryption and other security features meant to prevent people from playing pirated copies. Yuzu has the capability to defeat those security measures and to decrypt Nintendo games. "[W]ithout Yuzu's decryption of Nintendo's encryption, unauthorized copies of games could not be played on PCs or Android devices," the company wrote in its complaint. 

It's illegal to "circumvent technological measures put into place by copyright owners to protect against unlawful access to and copying of copyrighted works" under the DMCA, Nintendo continued. And distributing "software primarily designed to circumvent technological measures" also constitutes unlawful trafficking. The defendants are, thus, "facilitating piracy at a colossal scale," the lawsuit argued. This case could set a precedent for future lawsuits against emulators, which aren't illegal in and of them themselves. As Ars Technica notes, Nintendo's arguments are calling their very nature unlawful. 

To illustrate how much Yuzu has affected its business, Nintendo revealed in its complaint that The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom was illegally distributed a week and a half before its official release. It was apparently downloaded over a million times from pirated websites, which specifically noted that people can play the game file through Yuzu. The company also mentioned that Yuzu's creators are making money from their emulator. They're getting around $30,000 a month from their Patreon supporters and have earned around $50,000 from the paid version of their software on Google Play, so far. 

Nintendo is asking the court to stop Yuzu's creators from promoting and distributing the software. It's also asking for an unspecified amount in "equitable relief and damages."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/nintendo-lawsuit-accuses-switch-emulator-creators-of-piracy-at-a-colossal-scale-093157736.html?src=rss