Tag Archives: Business

More non-fiction authors are suing OpenAI and Microsoft

Posted on by

In November, a group of non-fiction authors filed a lawsuit accusing OpenAI and Microsoft of using other people's intellectual property without permission to train the former's generative AI technology. Now, more non-fiction writers are suing the companies for using their work to train OpenAI's GPT large language models (LLM). Journalists Nicholas A. Basbanes and Nicholas Gage are accusing the defendants of "massive and deliberate theft of copyrighted works" by writers like them in a proposed class action lawsuit. 

Professional writers "have limited capital to fund their research" and "typically self-fund their projects," they said in their complaint. Meanwhile, the defendants have "ready access to billions in capital" and "simply stole" the plaintiffs' "copyrighted works to build another billion+ dollar commercial industry," they allege. Using copyrighted works is a "deliberate strategy" by the companies, the complaint reads, and not paying writers give the defendants "an even higher profit margin." The plaintiffs added that the companies could've explored alternative financing options, such as profit sharing, but have "decided to steal" instead. 

Basbanes and Gage are seeking "to represent a class of writers whose copyrighted work has been systematically pilfered" by the defendants. They're seeking up to $150,000 per infringed work in damages, as well as a permanent injunction "to prevent these harms from recurring." Basbanes is a "renowned authority on the history of books and book culture." Gage, according to the CNBC, had previously worked for the Times and The Wall Street Journal.

OpenAI is contending with a growing list of lawsuits filed by creatives accusing it of using their work without permission to train its LLMs, including one by fiction authors George R.R. Martin, John Grisham and Jodi Picoult. In late December 2023, The New York Times sued the company and its biggest backer, Microsoft, for using the newspaper's articles for AI training. An OpenAI representative told us at the time that both parties were engaged in "productive conversations" and that the lawsuit was unexpected.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/more-non-fiction-authors-are-suing-openai-and-microsoft-103046599.html?src=rss

SpaceX sues NLRB in an attempt to interrupt unfair labor case

Posted on by

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently accused SpaceX of unlawfully firing eight employees who wrote an open letter criticizing Elon Musk's behavior on social media, as well as the company's response to it. Now, according to Bloomberg, SpaceX is trying to stall the complaint's progress by suing the labor board. The company reportedly argues in its lawsuit that the complaint should be dismissed because the NLRB's structure is "unconstitutional." 

SpaceX's lawsuit attacks the way the labor board conducts its hearings. The NLRB uses its own administrative judges for its proceedings, and the company says that deprives it of its "constitutional right to trial by jury." Companies can appeal rulings by agency judges to NLRB members in Washington, and they could even go as far as to escalate their appeal to federal court. SpaceX apparently told the court that the case against it should be put on hold to prevent the company from having to go through "protracted administrative proceedings before an unconstitutionally structured agency."

The open letter at the center of this case called Musk's behavior on social media "a frequent source of distraction and embarrassment." It called out the executive's "harmful Twitter behavior," including a tweet wherein he made a joke about the sexual misconduct allegation made against him. The letter asked the company to hold all leadership accountable for their actions and to condemn harmful behavior. SpaceX fired a total of nine employees over the letter, the NLRB's complaint said, which means they were illegally fired for "engaging in protected concerted activity at work."

In its lawsuit, SpaceX said the open letter "caused significant distraction to SpaceX employees around the country" and that it fired the employees involved "for violating numerous company policies." As Reuters notes, the private space corporation used a similar tactic in the past to block the US Department of Justice from pursuing an administrative case that accused the company of discriminatory hiring practices. SpaceX also filed a lawsuit protesting the fact that the Justice Department's administrative judges have powers reserved for President-appointed officials even though they were only appointed by the US attorney general. The company successfully convinced the judge to pause the administrative case against it while its own lawsuit was ongoing. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/spacex-sues-nlrb-in-an-attempt-to-interrupt-unfair-labor-case-115553497.html?src=rss

NLRB accuses SpaceX of illegally firing workers for criticizing Elon Musk

Posted on by

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has filed a complaint against SpaceX, accusing it of unlawfully firing eight employees involved in writing a letter that called Elon Musk's behavior on social media "a frequent source of distraction and embarrassment." According to the filing, the company committed an unfair labor practice when it fired the workers for "engaging in protected concerted activity at work." It also accused SpaceX of interrogating at least one employee about the letter, as well as about the identities of their colleagues and the nature of their "concerted protected activity."

In addition, the complaint said SpaceX created an "impression of surveillance" by showing an employee screenshots of a Signal group chat several employees were a part of. The open letter at the center of this case was calling out Musk's "harmful Twitter behavior" before he acquired the website now known as X. In particular, the employees raised concerns about the crude jokes he made on X about the sexual misconduct accusations against him, which SpaceX settled for $250,000. The letter asked the company to hold leadership accountable for their actions and to condemn harmful behavior.

The employees involved in writing the letter circulated it within the company in mid-2022. According to The New York Times, SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell reprimanded them within a few hours of sending it out and told them to "stop flooding employee communication channels immediately." Five employees were reportedly fired the next day, and four others were fired over July and August. Only one of them didn't take part in filing the unfair labor practice complaint. "At SpaceX the rockets may be reusable, but the people who build them are treated as expendable," Paige Holland-Thielen, one of the fired employees, told The Times. "I am hopeful these charges will hold SpaceX and its leadership accountable for their long history of mistreating workers and stifling discourse."

The case is slated to go before an administrative judge on March 5, though the company could settle before it takes place. If the NLRB decides that the company has violated labor laws, it can order SpaceX to reinstate workers and to give them appropriate backpay. SpaceX could appeal the decision to the board and then to a federal court, though, so it could be a long journey for the employees involved. 

Musk has been at odds with the NLRB for years through his other companies. The board previously accused X of illegally firing an employee who pushed back against his return-to-office policy. Meanwhile, Tesla has dealt with several NLRB complaints, including one accusing the automaker of illegally terminating employees in retaliation for union activity.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/nlrb-accuses-spacex-of-illegally-firing-workers-for-criticizing-elon-musk-075244828.html?src=rss

US reportedly halted ASML’s chipmaking machine shipments to China weeks before ban

Posted on by

NVIDIA may have figured out a way to go around the US export restrictions on China, but apparently ASML, the Dutch firm behind the key chipmaking equipment, isn't having much say on this end. According to Bloomberg, Biden's administration reportedly reached out to ASML "weeks before" the January 1, 2024 export ban deadline, requesting the firm to halt some pre-scheduled shipments of its deep ultraviolet lithography (DUV) machines to its Chinese customers. This came after the revelation that SMIC used ASML tech to manufacture Huawei's latest flagship processor, the 7nm HiSilicon Kirin 9000S.

In addition to DUV machines, ASML also manufactures extreme ultraviolet lithography (EUV) machines for making more advanced chips — with node processes of 5nm or less — for the likes of Apple and Qualcomm. While ASML was never allowed to sell EUV equipment to China, the Dutch government did grant licenses to the firm for shipping DUV machines to China until the end of 2023.

Bloomberg reports that things changed when the US government — National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, specifically — allegedly contacted the Dutch government regarding some of ASML's final shipments to China, to which his team was asked to reach out to ASML directly. "Shipments of a limited number of machines" were affected.

While China had been able to source lithography machines from elsewhere, they tended to be off less advanced methods. Not to mention the joint effort between the US, Japan and the Netherlands on limiting China's access to such equipment. That said, China had since been pushed to beef up its own silicon ecosystem, to the point where it surprised the world with its homegrown 7nm mobile 5G chip. It's no wonder the US was desperate to halt ASML's final DUV shipments to China, though doing so before the agreed deadline may be a questionable move. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/us-reportedly-halted-asmls-chipmaking-machine-shipments-to-china-weeks-before-ban-075407978.html?src=rss

US reportedly halted ASML’s chipmaking machine shipments to China weeks before ban

Posted on by

NVIDIA may have figured out a way to go around the US export restrictions on China, but apparently ASML, the Dutch firm behind the key chipmaking equipment, isn't having much say on this end. According to Bloomberg, Biden's administration reportedly reached out to ASML "weeks before" the January 1, 2024 export ban deadline, requesting the firm to halt some pre-scheduled shipments of its deep ultraviolet lithography (DUV) machines to its Chinese customers. This came after the revelation that SMIC used ASML tech to manufacture Huawei's latest flagship processor, the 7nm HiSilicon Kirin 9000S.

In addition to DUV machines, ASML also manufactures extreme ultraviolet lithography (EUV) machines for making more advanced chips — with node processes of 5nm or less — for the likes of Apple and Qualcomm. While ASML was never allowed to sell EUV equipment to China, the Dutch government did grant licenses to the firm for shipping DUV machines to China until the end of 2023.

Bloomberg reports that things changed when the US government — National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, specifically — allegedly contacted the Dutch government regarding some of ASML's final shipments to China, to which his team was asked to reach out to ASML directly. "Shipments of a limited number of machines" were affected.

While China had been able to source lithography machines from elsewhere, they tended to be off less advanced methods. Not to mention the joint effort between the US, Japan and the Netherlands on limiting China's access to such equipment. That said, China had since been pushed to beef up its own silicon ecosystem, to the point where it surprised the world with its homegrown 7nm mobile 5G chip. It's no wonder the US was desperate to halt ASML's final DUV shipments to China, though doing so before the agreed deadline may be a questionable move. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/us-reportedly-halted-asmls-chipmaking-machine-shipments-to-china-weeks-before-ban-075407978.html?src=rss

Some Vizio TV owners can claim a share of a $3 million settlement over misleading marketing

Posted on by

Vizio TVs’ “effective” refresh rates have been confusing customers for years, and the company may now owe payments to some buyers who were misled by the term. As spotted by The Verge, Vizio recently agreed to settle a class action lawsuit in California over what plaintiffs claim is “false and misleading” advertising. While some Vizio TVs are marketed as having a “120Hz Effective Refresh Rate” or “240Hz Effective Refresh Rate,” that describes a result achieved using motion clarity technology. Their actual, native refresh rate in most cases is 60Hz.

Vizio has denied any wrongdoing on its part, but agreed to a $3 million settlement covering all Vizio TVs purchased in California that were advertised with the above descriptions, going back to April 30, 2014 and up until the final court judgment. The final approval hearing is right now set for June 20, 2024. People may be entitled to payments of up to $50, but claims must be in by March 30, 2024. The claim form can be found here. Vizio also agreed to stop marketing its TVs this way and to “provide enhanced services and a limited one-year warranty to all Settlement Class Members.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/some-vizio-tv-owners-can-claim-a-share-of-a-3-million-settlement-over-misleading-marketing-220925933.html?src=rss

Some Vizio TV owners can claim a share of a $3 million settlement over misleading marketing

Posted on by

Vizio TVs’ “effective” refresh rates have been confusing customers for years, and the company may now owe payments to some buyers who were misled by the term. As spotted by The Verge, Vizio recently agreed to settle a class action lawsuit in California over what plaintiffs claim is “false and misleading” advertising. While some Vizio TVs are marketed as having a “120Hz Effective Refresh Rate” or “240Hz Effective Refresh Rate,” that describes a result achieved using motion clarity technology. Their actual, native refresh rate in most cases is 60Hz.

Vizio has denied any wrongdoing on its part, but agreed to a $3 million settlement covering all Vizio TVs purchased in California that were advertised with the above descriptions, going back to April 30, 2014 and up until the final court judgment. The final approval hearing is right now set for June 20, 2024. People may be entitled to payments of up to $50, but claims must be in by March 30, 2024. The claim form can be found here. Vizio also agreed to stop marketing its TVs this way and to “provide enhanced services and a limited one-year warranty to all Settlement Class Members.”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/some-vizio-tv-owners-can-claim-a-share-of-a-3-million-settlement-over-misleading-marketing-220925933.html?src=rss

Federal judge rejects X’s claim that California’s content moderation law violates free speech

Posted on by

A federal judge in California has shot down Elon Musk’s attempt to invalidate a state social media law, first reported by The Verge. The state’s AB 587 requires social companies to publish their content moderation policies, something Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) claimed violated the First Amendment. US District Judge William Shubb wrote on Thursday, “It does not appear that the requirement is unjustified or unduly burdensome within the context of First Amendment law.”

X’s lawyers had argued the law was unconstitutional and would lead to censorship. AB 587 “has both the purpose and likely effect of pressuring companies such as X Corp. to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally-protected speech,” the company wrote in its lawsuit, filed in September. The company claimed the law’s “true intent” was to “pressure social media platforms to ‘eliminate’ certain constitutionally-protected content viewed by the State as problematic.”

Judge Shubb saw things differently. “The reports required by AB 587 are purely factual,” he wrote. “The reporting requirement merely requires social media companies to identify their existing content moderation policies, if any, related to the specified categories.”

He continued, “The required disclosures are also uncontroversial. The mere fact that the reports may be ‘tied in some way to a controversial issue’ does not make the reports themselves controversial.”

Shubb concluded that California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta met the burden of demonstrating the law was “reasonably related to a substantial government interest in requiring social media companies to be transparent about their content moderation policies and practices so that consumers can make informed decisions about where they consume and disseminate news and information.”

It’s been a rocky year for X in Musk’s first year of ownership. The company changed its name, hired a new CEO, launched a snarky AI chatbot, brought back a notorious conspiracy theorist and bled money as the ad industry got cold feet about brands sitting next to content from Nazi sympathizers. Oh, and the EU has opened formal infringement proceedings against the company formerly known as Twitter.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/federal-judge-rejects-xs-claim-that-californias-content-moderation-law-violates-free-speech-171713008.html?src=rss

Federal judge rejects X’s claim that California’s content moderation law violates free speech

Posted on by

A federal judge in California has shot down Elon Musk’s attempt to invalidate a state social media law, first reported by The Verge. The state’s AB 587 requires social companies to publish their content moderation policies, something Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) claimed violated the First Amendment. US District Judge William Shubb wrote on Thursday, “It does not appear that the requirement is unjustified or unduly burdensome within the context of First Amendment law.”

X’s lawyers had argued the law was unconstitutional and would lead to censorship. AB 587 “has both the purpose and likely effect of pressuring companies such as X Corp. to remove, demonetize, or deprioritize constitutionally-protected speech,” the company wrote in its lawsuit, filed in September. The company claimed the law’s “true intent” was to “pressure social media platforms to ‘eliminate’ certain constitutionally-protected content viewed by the State as problematic.”

Judge Shubb saw things differently. “The reports required by AB 587 are purely factual,” he wrote. “The reporting requirement merely requires social media companies to identify their existing content moderation policies, if any, related to the specified categories.”

He continued, “The required disclosures are also uncontroversial. The mere fact that the reports may be ‘tied in some way to a controversial issue’ does not make the reports themselves controversial.”

Shubb concluded that California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta met the burden of demonstrating the law was “reasonably related to a substantial government interest in requiring social media companies to be transparent about their content moderation policies and practices so that consumers can make informed decisions about where they consume and disseminate news and information.”

It’s been a rocky year for X in Musk’s first year of ownership. The company changed its name, hired a new CEO, launched a snarky AI chatbot, brought back a notorious conspiracy theorist and bled money as the ad industry got cold feet about brands sitting next to content from Nazi sympathizers. Oh, and the EU has opened formal infringement proceedings against the company formerly known as Twitter.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/federal-judge-rejects-xs-claim-that-californias-content-moderation-law-violates-free-speech-171713008.html?src=rss

Google agrees to settle $5 billion lawsuit accusing it of tracking Incognito users

Posted on by

In 2020, Google was hit with a lawsuit that accused it of tracking Chrome users' activities even when they were using Incognito mode. Now, after a failed attempt to get it dismissed, the company has agreed to settle the complaint that originally sought $5 billion in damages. According to Reuters and The Washington Post, neither side has made the details of the settlement public, but they've already agreed to the terms that they're presenting to the court for approval in February. 

When the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit, they said Google used tools like its Analytics product, apps and browser plug-ins to monitor users. They reasoned that by tracking someone on Incognito, the company was falsely making people believe that they could control the information that they were willing to share with it. At the time, a Google spokesperson said that while Incognito mode doesn't save a user's activity on their device, websites could still collect their information during the session. 

The lawsuit's plaintiffs presented internal emails that allegedly showed conversations between Google execs proving that the company monitored Incognito browser usage to sell ads and track web traffic. Their complaint accused Google of violating federal wire-tapping and California privacy laws and was asking up to $5,000 per affected user. They claimed that millions of people who'd been using Incognito since 2016 had likely been affected, which explains the massive damages they were seeking from the company. Google has likely agreed to settle for an amount lower than $5 billion, but it has yet to reveal details about the agreement and has yet to get back to Engadget with an official statement. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/google-agrees-to-settle-5-billion-lawsuit-accusing-it-of-tracking-incognito-users-042435935.html?src=rss