Tag Archives: Company Legal & Law Matters

Nintendo Palworld lawsuit seeks $65,700 in damages

Posted on by

Nintendo and the Pokémon Company are seeking approximately $65,700 in compensation from their lawsuit against Palworld developer Pocketpair. In a press release the studio issued on Friday, it said Nintendo and the Pokémon Company want ¥5 million each (plus late fees), for a total of ¥10 million or $65,700 in damages.

At first glance, that's a paltry amount of money to demand for copying one of the most successful gaming properties ever, particularly when you consider Tropic Haze, the creator of the now defunct Yuzu Switch emulator, agreed to pay $2.4 million to settle its recent case with Nintendo. While Nintendo and the Pokémon Company may have well wanted to sue for more, their legal approach may have limited their options somewhat.

As you might recall, when the two sued Pocketpair in September, they didn’t accuse it of copyright infringement. Instead, they went for patent infringement. On Friday, Pocketpair listed the three patents Nintendo and the Pokémon Company are accusing the studio of infringing. Per Bloomberg, they relate to gameplay elements found in most Pokémon games. For example, one covers the franchise’s signature battling mechanics, while another relates to how players can ride monsters.

Pokémon games have featured those mechanics since the start, but here’s the thing: all three patents were filed and granted to Nintendo and the Pokémon Company after Pocketpair released Palworld to early access on January 19, 2024. The earliest patent, for instance, was granted to Nintendo and the Pokémon Company on May 22, 2024, or nearly four months after Palworld first hit Steam and Xbox Game Pass.

According to Pocketpair, the two companies seek “compensation for a portion of the damages incurred between the date of registration of the patents and the date of filing of this lawsuit.” Put another way, it's a small window of time the suit targets. 

I’m not a lawyer, so I won’t comment on Nintendo’s strategy of attempting to enforce patents that were issued after Palworld was already on the market. However, I think it’s worth mentioning that Pocketpair CEO Takuro Mizobe had said before the game's release that Palworld had “cleared legal reviews,” suggesting the studio had looked at Nintendo's patent portfolio for possible points of conflict. In any case, the Tokyo District Court is scheduled to hear opening remarks from each side next week.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/gaming/nintendo/nintendo-palworld-lawsuit-seeks-65700-in-damages-163051523.html?src=rss

Researcher’s ‘unfollow everything’ lawsuit against Meta gets dismissed

Posted on by

A lawsuit from a researcher who tried to develop a browser extension for Facebook called “Unfollow Everything 2.0" has been dismissed for now, The New York Times reported. Ethan Zuckerman from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University attempted to use the Section 230 tech shield law in a novel way to force Meta to allow him to develop the tool that would wipe a Facebook user's feed clean. 

For background, Zuckerman was inspired by a 2021 project called "Unfollow Everything" that would have allowed people to use Facebook without the News Feed, or curate it to only show posts from specific people. However, Facebook sued the UK man who created that extension and permanently disabled his account. 

To avoid a similar fate, Zuckerman turned to Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. While that's mostly designed as a shield to protect tech platforms from illegal user activity, there's a separate clause protecting developers of third-party tools "that allow people to... block content they consider objectionable." He asked the court to recognize that clause and allow him to create the Unfollow Everything 2.0 browser extension without repercussions from Meta.

However, the court granted Meta's filing to dismiss the lawsuit, adding that the researcher could file it at a later date. "We’re disappointed the court believes Professor Zuckerman needs to code the tool before the court resolves the case," Zuckerman's lawyer said. "We continue to believe that Section 230 protects user-empowering tools, and look forward to the court considering that argument at a later time." A Meta spokesperson said the lawsuit was "baseless." 

Meta has shut down researchers before, disabling the Facebook accounts of an NYU team trying to study political ad targeting in 2021. Conversely, in 2022 Meta helped itself to 48 million science papers to train an AI system called Galactica, which was shut down after just two days for spewing misinformation. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/researchers-unfollow-everything-lawsuit-against-meta-gets-dismissed-133051131.html?src=rss

Researcher’s ‘unfollow everything’ lawsuit against Meta gets dismissed

Posted on by

A lawsuit from a researcher who tried to develop a browser extension for Facebook called “Unfollow Everything 2.0" has been dismissed for now, The New York Times reported. Ethan Zuckerman from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University attempted to use the Section 230 tech shield law in a novel way to force Meta to allow him to develop the tool that would wipe a Facebook user's feed clean. 

For background, Zuckerman was inspired by a 2021 project called "Unfollow Everything" that would have allowed people to use Facebook without the News Feed, or curate it to only show posts from specific people. However, Facebook sued the UK man who created that extension and permanently disabled his account. 

To avoid a similar fate, Zuckerman turned to Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. While that's mostly designed as a shield to protect tech platforms from illegal user activity, there's a separate clause protecting developers of third-party tools "that allow people to... block content they consider objectionable." He asked the court to recognize that clause and allow him to create the Unfollow Everything 2.0 browser extension without repercussions from Meta.

However, the court granted Meta's filing to dismiss the lawsuit, adding that the researcher could file it at a later date. "We’re disappointed the court believes Professor Zuckerman needs to code the tool before the court resolves the case," Zuckerman's lawyer said. "We continue to believe that Section 230 protects user-empowering tools, and look forward to the court considering that argument at a later time." A Meta spokesperson said the lawsuit was "baseless." 

Meta has shut down researchers before, disabling the Facebook accounts of an NYU team trying to study political ad targeting in 2021. Conversely, in 2022 Meta helped itself to 48 million science papers to train an AI system called Galactica, which was shut down after just two days for spewing misinformation. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/researchers-unfollow-everything-lawsuit-against-meta-gets-dismissed-133051131.html?src=rss

OpenAI wins first round against Raw Story and AlterNet copyright case

Posted on by

OpenAI is facing multiple lawsuits over its use of several publications' and books' content to train its large language models without explicit permission or proper compensation. A judge has just dismissed one of them. New York federal judge Colleen McMahon has dismissed the lawsuit filed by Raw Story and AlterNet, which accused the company of using their materials for AI training without consent. As VentureBeat notes, though, their complaint didn't argue that OpenAI infringed on their copyright like other publications' lawsuits do. Instead, it focused on the DMCA provision that protects "copyright management information."

The publications argued that OpenAI removed the author names, titles and other metadata identifying their copyright from the articles it used to train its LLMs. McMahon explained that the plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered "a cognizable injury" from those actions and that the harm they had cited was "not the type of harm that has been elevated" to warrant a lawsuit. The judge also said that "the likelihood that ChatGPT would output plagiarized content from one of [their] articles seems remote." She added that the plaintiffs are truly seeking redress for the use of their articles "to develop ChatGPT without compensation" and not for the removal of their copyright management information. 

Raw Story and AlterNet don't intend to back down, based on what their lawyer told Reuters. Matt Topic, their attorney, said they're "certain [they] can address the concerns the court identified through an amended complaint."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/openai-wins-first-round-against-raw-story-and-alternet-copyright-case-130027681.html?src=rss

OpenAI wins first round against Raw Story and AlterNet copyright case

Posted on by

OpenAI is facing multiple lawsuits over its use of several publications' and books' content to train its large language models without explicit permission or proper compensation. A judge has just dismissed one of them. New York federal judge Colleen McMahon has dismissed the lawsuit filed by Raw Story and AlterNet, which accused the company of using their materials for AI training without consent. As VentureBeat notes, though, their complaint didn't argue that OpenAI infringed on their copyright like other publications' lawsuits do. Instead, it focused on the DMCA provision that protects "copyright management information."

The publications argued that OpenAI removed the author names, titles and other metadata identifying their copyright from the articles it used to train its LLMs. McMahon explained that the plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered "a cognizable injury" from those actions and that the harm they had cited was "not the type of harm that has been elevated" to warrant a lawsuit. The judge also said that "the likelihood that ChatGPT would output plagiarized content from one of [their] articles seems remote." She added that the plaintiffs are truly seeking redress for the use of their articles "to develop ChatGPT without compensation" and not for the removal of their copyright management information. 

Raw Story and AlterNet don't intend to back down, based on what their lawyer told Reuters. Matt Topic, their attorney, said they're "certain [they] can address the concerns the court identified through an amended complaint."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/openai-wins-first-round-against-raw-story-and-alternet-copyright-case-130027681.html?src=rss

The name YouTube Shorts isn’t a trademark infringement, UK court rules

Posted on by

Be prepared, you might never read another article using the word "shorts" so many times again. Ready? A UK high court has ruled Google is free to use the word shorts (here we go!) for YouTube's platform Shorts. A British short films television channel called Shorts International, sued Google last year, arguing the name Shorts infringed on its existing trademark for the word, you guessed it, shorts. 

The court disagreed. "None of Google’s uses of signs including the word “shorts” gives rise to a likelihood of confusion as to origin," Judge Michael Tappin stated in his ruling. "While the similarities between Google’s signs and SIL’s trade marks will give rise to a link in the minds of the limited group of UK consumers amongst whom SIL’s trade marks have a reputation, Google’s uses of signs including the word “shorts” will not cause damage to the distinctive character or repute of SIL’s trade marks." 

YouTube Shorts launched in 2020 in response to the popularity of other short video platforms like TikTok. It reached over 1.5 billion monthly users two years later and can now show videos up to three minutes long — still pretty short (that's 12 short(s) for you).

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/the-name-youtube-shorts-isnt-a-trademark-infringement-uk-court-rules-150258393.html?src=rss

The name YouTube Shorts isn’t a trademark infringement, UK court rules

Posted on by

Be prepared, you might never read another article using the word "shorts" so many times again. Ready? A UK high court has ruled Google is free to use the word shorts (here we go!) for YouTube's platform Shorts. A British short films television channel called Shorts International, sued Google last year, arguing the name Shorts infringed on its existing trademark for the word, you guessed it, shorts. 

The court disagreed. "None of Google’s uses of signs including the word “shorts” gives rise to a likelihood of confusion as to origin," Judge Michael Tappin stated in his ruling. "While the similarities between Google’s signs and SIL’s trade marks will give rise to a link in the minds of the limited group of UK consumers amongst whom SIL’s trade marks have a reputation, Google’s uses of signs including the word “shorts” will not cause damage to the distinctive character or repute of SIL’s trade marks." 

YouTube Shorts launched in 2020 in response to the popularity of other short video platforms like TikTok. It reached over 1.5 billion monthly users two years later and can now show videos up to three minutes long — still pretty short (that's 12 short(s) for you).

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/the-name-youtube-shorts-isnt-a-trademark-infringement-uk-court-rules-150258393.html?src=rss

A fired Disney employee allegedly altered menus to change allergy markers

Posted on by

As someone allergic to a big sect of food (hey gluten free eaters!), I know how important accurate allergy markers are on a menu. Yet, a new criminal complaint alleges that a former Disney World employee intentionally altered a menu's allergy information to state foods didn't contain peanuts that, in fact, did, 404 Media and Court Watch reported in collaboration. 

The complaint alleges that Michael Scheuer was fired by Disney and then used still viable passwords to access a third-party created proprietary menu creation and inventory system. Over the course of his misdoings, he allegedly changed the allergy information along with adding profanity, altering prices and changing the font to Wingdings. Those wingdings were what initially tipped off employees. All menus in the database were deemed unusable and the application went offline for one to two weeks to fix the issues.

Disney changed the passwords, but then Scheuer allegedly broke into multiple of the third-party company's FTPs, to change the allergy markers and altered QR codes from directing to a menu to a boycott Israel website. He also tried to break into Disney employees' accounts nearly 8,000 times. Disney claims that the altered menus were identified before being shipped out to restaurants. 

This case is unrelated to a doctor who died of an allergic reaction after eating at a Disney Springs restaurant last year. Notably, Disney tried to get a lawsuit filed by the doctor's husband thrown out in August, alleging that he had agreed to settle lawsuits out of court through arbitration. The reason? He had signed a terms of service for a one-month Disney+ trial in 2019 and again when making an account to buy park tickets. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/a-fired-disney-employee-allegedly-altered-menus-to-change-allergy-markers-161549481.html?src=rss

Brazil sues Meta and TikTok for over $500 million for not protecting minors

Posted on by

Meta and TikTok are once again in hot water for allegedly failing to protect minors or limit their use on the platforms. The Collective Defense Institute, a consumer rights group in Brazil, has issued two lawsuits against Meta, TikTok and Kwai, another short video platform from China, to the sound of three billion reais ($525.8 million), Reuters reports. 

The lawsuits pull from some of the (many) studies demonstrating the risk of social media use. It orders Meta and co. to clearly issue warnings about how platform addiction can negatively impact minors' mental health. It also calls for the companies to lay out detailed data protection mechanisms. 

"It is urgent that measures be adopted in order to change the way the algorithm works, the processing of data from users under 18, and the way in which teenagers aged 13 and over are supervised and their accounts created, in order to ensure a safer, healthier experience...as is already the case in developed countries," said Lillian Salgado, a lawyer and one of the plaintiffs.

This is far from the first lawsuit for Meta or TikTok regarding the safety of minors. In late 2023, New Mexico sued Meta for not protecting children in a claim that both Facebook and Instagram suggested sexual content to minors. One month later it was revealed that, in a 2021 internal memo, Meta had found over 100,000 child users faced daily harassment. Yet, Meta executives rejected recommended algorithm redesigns. Earlier this month, 14 attorneys general sued TikTok for "falsely claiming its platform is safe for young people." These are just two of the many suits filed against social media platforms for not protecting young users.

Meta recently created teen accounts on Instagram that are mandatory for all users under 16. They have stricter privacy settings and require parent approval for any changes. However, these accounts are not yet available in Brazil — though Meta claims they will be soon. 

A statement from Meta said it wants "young people to have safe and age-appropriate experiences on our apps, and we have been working on these issues for over a decade, developing more than 50 tools, resources, and features to support teens and their guardians." 

Notably, Brazil has recently squared off with Elon Musk's X (formerly Twitter) for refusing to block profiles that the government claimed promoted election misinformation. The company eventually paid a 28 million reais ($4.9 million fine).

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/brazil-sues-meta-and-tiktok-for-over-500-million-for-not-protecting-minors-154518826.html?src=rss

Dutch police say they’ve taken down Redline and Meta credential stealer malware

Posted on by

Today, Dutch National Police announced that it had gained access to the servers of Redline and Meta. Not to be confused with Facebook parent company Meta, Redline and Meta are a type of malware known as infostealers criminals can use to obtain the credentials of users and companies. Operation Magnus, a joint effort by Dutch National Police, the FBI, NCIS and several other law enforcement agencies, disrupted the illegal tools.

TechCrunch notes that Redline has been active since 2020, while the Operation Magnus website states that Meta is newer but “pretty much the same.” A 50-second video in English posted to the Operation Magnus website also lists some “VIPs” or people “very important to the police” that the authorities are looking for.

Redline is often cited as the malware responsible for the 2022 Uber hack. Specops, a password management company, found that Redline was used to steal almost half of the 170 million passwords from data gathered by KrakenLabs. Even gamers aren’t immune to Redline; McAfee found that a variant was hidden in fake game cheats.

The video showed the agencies accessing user credentials, IP addresses and Telegram bots criminals use to steal sensitive data. Additionally, authorities found the source code for both malware programs on the servers.

While there isn’t news of any arrests being made, the Operation Magnus website states that “involved parties will be notified, and legal actions are underway.” There’s also a countdown for almost 20 hours later, promising more news to come.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/cybersecurity/dutch-police-say-theyve-taken-down-redline-and-meta-credential-stealer-malware-161531556.html?src=rss