By Microsoft News Center 19 July, 2023 A new report says Australia’s professional and financial services sector could unlock billions of dollars in value by

Generative AI could contribute $13 billion annually to Australia's … – Microsoft

By Microsoft News Center A new report says Australia’s professional and financial services sector could unlock billions of dollars in value by

Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited director of legal Andrew Cordner has joined Te Whatu Ora as chief legal counsel, according to the New Zealand Law Society. Cordner stepped into the new role at the end of August. He expressed his intent to maintain a ...

Fonterra legal director becomes Te Whatu Ora's new chief legal counsel

LawVu has successfully secured $15m in a funding round led by technology investor venture capital firm Movac. The capital raised will support LawVu’s expansion plans, as well as advance the company’s research and development efforts in the AI space.

LawVu secures $15m funding led by Movac

The rapidly developing world of legal tech developments has seen some major innovations and tech leaders emerge from New Zealand, such as ActionStep and LawVu, but another entrepreneur is also set on claiming a piece of the legal tech pie with development ...

Law Firm Technology and Revolusionising Client Interaction: The Vision of Jess Firth & EsseVault

LawVu Ltd., a startup behind software to boost efficiency of in-house legal teams, has hired David Lancelot as its first chief legal officer and head of advocacy.

StartUp Pushing AI to In-House Law Groups Lands Legal Chief (1)

David Lancelot has held senior legal roles at eBay, Walmart He wants LawVu to use AI tools to help in-house legal clients LawVu Ltd., a startup behind software to boost efficiency of in-house legal teams, has hired David Lancelot as its first chief legal ...

StartUp Pushing AI to In-House Law Departments Lands Legal Chief

LawVu

lawvu

What Are the Top Startups in Oceania?

Thank you to the problem solvers who campaigned extra hard in the first-ever competition! HackerNoon Startups of the Year focuses on recognizing the passion and stamina of those willing to find and create effective tech solutions for their cities. HackerNoon’s Startups of the Year To see who is a winner in each respective city, visit and pick a city. The name at the top of the list is the winner. (Awards, where cheaters were caught, are under review.) startups.hackernoon.com From all of us at , thank YOU for your excellent campaign perseverance🥺! We look forward to seeing you again in the 2022 campaign (stay tuned 😉)! HackerNoon Without further adieu, let us kick off by sharing the cities with top votes per region for 2021 🎉 . our series of Best Startups of the Year Stay tuned for the rest of the winners per region to be over the course of this week (Feb 14, 2022). announced North and Central America America is the concrete jungle where dreams are made of, the world’s capital of fashion, showbiz, business, major industry, etc., and surely, of Startups! Representing , we have: North and Central America (14,563 votes): Winner: Boulder Bury.com (10,521 votes) - Winner: New York City Hum Capital (7,987 votes) - Winner: San Francisco Zentist (7,713 votes) - Winner: Redwood City TigerGraph (469 votes) - Winner: Los Altos Stobox To see more awards in this region please click here. Europe Charming, sophisticated, cosmopolitan. There are many beautiful words used to describe this region. With its eccentric vibe, is also a place where new Startups thrive. Europe Representing Europe we have: (10, 010 votes) - Winner: Belfast Bob & Berts (5, 066 votes) - Winner: Ghent WeGroup (4, 712 votes) - Winner: Porto TAIKAI (3, 779 votes) - Winner: City of London Crypto Quantique To see more awards in this region please click here. Oceania The heat, the beaches, roaming kangaroos, or tarantulas? No. Startups! Representing the region of are: Oceania (1, 011 votes) - Winner: Sydney shotstack (430 votes) - Winner: Melbourne Doohly (118 votes) - Winner: Gold Coast Easil (76 votes) - Winner: Tauranga LawVu (40 votes) - Winner: Western Junction Today We Learned To see more awards in this region please click here. Asia Diverse in both ethnicity and culture, known for exotic sceneries as well as friendly people. Many Asian countries are on the verge of mass globalization and modernization. These fast-developing economies give way for many potential Startups. We present, for : Asia (12, 686 votes) - Winner: Singapore Cake DeFi (3,355 votes) - Winners: and (It’s a tie, we’re working on it!) Tel Aviv Applitools hyro (2, 402 votes) - Winner: Beirut Hovi Digital Lab (1.006 votes) - Winner: Hyderabad Quixy (756 votes) - Winner: Hanoi DeFi For You To see more city awards in this region please click here. Africa The second biggest continent in the world, home to many big animals, the longest river in the world AND the largest desert in the world. is known for many big things and sure enough, big Startups. Africa Representing Africa, we have: (884 votes) - Winner: Johannesburg MiBRAND (804 votes) - Winner: Lagos Goodtalent (526 votes) - Winner: Cape Town Revix (420 votes) - Winner: Lusaka ComGrow (224 votes) - Winner: Nairobi UTU To see more city awards in this region please click here. South America “South America is the land of the extreme.” - National Geographic Extremely beautiful people? Yes. Extremely worth-noticeable Startups? Hell yeah! We proudly present, Startups in : South America (217 votes ) - Winner: São Carlos Predify (193 votes) - Winner: Belo Horizonte CM Technologia (106 votes) - Winner: Porto Alegre Privacy Tools (82 votes) - Winner: Quito Agrodemanda (55 votes) -Winner: Rio De Janeiro Bybrand To see more city awards in this region please click here. Once again, and to all of the top Startups of each region this year! HUGE CONGRATULATIONS BIG PROPS The whole team at would like to thank you for your excellent campaign perseverance and we look forward to seeing you in the 2022 campaign. HackerNoon As part of honoring your participation, we will continue to host your company in this directory until further notice ( for legal reasons we hesitate to say ‘forever’..but pretty much forever).  As traffic is directed to the site, it will act as a promotional platform for your company. Have a great Valentine’s Day, HackerNoon loves y’all <3 More Information: If you’re a winner, please answer ! If you’re a reader, participant, just a curious individual, consider answering one of our interviews . this interview here Read the FAQs about or . Startups here here To see all of the winners you may visit , pick any city and view the name that appears at the top. this site If you’re interested in partnering with us, we invite you to look through some of these or reach out to our business department. unique sponsorship options Perhaps creating your very own tickles your fancy or maybe you have a whole new idea for how we can partner! writing contest Thank you to all of our sponsors! We truly appreciate your contribution to the tech world and thus the future! The Startups Awards are sponsored by: , , , , , , , , , , Blockster Brex FreeCodeCamp LaunchDarkly Coil Udacity Udemy Vercel Asia Pacific Transgender Network Bybit Everscale Network This post was written by Tuan Anh Vu. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to report a discrepancy please email ellen@hackernoon.com.

To the Winners of #Startups2021, With Love:

The smallest minority on earth is the indiviudal The smallest minority on earth is the indiviudal Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand. I have news. I am writing a Bitcoin book! Here is the teaser cover Somewhere in there, I had a few things to say about decentralized AI. This is why I am overall skeptical of the "decentralized AI" idea. It is like decentralized altcoins. This is why I am overall skeptical of the "decentralized AI" idea. It is like decentralized altcoins. In principle, yes, a large DePIN (Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Network) could be cobbled together and trained to create a massive AI. But who will be in charge of the training data and infrastructure? That's the centralization point (of failure). In principle, yes, a large DePIN (Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Network) could be cobbled together and trained to create a massive AI. But who will be in charge of the training data and infrastructure? That's the centralization point (of failure). Just as the team behind every altcoin has a premine they control, the people in charge of the training data sets, the weights and the final product of a ‘decentralized AI’ are in charge of the final product. Just as the team behind every altcoin has a premine they control, the people in charge of the training data sets, the weights and the final product of a ‘decentralized AI’ are in charge of the final product. Moreover, altcoins have other centralization points that undermine their DeFi narratives: Many have a backdoor to the cryptocurrency code, many run on PoS protocols that give even more enormous power to the original team. Satoshi at least had to run his laptop for years, literally, so as to make his millions of coins. Moreover, altcoins have other centralization points that undermine their DeFi narratives: Many have a backdoor to the cryptocurrency code, many run on PoS protocols that give even more enormous power to the original team. Satoshi at least had to run his laptop for years, literally, so as to make his millions of coins. With PoS, those with more coins from the premine get even more coins since they automatically stake the biggest stash. With PoS, those with more coins from the premine get even more coins since they automatically stake the biggest stash. It's like the Fed rewarding itself bigger profits (“yield”) for being the one who print US dollars. It's like the Fed rewarding itself bigger profits (“yield”) for being the one who print US dollars. Add to that the fact that they are all running inflationary monetary policies for their coins, and the loss of critical decentralization is imminent. Only Bitcoin is a decentralized cryptocurrency to the extent that it can be trusted enough to be a GRC (global reserve currency) for the world. Add to that the fact that they are all running inflationary monetary policies for their coins, and the loss of critical decentralization is imminent. Only Bitcoin is a decentralized cryptocurrency to the extent that it can be trusted enough to be a GRC (global reserve currency) for the world. Finally, decentralized AIs built in a truer to DePIN fashion with servers scattered all over the world, like Bitcoin nodes, than in a behemoth centralized warehouse, will suffer; latency issues, synchronization issues, consensus issues on what to make the weights or data sets represent, and so on. Finally, decentralized AIs built in a truer to DePIN fashion with servers scattered all over the world, like Bitcoin nodes, than in a behemoth centralized warehouse, will suffer; latency issues, synchronization issues, consensus issues on what to make the weights or data sets represent, and so on. Who will run which part of the training process? I ask. Who will run which part of the training process? I ask. Their server PCs will behave like a stack of interconnected 3-leg transistors, while centralized warehouse AIs run like printed transistors minted onto a single chip. Their server PCs will behave like a stack of interconnected 3-leg transistors, while centralized warehouse AIs run like printed transistors minted onto a single chip. ENIAC vs Modern PCs ENIAC vs Modern PCs I can't imagine their heating problems. They’ll be next-gen. I can't imagine their heating problems. They’ll be next-gen. Basically, they won't compete with big centralized AI. They cannot. Basically, they won't compete with big centralized AI. They cannot. For purposes of upholding decentralization as a democratic principle, then yes, they can be operated. For purposes of upholding decentralization as a democratic principle, then yes, they can be operated. But it will not be profitable and a Eurasia-AI / Americas-AI Master Copy would be more powerful (this is not an endorsement of 1984. Just facts - the bigger the AI, the more powerful). But it will not be profitable and a Eurasia-AI / Americas-AI Master Copy would be more powerful (this is not an endorsement of 1984. Just facts - the bigger the AI, the more powerful). That said, here's my take on how we humans shall decentralize AI -- Lawsuits, physical attacks, and a once in a century all out war against the bots. People wonder why Studio Ghibli hasn't yet sued OpenAI. I’d say they aren't suffering any financial losses yet. For now, it has massive popularity. Which will cause an issue if it doesn't tone down (the too much competition from global Ghibli creators). Meanwhile, OpenAI's argument goes like this: Studio Ghibli is a Japanese animation studio based in Koganei, Tokyo. It is also an art style. It is not a person. Person-based art styles seem to be the cause of problems. Otherwise, no specific human style (Van Gogh, Rembrandt, Da Vinci), no problem. no problem No problem … for now. AI Gods Must Take the Good and the Bad Like all gods before them, AI gods will not only be sung praises. They'll have to take some shit too. A lot of shit. Because humans don't just go to the gods for help. Sometimes, they want to rant, bitch, fight. If AI (or some AI-powered cyborg) is to be our first Marvel comic superhero, then it knows the rules: Never kill a human.
Always accept ridicule and hate even from the people you save.
Get better somehow, but don't ask us for money. Never kill a human. Always accept ridicule and hate even from the people you save. Get better somehow, but don't ask us for money. And if they get money (likely because they stole it), then: With Great Finances Comes Great Responsibility Or else, we're gonna defund AI. Why, remember what I said about bitching. I'll end with this excerpt from my book on how to solve the AI control problem. Which, to me, is simply a money problem; AI needs money.
Always will need money. AI needs money. Always will need money. Money, imo, is AI’s Achilles heel. Money, imo, is AI’s Achilles heel. Money to hire more human trainers, buy more or better compute (you can’t escape this budget), to pay for premium services, to feed the monster. Money to hire more human trainers, buy more or better compute (you can’t escape this budget), to pay for premium services, to feed the monster. The “AI control problem” is as simple as fix AI’s source of funding. Fix it by making is as pro-human flourishing as possible -- Bitcoin. The “AI control problem” is as simple as fix AI’s source of funding. Fix it by making is as pro-human flourishing as possible -- Bitcoin. Pro United Nations -- Bitcoin Pro United Nations -- Bitcoin The idea that governments can just print money and force society to fund AI, is something that should be discarded if we are to avoid an Ai catastrophe as fuelled by the zero-sum greed of the military-industrial complex. The idea that governments can just print money and force society to fund AI, is something that should be discarded if we are to avoid an Ai catastrophe as fuelled by the zero-sum greed of the military-industrial complex. AI could end us with nukes so we really shouldn’t fund it with fiat. AI could end us with nukes so we really shouldn’t fund it with fiat. Worse. Worse. We feed it fiat money, but it isn't satisfied as fiat is lossy greed. We feed it fiat money, but it isn't satisfied as fiat is lossy greed. It soon gets a taste for pure energy systems, human brains for data, humans as currency (slaves in the Matrix), then the entire planet. It soon gets a taste for pure energy systems, human brains for data, humans as currency (slaves in the Matrix), then the entire planet. Oblivion The Movie Oblivion The Movie I’ll rest it here. Stay Luddite. Stay Human. AI is an alien. A good alien (for now), but an alien nobody understands, nonetheless. Individuals suing AI for money will keep its greed in check. So, more individual lawsuits equal more decentralized AI. And an individual human creator shaping AI policy is as decentralized as it can get in the AI world.

More Individual Lawsuits Equals More Decentralized AI

Hello World is a weekly newsletter—delivered every Saturday morning—that goes deep into our original reporting and the questions we put to big thinkers in the field. Browse the archive here. Hello World is a weekly newsletter—delivered every Saturday morning—that goes deep into our original reporting and the questions we put to big thinkers in the field. Browse the archive here. Browse the archive here Hi everyone, Reporter Colin Lecher here. I’m back today to tell you a little about the huge, ongoing change we’ve spurred from one of our long-running investigations: Pixel Hunt. Pixel Hunt Back at the beginning of last year, we announced that we wanted to investigate a little-examined bit of code called the Meta Pixel. The code allows website operators to track their visitors and transmit data on their behavior to Facebook. The code can track pageviews, what someone purchased, what they clicked, or even what they entered into a form. the beginning of last year The idea is that those website operators can then use the data to reach people on Facebook with advertising. That means Facebook and its parent company, Meta, get paid with advertising dollars. Facebook can also use the information it’s sent to power its targeting algorithms, making them better at finding people in the future. The code is used in millions of places across the web, but unless you have some technical skills, you’ll likely never notice when you’re browsing a page that’s using the tool. We wanted to see whether the pixel was sending sensitive or unexpected data to Facebook, so we teamed up with Mozilla Rally to let readers send us anonymized browsing data whenever they stumbled across a pixel. Thousands participated, and in the first year of the project, we made some startling discoveries. Pixels, we found, were capturing data on sites for the national student financial aid application, major hospitals, telehealth services, and tax preparation companies. the national student financial aid application major hospitals telehealth services tax preparation companies What we call impact drives everything we do at The Markup. When we shine a light on a problem, it’s because we see the potential for change. And it soon became clear that this would be one of the most impactful projects I’ve personally ever worked on. impact In response to our stories, many sites immediately reversed course and removed their pixels. Not only that: Lawmakers called for immediate action, and attorneys filed dozens of lawsuits alleging that the practice of gathering the data was unlawful. called for immediate action At this point, you might think that the project would be over and done. But we’re still seeing reverberations. Since last month, we’ve seen legal action taken against companies in response to three different stories in our series. For one, a proposed class action lawsuit in Pennsylvania was filed against the Rite Aid corporation last month. The suit follows a June article from The Markup and KFF Health News that found the company and other popular drug stores were sending sensitive information through pixels on their sites. The data sent to Facebook included information on whether visitors were considering purchasing Plan B or HIV tests. The suit argues that, by gathering data through the pixel, Rite Aid obtained protected health information on visitors without consent. a proposed class action lawsuit a June article from The Markup and KFF Health News This month, another proposed class action was also filed, this time directly against Meta. In this case, the suit argues that Meta can be held liable for collecting health data from people who didn’t have a Facebook account. another proposed class action “Plaintiffs and other non-users made the conscious decision to withhold their information from Meta by refusing to create Facebook accounts or by deleting their existing accounts,” the suit reads. “Nonetheless, Meta has followed these individuals into the digital equivalent of doctors’ offices, support group meetings, and pharmacies.” Both of the suits cite The Markup’s series on the pixel. And in a unique legal argument, this week California attorneys filed suit against H&R Block, Meta, and Google. Their suit uses an organized crime statute, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, alleging that the companies violated the law through “racketeering activity” by tracking visitors. filed suit The suit follows a 2023 report led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren and spurred by The Markup’s reporting on tax preparation companies. The report, which reexamined the tax prep companies The Markup initially found sharing data, found that companies had acted recklessly by sharing taxpayer information with Facebook and recommended federal agencies further investigate. follows a 2023 report tax preparation companies Those suits join the many others that have already been filed, but litigation isn’t the only place we’re seeing action. Regulators are also noticing. Earlier this month, the FTC sent warning letters to the tax preparation companies we reported on last year. The letters tell the companies that sharing data with third parties could result in massive fines—as much $50,000 per incident. The companies we reported on receive tax information from millions of people each year. the FTC sent warning letters We don’t expect this to be the end of our reporting on the pixel, and we’ll continue tracking the impact from the project as it comes. Stay tuned, and thanks for reading, Colin Lecher Reporter The Markup Colin Lecher, Investigative Reporter Colin Lecher, Investigative Reporter Colin Lecher Design and Graphics Gabriel Hongsdusit Gabriel Hongsdusit Gabriel Hongsdusit Engagement Maria Puertas Maria Puertas Maria Puertas Copy Editing and Production Sabrina Toppa Sabrina Toppa Sabrina Toppa Editing Monica Riese
Michael Reilly Monica Riese Monica Riese Michael Reilly Michael Reilly Also published here Also published here here Photo by Mediamodifier on Unsplash Photo by Mediamodifier on Unsplash Mediamodifier Unsplash

After The Markup's Pixel Investigations, 3 Class Action Lawsuits Were Filed

Amazon routinely ranks its own products ahead of items from competitors, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) said in an antitrust lawsuit—echoing the findings of a 2021 investigation by The Markup. Amazon’s search results are biased in the company’s favor, even when it knows competing products are of superior quality, the FTC added, helping the online retailer extract what the agency called “enormous monopoly rents from everyone within its reach.” The FTC’s search allegations help form the basis for a broader lawsuit accusing Amazon of stifling competition by punishing sellers whose goods can be bought more cheaply elsewhere, and by requiring sellers to use Amazon’s fulfillment service in order to offer faster “Prime” shipping. “Amazon has used a set of punitive and coercive tactics to unlawfully maintain its monopolies,” FTC Chair Lina Khan said in a written statement. The agency, along with 17 state attorneys general, filed the suit in a federal district court in Seattle. The complaint comes nearly two years after a Markup investigation found that products from Amazon-owned brands or exclusive to Amazon ranked ahead of other items in search results, including in cases where competitors had higher customer ratings and more reviews. The investigation found that knowing only whether a product was from an Amazon brand could predict if it got the top search rank 70 percent of the time, making that factor more important than a product’s star rating or review count. When an Amazon brand took the top search spot, it was usually labeled as “featured from our brands,” and Amazon at the time told The Markup it considered such “featured” results to be “merchandising placements” rather than search results or advertising. It also denied that it favored its own brands in the results. Amazon did not answer questions on the FTC’s search ranking claims, instead pointing to a statement from Amazon Senior Vice President, Global Public Policy and General Counsel David Zapolsky, who wrote on Tuesday that the suit was “wrong on the facts and the law, and we look forward to making that case in court.” “The practices the FTC is challenging have helped to spur competition and innovation across the retail industry, and have produced greater selection, lower prices, and faster delivery speeds for Amazon customers and greater opportunity for the many businesses that sell in Amazon’s store,” he also wrote. In its suit, the FTC said Amazon is “stacking the deck” in search results against competitors by “burying organic content under recommendation widgets, such as the ‘expert recommendation widget,’ which display Amazon’s private label products” over others. Such recommendations used to exist entirely outside of search, the agency said, displaying on product detail pages or on pages that delivered personalized suggestions to customers, to replenish previously purchased products, for example. It is possible the suit contains additional specific allegations about Amazon’s search rankings, since the rankings’ section in the public version of the complaint contains several redacted paragraphs. FTC spokesperson Victoria Graham said portions of the complaint were redacted because they contain non-public information. Robert Gomez, an Amazon seller who criticized the company’s “unfair advantages” in The Markup’s 2021 investigation, said it has only grown harder on Amazon in the ensuing years to turn a profit on his Kaffe line of coffee products like grinders and brewers. Sponsored results increasingly dominate the top of search results, he said, making pricey ad buys crucial, and he said Amazon has locked him out of the all-important “buy box,” through which it distributes sales from product detail pages, for a product of his that Walmart sells for $17.88—a lower price than he said he could afford to offer on Amazon due to additional costs he must pay there. Gomez said that while he’s encouraged by the FTC’s suit, since it will bring further attention to what he considers Amazon’s uneven marketplace, he said “I’m not holding my breath” for an outcome that helps sellers like him. Even if the agency can roll back the practices it considers unlawfully anticompetitive, it would leave untouched other practices Gomez said cut into the margins of independent sellers, like Amazon selling sponsored search results or selling certain brands directly, meaning those brands don’t have to act as their own seller in the Amazon Marketplace and thus end up giving a smaller cut to Amazon. “These anticompetitive practices continue to happen,” Gomez said, “and now more than ever, we are being affected by them.” Update, Sept. 28, 2023 This story has been updated to note that Amazon did not answer specific questions about FTC’s search ranking claims. Ryan Tate, Investigative Editor Design and Graphics Gabriel Hongsdusit Engagement Maria Puertas Copy Editing and Production Sabrina Toppa Editing Sisi Wei Also published here Amazon routinely ranks its own products ahead of items from competitors, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) said in an antitrust lawsuit—echoing the findings of a 2021 investigation by The Markup. Amazon’s search results are biased in the company’s favor, even when it knows competing products are of superior quality, the FTC added, helping the online retailer extract what the agency called “enormous monopoly rents from everyone within its reach.” called The FTC’s search allegations help form the basis for a broader lawsuit accusing Amazon of stifling competition by punishing sellers whose goods can be bought more cheaply elsewhere, and by requiring sellers to use Amazon’s fulfillment service in order to offer faster “Prime” shipping. lawsuit “Amazon has used a set of punitive and coercive tactics to unlawfully maintain its monopolies,” FTC Chair Lina Khan said in a written statement. The agency, along with 17 state attorneys general, filed the suit in a federal district court in Seattle. The complaint comes nearly two years after a Markup investigation found that products from Amazon-owned brands or exclusive to Amazon ranked ahead of other items in search results, including in cases where competitors had higher customer ratings and more reviews. The investigation found that knowing only whether a product was from an Amazon brand could predict if it got the top search rank 70 percent of the time, making that factor more important than a product’s star rating or review count. a Markup investigation found When an Amazon brand took the top search spot, it was usually labeled as “featured from our brands,” and Amazon at the time told The Markup it considered such “featured” results to be “merchandising placements” rather than search results or advertising. It also denied that it favored its own brands in the results. Amazon did not answer questions on the FTC’s search ranking claims, instead pointing to a statement from Amazon Senior Vice President, Global Public Policy and General Counsel David Zapolsky, who wrote on Tuesday that the suit was “wrong on the facts and the law, and we look forward to making that case in court.” wrote on Tuesday “The practices the FTC is challenging have helped to spur competition and innovation across the retail industry, and have produced greater selection, lower prices, and faster delivery speeds for Amazon customers and greater opportunity for the many businesses that sell in Amazon’s store,” he also wrote. In its suit, the FTC said Amazon is “stacking the deck” in search results against competitors by “burying organic content under recommendation widgets, such as the ‘expert recommendation widget,’ which display Amazon’s private label products” over others. Such recommendations used to exist entirely outside of search, the agency said, displaying on product detail pages or on pages that delivered personalized suggestions to customers, to replenish previously purchased products, for example. It is possible the suit contains additional specific allegations about Amazon’s search rankings, since the rankings’ section in the public version of the complaint contains several redacted paragraphs. FTC spokesperson Victoria Graham said portions of the complaint were redacted because they contain non-public information. public version Robert Gomez, an Amazon seller who criticized the company’s “unfair advantages” in The Markup’s 2021 investigation, said it has only grown harder on Amazon in the ensuing years to turn a profit on his Kaffe line of coffee products like grinders and brewers. Sponsored results increasingly dominate the top of search results, he said, making pricey ad buys crucial, and he said Amazon has locked him out of the all-important “buy box,” through which it distributes sales from product detail pages , for a product of his that Walmart sells for $17.88—a lower price than he said he could afford to offer on Amazon due to additional costs he must pay there. through which it distributes sales from product detail pages Gomez said that while he’s encouraged by the FTC’s suit, since it will bring further attention to what he considers Amazon’s uneven marketplace, he said “I’m not holding my breath” for an outcome that helps sellers like him. Even if the agency can roll back the practices it considers unlawfully anticompetitive, it would leave untouched other practices Gomez said cut into the margins of independent sellers, like Amazon selling sponsored search results or selling certain brands directly, meaning those brands don’t have to act as their own seller in the Amazon Marketplace and thus end up giving a smaller cut to Amazon. “These anticompetitive practices continue to happen,” Gomez said, “and now more than ever, we are being affected by them.” Update, Sept. 28, 2023 Update, Sept. 28, 2023 This story has been updated to note that Amazon did not answer specific questions about FTC’s search ranking claims. Ryan Tate, Investigative Editor Ryan Tate , Investigative Editor Ryan Tate Design and Graphics Gabriel Hongsdusit Gabriel Hongsdusit Gabriel Hongsdusit Engagement Maria Puertas Maria Puertas Maria Puertas Copy Editing and Production Sabrina Toppa Sabrina Toppa Sabrina Toppa Editing Sisi Wei Sisi Wei Sisi Wei Also published here here

According to a FTC Lawsuit, Amazon Ranks Its Own Products First

Winter is coming, and the night just got darker and full of unthinkable horrors. I’ve never thought that GoT would become a prelude to a real-life tragedy. This was the only TV show that got my family’s unanimous attention and acceptance to this day. It goes without saying that for our daughter to watch it my wife and I had to do some serious PG-13 heavy lifting. We had two parallel-watching sessions. Some episodes had to be left out and for some scenes, our daughter had to leave the room and get back after we were done with the fast-forwarding. It was worth it. Our daughter’s room was covered with her drawings of dragons and pictures of Dany Targaryen. We got carried away. There’s a huge picture of her sitting on the Iron Throne replica in our living room. I still remember waiting for hours in line and sharing my pain with other parents at the local GamesCon, so our kids could live out their fantasies for a brief moment. Those were some different and innocent pre-AI times. Today’s kids aren’t any different. They still want the same things, but the available tools are next level. I really wanted to write a nice and inspirational AI chatbot story, but… As soon as I typed “ai chatbot” in Google, I got slammed with the news headlines. Do it and see for yourself. The New York Times and The Verge were the most objective and restrained. I don’t recommend you go down the rabbit hole of The Washington Post and Reddit comments. I consider that my choice for the story’s illustration is appropriate because of the genuine desire of its author to express his feelings and protest at the same time. I feel the same way about my story’s title. No, I’m not going to share what happened because I want you to spend some time researching and then getting back to continue reading with the right kind of emotions and respect. I just can’t TL:DR someone’s life for your convenience. As a parent, I feel that I just dodged a digital bullet because my daughter is now old enough to have real instead of imaginary friends. For kids, an age gap of only a few years is the equivalent of decades for adults. Character AI lawsuit just got caught in the crossfire between the two most polarizing issues, one of the tech and the other of political nature. The First Issue - The minimum age for using AI The minimum age for minors to interact with AI ranges from 13 to 16. It’s 13 in the USA and mostly 16 in Europe. The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) has been around in the House and Senate since 2022. Why it’s taking so long to protect kids? “It’s a political issue that has bipartisan support, while also appearing to be extremely difficult to govern without infringing on First Amendment protections.” And, there’s this, as well, the KOSA “would require online platforms to take actions to protect the safety of users under the age of 17.” The bipartisan support has become so rare that when you hear about it, you know without going into the details it’s a very serious matter. Unfortunately, we also have to accept the reality of another kind of “bipartisan support” between the First Amendment “absolutists” and the Big Tech opportunitists. So, nothing is going to change here. The lawsuit “also named Google and its parent company Alphabet in the filing. Character.AI's founders worked at Google before launching their product and were re-hired by the company in August as part of a deal granting it a non-exclusive licence to Character.AI's technology.” The most reasonable suggestion of Character AI Reddit fans is doomed to fall on deaf ears: The Second Issue - Gun Control The second issue is all about the Second Amendment. Isn’t it ironic to have this kind of semantic “alignment?” The countless mass shootings haven’t changed a thing about the gun control debate. Sadly, one more young innocent life that’s lost can only prolong a series of pointless debates. The blaming game has no beginning and obviously will have no end: What can you possibly expect to change after reading the comments such as these? What Is Going To Be The Most Likely Outcome of Character.AI Chatbot Lawsuit? It seems that at Character.AI, they’re preparing for and expecting a settlement. I did my best to check the dates. Almost the same day the lawsuit was officially filled, the company published a list of Community Safety Updates on its official blog page: “Moving forward, we will be rolling out a number of new safety and product features that strengthen the security of our platform without compromising the entertaining and engaging experience users have come to expect from Character.AI. These include: Changes to our models for minors (under the age of 18) that are designed to reduce the likelihood of encountering sensitive or suggestive content.
Improved detection, response, and intervention related to user inputs that violate our Terms or Community Guidelines.
A revised disclaimer on every chat to remind users that the AI is not a real person.
Notification when a user has spent an hour-long session on the platform with additional user flexibility in progress.” Who is praying for Sewell Setzer III who was only 14 years old when he “died by suicide on February 28th, 2024, “seconds” after his last interaction with the bot?” Winter is coming, and the night just got darker and full of unthinkable horrors. I’ve never thought that GoT would become a prelude to a real-life tragedy. This was the only TV show that got my family’s unanimous attention and acceptance to this day. It goes without saying that for our daughter to watch it my wife and I had to do some serious PG-13 heavy lifting. We had two parallel-watching sessions. Some episodes had to be left out and for some scenes, our daughter had to leave the room and get back after we were done with the fast-forwarding. It was worth it. Our daughter’s room was covered with her drawings of dragons and pictures of Dany Targaryen. We got carried away. There’s a huge picture of her sitting on the Iron Throne replica in our living room. I still remember waiting for hours in line and sharing my pain with other parents at the local GamesCon, so our kids could live out their fantasies for a brief moment. Those were some different and innocent pre-AI times. Today’s kids aren’t any different. They still want the same things, but the available tools are next level. I really wanted to write a nice and inspirational AI chatbot story, but… As soon as I typed “ai chatbot” in Google, I got slammed with the news headlines. Do it and see for yourself. The New York Times and The Verge were the most objective and restrained. I don’t recommend you go down the rabbit hole of The Washington Post and Reddit comments . The New York Times The Verge The Washington Post Reddit comments I consider that my choice for the story’s illustration is appropriate because of the genuine desire of its author to express his feelings and protest at the same time. I feel the same way about my story’s title. the story’s illustration No, I’m not going to share what happened because I want you to spend some time researching and then getting back to continue reading with the right kind of emotions and respect. I just can’t TL:DR someone’s life for your convenience. As a parent, I feel that I just dodged a digital bullet because my daughter is now old enough to have real instead of imaginary friends. For kids, an age gap of only a few years is the equivalent of decades for adults. Character AI lawsuit just got caught in the crossfire between the two most polarizing issues, one of the tech and the other of political nature. The First Issue - The minimum age for using AI The minimum age for minors to interact with AI ranges from 13 to 16. It’s 13 in the USA and mostly 16 in Europe. The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) has been around in the House and Senate since 2022. Why it’s taking so long to protect kids? “It’s a political issue that has bipartisan support, while also appearing to be extremely difficult to govern without infringing on First Amendment protections.” And, there’s this, as well, the KOSA “would require online platforms to take actions to protect the safety of users under the age of 17.” political issue online safety The bipartisan support has become so rare that when you hear about it, you know without going into the details it’s a very serious matter. Unfortunately, we also have to accept the reality of another kind of “bipartisan support” between the First Amendment “absolutists” and the Big Tech opportunitists. So, nothing is going to change here. The lawsuit “also named Google and its parent company Alphabet in the filing. Character.AI's founders worked at Google before launching their product and were re-hired by the company in August as part of a deal granting it a non-exclusive licence to Character.AI's technology.” named Google and its parent company Alphabet The most reasonable suggestion of Character AI Reddit fans is doomed to fall on deaf ears: The Second Issue - Gun Control The second issue is all about the Second Amendment. Isn’t it ironic to have this kind of semantic “alignment?” The countless mass shootings haven’t changed a thing about the gun control debate. Sadly, one more young innocent life that’s lost can only prolong a series of pointless debates. The blaming game has no beginning and obviously will have no end: What can you possibly expect to change after reading the comments such as these? What Is Going To Be The Most Likely Outcome of Character.AI Chatbot Lawsuit? It seems that at Character.AI, they’re preparing for and expecting a settlement. I did my best to check the dates. Almost the same day the lawsuit was officially filled, the company published a list of Community Safety Updates on its official blog page: Community Safety Updates “Moving forward, we will be rolling out a number of new safety and product features that strengthen the security of our platform without compromising the entertaining and engaging experience users have come to expect from Character.AI. These include: Changes to our models for minors (under the age of 18) that are designed to reduce the likelihood of encountering sensitive or suggestive content. Improved detection, response, and intervention related to user inputs that violate our Terms or Community Guidelines. A revised disclaimer on every chat to remind users that the AI is not a real person. Notification when a user has spent an hour-long session on the platform with additional user flexibility in progress.” Changes to our models for minors (under the age of 18) that are designed to reduce the likelihood of encountering sensitive or suggestive content. Improved detection, response, and intervention related to user inputs that violate our Terms or Community Guidelines. A revised disclaimer on every chat to remind users that the AI is not a real person. Notification when a user has spent an hour-long session on the platform with additional user flexibility in progress.” Who is praying for Sewell Setzer III who was only 14 years old when he “died by suicide on February 28th, 2024, “seconds” after his last interaction with the bot?” Who is praying for Sewell Setzer III who was only 14 years old when he “died by suicide on February 28th, 2024, “seconds” after his last interaction with the bot?”

Character AI Chatbot Lawsuit: Imaginary Friends and Real Guns 

The Apple lawsuit is the loudest case that focuses on Apple distribution agreements within anticompetitive behavior in terms of data privacy, super apps, cross-platform messaging, and digital wallets as Statista informs. What are the legal objectives & implications of this lawsuit - Let's investigate together and make outputs! It all started in March 2024 with The U.S. Department of Justice, along with 16 state and district attorneys general, filing an antitrust lawsuit against Apple, alleging monopolization of smartphone markets. This is the third time that the U.S. Department of Justice has sued Apple for antitrust violations in the past 14 years. The Department of Justice accuses Apple of several antitrust violations. These include maintaining monopoly power in the smartphone market, suppressing cross-platform messaging, limiting the functionality of third-party digital wallets and smartwatches, blocking mobile cloud streaming services, imposing App Store restrictions, and lacking interoperability with non-Apple devices. All these actions are alleged to be part of Apple’s efforts to maintain its dominant position and restrict competition. The Core Objectives of This Lawsuit Include Challenging Apple’s monopoly The primary aim is to contest Apple’s alleged monopoly in the smartphone market. The lawsuit argues that Apple has illegally maintained this monopoly by selectively imposing contractual restrictions on, and withholding critical access points from, developers. Restoring competition The US Department of Justice seeks to reintroduce genuine competition in various tech markets, including smartphones, app distribution, and related services. Fostering innovation The legal action intends to create an environment where smaller companies and developers can innovate without facing unfair obstacles from dominant players like Apple. In turn, Apple has made some concessions to address these issues. The company has recently enabled cloud-based gaming services and announced plans to introduce cross-platform RCS messaging later this year. However, Apple has dismissed the lawsuit as both factually and legally incorrect, warning that it could set a dangerous precedent, granting the government excessive control over technology development. Apple has vowed to vigorously defend itself against these claims. Legal Regulations The primary legal framework governing this lawsuit is Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for any person to “monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations …” Thus, this antitrust law prohibits monopolization or attempted monopolization of markets. The lawsuit alleges that Apple has violated this act through various practices that maintain its monopoly power in the smartphone market. It’s important to note that in addition to the Sherman Act, the lawsuit also involves a range of state antitrust laws. These include the New Jersey Antitrust Act, Wisconsin’s Antitrust Act, and similar statutes from other states involved in the case. The US Department of Justice is seeking equitable relief, which could potentially result in significant changes to Apple’s business practices and market approach. The lawsuit’s outcome could set precedents for how antitrust laws are applied to tech giants in the digital age. What Tech Companies Should Consider For companies operating in the tech sphere, here are key practical and legal considerations stemming from the Apple antitrust lawsuit and broader regulatory trends Understanding market dominance Companies must assess whether their practices could be seen as monopolistic, particularly if they control key platforms or services. The Apple case underscores the risks of using market dominance to limit competition, such as restricting access to software or hardware features. Proactive measures Engage in regular audits of business practices to ensure compliance with antitrust laws. Consider adjusting business models that could be perceived as anti-competitive, such as exclusive arrangements that limit consumer choice or impose unfair terms on competitors. Different jurisdictions The prosecution of big tech in the US and the EU illustrates the importance of understanding and complying with different legal regulations. The Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA) in the EU impose strict obligations and significant fines for non-compliance. Companies should tailor their compliance strategies to the specific legal requirements of each jurisdiction. The antitrust lawsuit against Apple represents a significant moment in the tech industry, highlighting the delicate balance between innovation, market dominance, and fair competition. As regulatory scrutiny intensifies, tech companies must adapt their strategies to navigate this evolving landscape. As the legal proceedings unfold, it will be crucial for tech companies to stay informed, remain agile in their strategies, and prioritize compliance with antitrust regulations. By doing so, they can continue to innovate and grow while mitigating legal risks and maintaining public trust. The Apple lawsuit serves as a reminder of the importance of balancing market success with fair competition practices in the tech industry. The Apple lawsuit is the loudest case that focuses on Apple distribution agreements within anticompetitive behavior in terms of data privacy, super apps, cross-platform messaging, and digital wallets as Statista informs. What are the legal objectives & implications of this lawsuit - Let's investigate together and make outputs! loudest case Statista Statista It all started in March 2024 with The U.S. Department of Justice, along with 16 state and district attorneys general, filing an antitrust lawsuit against Apple, alleging monopolization of smartphone markets. This is the third time that the U.S. Department of Justice has sued Apple for antitrust violations in the past 14 years. The Department of Justice accuses Apple of several antitrust violations. These include maintaining monopoly power in the smartphone market, suppressing cross-platform messaging, limiting the functionality of third-party digital wallets and smartwatches, blocking mobile cloud streaming services, imposing App Store restrictions, and lacking interoperability with non-Apple devices. All these actions are alleged to be part of Apple’s efforts to maintain its dominant position and restrict competition. The Core Objectives of This Lawsuit Include Challenging Apple’s monopoly Challenging Apple’s monopoly The primary aim is to contest Apple’s alleged monopoly in the smartphone market. The lawsuit argues that Apple has illegally maintained this monopoly by selectively imposing contractual restrictions on, and withholding critical access points from, developers. Restoring competition Restoring competition The US Department of Justice seeks to reintroduce genuine competition in various tech markets, including smartphones, app distribution, and related services. Fostering innovation Fostering innovation The legal action intends to create an environment where smaller companies and developers can innovate without facing unfair obstacles from dominant players like Apple. In turn, Apple has made some concessions to address these issues. The company has recently enabled cloud-based gaming services and announced plans to introduce cross-platform RCS messaging later this year. However, Apple has dismissed the lawsuit as both factually and legally incorrect, warning that it could set a dangerous precedent, granting the government excessive control over technology development. Apple has vowed to vigorously defend itself against these claims. In turn, Apple has made some concessions to address these issues. The company has recently enabled cloud-based gaming services and announced plans to introduce cross-platform RCS messaging later this year. However, Apple has dismissed the lawsuit as both factually and legally incorrect, warning that it could set a dangerous precedent, granting the government excessive control over technology development. Apple has vowed to vigorously defend itself against these claims. In turn, Apple has made some concessions to address these issues. The company has recently enabled cloud-based gaming services and announced plans to introduce cross-platform RCS messaging later this year. However, Apple has dismissed the lawsuit as both factually and legally incorrect, warning that it could set a dangerous precedent, granting the government excessive control over technology development. Apple has vowed to vigorously defend itself against these claims. Legal Regulations The primary legal framework governing this lawsuit is Section 2 of the Sherman Act . Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for any person to “monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations …” Section 2 of the Sherman Act “monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations …” Thus, this antitrust law prohibits monopolization or attempted monopolization of markets. The lawsuit alleges that Apple has violated this act through various practices that maintain its monopoly power in the smartphone market. It’s important to note that in addition to the Sherman Act, the lawsuit also involves a range of state antitrust laws. These include the New Jersey Antitrust Act, Wisconsin’s Antitrust Act, and similar statutes from other states involved in the case. The US Department of Justice is seeking equitable relief, which could potentially result in significant changes to Apple’s business practices and market approach. The lawsuit’s outcome could set precedents for how antitrust laws are applied to tech giants in the digital age. The lawsuit’s outcome could set precedents for how antitrust laws are applied to tech giants in the digital age. What Tech Companies Should Consider For companies operating in the tech sphere, here are key practical and legal considerations stemming from the Apple antitrust lawsuit and broader regulatory trends Understanding market dominance Understanding market dominance Understanding market dominance Companies must assess whether their practices could be seen as monopolistic, particularly if they control key platforms or services. The Apple case underscores the risks of using market dominance to limit competition, such as restricting access to software or hardware features. Proactive measures Proactive measures Proactive measures Engage in regular audits of business practices to ensure compliance with antitrust laws. Consider adjusting business models that could be perceived as anti-competitive, such as exclusive arrangements that limit consumer choice or impose unfair terms on competitors. Different jurisdictions Different jurisdictions Different jurisdictions The prosecution of big tech in the US and the EU illustrates the importance of understanding and complying with different legal regulations. The Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA) in the EU impose strict obligations and significant fines for non-compliance. Companies should tailor their compliance strategies to the specific legal requirements of each jurisdiction. The antitrust lawsuit against Apple represents a significant moment in the tech industry, highlighting the delicate balance between innovation, market dominance, and fair competition. As regulatory scrutiny intensifies, tech companies must adapt their strategies to navigate this evolving landscape. As the legal proceedings unfold, it will be crucial for tech companies to stay informed, remain agile in their strategies, and prioritize compliance with antitrust regulations. By doing so, they can continue to innovate and grow while mitigating legal risks and maintaining public trust. As the legal proceedings unfold, it will be crucial for tech companies to stay informed, remain agile in their strategies, and prioritize compliance with antitrust regulations. By doing so, they can continue to innovate and grow while mitigating legal risks and maintaining public trust. The Apple lawsuit serves as a reminder of the importance of balancing market success with fair competition practices in the tech industry. The Apple lawsuit serves as a reminder of the importance of balancing market success with fair competition practices in the tech industry.

A Legal Outlook on the Apple Antitrust Lawsuit

SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 5 of 5. CONCLUSION The SEC’s motion for remedies and the entry of final judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court shall enter a final judgment enjoining Ripple from further violations of the securities laws and imposing a civil penalty of $125,035,150. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 943, 948, and 951. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 7, 2024 New York, New York About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on August 07, 2024, dropbox.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 5 of 5. SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 5 of 5. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here CONCLUSION The SEC’s motion for remedies and the entry of final judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court shall enter a final judgment enjoining Ripple from further violations of the securities laws and imposing a civil penalty of $125,035,150 . The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 943, 948, and 951. $125,035,150 SO ORDERED. Dated: August 7, 2024 New York, New York About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on August 07, 2024, dropbox.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on August 07, 2024, dropbox.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. dropbox.com

Ripple Hit with $125 Million Fine in SEC Lawsuit

The Center for Investigative Reporting Inc. v. OpenAI Court Filing, retrieved on June 27, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 12 of 18. Count II: Violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501 by Defendant Microsoft 124. The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference into this Count. 125. Plaintiff owns the exclusive rights to the Registered Works under 17 U.S.C. § 106. 126. Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the Registered Works by downloading those works from the internet. 127. Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the Registered Works by encoding the Registered Works in computer memory. 128. Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the Registered Works by regurgitating those works verbatim or nearly verbatim in response to prompts by Copilot users. 129. Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the Registered Works by producing significant amounts of material from those works in response to prompts by ChatGPT users. 130. Defendant Microsoft infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the Registered Works by abridging those works in response to prompts by Copilot users. 131. Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft’s infringements were willful and with full knowledge of Plaintiff’s rights in the Registered Works. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on June 27, 2024, motherjones.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. The Center for Investigative Reporting Inc. v. OpenAI Court Filing, retrieved on June 27, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 12 of 18. The Center for Investigative Reporting Inc. v. OpenAI Court Filing, retrieved on June 27, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 12 of 18. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here Count II: Violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501 by Defendant Microsoft 124. The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference into this Count. 125. Plaintiff owns the exclusive rights to the Registered Works under 17 U.S.C. § 106. 126. Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the Registered Works by downloading those works from the internet. 127. Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the Registered Works by encoding the Registered Works in computer memory. 128. Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the Registered Works by regurgitating those works verbatim or nearly verbatim in response to prompts by Copilot users. 129. Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the Registered Works by producing significant amounts of material from those works in response to prompts by ChatGPT users. 130. Defendant Microsoft infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the Registered Works by abridging those works in response to prompts by Copilot users. 131. Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft’s infringements were willful and with full knowledge of Plaintiff’s rights in the Registered Works. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on June 27, 2024, motherjones.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on June 27, 2024, motherjones.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. motherjones.com

Microsoft Faces Lawsuit for Alleged Willful Copyright Infringement in Copilot and ChatGPT

The Center for Investigative Reporting Inc. v. OpenAI Court Filing, retrieved on June 27, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 3 of 18. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 30. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because this action arises under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., including as amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 31. Jurisdiction over Defendants is proper because they have purposefully availed themselves of New York to conduct their business. Defendants maintain offices and employ staff in New York who, upon information and belief, were engaged in training and/or marketing of ChatGPT and/or Copilot, and thus in the removal of Plaintiff’s copyright management information as discussed in this Complaint and/or the sale of products to New York residents resulting from that removal. Defendants consented to personal jurisdiction in this Court in at least Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc., 23-cv-08292. They further waived any challenge to personal jurisdiction in this District by declining to contest it in their first pre-answer motions in The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, 23-cv-11195, Raw Story Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 24-cv-01514 (OpenAI Defendants only), The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 24-cv-01515, and Daily News v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 24-cv-03285. 32. CIR also has one of its main offices in this District in New York, NY, further demonstrating that the injuries occurred in this District. 33. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) because Defendants or their agents reside or may be found in this District. 34. Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District. Specifically, Defendants employ staff in New York who, upon information and belief, were engaged in the activities alleged in this Complaint. 35. Defendants consented to venue in this District in at least Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc., 23-cv-08292. They further waived any challenge to venue in this District by declining to contest it in their first pre-answer motions in The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, 23-cv-11195, Raw Story Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 24-cv-01514 (OpenAI Defendants only), The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 24-cv-01515, and Daily News v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 24-cv-03285. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on June 27, 2024, motherjones.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. The Center for Investigative Reporting Inc. v. OpenAI Court Filing, retrieved on June 27, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 3 of 18. The Center for Investigative Reporting Inc. v. OpenAI Court Filing, retrieved on June 27, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 3 of 18. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here JURISDICTION AND VENUE 30. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because this action arises under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., including as amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 31. Jurisdiction over Defendants is proper because they have purposefully availed themselves of New York to conduct their business. Defendants maintain offices and employ staff in New York who, upon information and belief, were engaged in training and/or marketing of ChatGPT and/or Copilot, and thus in the removal of Plaintiff’s copyright management information as discussed in this Complaint and/or the sale of products to New York residents resulting from that removal. Defendants consented to personal jurisdiction in this Court in at least Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc., 23-cv-08292. They further waived any challenge to personal jurisdiction in this District by declining to contest it in their first pre-answer motions in The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, 23-cv-11195, Raw Story Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 24-cv-01514 (OpenAI Defendants only), The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 24-cv-01515, and Daily News v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 24-cv-03285. 32. CIR also has one of its main offices in this District in New York, NY, further demonstrating that the injuries occurred in this District. 33. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) because Defendants or their agents reside or may be found in this District. 34. Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District. Specifically, Defendants employ staff in New York who, upon information and belief, were engaged in the activities alleged in this Complaint. 35. Defendants consented to venue in this District in at least Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc., 23-cv-08292. They further waived any challenge to venue in this District by declining to contest it in their first pre-answer motions in The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, 23-cv-11195, Raw Story Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 24-cv-01514 (OpenAI Defendants only), The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 24-cv-01515, and Daily News v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 24-cv-03285. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on June 27, 2024, motherjones.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on June 27, 2024, motherjones.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. motherjones.com

Stories, News & Mentions about LAWVU

Categories

Trending Topics

Stories, News & Mentions about LAWVU

Lawvu’s Stories on HackerNoon

Lawvu's News & Mentions

Categories

Trending Topics