Apple Fellow Phil Schiller testified in court Monday that he initially objected to the company's plan to charge a 27% commission on purchases made outside the App Store, court documents showed. Schiller, who oversees the App Store, warned the fee would create an "antagonistic relationship" with developers and transform Apple into "some kind of a collection agency" that might need to audit developers for nonpayment.

"I had great concerns about the collections of funds from developers," Schiller said, worrying about "how all of those things change the relationship between Apple and developers in a way I thought would be detrimental." Despite these objections, a pricing committee including CEO Tim Cook ultimately approved the commission structure. The 27% fee resulted from the 2021 Epic Games ruling that required Apple to allow developers to link to external payment options, slightly lower than the standard 30% in-app purchase commission. Internal documents revealed Apple analyzed how a "less seamless experience" of web-based payments would affect transaction completion rates.

Online-education company Chegg said it is conducting a business review and exploring alternatives such as selling the company or taking it private as it continues to lose subscribers to artificial-intelligence-enabled rivals. From a report: Chegg and other virtual-learning companies have ceded ground to generative-AI companies such as ChatGPT, which provides free alternatives to the homework help that Chegg charges $19.95 for to its subscribers. Although Chegg built its own AI products, the company has faced scores of canceled subscriptions. The business review comes as the company swung to a loss in the fourth quarter, with revenue falling 24%, and guided for lower-than-expected revenue for the first quarter. In November, Chegg said it would cut its workforce by an additional 21%. Chegg's shares have fallen 99% since its peak in 2021.

Chegg has filed a lawsuit against Google, accusing the tech giant of using AI-generated overviews to undermine publishers by reducing site traffic and eroding financial incentives for original content. Chegg claims this practice violates antitrust laws and threatens the integrity of the online information ecosystem. Reuters reports: This will eventually lead to a "hollowed-out information ecosystem of little use and unworthy of trust," the company said. The Santa Clara, California-based company has said Google's AI overviews have caused a drop in visitors and subscribers. Chegg was trading at around $1.63 on Monday, down more than 98% from its peak price in 2021.

The company announced it would lay off 21% of its staff in November. Nathan Schultz, CEO of Chegg, said on Monday that Google is profiting off the company's content for free. "Our lawsuit is about more than Chegg -- it's about the digital publishing industry, the future of internet search, and about students losing access to quality, step-by-step learning in favor of low-quality, unverified AI summaries," he said.

Publishers allow Google to crawl their websites to generate search results, which Google monetizes through advertising. In exchange, the publishers receive search traffic to their sites when users click on the results, Chegg said. But Google has started coercing publishers to let it use the information for AI overviews and other features that result in fewer site visitors, the company said. Chegg argued the conduct violates a law against conditioning the sale of one product on the customer selling or giving its supplier another product.

"Elizabeth Holmes' fraud conviction has been upheld by a federal appellate panel," writes Slashdot reader ClickOnThis. MSNBC reports: A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday affirmed the convictions, sentences and nine-figure restitution ordered against both Holmes and Theranos president, Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani. [...] Theranos was supposedly going to revolutionize medical laboratory testing with the ability to run fast, accurate and affordable tests with just a drop of blood from a finger prick. "But the vision sold by Holmes and Balwani was nothing more than a mirage," 9th Circuit Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen wrote (PDF) for the panel, adding that the "grandiose achievements touted by Holmes and Balwani were half-truths and outright lies."

Holmes was convicted of crimes related to fraud against investors while the jury acquitted her or hung on other counts. Balwani was convicted on all counts at his trial. The federal panel rejected a slew of arguments from both defendants, including that their trials featured improper testimony from Theranos employees. While the ruling is a major setback for the defendants, they can further appeal to a fuller panel of 9th Circuit judges and the Supreme Court, which generally has broad discretion over whether to accept cases for review.

An anonymous reader shared this report from the Telegraph: Workers with an axe to grind against their employer are using AI to bombard businesses with costly and inaccurate lawsuits, experts have warned.

Frustration is growing among employment lawyers who say they are seeing a trend of litigants using AI to help them run their claims, which they say is generating "inconsistent, lengthy, and often incorrect arguments" and causing a spike in legal fees... Ailie Murray, an employment partner at law firm Travers Smith, said AI submissions are produced so rapidly that they are "often excessively lengthy and full of inconsistencies", but employers must then spend vast amounts of money responding to them. She added: "In many cases, the AI-generated output is inaccurate, leading to claimants pleading invalid claims or arguments.

"It is not an option for an employer to simply ignore such submissions. This leads to a cycle of continuous and costly correspondence. Such dynamics could overburden already stretched tribunals with unfounded and poorly pleaded claims."
There's definitely been a "significant increase" in the number of clients using AI, James Hockin, an employment partner at Withers, told the Telegraph. The danger? "There is a risk that we see unrepresented individuals pursuing the wrong claims in the UK employment tribunal off the back of a duff result from an AI tool."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Just because Meta admitted to torrenting a dataset of pirated books for AI training purposes, that doesn't necessarily mean that Meta seeded the file after downloading it, the social media company claimed in a court filing (PDF) this week. Evidence instead shows that Meta "took precautions not to 'seed' any downloaded files," Meta's filing said. Seeding refers to sharing a torrented file after the download completes, and because there's allegedly no proof of such "seeding," Meta insisted that authors cannot prove Meta shared the pirated books with anyone during the torrenting process.

[...] Meta ... is hoping to convince the court that torrenting is not in and of itself illegal, but is, rather, a "widely-used protocol to download large files." According to Meta, the decision to download the pirated books dataset from pirate libraries like LibGen and Z-Library was simply a move to access "data from a 'well-known online repository' that was publicly available via torrents." To defend its torrenting, Meta has basically scrubbed the word "pirate" from the characterization of its activity. The company alleges that authors can't claim that Meta gained unauthorized access to their data under CDAFA. Instead, all they can claim is that "Meta allegedly accessed and downloaded datasets that Plaintiffs did not create, containing the text of published books that anyone can read in a public library, from public websites Plaintiffs do not operate or own."

While Meta may claim there's no evidence of seeding, there is some testimony that might be compelling to the court. Previously, a Meta executive in charge of project management, Michael Clark, had testified (PDF) that Meta allegedly modified torrenting settings "so that the smallest amount of seeding possible could occur," which seems to support authors' claims that some seeding occurred. And an internal message (PDF) from Meta researcher Frank Zhang appeared to show that Meta allegedly tried to conceal the seeding by not using Facebook servers while downloading the dataset to "avoid" the "risk" of anyone "tracing back the seeder/downloader" from Facebook servers. Once this information came to light, authors asked the court for a chance to depose Meta executives again, alleging that new facts "contradict prior deposition testimony." "Meta has been 'silent so far on claims about sharing data while 'leeching' (downloading) but told the court it plans to fight the seeding claims at summary judgement," notes Ars.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: Altice, parent company of Internet provider Optimum, must disclose the personal details of a hundred alleged music pirates. The request comes from a group of prominent record labels and is part of an ongoing copyright infringement liability lawsuit (PDF). Altice, meanwhile, will receive anti-piracy information, including that related to a letter the RIAA previously sent to BitTorrent Inc., the owner of popular torrent client uTorrent. [...] Details are scarce, but the group will likely consist of subscribers who were repeatedly warned over alleged piracy activity. The music labels could use this information to gather further evidence to support their allegations. For example, subscriber testimony could help to strengthen the argument that the ISP failed to take effective measures against repeat infringers.

There's nothing to suggest that these people will be approached with any claims directly. The names, emails, and addresses of the subscribers are marked as "highly confidential" and can only be viewed by attorneys acting for the music companies. The subscribers will be informed about the forthcoming disclosure of their personal details and any objections will be heard by the court. [...] Subscriber details are just a fraction of the information requested by the parties during discovery. Altice, for example, will also gain access to some non-privileged documents and communications between the music companies and their anti-piracy partners, including the RIAA, OpSec, and Audible Magic.

This includes information regarding a letter (PDF) the RIAA sent to the company behind the uTorrent and BitTorrent clients in 2015. [...] The nature of information sought by Altice isn't clear. The company previously said that if music labels are concerned about piracy, they are free to go after developers of 'piracy' software. While neutral torrent clients don't fall into that category, the ISP will be interested in any related legal considerations that took place behind the scenes.

Cameron John Wagenius pleaded guilty to hacking AT&T and Verizon and stealing a massive trove of phone records from the companies, according to court records filed on Wednesday. From a report: Wagenius, who was a U.S. Army soldier, pleaded guilty to two counts of "unlawful transfer of confidential phone records information" on an online forum and via an online communications platform.

According to a document filed by Wagenius' lawyer, he faces a maximum fine of $250,000 and prison time of up to 10 years for each of the two counts. Wagenius was arrested and indicted last year. In January, U.S. prosecutors confirmed that the charges brought against Wagenius were linked to the indictment of Connor Moucka and John Binns, two alleged hackers whom the U.S. government accused of several data breaches against cloud computing services company Snowflake, which were among the worst hacks of 2024.

Nikola, the hydrogen-truck maker that briefly sported a market value comparable to Ford Motor, has filed for bankruptcy with plans to wind down its business. From a report: Nikola on Wednesday said that it made the chapter 11 filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware and that it plans to conduct a court-supervised auction of its assets.

The Phoenix company said it worked for months with its financial and legal advisers to find a way to sustain its operations before determining that a structured sale process was the best way to maximize the value of its assets.

An anonymous reader shares a report: U.S. personal injury law firm Morgan & Morgan sent an urgent email this month to its more than 1,000 lawyers: Artificial intelligence can invent fake case law, and using made-up information in a court filing could get you fired. A federal judge in Wyoming had just threatened to sanction two lawyers at the firm who included fictitious case citations in a lawsuit against Walmart. One of the lawyers admitted in court filings last week that he used an AI program that "hallucinated" the cases and apologized for what he called an inadvertent mistake.

AI's penchant for generating legal fiction in case filings has led courts around the country to question or discipline lawyers in at least seven cases over the last two years, and created a new high-tech headache for litigants and judges, Reuters found. The Walmart case stands out because it involves a well-known law firm and a big corporate defendant. But examples like it have cropped up in all kinds of lawsuits since chatbots like ChatGPT ushered in the AI era, highlighting a new litigation risk.

Public interest groups on Tuesday asked the full 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider a ruling that the Federal Communications Commission lacked legal authority to reinstate landmark net neutrality rules. From a report: The decision by a three-judge panel blocked the FCC under then President Joe Biden that had sought to reinstate the open internet rules implemented in 2015 but later repealed by the agency under President Donald Trump. The groups -- Free Press, Public Knowledge, Open Technology Institute and the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society -- argue the appeals court decision conflicts with an earlier decision by another court.

The groups said the case centers on the FCC's decades-long effort to prevent broadband internet providers "from abusing their gatekeeping power, in furtherance of the providers' economic or political interests, to constrain their users' access to third-party websites."

"Meta is involved in a class action lawsuit alleging copyright infringement, a claim the company disputes..." writes the tech news site Hot Hardware.

But the site adds that newly unsealed court documents "reveal that Meta allegedly used a minimum of 81.7TB of illegally torrented data sourced from shadow libraries to train its AI models." Internal emails further show that Meta employees expressed concerns about this practice. Some employees voiced strong ethical objections, with one noting that using content from sites like LibGen, known for distributing copyrighted material, would be unethical. A research engineer with Meta, Nikolay Bashlykov, also noted that "torrenting from a corporate laptop doesn't feel right," highlighting his discomfort surrounding the practice.

Additionally, the documents suggest that these concerns, including discussions about using data from LibGen, reached CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who may have ultimately approved the activity. Furthermore, the documents showed that despite these misgivings, employees discussed using VPNs to mask Meta's IP address to create anonymity, enabling them to download and share torrented data without it being easily traced back to the company's network.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Conde Nast and several other media companies sued the AI startup Cohere today, alleging that it engaged in "systematic copyright and trademark infringement" by using news articles to train its large language model. "Without permission or compensation, Cohere uses scraped copies of our articles, through training, real-time use, and in outputs, to power its artificial intelligence ('AI') service, which in turn competes with Publisher offerings and the emerging market for AI licensing," said the lawsuit (PDF) filed in US District Court for the Southern District of New York. "Not content with just stealing our works, Cohere also blatantly manufactures fake pieces and attributes them to us, misleading the public and tarnishing our brands."

Conde Nast, which owns Ars Technica and other publications such as Wired and The New Yorker, was joined in the lawsuit by The Atlantic, Forbes, The Guardian, Insider, the Los Angeles Times, McClatchy, Newsday, The Plain Dealer, Politico, The Republican, the Toronto Star, and Vox Media. The complaint seeks statutory damages of up to $150,000 under the Copyright Act for each infringed work, or an amount based on actual damages and Cohere's profits. It also seeks "actual damages, Cohere's profits, and statutory damages up to the maximum provided by law" for infringement of trademarks and "false designations of origin."

In Exhibit A (PDF), the plaintiffs identified over 4,000 articles in what they called an "illustrative and non-exhaustive list of works that Cohere has infringed." Additional exhibits provide responses to queries (PDF) and "hallucinations" (PDF) that the publishers say infringe upon their copyrights and trademarks. The lawsuit said Cohere "passes off its own hallucinated articles as articles from Publishers." Cohere said in a statement to Ars: "Cohere strongly stands by its practices for responsibly training its enterprise AI. We have long prioritized controls that mitigate the risk of IP infringement and respect the rights of holders. We would have welcomed a conversation about their specific concerns -- and the opportunity to explain our enterprise-focused approach -- rather than learning about them in a filing. We believe this lawsuit is misguided and frivolous, and expect this matter to be resolved in our favor."

Further reading: Thomson Reuters Wins First Major AI Copyright Case In the US

Members of key congressional oversight committees wrote to the United States' new top intelligence official Thursday to warn that a British order demanding government access to Apple users' encrypted data imperils Americans. From a report: Ron Wyden, a Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Andy Biggs, a Republican on the House Judiciary committee, wrote to just-sworn-in National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard and asked her to demand the United Kingdom retract its order.

If the top U.S. ally does not back off, they said, Gabbard should consider limiting the deep intelligence sharing and cooperation on cybersecurity between the countries. The Post first reported the existence of the confidential British order last week. It directs Apple to create a back door into its Advanced Data Protection offering, which allows users to fully encrypt data from iPhones and Mac computers when putting it in Apple's iCloud storage. Apple cannot retrieve such content even when served with a court order, frustrating authorities looking for evidence of terrorism, child abuse and other serious crimes.

The order was issued under the Investigatory Powers Act, which allows the British Home Office to require technical cooperation from companies and forbids those companies from disclosing anything about the demands. It would apply globally, though the U.K. authorities would have to ask Apple for information stored by specific customers.

Convicted Theranos founder, Elizabeth Holmes, had her first interview since being reported to prison in 2023, telling People magazine that she is still working on "research and inventions" in the healthcare space. Here's an excerpt from the article: Scheduled for release on April 3, 2032, Holmes says she hopes to travel with her family and to fight for reform of criminal justice system. She recently drafted an American Freedom Act bill -- a seven-page handwritten document -- to bolster the presumption of innocence and change criminal procedure. "This will be my life's work," says Holmes, adding that she is speaking out now as part of her mission to advocate on behalf of incarcerated persons and those ripped away from their children.

And, despite her global reputation as a biotech con artist who put lives at risk, she says she's continuing to write patents for new inventions and plans to resume her career in healthcare technology after her release. "There is not a day I have not continued to work on my research and inventions," she says. "I remain completely committed to my dream of making affordable healthcare solutions available to everyone."

For now, however, she is sustained by weekend visits from her family, when she can cuddle Invicta, watch William gather acorns in the prison yard and hold Evans's hand and briefly hug and kiss. (Conjugal visits are not allowed.) "It kills me to put my family through pain the way I do," she says. "But when I look back on my life, and these angels that have come into it, I can get through anything. It makes me want to fight for all of it."

New submitter jms00 writes: A years-long legal battle has quietly escalated into what could become the defining moment for the future of GPLv3, with implications that could reshape software freedom as we know it.

At issue is whether licensors have the power to impose 'further restrictions' on open-source software, potentially undermining the explicit rights granted to users and developers under AGPLv3, GPLv3, and LGPLv3.

The outcome of this case, now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, could set a dangerous precedent, limiting the ability to remove proprietary restrictions from copyleft-licensed software.

With little public attention on the case, the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) has stepped up as a key voice in defense of user rights, filing a critical amicus brief to challenge the lower court's ruling and protect the principles of software freedom.

Alan W. Filion, an 18-year-old from Lancaster, Calif., was sentenced to four years in prison for making nearly 400 false bomb threats and threats of violence (source may be paywalled; alternative source) to religious institutions, schools, universities and homes across the country. The New York Times reports: The threatening calls Mr. Filion made would often cause large deployments of police officers to a targeted location, the Justice Department said in a news release. In some cases, officers would enter people's homes with their weapons drawn and detain those inside. In January 2023, Mr. Filion wrote on social media that his swats had often led the police to "drag the victim and their families out of the house cuff them and search the house for dead bodies."

Investigators linked Mr. Filion to over 375 swatting calls made in several states, including one that he made to the police in Sanford, Fla., saying that he would commit a mass shooting at the Masjid Al Hayy Mosque. During the call, he played audio of gunfire in the background. Mr. Filion was arrested in California in January 2024, and was then extradited to Florida to face state charges for making that threat. Mr. Filion began swatting for recreation in August 2022 before making it into a business, the Justice Department said. The teenager became a "serial swatter" and would make social media posts about his "swatting-for-a-fee" services, according to prosecutors.

In addition to pleading guilty to the false threat against the mosque in Florida, Mr. Filion pleaded guilty in three other swatting cases: a mass shooting threat to a public school in Washington State in October 2022; a bomb threat call to a historically Black college or university in Florida in May 2023; and a July 2023 call in which he claimed to be a federal law enforcement officer in Texas and told dispatchers that he had killed his mother and would kill any responding officers.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Wired: Thomson Reuters has won the first major AI copyright case in the United States. In 2020, the media and technology conglomerate filed an unprecedentedAI copyright lawsuit against the legal AI startup Ross Intelligence. In the complaint, Thomson Reuters claimed the AI firm reproduced materials from its legal research firm Westlaw. Today, a judge ruled (PDF) in Thomson Reuters' favor, finding that the company's copyright was indeed infringed by Ross Intelligence's actions. "None of Ross's possible defenses holds water. I reject them all," wrote US District Court of Delaware judge Stephanos Bibas, in a summary judgement. [...] Notably, Judge Bibas ruled in Thomson Reuters' favor on the question of fair use.

The fair use doctrine is a key component of how AI companies are seeking to defend themselves against claims that they used copyrighted materials illegally. The idea underpinning fair use is that sometimes it's legally permissible to use copyrighted works without permission -- for example, to create parody works, or in noncommercial research or news production. When determining whether fair use applies, courts use a four-factor test, looking at the reason behind the work, the nature of the work (whether it's poetry, nonfiction, private letters, et cetera), the amount of copyrighted work used, and how the use impacts the market value of the original. Thomson Reuters prevailed on two of the four factors, but Bibas described the fourth as the most important, and ruled that Ross "meant to compete with Westlaw by developing a market substitute." "If this decision is followed elsewhere, it's really bad for the generative AI companies," says James Grimmelmann, Cornell University professor of digital and internet law.

Chris Mammen, a partner at Womble Bond Dickinson who focuses on intellectual property law, adds: "It puts a finger on the scale towards holding that fair use doesn't apply."

The US company v-Fluence secretly compiled profiles on over 500 food and environmental health advocates, scientists, and politicians in a private web portal to discredit critics of pesticides and GM crops. Following public backlash and corporate cancellations after its actions were revealed by the Guardian, the company announced it was shutting down the profiling service. The Guardian reports: The profiles -- part of an effort that was financed, in part, by US taxpayer dollars -- often provided derogatory information about the industry opponents and included home addresses and phone numbers and details about family members, including children. They were provided to members of an invite-only web portal where v-Fluence also offered a range of other information to its roster of more than 1,000 members. The membership included staffers of US regulatory and policy agencies, executives from the world's largest agrochemical companies and their lobbyists, academics and others.

The profiling was one element of a push to downplay pesticide dangers, discredit opponents and undermine international policymaking, according to court records, emails and other documents obtained by the non-profit newsroom Lighthouse Reports. Lighthouse collaborated with the Guardian, the New Lede, Le Monde, Africa Uncensored, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and other international media partners on the September 2024 publication of the investigation. News of the profiling and the private web portal sparked outrage and threats of litigation by some of the people and organizations profiled. [...]

v-Fluence says it not only has eliminated the profiling, but also has made "significant staff cuts" after the public exposure, according to Jay Byrne, the former Monsanto public relations executive who founded and heads the company. Byrne blamed the company's struggles on "rising costs from continued litigator and activist harassment of our staff, partners, and clients with threats and misrepresentations." He said the articles published about the company's profiling and private web portal were part of a "smear campaign" which was based on "false and misleading misrepresentations" that were "not supported by any facts or evidence." Adding to the company's troubles, several corporate backers and industry organizations have cancelled contracts with v-Fluence, according a post in a publication for agriculture professionals.

AmiMoJo writes: A computer expert who has battled for a decade to recover a $743 million bitcoin fortune he believes is buried in a council dump in south Wales is considering buying the site so he can hunt for the missing fortune. James Howells lost a high court case last month to force Newport city council to allow him to search the tip to retrieve a hard drive he says contains the bitcoins.

The council has since announced plans to close and cap the site, which would almost certainly spell the end of any lingering hopes of reaching the bitcoins. The authority has secured planning permission for a solar farm on part of the land. Howells, 39, said on Monday it had been "quite a surprise" to hear of the closure plan. He said: "It [the council] claimed at the high court that closing the landfill to allow me to search would have a huge detrimental impact on the people of Newport, whilst at the same time they were planning to close the landfill anyway. I expected it would be closed in the coming years because it's 80/90% full -- but didn't expect its closure so soon. If Newport city council would be willing, I would potentially be interested in purchasing the landfill site -- as is -- and have discussed this option with investment partners and it is something that is very much on the table."