Connect with us

Technology

Jury tells Apple to cough up two days of annual profit in 4G/LTE patent damages retrial • The Register

Voice Of EU

Published

on

This week ended with two separate patent-related blows against Apple and Google in the United States.

On Friday, a jury in Texas awarded $300m in damages to Optis Wireless and its constellation of companies, to be paid by Apple because the 4G/LTE tech in its iPhones, iPads, and Watches were deemed to have infringed Optis’ communications patents.

Optis last year scored $506m in damages from the Cupertino giant. Apple later persuaded District Judge Rodney Gilstrap to order a retrial. Specifically, a retrial to come up with a damages figure that properly took FRAND into account – the notion that standards-essential patents are licensed on a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory basis.

In the end, Optis was awarded [PDF] just shy of a third of a billion dollars, or about two days of annual profit for Apple. The iGiant banked $157m a day in net income, or $57.4bn total, in its 2020 fiscal year.

The five patents in question – see below – once belonged to Samsung, Panasonic, and LG, and were obtained by Optis, which, according to Apple, doesn’t actually do anything other than sue corporations like Telsa, Huawei, and ZTE.

“Optis makes no products and its sole business is to sue companies using patents they accumulate,” Apple said in a statement to the media. “We will continue to defend against their attempts to extract unreasonable payments for patents they acquire.”

Optis, meanwhile, claimed Apple was unwilling to cough up a fair royalty rate for the patented designs. Interestingly enough, Optis is also pursuing Apple in the High Court of England, where it hopes to set a global royalty rate for its patents. In July, Apple threatened to pull out of the UK if it was ordered by London judges to pay a “commercially unacceptable” amount, Bloomberg reported.

Sono-st noch etwas?

Separately, Charles Bullock, the US International Trade Commission’s chief administrative law judge, emitted a preliminary ruling [PDF] on Friday that suggested Google’s hardware products infringed five of Sonos’s audio and wireless-related technology patents.

This stems from a complaint brought to the ITC by Sonos early last year, the outcome of which could result in Google being banned from importing its Pixel smartphones, Home gadgets, and other electronics into the US from factories in China and elsewhere. The ITC may also ban Google from selling the gear.

Judge Bullock said Google broke section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which is said to protect intellectual property at the US border and tackle unfair competition.

The patents in question are: US 9,195,258, 10,209,953, 9,219,959, 8,588,949, and 10,439,896.

A full decision is expected mid-December. This is the latest twist in a legal war between Sonos and Google that’s playing out in the US and Europe. ®

Source link

Technology

NFT trader OpenSea bans insider trading after employee rakes in profit | Non-fungible tokens (NFTs)

Voice Of EU

Published

on

A non-fungible token (NFT) marketplace has introduced policies to ban insider trading, after an executive at the company was discovered to be buying artworks shortly before they were promoted on the site’s front page.

OpenSea, one of the leading sites for trading the digital assets, will now prevent team members buying or selling from featured collections and from using confidential information to trade NFTs. Neither practice was previously banned.

“Yesterday we learned that one of our employees purchased items that they knew were set to display on our front page before they appeared there publicly,” said Devin Finzer, the co-founder and chief executive of the site.

“This is incredibly disappointing. We want to be clear that this behaviour does not represent our values as a team. We are taking this very seriously and are conducting an immediate and thorough third-party review of this incident so that we have a full understanding of the facts and additional steps we need to take.”

NFTs are digital assets whose ownership is recorded and traced using a bitcoin-style blockchain. The NFT market boomed earlier this year as celebrities including Grimes, Andy Murray and Sir Tim Berners-Lee sold collectibles and artworks using the format. But the underlying technology has questionable utility, with some dismissing the field as a purely speculative bubble.

The insider trading came to light thanks to the public nature of the Ethereum blockchain, on which most NFT trades occur. Crypto traders noticed that an anonymous user was regularly buying items from the public marketplace shortly before they were promoted on the site’s front page, a prestigious slot that often brings significant interest from would-be buyers. The anonymous user would then sell the assets on, making vast sums in a matter of hours.

One trade, for instance, saw an artwork called Spectrum of a Ramenification Theory bought for about £600. It was then advertised on the front page and sold on for $4,000 a few hours later.

One Twitter user, ZuwuTV, linked the transactions to the public wallet of Nate Chastain, OpenSea’s head of product, demonstrating, using public records, that the profits from the trades were sent back to a wallet owned by Chastain.

While some, including ZuwuTV, described the process as “insider trading”, the loosely regulated market for NFTs has few restrictions on what participants can do. Some critics argue that even that terminology demonstrates that the sector is more about speculation than creativity.

“The fact that people are responding to this as insider trading shows that this is securities trading (or just gambling), not something designed to support artists,” said Anil Dash, the chief executive of the software company Glitch. “There are no similar public statements when artists get ripped off on the platform.

“If Etsy employees bought featured products from creators on their platform (or Patreon or Kickstarter workers backed new creators etc) that’d be great! Nobody would balk. Because they’d be supporting their goal,” Dash added.



Source link

Continue Reading

Technology

British home computer trailblazer dies aged 81 • The Register

Voice Of EU

Published

on

Sir Clive Sinclair died on Thursday at home in London after a long illness, his family said today. He was 81.

The British entrepreneur is perhaps best known for launching the ZX range of 8-bit microcomputers, which helped bring computing, games, and programming into UK homes in the 1980s, at least. This included the ZX80, said to be the UK’s first mass-market home computer for under £100, the ZX81, and the trusty ZX Spectrum. A whole generation grew up in Britain mastering coding on these kinds of systems in their bedrooms.

And before all that, Sir Clive founded Sinclair Radionics, which produced amplifiers, calculators, and watches, and was a forerunner to his Spectrum-making Sinclair Research. The tech pioneer, who eventually sold his computing biz to Amstrad, was knighted during his computing heyday, in 1983.

“He was a rather amazing person,” his daughter, Belinda Sinclair, 57, told The Guardian this evening. “Of course, he was so clever and he was always interested in everything. My daughter and her husband are engineers so he’d be chatting engineering with them.”

Sir Clive is survived by Belinda, his sons, Crispin and Bartholomew, aged 55 and 52 respectively, five grandchildren, and two great-grandchildren. ®

A full obit will follow on The Register.

Source link

Continue Reading

Technology

UN human rights chief raises concerns over AI privacy violations in report

Voice Of EU

Published

on

‘AI tech can have negative, even catastrophic, effects if they are used without sufficient regard to how they affect people’s human rights.’

The UN’s human rights chief Michelle Bachelet called for a moratorium on the sale and use of artificial intelligence technology until safeguards are put in place to prevent potential human rights violations.

Bachelet made the appeal on Wednesday (15 September) to accompany a report released by the UN’s Human Rights Office, which analysed how AI systems affect people’s right to privacy. The violation of their privacy rights had knock-on impacts on other rights such as rights to health, education and freedom of movement, the report found.

“Artificial intelligence can be a force for good, helping societies overcome some of the great challenges of our times. But AI technologies can have negative, even catastrophic, effects if they are used without sufficient regard to how they affect people’s human rights,” Bachelet said.

“Artificial intelligence now reaches into almost every corner of our physical and mental lives and even emotional states,” Bachelet added.

Japanese multinational Fujitsu caused a stir when it announced plans to implement AI facial recognition technology to monitor employees’ concentration levels during meetings.

Support Silicon Republic

The report was critical of justice systems which had made wrongful arrests because of flawed facial recognition tools. It appealed to countries to ban any AI tools which did not meet international human rights standards. A 2019 study from the UK found that 81pc of suspects flagged by the facial recognition technology used by London’s Metropolitan Police force were innocent.

Earlier this year, Canada banned Clearview’s AI facial recognition technology after the company violated Canadian privacy laws by collecting facial images of Canadians without their consent.

Bachelet also highlighted the report’s concerns on the future use of data once it has been collected and stored, calling it “one of the most urgent human rights questions we face.”

The UN’s report echoes previous appeals made by European data protection regulators.

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) called for a ban on facial recognition in public places in June. They urged EU lawmakers to consider banning the use of such technology in public spaces, after the European Commission released its proposed regulations on the matter.

The EU’s proposed regulations did not recommend an outright ban. The commission instead emphasised the importance of creating “trustworthy AI.”

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates 
directly on your inbox.

You have Successfully Subscribed!