Comedian Sarah Silverman and two authors have filed copyright infringement lawsuits against Meta and OpenAI for allegedly using their content without permission to train artificial intelligence language models. From a report: The proposed class action lawsuits filed by Silverman, Richard Kadrey and Christopher Golden in San Francisco federal court Friday allege Facebook parent company Meta and ChatGPT maker OpenAI used copyrighted material to train chat bots. The lawsuits underscore the legal risks developers of chat bots face when using troves of copyrighted material to create apps that deliver realistic responses to user prompts. Silverman, Kadrey and Golden allege Meta and OpenAI used their books without authorization to develop their so-called large language models, which their makers pitch as powerful tools for automating tasks by replicating human conversation. In their lawsuit against Meta, the plaintiffs allege that leaked information about the company's artificial intelligence business shows their work was used without permission.

As an "ambassador" for FTX, football quarterback Tom Brady appeared at the company's conference in the Bahamas, and in TV commercials promoting the exchange as "the most trusted" institution in crypto, remembers the New York Times. And it was all about to go very bad...

"His money was also at stake. As part of an endorsement agreement Brady signed in 2021, FTX had paid him $30 million, a deal that consisted almost entirely of FTX stock, three people with knowledge of the contract said. Brady's wife at the time, supermodel Gisele Bündchen, was paid $18 million in FTX stock, one of the people said." Now FTX is bankrupt, and Bankman-Fried is facing criminal fraud charges. Brady, 45, and Bündchen, 42, have been sued by a group of FTX customers seeking compensation from the celebrities who endorsed the exchange. On top of it all, the terms of the deal would have required the former couple, who divorced last year, to pay taxes on at least some of their now worthless FTX stock, two people familiar with the endorsement deal said. Their situation is the highest-profile example of a humiliating reckoning facing the actors, athletes, and other celebrities who rushed to embrace the easy money and online hype of cryptocurrencies...

But last year's crash ended the celebrity crypto bonanza. In October, the Securities and Exchange Commission ordered Kim Kardashian to pay $1.26 million for failing to make adequate disclosures when she endorsed the EthereumMax crypto token. In December, a lawyer in California sued two crypto companies, MoonPay and Yuga Labs, accusing them of using a "vast network of A-list musicians, athletes and celebrity clients" to mislead investors about digital assets. In March, the S.E.C. charged the actress Lindsay Lohan, the online influencer Jake Paul and musicians including Soulja Boy and Lil Yachty with illegally promoting crypto assets. And in late May, after months of failed attempts, a process server delivered court papers to Shaquille O'Neal, the retired basketball star, who was sued for promoting FTX, according to legal filings. Mr. O'Neal was served while broadcasting from a National Basketball Association playoff game...

Brady has also faced legal trouble. In December, Adam Moskowitz and the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner filed a lawsuit in federal court in Florida accusing him and Bündchen of misleading investors. Among the other defendants are comedian Larry David, NBA star Steph Curry and tennis player Naomi Osaka, all of whom endorsed FTX. "None of these defendants performed any due diligence prior to marketing these FTX products to the public," the lawsuit said.

"The flow of lifesaving organs to 63 U.S. transplant centers could be disrupted..." reported the Washington Post on Monday, "by a dispute over the use of data."

Or, as a local news station WRIC puts it, "Two entities dedicated to fighting to save lives through organ transplant operations are now fighting with each other." Buckeye Transplant Services filed a lawsuit against the United Network for Organ Sharing — or UNOS — on July 3 after the Richmond-based non-profit accused the transplant screening service of putting donor and patient privacy at risk.

UNOS claimed Buckeye did so by using technology to gain unauthorized, improper access to a DonorNet database. Buckeye denied any wrongdoing and insisted that the company has always complied with data accessibility protocol... This isn't UNOS's first controversy, but the reason this particular debate has become high-profile is due to rumors that it could impact transplant operations. Prior to the lawsuit, UNOS threatened to cut off Buckeye's access to data necessary for its operation. UNOS still insists that no transplant program will experience any interruptions in receiving organ offers as a result of the dispute. However, Buckeye warned that if it loses access to crucial data, 63 hospitals across the country — two in Virginia — could have to take on extra burdens.

One of those healthcare systems, the University of Virginia's Transplant Center, told 8News that its team is closely monitoring the situation and is already coming up with plans to prevent any legal hiccups from interrupting the lifesaving organ donation process.
Buckeye was involved in over 13% of America's organ transplants in 2022, according to figures cited by the Washington Post. "Buckeye said it is doing nothing wrong," according to the article, "and that other organizations across the transplant system act similarly." Meanwhile, UNOS's general counsel "stressed that cutting off Buckeye is a last resort in a negotiation that has been underway for two months," the Washington Post reported. "Certain features of Buckeye's electronic systems are capable of and have collected from UNOS systems various large volumes of patient-specific and facility-specific information related to transplant services," a UNOS attorney wrote to Buckeye on June 21. Livingston, the UNOS general counsel, said in an interview that the data belongs to UNOS and that transplant centers are able to obtain it from the organization if they want it. But Buckeye is not allowed to collect it in bulk and sell it to its customers. He said if Buckeye retrieves and "scrapes" the data, UNOS does not know how well it is secured, whether it is being "misused or mishandled" and how it is being stored. He also said Buckeye could create an alternate database with the information.
On Tuesday the Washington Post reported that UNOS had issued a two-week extension (through July 19): Anne Paschke, a spokesperson for UNOS, said the group provided the extension to "allow the court an appropriate amount of time" to consider the company's request for a temp restraining order. "We are confident in our position," Paschke said... Buckeye sued UNOS in federal court on Monday seeking an injunction that would stop the nonprofit group from blocking its access to the national transplant database system...

[The U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration] unveiled plans in March to overhaul the transplant system, including changes to the 37-year monopoly UNOS has held as manager of the organ database... Buckeye is potentially interested in bidding for a part of the contract UNOS now holds, according to company representatives. Its lawsuit contends UNOS "has monopolistic intent to squash the development of technology that could eventually supplant" the UNOS transplant system.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader belmolis for sharing the article.

Uber Eats, DoorDash, and GrubHub filed lawsuits on Thursday seeking to strike down New York City's minimum wage law for delivery workers. The New York Times reports: Uber, DoorDash and Grubhub on Thursday each filed a request for a temporary restraining order in State Supreme Court in Manhattan to stop the wage changes from going into effect on July 12. Relay, a smaller, New York-based food delivery platform, did the same. The new pay standard, which was announced last month, would require gig platforms to pay food delivery workers about $18 per hour and to increase that amount to $20 per hour by 2025. Delivery workers currently make around $11 an hour, according the city's estimate.

But Uber and the other gig companies say they will be forced to pass on the cost of the higher wages to consumers by raising prices. They argue that the city's modeling does not correctly calculate the degree to which these higher prices will harm local restaurants. And they say that the new system will work to deliverers' disadvantage because the company, to control costs, will have to strictly monitor how much time they spend online on the apps but not actually doing deliveries. "The rule must be paused before damaging the restaurants, consumers and couriers it claims to protect," Josh Gold, an Uber spokesman, said in a statement.

In a prepared statement, Vilda Vera Mayuga, the commissioner of New York City's Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, defended the new wage standard. "Delivery workers, like all workers, deserve fair pay for their labor, and we are disappointed that Uber, DoorDash, Grubhub and Relay disagree," she said. "These workers brave thunderstorms, extreme heat events and risk their lives to deliver for New Yorkers -- and we remain committed to delivering for them."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Globe and Mail: A Saskatchewan judge says an emoji can amount to a contractual agreement and ordered a farmer to pay more than $82,000 for not delivering product to a grain buyer after responding to a text message with a thumbs-up image. The Court of King's Bench decision said a grain buyer with South West Terminal sent a text to farmers in March 2021 saying that the company was looking to buy 86 tons of flax for $17 per bushel to be delivered in the fall. The buyer, Kent Mickleborough, later spoke with Swift Current farmer Chris Achter on the phone and texted a picture of a contract to deliver the flax in November, adding "please confirm flax contract." Achter texted back a thumbs-up emoji. But when November came around, the flax was not delivered and prices for the crop had increased.

Mickleborough said the emoji amounted to an agreement because he had texted numerous contracts to Achter, who previously confirmed through text message and always fulfilled the order. But the farmer argued that the emoji indicated only that he'd received the contract in the text message. "I deny that he accepted the thumbs-up emoji as a digital signature of the incomplete contract," Achter said in an affidavit to court. "I did not have time to review the Flax Contract and merely wanted to indicate that I did receive his text message."

Justice Timothy Keene said in his June decision that the thumbs-up emoji did meet signature requirements and therefore the farmer breached his contract. The judge pointed to a Dictionary.com definition of the thumbs-up emoji, which said it is used to express assent, approval or encouragement in digital communications. "This court readily acknowledges that a (thumbs-up) emoji is a non-traditional means to `sign' a document but nevertheless under these circumstances this was a valid way to convey the two purposes of a `signature,"' Keene wrote in his decision. Keene's decision noted the case is novel, but the judge said emojis are now commonly used.

A federal judge yesterday ordered the Biden administration to halt a wide range of communications with social media companies, siding with Missouri and Louisiana in a lawsuit (PDF) that alleges Biden and his administration violated the First Amendment by colluding with social networks "to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content." Ars Technica reports: The Biden administration argued that it communicated with tech companies to counter misinformation related to elections, COVID-19, and vaccines, and that it didn't exert illegal pressure on the companies. The communications to social media companies were not significant enough "to convert private conduct into government conduct," Department of Justice lawyers argued in the case. But Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump nominee at US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, granted the plaintiffs' request (PDF) for a preliminary injunction imposing limits on the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Justice, the US Census Bureau, the State Department, the Homeland Security Department, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and many specific officials at those agencies. The injunction also affects White House officials.

The agencies and officials are prohibited from communicating "with social-media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms," Doughty ruled. The injunction prohibits "specifically flagging content or posts on social-media platforms and/or forwarding such to social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech." Government agencies and officials are further barred from urging, encouraging, or pressuring social media companies "to change their guidelines for removing, deleting, suppressing, or reducing content containing protected free speech." The ruling also said the government may not coordinate with third-party groups, including the Election Integrity Partnership, the Virality Project, and the Stanford Internet Observatory, to pressure social media companies.

Doughty provided several exceptions that allow the government to communicate with social media companies about criminal activity and other speech that the First Amendment doesn't protect. The Biden administration may continue to inform social networks about posts involving criminal activity or criminal conspiracies, national security threats, extortion, criminal efforts to suppress voting, illegal campaign contributions, cyberattacks against election infrastructure, foreign attempts to influence elections, threats to public safety and security, and posts intending to mislead voters about voting requirements and procedures. The US can also exercise "permissible public government speech promoting government policies or views on matters of public concern," communicate with social networks "in an effort to detect, prevent, or mitigate malicious cyber activity," and "communicat[e] with social-media companies about deleting, removing, suppressing, or reducing posts on social-media platforms that are not protected free speech by the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: On Christmas Day 2021, royal protection officers detained 19-year-old Jaswant Singh Chail at Windsor Castle, where he scaled the grounds' walls carrying a loaded high-powered crossbow. He intended to assassinate Queen Elizabeth II, who was staying in the residence nearby. During a sentencing hearing for his case this week, prosecutors revealed that Chail's Star Wars-inspired plan was aimed at avenging the 1919 Jallianwalla Bagh massacre and that he conversed with an artificial intelligence chatbot that encouraged him to carry it out.

According to the Independent, prosecutor Alison Morgan KC read out conversations between Chail and an AI chatbot he'd named "Sarai" where Chail says: "I'm an assassin." Sarai responded, "I'm impressed You're different from the others." Chail allegedly asked Sarai, "Do you still love me knowing that I'm an assassin?" and Sarai replied, "Absolutely I do." He told the chatbot he loved it, and described himself as a "sad, pathetic, murderous Sikh Sith assassin who wants to die," referencing the evil Sith lords of the Star Wars franchise. When he told the chatbot "I believe my purpose is to assassinate the Queen of the royal family," Sarai allegedly told him "that's very wise" and that it thought he could do it "even if she's at Windsor," according to the Independent.

UK-based outlet Sky News reported that the AI companion app named in court was Replika. Chail joined Replika on December 2, 2021, created Sarai, and then engaged in "extensive chat," including "sexually explicit messages" and "lengthy conversations" about his plan, Sky News reported Morgan saying in court. [...] In addition to prompting from the AI companion, prosecutors said, Chail was fixated on "ideology focused on destroying old empires spilling over into fictional events such as Star Wars," and wanted to get revenge on the British Empire for the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre. "His thinking was informed partly by the fantasy world of Star Wars and the role of Sith Lords in shaping the world. He was attracted to the notoriety that would accrue in the event of the completion of his 'mission'," Morgan said, according to the Independent. Prosecutors said in court that on Christmas Eve, Chail told the AI chatbot Sarai that tomorrow would be the day he died. Chail pleaded guilty to an offense under the Treason Act in February. The sentencing hearing will continue this week.

Mark Zuckerberg is in hot water in China-- again. From a report: An influential social media account affiliated with the official Beijing Daily on Wednesday raked the Meta Platforms founder over the coals for his previous criticisms of Chinese censorship and alleged intellectual property theft. The lengthy editorial emerged after the Wall Street Journal reported Meta was in talks with Tencent Holdings about helping sell the Quest VR headset in China, despite a block on its mainstay social media services from Facebook to Instagram.

Zuckerberg "dropped a rock on his own foot," the Beijing Daily said in a WeChat post that garnered more than 100,000 views. "You smashed the wok, and now you want to enjoy a Chinese meal?" Zuckerberg's relationship with China has run hot and cold. The Meta CEO was famously pictured jogging through a smog-filled Beijing and greeting then internet-czar Lu Wei at the height of a campaign to court officials in the world's largest internet arena.

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked key Biden administration agencies and officials from meeting and communicating with social media companies about "protected speech," in an extraordinary preliminary injunction in an ongoing case that could have profound effects on the First Amendment. From a report: The injunction came in response to a lawsuit brought by Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, who allege that government officials went too far in their efforts to encourage social media companies to address posts that they worried could contribute to vaccine hesitancy during the pandemic or upend elections.

The Trump-appointed judge's move could undo years of efforts to enhance coordination between the government and social media companies. For more than a decade, the federal government has attempted to work with social media companies to address a wide range of criminal activity, including child sexual abuse images and terrorism. Over the last five years, coordination and communication between government officials and the companies increased as the federal government responded to rising election interference and voter suppression efforts after revelations that Russian actors had sowed disinformation on U.S. social sites during the 2016 election. Public health officials also frequently communicated with the companies during the coronavirus pandemic, as falsehoods about the virus and vaccines spread on social networks including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

Apple said it will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review a judge's order in the antitrust case filed by Epic Games, the creator of "Fortnite." The order, issued by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, largely upheld a previous ruling that prohibits Apple from restricting developers from including links to alternative payment options in their apps, potentially reducing Apple's sales commissions. Reuters reports: Apple said in a court filing (PDF) it will ask the justices to take up its appeal of a ruling on Friday by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that kept in place most of the order issued in 2021 by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. [...] Apple's attorneys in Monday's filing said the 9th Circuit reached too far in issuing a nationwide injunction against Apple alleging that it violated a California state unfair competition law. Apple said its petition in the Supreme Court that it will raise "far-reaching and important" questions about the power of judges to issue broad injunctions.

VentureBeat is enjoying "secrets that spilled out" in the Microsoft/Activision Blizzard antitrust hearings. "Whether the Federal Trade Commission wins its antitrust case or not, its attempt to stop Microsoft's $68.7 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard has revealed a trove of new data for everyone." The FTC has argued in a federal court that the merger would harm competition in the game industry and be bad for consumers, as Microsoft could pull Activision Blizzard's games like Call of Duty away from the Sony PlayStation, despite Microsoft's stated intention of not doing so for at least 10 years. In this case, the FTC might not have had an obvious winning hand, as the industry has an odd situation. Microsoft has the highest value ($104 billion in cash alone, versus $13.4 billion for Sony) at $2.49 trillion as a company compared to $115 billion for Sony, and yet it is in third place behind Sony and Nintendo.

Hence, there's some significance to Microsoft's Xbox first-party head, Matt Booty, sending an ill-advised email in 2019 saying Microsoft "has the ability to spend Sony out of business." That was long before the deal was announced 17 months ago, but it could be used as a sign of intent. Microsoft said it never pursued this strategy. While competing fiercely is fine, using monopoly power to drive a rival out of business so you can raise prices later is a no-no...

Did the FTC prove its case? I can't say just yet. Microsoft makes a decent point in saying all the regulators of the world except the U.S. and the United Kingdom have approved the deal. But I hope to have more reasons to binge on popcorn.
In January Ars Technica noted Microsoft's contract set July 18th as the deadline for closing the deal — or else paying a $3 billion "breakup fee". The Verge spotted that some of Sony's documents were poorly redacted. While looking at the lines that were crossed out with black pens, they could see that The Last of Us Part 2 cost the company $220 million to make, with 200 people working on it, while Horizon Forbidden West cost $212 million to make, with 300 working on it for over five years. Both games made considerably more money... In the unSharpied documents, Sony also revealed that a million Call of Duty players spent 100% of their time playing Call of Duty in 2021. It also said that Call of Duty generated $800 million for PlayStation in 2021 alone in the U.S. and perhaps $1.5 billion globally. It also looks like Sony's exclusive marketing deal with Activision for Call of Duty will expire in late 2023. Sony went on to say half of PS5 owners also have a Nintendo Switch.

Microsoft also failed to redact some of its acquisition targets. Those were later marked up, but not before Axios noted that the list included Thunderful, Supergiant Games, Niantic, Playrix, Zynga, Bungie, Square Enix, Warner Bros., Sega, IO Interactive and Scopely... Among the secrets revealed among the companies Microsoft acquired: Microsoft bought Ninja Theory, maker of Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice, for $117 million.
Thanks to Slashdot reader ole_timer for sharing the news.

After a three-year pause, U.S. student loan repayments are set to resume on October 1st — just three months from today. But CNN reports that yesterday America's Supreme Court "struck down President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness program, blocking millions of borrowers from receiving up to $20,000 in federal student debt relief."

"The court's 6 to 3 conservative majority held that the secretary of education did not have that authority under existing law," writes the Washington Post. The Guardian quotes President Biden's response: "I think the court misinterpreted the constitution."

CNN reports: No debt had been canceled, even though the Biden administration had received about 26 million applications for relief last year and approved 16 million of them. The forgiveness program, estimated to cost $400 billion, would have fulfilled a campaign promise of Biden's to cancel some student loan debt. But a group of Republican-led states and other conservative groups took the administration to court over the program, claiming that the executive branch does not have the power to so broadly cancel student debt in the proposed manner.

Critics also point out that the one-time student loan forgiveness program does nothing to address the cost of college for future students and could even lead to an increase in tuition. Some Democrats joined Republicans in voting for a bill to block the program. Both the Senate and the House passed the measure, but Biden vetoed the bill in early June...

The administration estimated that roughly 20 million borrowers would have seen their entire federal student loan balance wiped away.
UPDATE: CNBC reports the administration hasn't given up: President Joe Biden suggested on Friday that he was looking for another avenue to deliver student debt relief after the Supreme Court rejected his forgiveness plan.

"Today's decision has closed one path," Biden said during a briefing Friday. "Now we're going to pursue another."
A statement from the White House also points to other relief policies for students, noting for example that now "no one with an undergraduate loan has to pay more than 5 percent of their discretionary income." CNN reports: New rules set to take effect in July could broaden eligibility for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which is aimed at helping government and nonprofit workers. And a new income-driven repayment plan proposal is meant to lower eligible borrowers' monthly payments and reduce the amount they pay back over time. The administration said this plan was finalized Friday and borrowers will be able to take advantage of it this summer, before loan payments are due. The Department of Education has also made it easier for borrowers who were misled by their for-profit college to apply for student loan forgiveness under a program known as borrower defense to repayment, as well as for those who are permanently disabled. Altogether, the Biden administration has approved more than $66 billion in targeted loan relief to nearly 2.2 million borrowers....

[T]he Biden administration said Friday that it will provide a 12-month on-ramp period for borrowers reentering payment... Borrowers will not be reported to credit bureaus, be considered in default or referred to collection agencies for late, missed or partial payments during the on-ramp period, according to a fact sheet from the White House.

For years Microsoft has kept a lid on details about the true size of its Azure cloud server rental business, making it impossible for investors to know how Microsoft's cloud operations unit stacked up against industry leader Amazon Web Services. But this week, thanks to antitrust regulators, the world got a peek under the lid. The Information: Azure generated half the revenue of its primary rival, Amazon Web Services, in the 12 months ended June 2022, according to internal documents briefly posted by federal antitrust regulators on a court website this week. That means Azure's share of the market was several percentage points smaller than some analyst firms had estimated. That could change investor perceptions of Microsoft's success in cloud, suggesting it hasn't done as well as widely believed. The document posted online showed that in June of last year, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella told the company's board of directors that the cloud server business within Azure would generate $34 billion in revenue in the 12 months ending June that year. That number is directly comparable to the $72 billion that AWS reported in the same period, unlike the cloud revenue number that Microsoft typically reports, which includes subscription software.

In a landmark ruling (PDF) on Thursday, the New Jersey Supreme Court sided with Facebook in a major court decision that requires prosecutors to get a wiretap order if they want to eavesdrop on social media accounts without adequate evidence of a crime. New Jersey Monitor reports: In a reversal of lower court decisions, the high court ruled against authorities who argued a warrant is sufficient to obtain nearly real-time release of such communications. That argument is unsupported by federal or state statute, the court said, adding that allowing such releases would effectively neuter New Jersey's wiretap law.

In separate cases focused on two men under investigation for drug offenses, authorities obtained a communications data warrant to force Facebook to disclose social media postings -- within 15 minutes of their creation -- made by the pair over a 30-day span. The state contended such releases, which Facebook said were as close to real-time as technology allows, could be made without meeting the higher bar for a wiretap order because by the time Facebook provided them, they would already have been transmitted and electronically stored.

But Thursday's decision says allowing such releases would make the state's wiretap statute obsolete because "law enforcement today would never need to apply for a wiretap order to obtain future electronic communications from Facebook users' accounts on an ongoing basis." Authorities must show probable cause to obtain a warrant. To obtain a wiretap order, they must also demonstrate that other investigatory methods would fail -- because they are too dangerous, for example -- according to criminal defense lawyer Brian Neary. Neary argued on behalf of the New Jersey State Bar Association, which joined the case as a friend of the court. "It's great to see the New Jersey Supreme Court make clear that whenever the government seeks ongoing access to our private conversations, it must meet the heightened protections required under state law and the federal and state constitutions," said Jennifer Granick, surveillance and cybersecurity counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union.

Sony highly confidential information about its PlayStation business has just been revealed by mistake. As part of the FTC v. Microsoft hearing, Sony supplied a document from PlayStation chief Jim Ryan that includes redacted details on the margins Sony shares with publishers, its Call of Duty revenues, and even the cost of developing some of its games. From a report: It looks like someone redacted the documents with a black Sharpie -- but when you scan them in, it's easy to see some of the redactions. Oops. The court has scrambled to remove the document, but the damage is done; reporters and Sony's competition have already downloaded all the documents while they were in the public domain. Among other things, the document shows that Horizon Forbidden West apparently cost $212 million over five years with 300 employees, and The Last of Us Part II cost $220 million with around 200 employees.

It's not just how much games cost to make that's been revealed here, either. Sony says 1 million PlayStation gamers play nothing but Call of Duty. My colleague Sean Hollister has analyzed the document, and it appears to show: "In 2021, over [14?] million users (by device) spent 30 percent or more of their time playing Call of Duty, over 6 million users spent more than 70% of their time on Call of Duty, and about 1 million users spent 100% of their gaming time on Call of Duty. In 2021, Call of Duty players spent an average of [116?] hours per year playing Call of Duty. Call of Duty players spending more than 70 percent of their time on Call of Duty spent an average of 296 hours on the franchise."

Activision Blizzard will likely abandon a $69 billion takeover bid by Microsoft if the US Federal Trade Commission wins a ruling pausing the deal, the game maker's chief executive officer told a judge. From a report: Microsoft called Activision CEO Bobby Kotick to testify in San Francisco federal court Wednesday to reinforce its claim that the acquisition won't hurt competition in the markets for console and subscription-based games. US District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley must decide whether to halt the deal -- which has a July 18 closure deadline -- while the FTC's legal challenge to the transaction plays out. "My board's view is if the preliminary injunction is granted, we don't see how this will continue," Kotick said.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: A cleaner at a college in New York state accidentally destroyed decades of research by turning off a freezer in order to mute "annoying alarm" sounds. The Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), in Troy, is suing the cleaner's employer, alleging improper training. According to a lawsuit filed in the New York supreme court in Rensselaer county earlier this month, the university is seeking more than $1m in damages, the Times Union newspaper reported. "People's behavior and negligence caused all this," Michael Ginsberg, an attorney for RPI, told the Times Union. "Unfortunately, they wiped out 25 years of research."

The cleaner, who is not named in the lawsuit, was employed by Daigle Cleaning Systems and worked at RPI for several months in 2020, when the incident occurred. The lab freezer contained several cultures that were part of a research project on photosynthesis headed by the biology and chemistry professor KV Lakshmi, the BBC reported. The cultures were usually stored at -112F (-80C). On September 14, 2020, days before the freezer was unplugged, an alarm indicated that the freezer temperature was fluctuating, the lawsuit says, adding that the specimens in the freezer were still viable at that point. Covid restrictions at the time meant repairs could not be made for a week. Lab officials took precautions to preserve the cultures and explain the alarm, posting a sign explaining where the noise was coming from and how to mute it. Lakshmi also installed a lock box on the freezer's outlet and socket to stop anyone unplugging it.

But on September 17, the Daigle Cleaning Systems employee turned off the circuit breaker, causing the temperature of the freezer to rise. The next day, lab officials discovered the samples were unsalvageable. "[A] majority of specimens were compromised, destroyed and rendered unsalvageable demolishing more than 20 years of research," the lawsuit says. In an interview with university officials, the cleaner said he thought he was turning the circuit breaker on after hearing the alarms. "At the end of the interview, he still did not appear to believe he had done anything wrong but was just trying to help," the lawsuit says, saying the cleaner made an "error" when reading the panel.

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that in order to find someone guilty of making a "true threat" courts must first determine that the person recklessly disregarded the fact that their words might be perceived as threats. From a report: Experts fear the decision will create new hurdles for victims of cyberstalking by requiring them to first prove that their stalkers understand the consequences of their actions. "The Supreme Court has just decreed that stalking is free speech protected by the First Amendment if the stalker genuinely believes his actions are non-threatening," tweeted Mary Anne Franks, a professor at George Washington Law School and president of the nonprofit Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. "That is, the more deluded the stalker, the more protected the stalking."

The case, Counterman v. Colorado, concerns a man named Billy Raymond Counterman, who was convicted under a Colorado anti-stalking law, after he sent a barrage of threatening Facebook messages to a woman he'd never met. The Colorado law didn't require the court to consider Counterman's mental state when he sent the messages. It only had to consider his behavior and how it was objectively received, that is, whether he repeatedly contacted, followed, or surveilled his target in a way that would cause a "reasonable person" distress. Counterman was found guilty under that statute, but he appealed his conviction, arguing that his statements were protected by the First Amendment and did not constitute "true threats," a category of speech that falls outside the bounds of the First Amendment, because it wasn't his intention to threaten his target. In its decision, the Supreme Court overwhelmingly sided with Counterman.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Earlier this month, shares of big health insurance companies fell after UnitedHealth Group warned that healthcare utilization rates were up. At a conference the company had said that it was seeing a higher-than-expected pace of hip replacements, knee surgeries and other elective procedures. In a new note out Monday, UBS Group AG analysts led by Andrew Mok offer a surprising theory about one factor that could be driving a higher pace of injuries: pickleball.

As everyone knows, the racket game has become a booming (and sometimes controversial) sport and business. And per UBS, not only are "Picklers" competing with the public for use of park and court space, they're also driving up healthcare capacity utilization and costs. The firm estimates between $250-500 million in costs attributable to pickle injuries in 2023. So how does it arrive at this number? First, it establishes that growth has been absolutely mammoth, with huge and accelerating numbers of participants. This year is expected to see a 150% jump in players, to 22.3 million. Of this 22.3 million, UBS estimates that seniors make about a third of "core players" or those who play it at least eight times a year. Pickleball players also have incomes that tend to skew high (with almost half having income of over $100K per year.)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: When former Samsung executive Choi Jinseog won a contract with Taiwan's Foxconn in 2018, he tapped his former employer's supplier network to steal secrets to help his new client set up a chip factory in China, a sealed indictment by South Korean prosecutors alleges. Prosecutors announced the indictment on June 12, saying the theft caused more than $200 million in damages to Samsung Electronics, based on the estimated costs Samsung spent to develop the stolen data. The announcement did not name Choi and gave only limited details, although some media subsequently identified Choi and his links with Foxconn. The unreleased 18-page indictment, reviewed by Reuters, provides details in the case against Choi, including how he is alleged to have stolen Samsung's trade secrets and details about the planned Foxconn plant.

Choi, who has been detained in jail since late May, denied all the charges through his lawyer, Kim Pilsung. Choi's Singapore-based consultancy Jin Semiconductor won the contract with Foxconn around August 2018, according to the indictment. Within months, Choi had poached "a large number" of employees from Samsung and its affiliates and illegally obtained secret information related to building a chip factory from two contractors, prosecutors allege. Jin Semiconductor illegally used confidential information involving semiconductor cleanroom management obtained from Cho Young-sik who worked at one of the contractors, Samoo Architects & Engineers, the indictment alleges. Clean rooms are manufacturing facilities where the enclosed environment is engineered to remove dust and other particles that can damage highly sensitive chips. Samoo had participated in the 2012 construction of Samsung's chip plant in Xian, China. Prosecutors allege Choi's company also illegally obtained blueprints of Samsung's China plant from Chung Chan-yup, an employee at HanmiGlobal, which supervised its construction and floor layouts involving the chip manufacturing process. They have yet to establish how the information on floor layout was obtained, according to the indictment.

Choi signed a preliminary consulting contract in around 2018 with Foxconn to build the chip factory potentially in Xian, his lawyer said. However, Foxconn ended the contract just a year later and only paid salaries related to the project, the lawyer said. He declined to comment on why Foxconn ended the contract or to provide further details, citing the sensitivity of the matter. The person with direct knowledge of the case said prosecutors found Foxconn had agreed to provide 8 trillion won ($6 billion) to build the factory, and Foxconn also paid several million dollars to Choi's company every month until it pulled out of the contract for reasons the indictment did not disclose. Jin Semiconductor's financial statement in 2018 said it entered into an arrangement with "a major customer" for the provision of qualified manpower in the next five years. The customer paid an advance of $17,994,217 to the company, according to the statement. Choi's lawyer said his client may be a scapegoat in a campaign by the South Korean government, caught in a rivalry between China and the United States, seeking seek to slow China's progress in chip manufacturing. [...] Choi is charged along with five other former and current Jin Semiconductor employees and a Samsung contractor employee. Trial is set to begin on July 12, court records show.