An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNET: Fortnite developer Epic Games said Google paid the equivalent of $360 million to Call of Duty developer Activision Blizzard as part of a broad agreement that included a promise the gaming giant would not create a rival app store. The move, Epic said, helped solidify Google’s hold on phones and tablets powered by its Android software. In the filing, newly unredacted Thursday, Epic said Google paid other developers in a similar way to Activision. Epic cited an agreement Google struck with Tencent, the Chinese company that owns League of Legends developer Riot Games, giving it about $30 million over one year. Like Activision, that money too was part of a larger agreement for Riot to maintain its Google-powered games and spend money promoting them as part of Android.

Google and Activision Blizzard both denied Epic’s allegations about competing app stores. Google said the agreements are designed to provide incentives for developers to create apps for Google Play. “Epic is mischaracterizing business conversations,” a Google spokesperson said in a statement. “It does not prevent developers from creating competing app stores, as Epic falsely alleges.” Activision, for its part, said Google never “asked us, pressured us, or made us agree not to compete with Google Play.” Activision is in the midst of being acquired by software giant Microsoft for $68.7 billion. […] The filing is the latest allegation in Epic’s ongoing lawsuit against Google, which it accuses of operating a monopoly with Google Play, which sells apps for Android. Epic’s ongoing lawsuit is similar to another battle it’s waging against Apple and its App Store over similar concerns of monopolistic practices. In both cases, Epic is pushing the companies to reduce the control they exert over their respective platforms, both in terms of how phone and tablet owners pay for apps and where to download them from.

It’s unclear whether Epic’s argument that Google paid developers to not compete will win in an eventual court case. Epic said in its complaint that “Google understood” the agreement would mean that Activision would “abandon its plans to launch a competing app store, and Google intended this result.” But Armin Zerza, now Activision Blizzard’s finance chief, said in one of the court filings that the company chose not to launch a rival app store because of the risk of failure, in addition to costs for development and marketing. When asked about entering a deal with Google that “accomplished your objectives,” Zerza said that the Activision Blizzard board approved a deal with the Android maker because it “created multi-hundred-million dollars of value for us across multiple ecosystems.” If Activision is ultimately purchased by Microsoft though, it may end up helping create an app store after all. Microsoft told regulators in October that it intends to build its own mobile app store to rival Google and Apple. Activision’s deep library of popular games, including Candy Crush Saga and World of Warcraft, will be a key part of that effort. “Epic’s allegations are nonsense,” an Activision representative said in a statement sent to PC Gamer. “We can confirm that Google never asked us, pressured us, or made us agree not to compete with Google Play — and we’ve already submitted documents and testimony that prove this.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

“Federal prosecutors are asking a judge to sentence Elizabeth Holmes to 15 years in prison,” reports the Guardian, “and require the Theranos founder to pay $800m in restitution, according to court documents filed on Friday.”

A jury found Holmes guilty in January of four counts of investor fraud and conspiracy. Her sentencing is scheduled for 18 November, and she faces a maximum 20 years in prison. Prosecutors argued that “considering the extensiveness of Holmes’s fraud”, their recommended sentencing would “reflect the seriousness of the offenses, provide for just punishment for the offenses, and deter Holmes and others”.

Holmes’s lawyer argued in documents filed on Thursday that the ex-Theranos boss should not be sentenced to prison at all and, at most, should receive 18 months of house arrest. The court filings argued that Holmes had been made a “caricature to be mocked and vilified” by the media over the years, though she is a caring mother and friend.

“Ms Holmes is no danger to the public,” Holmes’s lawyer said in the court documents. “She has no criminal history, has a perfect pretrial services compliance record, and is described by the people who know her repeatedly as a gentle and loving person who tries to do the right thing.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday again declined to hear Apple’s bid to revive an effort to cancel three Qualcomm smartphone patents despite the settlement of the underlying dispute between the two tech giants. Reuters reports: The justices left in place a lower court’s decision against Apple after similarly turning away in June the company’s appeal of a lower court ruling in a closely related case challenging two other Qualcomm patents. Qualcomm sued Apple in San Diego federal court in 2017, arguing that its iPhones, iPads and Apple Watches infringed a variety of mobile-technology patents. That case was part of a broader global dispute between the tech giants. Apple challenged the validity of the patents at issue in this case at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

The companies settled their underlying fight in 2019, signing an agreement worth billions of dollars that let Apple continue using Qualcomm chips in iPhones. The settlement included an Apple license to thousands of Qualcomm patents, but allowed the patent-board proceedings to continue. The board upheld the patents in 2020, and Apple appealed to the patent-specialist U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Cupertino, California-based Apple argued it had proper legal standing to appeal because San Diego-based Qualcomm could sue again after the license expires, potentially as soon as 2025.

A Federal Circuit three-judge panel, in a 2-1 ruling, dismissed the case last year for a lack of standing, finding that Apple’s risk of being sued again was speculative and the challenge would not affect its payment obligations under the settlement. Qualcomm has again argued that Apple has not shown a concrete injury to justify the appeal, just like in the “materially identical” case that the high court rejected.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Elizabeth Holmes — the founder of blood testing startup Theranos and the poster child for misleading investors, media, and innocent people looking for medical care through a web of deceit — wants a do-over. She is requesting a new trial, according to a document filed Tuesday in the Southern District Court of California. Gizmodo reports: The motion for a new trial, authored by Holmes’ attorneys, hinges on “newly discovered evidence,” specifically: the alleged testimony regrets of Adam Rosendorff. Rosendorff was a lab director at Theranos and later, testified as a key witness in the case against Holmes and her ex-boyfriend/partner in crime Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani. His original testimony lasted multiple days and emphasized the pressure that Theranos employees were under to demonstrate the faulty diagnostic technology worked, even when it didn’t.

“I felt that it was a question on my integrity as a physician not to remain there and to continue to bolster results I essentially didn’t have faith in,” Rosendorff said while on the witness stand in 2021, according to CNBC. “I came to understand that management was not sincere in diverting resources to solve issues.” Now, Holmes and her lawyers are claiming that Rosendorff left a voicemail and then showed up at Holmes’ residence on August 8 in a desperate bid to communicate that he “felt he had done something wrong, apparently in connection with Ms. Holmes’ trial.” The motion, supposedly paraphrasing Rosendorff, says that the former Theranos employee stated, “the government made things seem worse than they were.”

In the document, Holmes’ legal team wrote, “Under any interpretation of his statements, the statements warrant a new trial under Rule 33. But, at a minimum, and to the extent the Court has any doubt about whether a new trial is required, the Court should order an evidentiary hearing and permit Ms. Holmes to subpoena Dr. Rosendorff to testify about his concerns.” Holmes was found guilty in January on four of 11 charges defrauding the company’s investors and patients. She was found not guilty on four counts.

In July, Balwani was found guilty of 12 counts of conspiracy and fraud against certain investors and patients.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

According to Bloomberg, the Department of Justice is preparing to sue Google as soon as next month, “capping years of work to build a case that the Alphabet unit illegally dominates the digital advertising market.” From the report: Lawyers with the DOJ’s antitrust division are questioning publishers in another round of interviews to refresh facts and glean additional details for the complaint […]. Some of the interviews have already taken place and others are scheduled in the coming weeks […]. They build on previous interrogations conducted during an earlier stage of the long-running investigation […].

An ad tech complaint, which Bloomberg had reported was in the works last year, would mark the DOJ’s second case against Google following the government’s 2020 lawsuit alleging the tech titan dominates the online search market in violation of antitrust laws. Still undecided is whether prosecutors will file the case in federal court in Washington, where the search case is pending, or in New York, where state attorneys general have their own antitrust case related to Google’s ad tech business […].

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

“Students should not have to fear expulsion for expressing themselves on social media after school and off-campus, but that is just what happened to the plaintiff in C1.G v. Siegfried,” writes Mukund Rathi via the Electronic Frontier Foundation (DFF). “Last month, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the student’s expulsion violated his First Amendment rights. The court’s opinion affirms what we argued in an amicus brief last year.” From the report: We strongly support the Tenth Circuit’s holding that schools cannot regulate how students use social media off campus, even to spread “offensive, controversial speech,” unless they target members of the school community with “vulgar or abusive language.”

The case arose when the student and his friends visited a thrift shop on a Friday night. There, they posted a picture on Snapchat with an offensive joke about violence against Jews. He deleted the post and shared an apology just a few hours later, but the school suspended and eventually expelled him. […] The Tenth Circuit held the First Amendment protected the student’s speech because “it does not constitute a true threat, fighting words, or obscenity.” The “post did not include weapons, specific threats, or speech directed toward the school or its students.” While the post spread widely and the school principal received emails about it, the court correctly held that this did not amount to “a reasonable forecast of substantial disruption” that would allow regulation of protected speech.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An innocent tweet about a wildly popular online multiplayer game led to a terrifying real-life campaign of doxxing and death threats against employees of game company Bungie. The Record reports: Two employees of Bungie, the American company behind “Destiny 2” — a first-person shooter with 40 million users — recently convinced an Ontario judge to order Waterloo-based TextNow to name its customers who made “racist and serious physical threats” against them. TextNow offers users anonymous phone service. […] The two employees sought an “urgent and confidential” court order requiring TextNow to name the customers who made the threats. The judge agreed on June 15 but waited a month before releasing his reasons due to “the serious nature of the allegations of danger.” TextNow collects information about each user, including email address, phone number, IP address, credit card number and logs of calls and texts.

The judge said the employees don’t plan to sue the users in Ontario. “Whether they sue in the U.S. or just give the name to the police, I am satisfied that the exceptional equitable remedy ought to be available to identify people who harass others, with base racism, who dox, abuse personal information, and make overt threats of physical harm and death,” he said. “Our mission is to provide everyone with an affordable way to communicate, and we place a high value on the safety and privacy of our users,” a TextNow spokesperson said in an email to The Record. “From time to time, we receive lawful requests for information. We comply with all valid requests as required by law.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

A new study attempts to measure how knowledge gleaned from Wikipedia may play out in one specific realm: the courts. MIT News reports: A team of researchers led by Neil Thompson, a research scientist at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), recently came up with a friendly experiment: creating new legal Wikipedia articles to examine how they affect the legal decisions of judges. They set off by developing over 150 new Wikipedia articles on Irish Supreme Court decisions, written by law students. Half of these were randomly chosen to be uploaded online, where they could be used by judges, clerks, lawyers, and so on — the “treatment” group. The other half were kept offline, and this second group of cases provided the counterfactual basis of what would happen to a case absent a Wikipedia article about it (the “control”). They then looked at two measures: whether the cases were more likely to be cited as precedents by subsequent judicial decisions, and whether the argumentation in court judgments echoed the linguistic content of the new Wikipedia pages.

It turned out the published articles tipped the scales: Getting a public Wikipedia article increased a case’s citations by more than 20 percent. The increase was statistically significant, and the effect was particularly strong for cases that supported the argument the citing judge was making in their decision (but not the converse). Unsurprisingly, the increase was bigger for citations by lower courts — the High Court — and mostly absent for citations by appellate courts — the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. The researchers suspect this is showing that Wikipedia is used more by judges or clerks who have a heavier workload, for whom the convenience of Wikipedia offers a greater attraction.
“To our knowledge, this is the first randomized field experiment that investigates the influence of legal sources on judicial behavior. And because randomized experiments are the gold standard for this type of research, we know the effect we are seeing is causation, not just correlation,” says Thompson, the lead author of the study. “The fact that we wrote up all these cases, but the only ones that ended up on Wikipedia were those that won the proverbial ‘coin flip,’ allows us to show that Wikipedia is influencing both what judges cite and how they write up their decisions.”

“Our results also highlight an important public policy issue,” Thompson adds. “With a source that is as widely used as Wikipedia, we want to make sure we are building institutions to ensure that the information is of the highest quality. The finding that judges or their staffs are using Wikipedia is a much bigger worry if the information they find there isn’t reliable.”

The paper describing the study has been published in ” The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Jurisprudence.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Bumblebees are eligible for protection as endangered or threatened “fish” under California law, a state appeals court held in a win for environmental groups and the state’s Fish and Game Commission. From a report: The Sacramento-based California Court of Appeal reversed a lower court’s ruling Tuesday for seven agricultural groups who argued that the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) expressly protects only “birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and plants” — not insects.

While “fish” is “commonly understood to refer to aquatic species, the term of art employed by the Legislature … is not so limited,” Associate Justice Ronald Robie wrote for the appeals court. CESA itself does not define “fish,” but the law is part of the California Fish and Game Code. The code’s definition includes any “mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate (or) amphibian,” Robie wrote. All those categories “encompass terrestrial and aquatic species,” and the state legislature has already approved the listing of at least one land-based mollusk, the opinion said.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

California could soon hold social media companies responsible for harming children who have become addicted to their products, permitting parents to sue platforms like Instagram and TikTok for up to $25,000 per violation under a bill that passed the state Assembly on Monday. The Associated Press reports: The bill defines “addiction” as kids under 18 who are both harmed — either physically, mentally, emotionally, developmentally or materially — and who want to stop or reduce how much time they spend on social media but they can’t because they are preoccupied or obsessed with it. Business groups have warned that if the bill passes, social media companies would most likely cease operations for children in California rather than face the legal risk.

The proposal would only apply to social media companies that had at least $100 million in gross revenue in the past year, appearing to take aim at social media giants like Facebook and others that dominate the marketplace. It would not apply to streaming services like Netflix and Hulu or to companies that only offer email and text messaging services. […] The bill gives social media companies two paths to escape liability in the courts. If the bill becomes law, it would take effect on Jan. 1. Companies that remove features deemed addictive to children by April 1 would not be responsible for damages. Also, companies that conduct regular audits of their practices to identify and remove features that could be addictive to children would be immune from lawsuits. “Monday’s vote is a key — but not final — step for the legislation,” adds the report. “The bill now heads to the state Senate, where it will undergo weeks of hearings and negotiations among lawmakers and advocates. But Monday’s vote keeps the bill alive this year.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.