Mozilla and Firefox have undergone a slew of changes of late, with the non-profit laying off its entire advocacy team and subsequently working with a famous design house on a branding overhaul. At the same time, Google is facing a monumental US antitrust lawsuit that could see the search giant prohibited from paying to be the default search engine on a variety of platforms. Speculation until now has predicted that if Google loses the antitrust case, it would deprive Mozilla and Firefox of a massive revenue stream, effectively ending the Firefox browser as we know it.

Perhaps in preparation for this imminent change, Mozilla has just announced a new search partnership with Ecosia, the search engine that prioritizes privacy and environmental concerns. Mozilla didn't explain what the partnership entails, but the official announcement seems to suggest that Ecosia won't become the default search engine for Firefox, although the blog post does encourage switching to Ecosia as the default search engine. Ecosia advertises that it is transparent when it comes to its earnings, and it donates all of its profits to environmental conservation efforts. It also embodies many of the privacy protections that Firefox has historically been known for. A more cynical reading of the situation might suggest that this is simply part of Mozilla trying to save face after its recent layoffs and a round of bad news.

Following Epic Games's recent victory over Apple, which effectively forced the iPhone maker to allow third-party apps on iOS in the EU, the game developer and distributor has won a similar case against Google, except in the US, this time. The ruling places several restrictions on what Google can and can't do when it comes to the Android operating system and how it positions its own apps and services on Android phones, including prohibiting Google from paying device manufacturers to include its Play software on their devices and forcing developers to use Google's payment platform.

The ruling (PDF) and its consequent restrictions will start on November 1, 2024, will last three years, and Google isn't particularly happy about the mandated changes, having already confirmed that it will appeal the decision, citing security concerns and arguing that the order would negatively affect developers: "these changes would put consumers' privacy and security at risk, make it harder for developers to promote their apps, and reduce competition on devices."

The U.S. Department of Justice has stepped up its probe into NVIDIA and several other companies in the hopes of gaining evidence that NVIDIA could have violated antitrust laws. The DOJ moved from sending questionnaires to issuing subpoenas requiring recipients to provide more information. This puts the government one step closer to potentially filing a formal complaint. Antitrust officials are concerned that NVIDIA might be making it difficult for customers to switch to other suppliers and could be penalizing those who don't exclusively use its AI chips, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

The probe, which first came to light in June via Bloomberg, has seen investigators reaching out to other tech companies for information. The DOJ's San Francisco office is leading the inquiry, though the department has declined to comment publicly on the matter. In response to the investigation, NVIDIA said in an emailed statement that its market dominance is due to the superior quality and performance of its products. "NVIDIA wins on merit, as reflected in our benchmark results and value to customers, who can choose whatever solution is best for them".

Law firm, Abington Cole + Ellery, is investigating a potential class action lawsuit against Intel due to instability issues in their 13th and 14th Gen CPUs. Intel has acknowledged the problem, stating that elevated operating voltage caused by a microcode algorithm is resulting in instability. While Intel promises a patch, it won't prevent damage already done to affected chips.

Intel has offered to replace damaged CPUs, which could potentially undermine the basis for a lawsuit if the company is honoring this commitment effectively. However, user experiences with Intel's RMA service vary widely, with some reporting smooth replacements and others facing delays or complications. Intel claims to support all affected customers, including those with tray processors, but advises contacting system vendors for pre-built systems.

Conflicting announcements and news items have surrounded a removal of the Dolphin emulator from Valve's Steam store - the emulation project's development team claimed that Nintendo had sent a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown order last week: "It is with much disappointment that we have to announce that the Dolphin on Steam release has been indefinitely postponed. We were notified by Valve that Nintendo has issued a cease and desist (order) citing the DMCA against Dolphin's Steam page, and have removed Dolphin from Steam until the matter is settled." This emulation application has been freely available online for many years, but an announcement was made back in March about a forthcoming release (Q2 2023) on the Steam store.

It has been widely reported that Nintendo is very protective of its technologies and intellectual properties - many examples of litigation (against pirating outfits and leakers) have been covered over the past year or two - but according to various sources (emerging over the weekend) it seems that Valve first flagged Dolphin as a potential legal headache. Valve apparently sought Nintendo's opinion about the matter of a Gamecube and Wii emulator getting distribution via Steam. A former treasurer on the Dolphin Emulation Project, Pierre Bourdon, criticized claims of the supposed takedown order and posited the following negotiations between involved parties: In this case, none of this process was followed. To the best of my understanding, this is what happened: "Valve legal contacted Nintendo of America (NoA) to ask "hey, what do you think about Dolphin?" Nintendo replied to Valve "we think it's bad and also that it violates the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions" (note: nothing about violating copyright itself). Also "please take it down." Valve legal takes it down and forwards NoA's reply to the Dolphin Foundation contact address."

OpenAI's CEO, Sam Altman, is currently exploring the UK and Europe on a PR-related "mini" world tour, and protesters have been following these proceedings with much interest. UK news outlets have reported that a demonstration took place outside of a university building in London yesterday, where the UCL Events organization hosted Altman as part of a fireside discussion about the benefits and problems relating to advanced AI systems. Attendees noted that Altman expressed optimism about AI's potential for the creation of more jobs and reduction in inequality - despite calls for a major pause on development. He also visited 10 Downing Street during the British leg of his PR journey - alongside other AI company leaders - to talk about potential risks (originating from his industry) with the UK's prime minister. Discussed topics were reported to include national security, existential threats and disinformation.

At the UCL event, Altman touched upon his recent meetings with European regulators, who are developing plans for advanced legislation that could lead to targeted laws (applicable to AI industries). He says that his company is "gonna try to comply" with these potential new rules and agrees that some form of regulation is necessary: "something between the traditional European approach and the traditional US approach" would be preferred. He took issue with the potential branding of large AI models (such as OpenAI's ChatGPT and GPT-4 applications) as "high risk" ventures via the European Union's AI Act provisions: "Either we'll be able to solve those requirements or not...If we can comply, we will, and if we can't, we'll cease operating… We will try. But there are technical limits to what's possible."

The Chinese Government could retaliate to the U.S. ban on YMTC NAND flash memory products by banning American memory maker Micron Technology. This comes as the country initiated a "cybersecurity review" of Micron products to check if they conform to China's network security Laws. These are essentially the same grounds on which the US-FCC banned YMTC, forcing large customers like Apple to cancel orders of YMTC NAND flash products, derailing the company's growth. YMTC's 3D NAND flash products and their development roadmaps can be considered "contemporary," against those of Micron, Kioxia, SK hynix, and Samsung. If banned, China would force Chinese companies, such as Lenovo, HMD International, etc., to remove Micron from their qualified vendor lists.

From 2024, all mobile devices in the European Union will have to use USB-C as the standard charging port, courtesy of a new law that was passed by the European Parliament. This means that mobile phones, tablets, digital cameras, headphones and headsets, handheld videogame consoles and portable speakers, e-readers, keyboards, mice, portable navigation systems and earbuds, all have to sport a USB-C port for charging in the near future. Many of these devices already do, with the main exception being Apple, although many lower-end devices still rely on micro USB, due to the lower cost. The European Parliament voted 602 in favour of the new law, with only 13 parliamentarians being against and eight that abstained, which shows that most EU nations were in favour of the move.

From 2026, laptops which adhere to the USB PD 3.0 standard, i.e. up to 100 Watts, will be required to charge via USB-C as well. As such, it seems like the EU didn't enforce support for USB PD 3.1, which goes up to 240 Watts. The EU is also planning on enforcing a common wireless charging standard, which is expected to come into effect by the end of 2024. It's not clear which standard will be chosen, but it's highly likely to be the Qi standard, as it's the most commonly used wireless charging standard.

Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger in his InnovatiON keynote address exclaimed that Moore's Law is "alive and well," and that Intel is poised to be its faithful steward into this decade. Intel Foundry will "exhaust the periodic table" to find materials that advance silicon fabrication. The company plans to release four new semiconductor fabrication nodes in 5 years, and stated that the company's 18A node is close to building test chips on. The company hopes to see transistor-counts grow from nearly-100 billion transistors per package, to a trillion transistors per package in a decade. Gelsinger's statement comes hot on the heels of a statement by another tech giant—Jensen Huang of NVIDIA, who declared Moore's Law dead recently.

The world of semiconductor IP licensing is complex by nature. If you use a company's IP, you must agree to its licensing terms. Today, it is precisely those terms that are being breached in the event of Arm Ltd. filing a lawsuit against one of its biggest customers, Qualcomm. When Qualcomm acquired Nuvia Inc., regarded as one of the best CPU design teams in the industry, it transferred Arm-Nuvia license agreements as its own. It continued the development of Arm IP under Qualcomm's name. This is a standard restriction, as Arm's licensing prohibits these sorts of IP transfers among companies to protect the IP.

As the UK-headquartered company reports: "Because Qualcomm attempted to transfer Nuvia licenses without Arm's consent, which is a standard restriction under Arm's license agreements, Nuvia's licenses terminated in March 2022. Before and after that date, Arm made multiple good faith efforts to seek a resolution. In contrast, Qualcomm has breached the terms of the Arm license agreement by continuing development under the terminated licenses. Arm was left with no choice other than to bring this claim against Qualcomm and Nuvia to protect our IP, our business, and to ensure customers are able to access valid Arm-based products."

Lawmakers in the European Union have formally agreed to make USB Type-C the standard charging port in the union and although there are still a couple of minor hurdles ahead of it becoming a legal requirement, it's expected to be a requirement by the autumn of 2024. For it to become EU wide legislation, the EU parliament and Council still needs to approve the new law, but considering all sides seem to have largely agreed on the details, this is said to be largely formality at this point. However, the new law isn't just about making USB-C the standard used for charging mobile phones, tablets and other types of portable electronics, including laptops, but it also covers chargers and this is where things get a bit tricky.

The EU is legislating for what it calls a "harmonised fast-charging technology", which means that proprietary fast charging technologies might be out. The USB Power Delivery standard already supports fast charging, but it's still limited compared to some of the proprietary charging standards that are coming out of China, where some companies offer a full charge in 15 minutes. This may in itself not be that big of a deal, as all of these standards still use USB-C connectors and can rely on USB PD as a fallback charging method, but the EU also wants to unbundle chargers from devices. This means that any device that requires a proprietary charger to reach its optimal charging performance, will require consumers to buy a charger that used to come bundled with said device. This might not be a major hassle, but it's still an inconvenience in those cases and it's likely this will lead to higher prices for some products as well.

A federal judge in Seattle has recently ruled that the antitrust class-action lawsuit brought against Valve by Wolfire Games over their Steam Key Price Parity Provision can proceed. The Key Price Parity Provision is a policy that prohibits game developers from pricing their games cheaper on competing storefronts such as the Epic Games Store even if they offer lower fees. The judge noted that Valve "relies on provisions within Steamworks Documentation to impose conditions on how non-Steam-enabled games are sold and priced." and that "Valve also threatens game publishers with punitive action, including removal of their Steam-enabled games, if they sell non-Steam-enabled versions of those games at lower prices,". The ruling states that allegations of the company exploiting it's market dominance to threaten and retaliate against developers were "sufficient to plausibly allege unlawful conduct". This decision will allow for a class-action lawsuit to be brought against Valve.

Today, Epic Games has decided to file a lawsuit against both Apple and Google after both companies removed Fortnite form their platform app stores (Google Play and Apple App Store). Firstly, Apple has decided to remove the Fortnite app to form its App Store because the game violated the company's policy that all in-game payments must go through the Apple App Store system, instead of them being processed directly. That means that Apple can also apply its 30% cut on all the payments made in-game. After Apple has revoked the Fortnite app, Epic Games has decided to file a lawsuit that aims to fight the company's monopoly and make the iOS platform more developer-friendly. Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said that Epic will not seek or accept any special deal that Apple may offer, but rather wants to fight for all developers.

Just hours after Apple decided to pull the Fortnite game from its App Store, Google has also removed the game from its Google Play Store. Google's Play Store policy about in-app payments says that all games must use Google Play in-app billing if they want to process payments, so Fortnite was pulled from it as well. In light of that move, Epic Games has also filed a lawsuit against Google on the same terms. The company wants to fight both Apple and Google in court and make them be more developer-friendly, especially Apple. We have to wait and see how the case progresses. Being that Apple is almost a $2 trillion company, it can surely afford lots of good lawyers, just as Google will. We want to express our support for Epic Games for going in the right direction, as we do need more open ecosystems.

A U.K. House of Lords empowered committee called for video games with loot crates (aka loot boxes) to be classified as games of chance and "immediately" brought under the country's stringent gambling regulations under the Gambling Act 2005. "If a product looks like gambling and feels like gambling, it should be regulated as gambling," the committee says in its report, cited by the BBC. "The government must act immediately to bring loot boxes within the remit of gambling legislation and regulation," stated one of its members.

The report has sparked a debate in the U.K. about whether the Gambling Act 2005 is up to the task when dealing with contemporary and new forms of gambling, especially one with potentially billions of Pounds in market size. Lord Michael Grade, chair of the committee, in an interview with the BBC highlighted how several other countries already identify loot crates as a form of gambling as "they can see the dangers" which is teaching "kids to gamble." He argued that the Gambling Act can regulate video game loot crates without needing any legislation in the way of amendments.

Game Boosting refers to the practice of gamers to pay other, more skilled players to "boost them up" to higher ranks, mainly in competitive multiplayer games. The practice sometimes takes the form of paid partnership with a team of skilled players (where the player that's receiving the boost is of much lower skill, but gets pulled along with the remaining members of the team's efforts) or by actually giving a player access to your account, to play as if he/her was you, and cashing in on his/her better "skillz". This practice, it goes without saying, goes against the competitive nature of certain games, and if you know your South Koreans, you know they take competitive gaming very, very (really, very) seriously.

This is why the country is seemingly looking to put an "illegal" tag on game boosting, as in, illegal enough to warrant prosecution and an actual sentence to jail (a maximum prison sentence of two years and a fine of 20 million won ($18,000). This isn't something that has been cooked up overnight: an amendment to the "Law on Game Business Development" bill was first proposed earlier this summer, and has now passed the National Assembly Legislation Review Committee, bringing it one step closer to becoming law.

AMD Tuesday agreed to settle in its longstanding class-action lawsuit by investors for making misleading guidance over its first-generation accelerated processing units (APUs), codenamed "Llano." AMD was alleged to have oversold the potential of "Llano" in driving up revenues to the company, causing losses to investors. AMD is reported to have reached an agreement with the class to settle for USD $29.5 million. The settlement is yet to be approved by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who has been hearing the case since 2014, sitting in session for the US District Court in Oakland, California. Under the proposed deal, AMD's insurers foot the bill for the settlement, while it continues to deny any wrongdoing.

The United States Federal Trade Commission (US-FTC) has found that Samsung Electronics did not infringe upon patents held by NVIDIA. In a ruling made by Judge Thomas Pender on Friday (09/10), it's held that Samsung did not infringe two out of three NVIDIA-claimed patents, it did infringe upon a third one, but that patent is invalid because it's not a new invention compared to previously known patents.

Samsung manufactures the Exynos brand ARM SoCs for its own smartphones, which embed a graphics core that NVIDIA claims is based on patent infringing technology. NVIDIA, which claims that it invented the first GPU and released it in 1999, accused Samsung and Qualcomm of using its patents on graphics chip technology without permission. The company claims that both Samsung Exynos and Qualcomm Snapdragon (which make up a majority of Android device chips), breach its IPR. Its claims don't seem to hold water with the US-FTC. "We remain confident in our case," commented NVIDIA spokesperson Robert Sherbin to Reuters. The ruling will be reviewed by the full bench of the commission in February 2016.

Foxconn admitted to employing interns as young as 14 years, in what is a breach of labor laws in China, where the minimum age for such employment is 16. The company, in a statement accessed by CNET advised that it found the matter "not only a violation of China's labor law, it is also a violation of Foxconn policy," and that "immediate steps have been taken to return the interns in question to their educational institutions." The company launched an investigation and promises action against permanent staff members who allowed the breach in regulations to happen. This development follows a strain of bad PR for Foxconn, which recently suffered riots in some of its facilities due to imposition of strict quality standards in manufacture of iPhone 5.

News of quantum breakthroughs seem to be coming every few months now, edging ever closer towards the hallowed goal of building a quantum computer using quantum qubits rather than classical bits and bringing colossal improvements in computational power. This will eventually lead to applications that we can't even imagine now and possibly a true artificial intelligence of the kind one sees in the movies. Also, it would allow calculations that would normally take longer than the lifetime of the universe on a classical computer to be made in just a few seconds or minutes on a quantum one. A goal well worth striving for.

The latest breakthrough comes from the University of New South Wales, Melbourne University and Purdue University who have developed the smallest wire yet. It's a silicon nanowire, having the tiny dimensions of just one atom high and four atoms wide. This is a feat in itself, but the crucial part is that the wire is able to maintain its resistivity even at this atomic level, making it far easier for current to flow, thereby preventing the tiny wire from becoming useless. This will help with the continuation of Moore's Law, giving us ever more powerful computers at the present rate and opens the door to quantum computing within the next decade.

TechEYE has a more detailed article about this development. This is based on an ABC Radio interview with Michelle Simmons from the University of New South Wales and makes for fascinating listening.

AMD has been slapped with a lawsuit by Quanta for allegedly selling faulty CPUs & GPUs that were unfit for purpose, since they didn't meet specified heat tolerances and subsequently failed. Taiwan-based Quanta may not have a name that the general public immediately recognizes, however they are actually the world's largest contract manufacturer of notebooks, so this lawsuit is a big deal. They claim that the faulty parts were used in notebooks made for NEC. The lawsuit was filed in a district court in San Jose, California and in the filing, Quanta claims they have "suffered significant injury to prospective revenue and profits". As Bloomberg reports, "the lawsuit also claims breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, civil fraud and interference with a contract."

Voltage Pictures, producers of movie Hurt Locker attempted to use a reverse class action tactic to extort hundreds of millions in 'settlement' claims aka extortion demands over alleged 'losses' due to 'piracy' - something that has never and can never, be quantified and proved. However, their attempt has failed miserably - plus read on for how Voltage Pictures did a little content 'theft' of their very own to make the movie.

The idea was to use the services of the US Copyright Group (USCG) to extract personal subscriber information from ISP's via subpoenas and then send demand letters averaging US $2,000 to hapless victims, with the hope of racking in a grand total of around US $94 million - way more than the film ever made, about US $12.6 million.

The USCG quickly unloaded lawsuit claims against 47K members of the unwitting American public, even as Voltage Picture spewed a stream of vitriol suggesting that the children and families of file sharers would hopefully "end up in jail".

explained DailyTech, putting it very well. Yes, let's get the kiddies in the name of corporate copyright and profit...

Three weeks ago, we brought you news that researchers had apparently found serious vulnerabilities in the firmware of HP printers that can allow hackers to cause the fuser to overheat and almost make the paper inside catch fire. HP dismissed these claims as exaggerated, but said that they would look into it. Three days later, we reported that some enterprising New Yorker called David Goldblatt sued HP, alleging that he would not have bought their printers had he known about this problem beforehand, which seems a bit unlikely when you consider that HP is the number one printer brand by a mile. Now HP have released patches for these vulnerabilities and issued the following press release:

In perhaps one of the more ironic legal moves to be seen recently, Sony's clause in its Terms of Service preventing PlayStation 3 owners from filing class action lawsuits has itself attracted a class action lawsuit! The lawsuit was filed in Northern California in November, by a man on behalf of PS3 owners who signed up for the PlayStation Network before September, when the ToS were updated and this anti-class action clause added.

The killer clause is buried deep into the contract and is very hard to spot, requiring the contract to be read all the way through with a fine toothcomb - if the reader can rise to the challenge of reading the complicated and dry legalese it's written in. Compounding the problem is that the agreement isn't even readily available online for anyone to study - it can only be viewed on the PS3 itself (so the console is already used before you can even see the agreement - hardly fair?) and appears near the bottom of the 21-page form. Previous agreements had been posted online for anyone to inspect. On top of that, the only way of opting out of it, is to mail a physical letter to Sony within 30 days of agreeing to the ToS - very inconvenient and likely to be forgotten by the average person. The main thrust of the lawsuit are allegations of unfair business practices, since PS3 owners are forced to choose between forfeiting their rights or access to the PSN. Note that since Sony introduced this clause, Electronic Arts and Microsoft have both introduced similar clauses, which doesn't put them in a very good light either and potentially at the receiving end of a lawsuit themselves.

Amelia Andersdotter from Sweden will soon take oath as the youngest to join European Parliament in Brussels. The 24-year old member of The Pirate Party was voted to her seat more than two years ago, but her appointment was delayed all this while, due to bureaucratic hurdles. Andersdotter promises to fight archaic copyright laws and corporate interests.

In an interview to Torrent Freak, Andersdotter touched on issues like competition between telecommunication companies (state and private operators), certification, and the infamous ACTA legislation. "When national parliaments have been saying that they can't do anything about ACTA, activists and media just kind of happily accept. What national parliaments could do, and should do, is obviously tell their national governments not to sign the agreements. That is and would be within their power," she said. You can read the full interview at the source.

Rambus Inc., one of the world's premier technology licensing companies, today announced that the International Trade Commission (ITC) issued its notice of final determination in the action brought by Rambus against NVIDIA Corporation and other Respondents. In its notice, the ITC has affirmed the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), with certain modifications. The final determination, including such modifications, has yet to be released.

On November 6, 2008, Rambus filed a complaint with the ITC requesting an investigation pertaining to certain NVIDIA products. The complaint sought an exclusion order barring the importation, sale for importation, and sale after importation of products that infringe nine of Rambus' patents. The accused products include graphics processors, application processors, media and communications processors, and chip sets which incorporate infringing memory controllers. The complaint named NVIDIA as a proposed Respondent, as well as companies whose products incorporate the accused NVIDIA products and are imported into the United States. These Respondents include: Asustek Computer Inc. and Asus Computer International, BFG Technologies, Biostar Microtech and Biostar Microtech International Corp., Diablotek Inc., EVGA Corp., G.B.T. Inc. and Giga-Byte Technology Co., Hewlett-Packard, MSI Computer Corp. and Micro-Star International Co., Palit Multimedia Inc. and Palit Microsystems Ltd., Pine Technology (Macao Commercial Offshore) Ltd., and Sparkle Computer Co. Four of the asserted patents were later withdrawn from the investigation.