Tag Archives: Legal

Microsoft Says It Built An Xbox Game Store On Android But Can’t Launch It

google, Microsoft

A few weeks ago, Microsoft exec Sarah Bond said that in November, “players will be able to play and purchase Xbox games directly from the Xbox App on Android.” It’s almost December and the feature still isn’t live, but Bond says it’s not Microsoft’s fault, The Verge reported.

The problem, as she puts it, is that Microsoft would only be able to do it once a court order takes effect that forces sweeping changes for Google’s Play Store on Android, like opening it up to competition and ending the requirement for apps to use Google Play Billing.

On October 18th, Judge James Donato granted Google’s request for a stay while it appeals his ruling that the Android app store is in an illegal monopoly, which could leave things hanging in the balance for quite a while. 

Bond referenced that in a thread on Bluesky today, writing, “Due to a temporary administrative stay recently granted by the courts, we are currently unable to launch these features as planned. Our team has the functionality built and ready to go live as soon as the court makes a final decision.”

PureXbox reported: It was back in the early part of October that Xbox’s Sarah Bond announced a plan to bring major new features to the Xbox app on Android devices — specifically the ability to “play and purchase” games directly from it.

Google has issued a statement in response to Microsoft today, and it’s a frustrated one. The company claims that Xbox has always been able to offer these planned features via the Xbox app, and that Microsoft is “ignoring security concerns” that are related to the court ruling and the “rush to force its implementation”.

The TL:DR here is that we’re (seemingly) not getting the ability to ‘play and purchase’ Xbox games directly from the Xbox app until Google’s court appeal is sorted out, which could be well into next year if things keep dragging on.

As far as we know, Microsoft has never specifically explained why the Xbox app doesn’t support a mobile store-like feature at present, but speculation suggests it’s related to the desire to avoid paying a hefty cut to Google.

VideoGamesChronicle reported: In October, a US judge issued a permanent injunction ordering Google to open its Android marketplace to competitors.

The ruling, which was supposed to come into force this month, means Goggle will not be allowed to block the distribution of third-party Android app stores through Google Play.

Bond says that because Google requested an emergency stay — essentially pausing the ruling to give it time to appeal a ruling that says “threatens Google Play’s ability to provide a safe and trusted user experience” — Xbox can’t add its promised features until this is lifted.”

In my opinion, it sounds like Google and Microsoft are unlikely to have the desire to help the other company.

Apple Wins $250 But Little Else At Trial On Watch Patents

Apple, Legal

A federal jury in Delaware awarded Apple Inc. $250 on Friday, finding the original designs of Masimo Corp’s smartwatches infringed Apple Watch design patterns, Bloomberg Law reported.

The jury’s mixed verdict marks the latest chapter in a long-running clash over smartwatch patents pitting Apple, a tech giant worth more than $3.5 trillion, against Masimo valued at $7.5 billion. The dispute led to an import ban of certain Apple Watch models on Christmas Day of last year, the appeal of which is pending at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Apple’s $250 damages demand was the minimum it could ask for while seeking a jury trial instead of a bench trial over Masimo’s alleged infringement of the Apple Watch’s aesthetic and functionality. Although Apple won damages form the jury, the decision all but removed its chance to block Masimo’s current products.

Reuters reported Apple convinced a federal jury on Friday that early version of health monitoring tech company Masimo’s smartwatches infringe on two of its design patents as part of a broader intellectual property dispute between the companies.

The jury, in Delaware, agreed with Apple that previous iterations of Masimo’s W1 and Freedom watches and chargers willfully violated Apple’s patent rights in smartwatch designs.

But the jury awarded the tech giant, which is worth about $3.5 trillion, just $250 in damages — the statutory minimum for infringement in the United States.

Apple’s attorneys told the court the “ultimate purpose” of its lawsuit was not money, but to win an injunction against sales of Masimo’s smartwatches after an infringement ruling.

On that front, jury also determined that Masimo’s current watches did not infringe Apple patents covering inventions that the tech giant had accused Masimo of copying.

Engadget reported the legal battle between Apple and medical technology company Masimo rages on, with the bigger company — sorta, kinda — winning their latest face off. 

A federal jury has agreed with Apple that previous versions of Masimo’s W1 and Freedom watches infringed on its design patents, according to Reuters. It only awarded Apple $250 in damages, which is the smallest amount that could be awarded for patent infringement, but the company’s lawyers reportedly told the court that it wasn’t after money anyway.

What Apple, which is worth $3.5 trillion, wanted was an injunction on the sales of Masimo’s current smartwatch models. However, the jury determined that this newer models don’t violate Apple’s intellectual property. That is why Masimo is also treating the jury’s decision as a win, telling the news organization that it’s thankful for the verdict that’s “in favor of Masimo and against Apple on nearly all issues.”

In my opinion, it sounds as though Masimo and Apple are fighting for dominance over their specific patents. Both companies appear to believe that they have won their case.

Google Allegedly Monopolized Internet Search For A Decade

google,

The watershed antitrust trial pitting the US Government against Google began on Tuesday in a Washington district court, as the government started to argue its case that the tech giant illegally abused its power to monopolize internet search, The Guardian reported. The case is the biggest test of antitrust law in decades and the first such case against Google to go to trial in the US.

According to The Guardian, the trial is set to last 10 weeks, over the course of which the government will make its case that Google leveraged its market power and wealth to strangle competition. Google spent billions on deals with companies such as Apple and Samsung to make itself the default search browser on their devices, which the government alleges shut out competition and allowed Google to attain a monopoly on searching the internet.

Google denies the justice department’s allegations. The company’s longtime chief legal officer, Kent Walker, has argued that consumers can still freely use any rival search engines and that Google’s services represent a fraction of the ways that people browse the internet.

The Guardian also reported that Judge Amit Mehta, an Obama appointee from 2014, is presiding over the case and will decide on a ruling. There is no jury in the trial. Throughout the first day, Mehta challenged attorneys in both sides of the case to clarify their argument that people could easily switch internet browsers from their default setting, asking how often people actually do that.

CNBC reported lawyers for the Department of Justice and a coalition of state attorneys general led by Colorado faced Google on Tuesday, as the 10-week trial kicked off in Washington, D.C., District Court. Day one of the trial set the stage for how the government and Google would argue their opposing views of how the company has maintained a large slice of the search market for years.

According to CNBC, the government’s case is that Google has kept its share of the general search market by creating strong barriers to entry and a feedback loop that sustained its dominance.

Google says it’s simply been the preferred choice of consumers. That popularity, the company says, is why browser makers and phone manufacturers have chosen Google as their default search engine through revenue-sharing agreements.

TechCrunch reported that the Justice Department’s landmark antitrust case against Google marks the beginning of a trial that will stretch on for months, potentially upending the tech world in the process.

At issue is Google’s search business. The Justice Department says that Google has run afoul of antitrust laws in the course of maintaining its top spot in search, while the tech giant argues that it maintains its dominance naturally by offering consumes a superior product.

According to TechCrunch, the Justice Department filed the civil antitrust against Google in late 2020 after examining the company’s business for more than a year.

A large coalition of state attorneys general also filed their own parallel suit against Google, but Judge Amit Mehta decided that the states did not clear the bar that would allow them to go to trial with their own complaints about Google’s search ranking practices.

Personally, I think it is obvious that this is a court case that is going to take a very long time to sort out. We will just have to wait and see what Judge Mehta decides.

Appeals Court Rules Government May Have Violated 1st Amendment

Legal, ,

A U.S. appeals court on Friday ruled several government entities including the White House, the FBI, the Surgeon General and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention likely violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media companies to moderate their content on misinformation surrounding vaccines, The Hill reported.

In a decision issued Friday evening, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said government actors “likely coerced or encouraged” social media companies to moderate their content, affirming a decision by a lower court with respect to the White House, the FBI, the CDC and the Surgeon General. According to The Hill, the three judges issuing the decision were all appointed by Republicans.

The White House in a statement said the Department of Justice was reviewing the decision and its options going forward.

“This Administration has promoted responsible actions to protect public health, safety, and security when confronted by challenges like a deadly pandemic and foreign attacks on our elections,” the statement said. “Our consistent view remains that social media platforms have a critical responsibility to take account of the effects their platforms are having on the American people, but make independent choices about the information they present.”

Here are some pieces of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit:

For the last few years – at least since the 2020 presidential transition – a group of federal officials has been in regular contact with nearly every major American social-media company about the spread of “misinformation” on their platforms. In their concern, those officials – hailing from the White House, the CDC, the FBI, and a few other agencies – urged the platforms to remove disfavored content and accounts from their sites.

And, the platforms, seemingly complied. They gave the officials access to an expedited reporting system, downgraded or removed flagged posts, and deplatformed users. The platforms also changed their internal policies to capture more flagged content and sent steady reports on their moderation activities to the officials. That went on through the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2022 congressional election, and continues to this day.

Enter this lawsuit. The Plaintiffs – three doctors, a news website, a healthcare activist and two states – had posts and stories removed or downgraded by the platforms. Their content touched on a host of divisive topics like the COVID-19 lab-leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side-effects, election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story. The Plaintiffs maintain that although the platforms stifled their speech, the government officials were the ones pulling the strings – they “coerced, threatened and pressured [the] social-media platforms to censor [them]” through private communications and legal threats.

So, they sued the officials for First Amendment violations and asked the district court to enjoin the officials’ conduct. In response, the officials argued that they only “sought to mitigate the hazards of online misinformation” by “calling attention to content” that violated the “platforms’ policies,” a form of permissible government speech.

USA Today reported that the decision from the conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals partly upheld an order from a Louisiana federal judge that blocked many federal agencies from having contact with companies like Facebook, YouTube, and X, formerly Twitter, about content moderation.

But the 75-page opinion from three-judge panel also significantly narrowed the scope of the order that was a major victory for conservatives. USA Today also reported that the Biden administration has 10 days to seek a Supreme Court review of the ruling.

In my opinion, social media platforms that allow people to post misinformation typically have options for users who don’t want to see that sort of content. For example, X gives users the ability to mute and/or block content they are not interested in.

FTC Loses Appeals Court Bid To Temporarily Block Microsoft-Activision Deal

Microsoft, , ,

In a victory for Microsoft, the U.S. Appeals Court for the 9th Circuit late on Friday denied the Federal Trade Commission’s motion to temporarily stop Microsoft from closing its $68.7 billion acquisition of video game publisher Activision Blizzard, CNBC reported.

Microsoft is still working to resolve concerns about the transaction from the United Kingdom’s Competition and Markets Authority. The two companies have been looking to close the deal by July 18.

“We appreciate the Ninth Circuit’s swift response denying the FTC’s motion to further delay the deal. This bring us another step closer to the finish line in this marathon of global regulatory reviews,” Brad Smith, Microsoft’s president and vice chair, said in a statement.

A federal judge in San Francisco, after five days of court hearing, ruled against the FTC on Tuesday, and the federal filed its appeal on Wednesday…

…In an emergency motion filed with the 9th Circuit on Thursday, the FTC said the district judge “denied preliminary relief, applying the wrong legal standard: the court effectively required the FTC to prove its full case on the merits with the court as the arbiter of the merger’s legality.” The agency requested a temporary injunction while the court considered an appeal of the district court’s conclusion, CNBC reported.

The Wall Street Journal reported that an appeals court on Friday denied a last-ditch bid by the Federal Trade Commission to halt Microsoft’s planned $75 billion acquisition of videogame publisher Activision Blizzard.

In a brief order, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the FTC’s request for a court order that would have blocked Microsoft and Activision from merging while the agency appeals a July 11 decision by a trial court judge.

Friday’s order helps clear the way for Microsoft and Activision to close the merger, and puts pressure on the FTC to drop its appeal of the July 11 ruling.

In the July decision, U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley said the agency hadn’t shown that Microsoft’s ownership of Activision titles, including the hit shooter-game series “Call of Duty,” would hurt competition in the console or cloud-gaming markets.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the FTC declined to comment.

The Verge also reported the FTC appealed the decision by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, and now the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied its request for emergency relief to prevent Microsoft from closing the deal until the result of the FTC’s appeal is complete.

Microsoft welcomed the denial late on Friday. “We appreciate the Ninth Circuit’s swift response denying the FTC’s motion to further delay the deal. This brings us another step closer to the finish line in this marathon of global regulatory reviews,” says Brad Smith, Vice Chair and President of Microsoft, in a statement to The Verge.

According to The Verge, this means Microsoft is now free to close its Activision Blizzard deal after a temporary restraining order, part of Judge Corley’s order, expired at 11:59PM PT, Friday July 14. Microsoft has until July 18th to close its deal; otherwise, it may need to renegotiate terms with Activision Blizzard, pay $3 billion in breakup fees if Activision wants to walk away, or simply let the deal deadline naturally extend if both parties are happy to.

The Verge also reported that the UK’s Competitions and Market’s Authority blocked Microsoft’s deal earlier this year, citing competition fears in the emerging cloud gaming market. Both CMA and Microsoft have agreed to pause their legal battles to figure out how the transaction might be modified in order to address the CMA’s cloud gaming concerns.

In my opinion, I think Judge Corley, and the Ninth Circuit Court, made the right decision. Both appear to have determined that the FTC’s case was not enough for a judgement to be made in their favor, and have instead decided in favor of Microsoft.

Microsoft-Activision Deal Approved By Judge

Microsoft, ,

A federal judge in San Francisco has denied the Federal Trade Commission’s motion for a preliminary injunction to stop Microsoft from completing its acquisition of video game publisher Activision Blizzard, CNBC reported.

The deal isn’t completely in the clear, though. The FTC can now bring the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, and the two companies must find a way forward to resolve opposition from the Competition and Markets Authority in the United Kingdom.

“This Court’s responsibility in this case now is narrow. It its to decide if, notwithstanding these current circumstances, the merger should be halted – perhaps even terminated – pending resolution of the FTC administrative action,” Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley wrote in her decision, published Tuesday. “For the reasons explained, the Court finds the FTC has not shown a likelihood it will prevail on its claim this particular vertical merger in this specific industry may substantially lessen competition. To the contrary, the record evidence points to more consumer access to Call of Duty and other Activision content. The motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore DENIED.”

Microsoft Vice Chair and President Brad Smith tweeted: “Our statement on today’s decision: We’re grateful to the Court in San Francisco for this quick and thorough decision and hope other jurisdictions will continue working towards a timely resolution. As we’ve demonstrated consistently throughout this process, we are committed to working creatively and collaboratively to address regulatory concerns.”

Activision posted the following on its corporate news website:

Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotik sent the following email to employees on Tuesday:

Today, a U.S. federal judge ruled in our favor, denying the Federal Trade Commission’s attempt to block our merger with Microsoft.

We’re grateful to the court for the way this process was handled and the thoughtfulness of the decision. The U.S. joins the 38 countries where our deal can proceed – these decisions are based on facts and data that show our merger is good for players and for competition in the industry.

We’re optimistic that today’s ruling signals a path to full regulatory approval elsewhere around the globe, and we stand ready to work with the UK regulators to address any remaining concerns so our merger can quickly close.

We’ll continue to keep you updated on our progress. Thank you for all you do for our players, for our company, and for each other.

With gratitude,
Bobby

The Verge reported that in a statement, the FTC spokesperson Douglas Farrar said the FTC was still planning its next move. “We are disappointed in this outcome given the clear threat this merger poses to open competition in cloud gaming subscription services, and consoles. In the coming days we’ll be announcing our next step to continue our fight to preserve competition and protect consumers,” said Farrar.

According to The Verge, the judge’s ruling now allows Microsoft to close its Activision Blizzard deal ahead of the July 18th deadline, but only if the company is willing to close around the UK or if the Competition Markets Authority (CMA) is willing to negotiate some form of remedy. The UK regulator moved to block Microsoft’s proposed acquisition in April, and Microsoft is currently appealing that decision with a hearing set to start on July 28th.

The CMA confirmed the decision in a statement to The Verge, noting that the regulator is “ready to consider any proposals from Microsoft to restructure the transaction in a way that would address the concerns set out in our Final Report.”

The Competition Appeal Tribune (CAT) will need to approve or deny this request, but it’s more than likely that it will be approved to allow both parties to negotiate further.

In my opinion, it appears that the Microsoft -Activision acquisition has a good chance of happening. The CMA appears to want to work with Microsoft to come to some sort of agreement. If this goes well, Microsoft will have one more country that approves the acquisition.

California Court Affirms Right To Treat Uber And Lyft Drivers as Contractors

Legal, , , ,

Uber Technologies Inc., Lyft Inc. and other companies scored a victory with a California court ruling that preserves their independent contractor model in the state and could boost their efforts to maintain that model elsewhere, The Wall Street Journal reported.

A state appeals court reversed a lower-court ruling that found a California ballot measure known as Proposition 22 illegal. Proposition 22, which passed in November 2020, allowed these companies to continue to treat their drivers as independent contractors.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Uber and others are in a global tug of war with regulators over whether and how to grant more benefits such as paid sick leave and health insurance to workers in the so-called gig economy, where apps distribute individual tasks to a poll of people whom companies generally regard as independent contractors.

California sued Uber and Lyft in 2020, saying they were in violation of a new state law that sought to reclassify their drivers as employees. A legal battle ensued, culminating in Proposition 22, in which Uber, Lyft, DoorDash Inc. and Instacart Inc. asked state voters to exempt them from the law. The companies spent a record amount of money for a California ballot measure, about $200 million.

The New York Times reported that the decision by three appeals court judges overturned the ruling late last year by a California Superior Court judge, who said the Proposition was “unenforceable.” It was a victory for companies like Uber, which use gig drivers to transport passengers and to deliver food, but does not pay costs that an employer would have to. Those costs can include drivers’ unemployment insurance, health insurance, and business expenses.

According to The New York Times, the appeals court ruling was not the final say. The Service Employees International Union, which, along with several drivers, filed a lawsuit challenging Proposition 22 in early 2021, is expected to appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court, which would then have several months to decide whether to hear the case.

The opponents of the proposition argued that the ballot measure was unconstitutional under several grounds. It set limits on the State Legislature’s ability to oversee workers’ compensation for gig drivers. It included a rule restricting them from collective bargaining that critics said was unrelated to the rest of the measure, and it set a seven-eights majority vote of the Legislature as a bar for passing amendments to the measure related to collective bargaining – a requirement that was considered nearly impossible to achieve.

CNBC reported that Proposition 22 created a set of criteria which determined whether ride-share drivers were employees or independent contractors. In practice, it exempted Uber and similar companies from following certain minimum wage, overtime, or workers compensation laws for hundreds of thousands of Californian rideshare drivers.

Instead, according to CNBC, the ballot measure required companies to provide compensation and healthcare “subsidies” based on “engaged” driving time, as well as the benefits, including safety training as “sexual harassment training.”

To me it sounds like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and Instacart are desperately trying to suppress drivers ability to form a union, (also known as “collective bargaining”). Unionization would require the large companies to provide drivers with the same types of benefits that other workers, who have unionized, would be expected to receive. It also make it harder for the big companies to fire them.