Apps
Apple and Google backed Information Technology and Innovation Foundation policy director says increasing competition in App stores could hurt users
…The US Senate is presently considering whether it should bring the Open App Market Act bill to a vote. This proposes to
- Restrict the mandatory use by apps of proprietary in-app payment software (ie: Apple can’t say that apps must use their payment system to make purchases within the app)
- Protect users’ ability to install third-party app stores
- Protect users’ ability to install apps without using an app store
The concern is:
- No control of app quality (you get spammy stuff advertised on the App store)
- Less privacy
- Insufficient security
Peloton successfully fends off wilful infringement claim by rival iFIT (NordicTrack)
…iFIT had last April sued Peloton for infringing a patent which relates to the feature that automatically controls the exercise device with an integrated weight system. Peloton was claimed to be infringing by offering devices with a feature which changes the resistance in response to the virtual instructor’s call outs.
Peloton had known about iFIT’s patent application but that was not enough to substantiate a claim for wilful infringement (which if succeeded would entitle iFIT to be awarded three times the damages amount). iFIT must provide evidence to show that Peloton knew it was infringing, the judge said.
The case continues on.
Auto
Tesla says Full Self Driving Autopilot safer than a human by end of this year
…”I would be shocked if I don’t achieve it”, says Musk. Though many don’t actually believe the oft over-promising Tesla boss. According to Tesla, Full Self Driving is available for $199 per month to drivers. Good drivers as adjudicated by Tesla’s algorithms can access software updates before they are rolled out. It is not entirely clear what “Full Self Driving” would offer, but it may include self-driving city streets.
“Being better than a human is relatively straightforward, frankly…but how do you be 1000 percent better, 10,000 percent better? That’s much harder”, says Musk. He certainly likes to strive for heights.
May be the regulatory hurdles will save him from getting egg on his face; though he probably couldn’t care less about that.
Sceptics may snigger, they may roll their eyes, but Tesla is by far ahead in product, market share (in the US, they have the best network of superchargers which contributes to the marketshare – those superchargers only recently became available to other EVs), supply chain management, production capacity and battery capacity (much better range than many others) compared to any other. They are also highly profitable because of their add-on subscription services; Full Self Driving which I’ve mentioned above, better connectivity, and insurance (out of the ones I can think of – may be others). I guess that is why he has been quite able to indulge in hyperbolic promises thus far.
Note that the term “Self-Driving” has been dumped by what was Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, which has been renamed as “Autonomous Vehicle Association”. The group founded in 2016 by well known disruptors and legacy car companies (Waymo, Lyft, Uber and Ford and Volvo – now joined by other well known disruptor companies such as Cruise and Zoox) changed their name because that term is misleading they say.
Alphabet’s autonomous vehicle unit Waymo in a bid to stop San Francisco’s Department of Motor Vehicles from releasing sensitive information
…Chronology would probably be helpful.
- Waymo applies for a permit allowing its vehicles to be deployed on public roads. Application includes sensitive information (says Waymo) such as:
- Internal analyses of collisions
- What happens in emergency situations
- Geography where the vehicles will operate
- Restrictions on Vehicle’s operation
- Details of how the vehicle reacts when it’s driving outside the geography
- Manufacturer’s testing of autonomous technologies
- How to avoid circumstances which lead to certain collisions
- Department of Motor Vehicles receives request for information relating to Waymo’s application.
- Redacted information was provided to the unidentified requesting party.
- Requesting party challenges the redaction.
- Department of Motor Vehicles says Waymo must justify the redaction, and seek an injunction to prevent release.
Waymo says the information reveals strategic insight into Waymo’s competitors and strategy. It will reveal information on critical technological engineering issues in this highly congested (excuse the pun) technological area. Interestingly though Waymo describes the information as a business secret (not technical secret) – according to the article.
Calilfornia Privacy Rights Act states that public records are exempt from disclosure if it can be shown that the public interest is served by not disclosing that information.
Practical point: if you are working for Auto companies, you might consider whether it would bed worth obtaining information via making a FOIA request (with the proviso that the position taken could haunt you if someone then makes a request against you).
BigTech/ Data / Platform
US State Attorney Generals sue Google for secretly tracking users’ location
…Tracking was said to take place even after users had disabled the feature. Users were led to believe that turning off location history would stop the collection of data, but it was not the case, the complaint claims. It is said that Google collected the data despite lack of consent, and monetised the data by using it unlawfully in targeted advertising.
The claim also complains of using “dark patterns” by telling users who switch off location tracking that certain services won’t function properly otherwise, to try and persuade users from turning off the functionality.
Google said it will defend the claims vigorously.
And on a similar theme…
US DOJ head Jonathan Kanter echoes Lina Khan in being anti-concentration of markets
…He stated:
- Mergers short of blocking transactions often miss the mark
- If a merger is likely to lessen competition we will simply block [note that most mergers are anti-competitive because the point of the merger is that you end up in a better position…]
- Competition is not static, but “dynamic, complex and often multidimensional” making it hard to see “with precision the contours of competition in the market” – potentially meaning that if in doubt, he’ll block transactions
- Focus on structural fixes (requiring divestments of targets) rather than behavioural commitments
Ninth Circuit (essentially Court of Appeals for the area which contains California ie: liberal) OKs California to apply Net Neutrality laws
…Net Neutrality means that internet service providers must not be able to block or prioritise certain cables and cell towers over others. It means for example, Sky can’t pay BT to provide faster information for Sky services or Amazon can’t pay Virgin to slow down data flow on Netflix in a bid to get customers off Netflix onto Amazon.
FCC under Trump Administration did away with Open Internet Order aimed at net neutrality and California said well, we’ll do it anyway. This was challenged, and the Ninth circuit said that California law can stand, and that net neutrality doesn’t necessarily fall within the province of Federal law. Will Congress say, pass law applicable across the US? This will be potentially Supreme Court stuff if Congress decide to stay out of the debate.
US follows UK, Canada and Australia by proposing new immigration visas for start up entrepreneurs
…Didn’t know UK had that sort of visa available. But this is a logical move. There is huge potential in start ups, thanks to the development of internet based infrastructure. Anyone can easily set up a home page, start a business, reach out to customers across the globe, communicate, outsource, get things made and get securely paid for services rendered. It would seem also to suit the Gen-Z philosophy too. The visa is proposed in the America COMPETES Act of 2022.
Californian judge partially lets off Google in a class action
…The plaintiffs, who were users of Google phones said Google Analytics and Firebase software is quietly integrated into third-party smartphone apps including NY times, the Economist, Lyft and Alibaba.
The claims which were dismissed were two:
- Breach of contract because Google collected data allowing it to target ad its users after users adjusted its account settings not to track them.
- Decision: Users can’t expect to be entering into a contract just by changing account settings.
- Breach of Californian Invasion of Privacy Act which prevents anyone from intercepting and recording communications without consent.
- Decision: What Google did was to record and then transmit. This is not interception.
Other claims such as breach of Californian Computer Abuse and Invasion of Privacy laws remain live.
But then….
German publishers and marketing agencies complain to the EU Commission that Google’s privacy sandbox and abolishment of third party cookies will reduce their ability to compete
…Google says that their initiative to turn off Cookies will safeguard privacy but other businesses say it will disable them from access to effective online advertising because they cannot target potential customers, although Google itself will be able to collect data. Furthermore the publishers complain that Google’s proposal will block users who want third-party cookies (for more personalised web browsing experience).
Google to track users’ interests in relation to broad categories amid privacy concerns
…Google proposes to change advertising cookies by using Topics which tracks users’ interests broadly. For example a user that frequents baseball related sites would be identified in relation to the broad category of Sports. It was feared that granular categorisations could lead Google to identify individuals. Google will not be categorising sensitive interests, it said (eg. mental health, guns, religion).
In contrast, Apple says its user data is processed on the device, and not sent to the cloud.
Google pays $1billion to Bharti Airtel to boost smartphone and internet access in India
…Airtel has 1 million SME clients through its enterprise offerings. Subject to regulatory approvals.
Apple files the most profitable quarterly revenues – what do they do right?
- Managed to sort supply chain issues
- Good take up of products in China (Macs (they are now using their own designed chips called M1), and iPhone) – Apple is one of the few mega cap companies that are doing well in China which have a tech savvy demographic who are quick to upgrade on new technical futures. It has knocked Huawei off the number one spot on mobile phone sales (Huawei phones were popular with the increase of nationalism when it was banned by the US in the past– but that appears to have been short-lived, or rather the lure of the cool Apple brand may have been too much – either that, or their products just integrate better with other products – see below).
- Increased first time buyers of iWatch
- Further integration – Apple is seeking to integrate Macs, iPhones, iWatch, AirPods, home pods and in the future AR, EVs – confidence is high that Apple will be able to do it well.
There are risks though, especially regulatory around App Stores. Also relationship with Google may well be called into question – because Google pays Apple for it to be a default engine on the iOS. 20% profit of Apple comes from the deal with Google + added risk that Google might decide its search engine is good enough without having to pay Apple.
Neil Young gets dumped over Joe Rogan by Spotify
…Neil Young (who is far from young, but has an impressive legacy back catalogue of music) has refused to share a platform with Joe Rogan who has secured a reportedly up to/more than (depending on the source) $100m exclusive with Spotify. Joe Rogan is a very popular comedian, but is somewhat controversial because of his anti-vax views. Young said that this is highly dangerous because if more people are persuaded not to take a vaccine, it could lead to unnecessary deaths. Joni Mitchell (another artist of similar profile) has now followed. What is perhaps more eyebrow raising is that fact that Rogan has his own range of vitamins that is said to boost immunity….
The interesting question is the duty of Spotify. Does it have to police the contents of its podcasts? Or lyrics of the songs they have made available? If so, that would be pretty burdensome. Does it matter that Spotify offers tracks of controversial artists? For example, Michael Jackson’s music? The key issue is the fact that Spotify has an exclusive relationship with Rogan means Spotify can be said to have sort of added responsibility. In other words, Spotify isn’t just a directory vis-à-vis Rogan, but has a level of control over him – should it not do something about his views, which aren’t backed by science? It isn’t quite the same issue that Twitter, Google and Facebook are facing over not doing anything about the possible incitement of the Capitol Hill riot, because they lack the necessary relationship with the rioters.
The article notes that Spotify makes revenue from people listening to Joe Rogan (because Rogan has been paid upfront) and more people will click on the ads owing to his fanbase size (some 11 million – placing an ad on his show costs x$10k), whereas Neil Young’s fanbase is much more limited, and each time a subscriber pays to listen to Neil Young, they lose the revenue – because it will have to pay its record label/Neil Young the royalties due. Having to choose Neil Young v Joe Rogan may be a simple choice, but what if more popular artists such as Taylor Swift or BTS followed? What would they do? Meghan and Harry who work with Spotify have expressed concern but has not said they will pull out. Thankfully for Spotify, none of these perhaps, more popular celebrities have yet placed Spotify onto that horn of dilemma.
Another interesting move is Apple, who was quick to advertise Neil Young catalogue availability on iTunes, describing itself as “home of Neil Young”. Neil Young has previous told his fans not to listen to music on iTunes because his music sounds terrible on it. Oops….
Shopify moves to dismiss publishers’ claim that it is liable for pirated textbooks on the platform
…Shopify is a subscription based service enabling individual shop owners to set up shop on the platform. Some shops have cropped up on Shopify selling pirated textbooks. The educational publishers sued Shopify claiming copyright infringement and trade mark infringement. Shopify is relying on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, stating that the law gives them a defence as it has diligently responded to take down notices.
Gaming
Riot Games sues rival game maker for copyright infringement in Central District of California
…Imba Technology is accused of taking League of Legend characters and storylines (verbatim). Imba’s game is free to play but derives revenue from in-app purchases. Riot has sued other companies before, such as Shanghai Moonton Technologies co and Shanghai MoBai Computer Technology for infringing League of Legends designs and details.
Health
“Digital Medicine” company Akili valued at $1billion as it goes public
…Ever heard of digital medicine? Akili is a US prescription digital medicine company which treats depression and attention hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, multiple sclerosis and inflammatory diseases using personalised video games…
NFT
Art collector seeks ruling in NY that he owns copyright in physical art entitling him to sell NFTs based on it
…These sorts of issues are likely to increase in the world of NFTs.
Semiconductors
European Commission’s €1.2billion fine against Intel concerning rebates overturned by Europe’s second highest court (General Court)
…The charge was that Intel had acted anti-competitively by offering rebates to computer manufacturers HP, Dell, Lenovo and NEC for buying most of their chips from Intel. Rival Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) complained that they had been blocked out from selling their chips to the same clientbase. The General Court said that there were flaws in the rebate analysis and the legal standard that the rebates were capable of having, or likely to have anti-competitive effects was not met.
Supply chain woes continue
…US Department of Commence said chip inventory held by manufacturers is down to 5 days’ supply, down from 40 days of 2019. Cue – factory shut downs, furloughs, increase in price of cars and everything else with chips in them (phones, PCs etc).
Chinese regulator give green light for chip manufacturer Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) to buy Xylinx (also chip manufacturer)
…AMD had had the all clear from all regulatory authorities but China. China has given the go ahead now. Xylinx is no ordinary chip maker, it makes chips for data centre networking, cars, military use and satellites. Furthermore Xylinx chips are programmable, meaning the customer can configure it to intended design after manufacturing. That ability makes these chips suitable for new computing uses and updating after deployment. AMD itself has expertise in making chips for graphics and server processors, supplying the likes of Microsoft and Sony for video game servers.
US ITC takes up Future Link Systems’ complaint against Semiconductor dealers (Qualcomm, AMD, Apple, Google Broadcom, Dell, Lenovo, HP) for importing patent infringing chip containing devices seeking an injunction against importation
…This would seem to be a tall ask given that the economy as a whole (US certainly not excluded) is getting a pounding owing to lack of chips.
Future Link Systems is an IT solutions provider.