By Microsoft News Center 19 July, 2023 A new report says Australia’s professional and financial services sector could unlock billions of dollars in value by

Generative AI could contribute $13 billion annually to Australia's … – Microsoft

By Microsoft News Center A new report says Australia’s professional and financial services sector could unlock billions of dollars in value by

Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited director of legal Andrew Cordner has joined Te Whatu Ora as chief legal counsel, according to the New Zealand Law Society. Cordner stepped into the new role at the end of August. He expressed his intent to maintain a ...

Fonterra legal director becomes Te Whatu Ora's new chief legal counsel

LawVu has successfully secured $15m in a funding round led by technology investor venture capital firm Movac. The capital raised will support LawVu’s expansion plans, as well as advance the company’s research and development efforts in the AI space.

LawVu secures $15m funding led by Movac

The rapidly developing world of legal tech developments has seen some major innovations and tech leaders emerge from New Zealand, such as ActionStep and LawVu, but another entrepreneur is also set on claiming a piece of the legal tech pie with development ...

Law Firm Technology and Revolusionising Client Interaction: The Vision of Jess Firth & EsseVault

LawVu Ltd., a startup behind software to boost efficiency of in-house legal teams, has hired David Lancelot as its first chief legal officer and head of advocacy.

StartUp Pushing AI to In-House Law Groups Lands Legal Chief (1)

David Lancelot has held senior legal roles at eBay, Walmart He wants LawVu to use AI tools to help in-house legal clients LawVu Ltd., a startup behind software to boost efficiency of in-house legal teams, has hired David Lancelot as its first chief legal ...

StartUp Pushing AI to In-House Law Departments Lands Legal Chief

LawVu

lawvu

What Are the Top Startups in Oceania?

Thank you to the problem solvers who campaigned extra hard in the first-ever competition! HackerNoon Startups of the Year focuses on recognizing the passion and stamina of those willing to find and create effective tech solutions for their cities. HackerNoon’s Startups of the Year To see who is a winner in each respective city, visit and pick a city. The name at the top of the list is the winner. (Awards, where cheaters were caught, are under review.) startups.hackernoon.com From all of us at , thank YOU for your excellent campaign perseverance🥺! We look forward to seeing you again in the 2022 campaign (stay tuned 😉)! HackerNoon Without further adieu, let us kick off by sharing the cities with top votes per region for 2021 🎉 . our series of Best Startups of the Year Stay tuned for the rest of the winners per region to be over the course of this week (Feb 14, 2022). announced North and Central America America is the concrete jungle where dreams are made of, the world’s capital of fashion, showbiz, business, major industry, etc., and surely, of Startups! Representing , we have: North and Central America (14,563 votes): Winner: Boulder Bury.com (10,521 votes) - Winner: New York City Hum Capital (7,987 votes) - Winner: San Francisco Zentist (7,713 votes) - Winner: Redwood City TigerGraph (469 votes) - Winner: Los Altos Stobox To see more awards in this region please click here. Europe Charming, sophisticated, cosmopolitan. There are many beautiful words used to describe this region. With its eccentric vibe, is also a place where new Startups thrive. Europe Representing Europe we have: (10, 010 votes) - Winner: Belfast Bob & Berts (5, 066 votes) - Winner: Ghent WeGroup (4, 712 votes) - Winner: Porto TAIKAI (3, 779 votes) - Winner: City of London Crypto Quantique To see more awards in this region please click here. Oceania The heat, the beaches, roaming kangaroos, or tarantulas? No. Startups! Representing the region of are: Oceania (1, 011 votes) - Winner: Sydney shotstack (430 votes) - Winner: Melbourne Doohly (118 votes) - Winner: Gold Coast Easil (76 votes) - Winner: Tauranga LawVu (40 votes) - Winner: Western Junction Today We Learned To see more awards in this region please click here. Asia Diverse in both ethnicity and culture, known for exotic sceneries as well as friendly people. Many Asian countries are on the verge of mass globalization and modernization. These fast-developing economies give way for many potential Startups. We present, for : Asia (12, 686 votes) - Winner: Singapore Cake DeFi (3,355 votes) - Winners: and (It’s a tie, we’re working on it!) Tel Aviv Applitools hyro (2, 402 votes) - Winner: Beirut Hovi Digital Lab (1.006 votes) - Winner: Hyderabad Quixy (756 votes) - Winner: Hanoi DeFi For You To see more city awards in this region please click here. Africa The second biggest continent in the world, home to many big animals, the longest river in the world AND the largest desert in the world. is known for many big things and sure enough, big Startups. Africa Representing Africa, we have: (884 votes) - Winner: Johannesburg MiBRAND (804 votes) - Winner: Lagos Goodtalent (526 votes) - Winner: Cape Town Revix (420 votes) - Winner: Lusaka ComGrow (224 votes) - Winner: Nairobi UTU To see more city awards in this region please click here. South America “South America is the land of the extreme.” - National Geographic Extremely beautiful people? Yes. Extremely worth-noticeable Startups? Hell yeah! We proudly present, Startups in : South America (217 votes ) - Winner: São Carlos Predify (193 votes) - Winner: Belo Horizonte CM Technologia (106 votes) - Winner: Porto Alegre Privacy Tools (82 votes) - Winner: Quito Agrodemanda (55 votes) -Winner: Rio De Janeiro Bybrand To see more city awards in this region please click here. Once again, and to all of the top Startups of each region this year! HUGE CONGRATULATIONS BIG PROPS The whole team at would like to thank you for your excellent campaign perseverance and we look forward to seeing you in the 2022 campaign. HackerNoon As part of honoring your participation, we will continue to host your company in this directory until further notice ( for legal reasons we hesitate to say ‘forever’..but pretty much forever).  As traffic is directed to the site, it will act as a promotional platform for your company. Have a great Valentine’s Day, HackerNoon loves y’all <3 More Information: If you’re a winner, please answer ! If you’re a reader, participant, just a curious individual, consider answering one of our interviews . this interview here Read the FAQs about or . Startups here here To see all of the winners you may visit , pick any city and view the name that appears at the top. this site If you’re interested in partnering with us, we invite you to look through some of these or reach out to our business department. unique sponsorship options Perhaps creating your very own tickles your fancy or maybe you have a whole new idea for how we can partner! writing contest Thank you to all of our sponsors! We truly appreciate your contribution to the tech world and thus the future! The Startups Awards are sponsored by: , , , , , , , , , , Blockster Brex FreeCodeCamp LaunchDarkly Coil Udacity Udemy Vercel Asia Pacific Transgender Network Bybit Everscale Network This post was written by Tuan Anh Vu. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to report a discrepancy please email ellen@hackernoon.com.

To the Winners of #Startups2021, With Love:

Winter is coming, and the night just got darker and full of unthinkable horrors. I’ve never thought that GoT would become a prelude to a real-life tragedy. This was the only TV show that got my family’s unanimous attention and acceptance to this day. It goes without saying that for our daughter to watch it my wife and I had to do some serious PG-13 heavy lifting. We had two parallel-watching sessions. Some episodes had to be left out and for some scenes, our daughter had to leave the room and get back after we were done with the fast-forwarding. It was worth it. Our daughter’s room was covered with her drawings of dragons and pictures of Dany Targaryen. We got carried away. There’s a huge picture of her sitting on the Iron Throne replica in our living room. I still remember waiting for hours in line and sharing my pain with other parents at the local GamesCon, so our kids could live out their fantasies for a brief moment. Those were some different and innocent pre-AI times. Today’s kids aren’t any different. They still want the same things, but the available tools are next level. I really wanted to write a nice and inspirational AI chatbot story, but… As soon as I typed “ai chatbot” in Google, I got slammed with the news headlines. Do it and see for yourself. The New York Times and The Verge were the most objective and restrained. I don’t recommend you go down the rabbit hole of The Washington Post and Reddit comments. I consider that my choice for the story’s illustration is appropriate because of the genuine desire of its author to express his feelings and protest at the same time. I feel the same way about my story’s title. No, I’m not going to share what happened because I want you to spend some time researching and then getting back to continue reading with the right kind of emotions and respect. I just can’t TL:DR someone’s life for your convenience. As a parent, I feel that I just dodged a digital bullet because my daughter is now old enough to have real instead of imaginary friends. For kids, an age gap of only a few years is the equivalent of decades for adults. Character AI lawsuit just got caught in the crossfire between the two most polarizing issues, one of the tech and the other of political nature. The First Issue - The minimum age for using AI The minimum age for minors to interact with AI ranges from 13 to 16. It’s 13 in the USA and mostly 16 in Europe. The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) has been around in the House and Senate since 2022. Why it’s taking so long to protect kids? “It’s a political issue that has bipartisan support, while also appearing to be extremely difficult to govern without infringing on First Amendment protections.” And, there’s this, as well, the KOSA “would require online platforms to take actions to protect the safety of users under the age of 17.” The bipartisan support has become so rare that when you hear about it, you know without going into the details it’s a very serious matter. Unfortunately, we also have to accept the reality of another kind of “bipartisan support” between the First Amendment “absolutists” and the Big Tech opportunitists. So, nothing is going to change here. The lawsuit “also named Google and its parent company Alphabet in the filing. Character.AI's founders worked at Google before launching their product and were re-hired by the company in August as part of a deal granting it a non-exclusive licence to Character.AI's technology.” The most reasonable suggestion of Character AI Reddit fans is doomed to fall on deaf ears: The Second Issue - Gun Control The second issue is all about the Second Amendment. Isn’t it ironic to have this kind of semantic “alignment?” The countless mass shootings haven’t changed a thing about the gun control debate. Sadly, one more young innocent life that’s lost can only prolong a series of pointless debates. The blaming game has no beginning and obviously will have no end: What can you possibly expect to change after reading the comments such as these? What Is Going To Be The Most Likely Outcome of Character.AI Chatbot Lawsuit? It seems that at Character.AI, they’re preparing for and expecting a settlement. I did my best to check the dates. Almost the same day the lawsuit was officially filled, the company published a list of Community Safety Updates on its official blog page: “Moving forward, we will be rolling out a number of new safety and product features that strengthen the security of our platform without compromising the entertaining and engaging experience users have come to expect from Character.AI. These include: Changes to our models for minors (under the age of 18) that are designed to reduce the likelihood of encountering sensitive or suggestive content.
Improved detection, response, and intervention related to user inputs that violate our Terms or Community Guidelines.
A revised disclaimer on every chat to remind users that the AI is not a real person.
Notification when a user has spent an hour-long session on the platform with additional user flexibility in progress.” Who is praying for Sewell Setzer III who was only 14 years old when he “died by suicide on February 28th, 2024, “seconds” after his last interaction with the bot?” Winter is coming, and the night just got darker and full of unthinkable horrors. I’ve never thought that GoT would become a prelude to a real-life tragedy. This was the only TV show that got my family’s unanimous attention and acceptance to this day. It goes without saying that for our daughter to watch it my wife and I had to do some serious PG-13 heavy lifting. We had two parallel-watching sessions. Some episodes had to be left out and for some scenes, our daughter had to leave the room and get back after we were done with the fast-forwarding. It was worth it. Our daughter’s room was covered with her drawings of dragons and pictures of Dany Targaryen. We got carried away. There’s a huge picture of her sitting on the Iron Throne replica in our living room. I still remember waiting for hours in line and sharing my pain with other parents at the local GamesCon, so our kids could live out their fantasies for a brief moment. Those were some different and innocent pre-AI times. Today’s kids aren’t any different. They still want the same things, but the available tools are next level. I really wanted to write a nice and inspirational AI chatbot story, but… As soon as I typed “ai chatbot” in Google, I got slammed with the news headlines. Do it and see for yourself. The New York Times and The Verge were the most objective and restrained. I don’t recommend you go down the rabbit hole of The Washington Post and Reddit comments . The New York Times The Verge The Washington Post Reddit comments I consider that my choice for the story’s illustration is appropriate because of the genuine desire of its author to express his feelings and protest at the same time. I feel the same way about my story’s title. the story’s illustration No, I’m not going to share what happened because I want you to spend some time researching and then getting back to continue reading with the right kind of emotions and respect. I just can’t TL:DR someone’s life for your convenience. As a parent, I feel that I just dodged a digital bullet because my daughter is now old enough to have real instead of imaginary friends. For kids, an age gap of only a few years is the equivalent of decades for adults. Character AI lawsuit just got caught in the crossfire between the two most polarizing issues, one of the tech and the other of political nature. The First Issue - The minimum age for using AI The minimum age for minors to interact with AI ranges from 13 to 16. It’s 13 in the USA and mostly 16 in Europe. The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) has been around in the House and Senate since 2022. Why it’s taking so long to protect kids? “It’s a political issue that has bipartisan support, while also appearing to be extremely difficult to govern without infringing on First Amendment protections.” And, there’s this, as well, the KOSA “would require online platforms to take actions to protect the safety of users under the age of 17.” political issue online safety The bipartisan support has become so rare that when you hear about it, you know without going into the details it’s a very serious matter. Unfortunately, we also have to accept the reality of another kind of “bipartisan support” between the First Amendment “absolutists” and the Big Tech opportunitists. So, nothing is going to change here. The lawsuit “also named Google and its parent company Alphabet in the filing. Character.AI's founders worked at Google before launching their product and were re-hired by the company in August as part of a deal granting it a non-exclusive licence to Character.AI's technology.” named Google and its parent company Alphabet The most reasonable suggestion of Character AI Reddit fans is doomed to fall on deaf ears: The Second Issue - Gun Control The second issue is all about the Second Amendment. Isn’t it ironic to have this kind of semantic “alignment?” The countless mass shootings haven’t changed a thing about the gun control debate. Sadly, one more young innocent life that’s lost can only prolong a series of pointless debates. The blaming game has no beginning and obviously will have no end: What can you possibly expect to change after reading the comments such as these? What Is Going To Be The Most Likely Outcome of Character.AI Chatbot Lawsuit? It seems that at Character.AI, they’re preparing for and expecting a settlement. I did my best to check the dates. Almost the same day the lawsuit was officially filled, the company published a list of Community Safety Updates on its official blog page: Community Safety Updates “Moving forward, we will be rolling out a number of new safety and product features that strengthen the security of our platform without compromising the entertaining and engaging experience users have come to expect from Character.AI. These include: Changes to our models for minors (under the age of 18) that are designed to reduce the likelihood of encountering sensitive or suggestive content. Improved detection, response, and intervention related to user inputs that violate our Terms or Community Guidelines. A revised disclaimer on every chat to remind users that the AI is not a real person. Notification when a user has spent an hour-long session on the platform with additional user flexibility in progress.” Changes to our models for minors (under the age of 18) that are designed to reduce the likelihood of encountering sensitive or suggestive content. Improved detection, response, and intervention related to user inputs that violate our Terms or Community Guidelines. A revised disclaimer on every chat to remind users that the AI is not a real person. Notification when a user has spent an hour-long session on the platform with additional user flexibility in progress.” Who is praying for Sewell Setzer III who was only 14 years old when he “died by suicide on February 28th, 2024, “seconds” after his last interaction with the bot?” Who is praying for Sewell Setzer III who was only 14 years old when he “died by suicide on February 28th, 2024, “seconds” after his last interaction with the bot?”

Character AI Chatbot Lawsuit: Imaginary Friends and Real Guns 

The Apple lawsuit is the loudest case that focuses on Apple distribution agreements within anticompetitive behavior in terms of data privacy, super apps, cross-platform messaging, and digital wallets as Statista informs. What are the legal objectives & implications of this lawsuit - Let's investigate together and make outputs! It all started in March 2024 with The U.S. Department of Justice, along with 16 state and district attorneys general, filing an antitrust lawsuit against Apple, alleging monopolization of smartphone markets. This is the third time that the U.S. Department of Justice has sued Apple for antitrust violations in the past 14 years. The Department of Justice accuses Apple of several antitrust violations. These include maintaining monopoly power in the smartphone market, suppressing cross-platform messaging, limiting the functionality of third-party digital wallets and smartwatches, blocking mobile cloud streaming services, imposing App Store restrictions, and lacking interoperability with non-Apple devices. All these actions are alleged to be part of Apple’s efforts to maintain its dominant position and restrict competition. The Core Objectives of This Lawsuit Include Challenging Apple’s monopoly The primary aim is to contest Apple’s alleged monopoly in the smartphone market. The lawsuit argues that Apple has illegally maintained this monopoly by selectively imposing contractual restrictions on, and withholding critical access points from, developers. Restoring competition The US Department of Justice seeks to reintroduce genuine competition in various tech markets, including smartphones, app distribution, and related services. Fostering innovation The legal action intends to create an environment where smaller companies and developers can innovate without facing unfair obstacles from dominant players like Apple. In turn, Apple has made some concessions to address these issues. The company has recently enabled cloud-based gaming services and announced plans to introduce cross-platform RCS messaging later this year. However, Apple has dismissed the lawsuit as both factually and legally incorrect, warning that it could set a dangerous precedent, granting the government excessive control over technology development. Apple has vowed to vigorously defend itself against these claims. Legal Regulations The primary legal framework governing this lawsuit is Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for any person to “monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations …” Thus, this antitrust law prohibits monopolization or attempted monopolization of markets. The lawsuit alleges that Apple has violated this act through various practices that maintain its monopoly power in the smartphone market. It’s important to note that in addition to the Sherman Act, the lawsuit also involves a range of state antitrust laws. These include the New Jersey Antitrust Act, Wisconsin’s Antitrust Act, and similar statutes from other states involved in the case. The US Department of Justice is seeking equitable relief, which could potentially result in significant changes to Apple’s business practices and market approach. The lawsuit’s outcome could set precedents for how antitrust laws are applied to tech giants in the digital age. What Tech Companies Should Consider For companies operating in the tech sphere, here are key practical and legal considerations stemming from the Apple antitrust lawsuit and broader regulatory trends Understanding market dominance Companies must assess whether their practices could be seen as monopolistic, particularly if they control key platforms or services. The Apple case underscores the risks of using market dominance to limit competition, such as restricting access to software or hardware features. Proactive measures Engage in regular audits of business practices to ensure compliance with antitrust laws. Consider adjusting business models that could be perceived as anti-competitive, such as exclusive arrangements that limit consumer choice or impose unfair terms on competitors. Different jurisdictions The prosecution of big tech in the US and the EU illustrates the importance of understanding and complying with different legal regulations. The Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA) in the EU impose strict obligations and significant fines for non-compliance. Companies should tailor their compliance strategies to the specific legal requirements of each jurisdiction. The antitrust lawsuit against Apple represents a significant moment in the tech industry, highlighting the delicate balance between innovation, market dominance, and fair competition. As regulatory scrutiny intensifies, tech companies must adapt their strategies to navigate this evolving landscape. As the legal proceedings unfold, it will be crucial for tech companies to stay informed, remain agile in their strategies, and prioritize compliance with antitrust regulations. By doing so, they can continue to innovate and grow while mitigating legal risks and maintaining public trust. The Apple lawsuit serves as a reminder of the importance of balancing market success with fair competition practices in the tech industry. The Apple lawsuit is the loudest case that focuses on Apple distribution agreements within anticompetitive behavior in terms of data privacy, super apps, cross-platform messaging, and digital wallets as Statista informs. What are the legal objectives & implications of this lawsuit - Let's investigate together and make outputs! loudest case Statista Statista It all started in March 2024 with The U.S. Department of Justice, along with 16 state and district attorneys general, filing an antitrust lawsuit against Apple, alleging monopolization of smartphone markets. This is the third time that the U.S. Department of Justice has sued Apple for antitrust violations in the past 14 years. The Department of Justice accuses Apple of several antitrust violations. These include maintaining monopoly power in the smartphone market, suppressing cross-platform messaging, limiting the functionality of third-party digital wallets and smartwatches, blocking mobile cloud streaming services, imposing App Store restrictions, and lacking interoperability with non-Apple devices. All these actions are alleged to be part of Apple’s efforts to maintain its dominant position and restrict competition. The Core Objectives of This Lawsuit Include Challenging Apple’s monopoly Challenging Apple’s monopoly The primary aim is to contest Apple’s alleged monopoly in the smartphone market. The lawsuit argues that Apple has illegally maintained this monopoly by selectively imposing contractual restrictions on, and withholding critical access points from, developers. Restoring competition Restoring competition The US Department of Justice seeks to reintroduce genuine competition in various tech markets, including smartphones, app distribution, and related services. Fostering innovation Fostering innovation The legal action intends to create an environment where smaller companies and developers can innovate without facing unfair obstacles from dominant players like Apple. In turn, Apple has made some concessions to address these issues. The company has recently enabled cloud-based gaming services and announced plans to introduce cross-platform RCS messaging later this year. However, Apple has dismissed the lawsuit as both factually and legally incorrect, warning that it could set a dangerous precedent, granting the government excessive control over technology development. Apple has vowed to vigorously defend itself against these claims. In turn, Apple has made some concessions to address these issues. The company has recently enabled cloud-based gaming services and announced plans to introduce cross-platform RCS messaging later this year. However, Apple has dismissed the lawsuit as both factually and legally incorrect, warning that it could set a dangerous precedent, granting the government excessive control over technology development. Apple has vowed to vigorously defend itself against these claims. In turn, Apple has made some concessions to address these issues. The company has recently enabled cloud-based gaming services and announced plans to introduce cross-platform RCS messaging later this year. However, Apple has dismissed the lawsuit as both factually and legally incorrect, warning that it could set a dangerous precedent, granting the government excessive control over technology development. Apple has vowed to vigorously defend itself against these claims. Legal Regulations The primary legal framework governing this lawsuit is Section 2 of the Sherman Act . Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for any person to “monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations …” Section 2 of the Sherman Act “monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations …” Thus, this antitrust law prohibits monopolization or attempted monopolization of markets. The lawsuit alleges that Apple has violated this act through various practices that maintain its monopoly power in the smartphone market. It’s important to note that in addition to the Sherman Act, the lawsuit also involves a range of state antitrust laws. These include the New Jersey Antitrust Act, Wisconsin’s Antitrust Act, and similar statutes from other states involved in the case. The US Department of Justice is seeking equitable relief, which could potentially result in significant changes to Apple’s business practices and market approach. The lawsuit’s outcome could set precedents for how antitrust laws are applied to tech giants in the digital age. The lawsuit’s outcome could set precedents for how antitrust laws are applied to tech giants in the digital age. What Tech Companies Should Consider For companies operating in the tech sphere, here are key practical and legal considerations stemming from the Apple antitrust lawsuit and broader regulatory trends Understanding market dominance Understanding market dominance Understanding market dominance Companies must assess whether their practices could be seen as monopolistic, particularly if they control key platforms or services. The Apple case underscores the risks of using market dominance to limit competition, such as restricting access to software or hardware features. Proactive measures Proactive measures Proactive measures Engage in regular audits of business practices to ensure compliance with antitrust laws. Consider adjusting business models that could be perceived as anti-competitive, such as exclusive arrangements that limit consumer choice or impose unfair terms on competitors. Different jurisdictions Different jurisdictions Different jurisdictions The prosecution of big tech in the US and the EU illustrates the importance of understanding and complying with different legal regulations. The Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA) in the EU impose strict obligations and significant fines for non-compliance. Companies should tailor their compliance strategies to the specific legal requirements of each jurisdiction. The antitrust lawsuit against Apple represents a significant moment in the tech industry, highlighting the delicate balance between innovation, market dominance, and fair competition. As regulatory scrutiny intensifies, tech companies must adapt their strategies to navigate this evolving landscape. As the legal proceedings unfold, it will be crucial for tech companies to stay informed, remain agile in their strategies, and prioritize compliance with antitrust regulations. By doing so, they can continue to innovate and grow while mitigating legal risks and maintaining public trust. As the legal proceedings unfold, it will be crucial for tech companies to stay informed, remain agile in their strategies, and prioritize compliance with antitrust regulations. By doing so, they can continue to innovate and grow while mitigating legal risks and maintaining public trust. The Apple lawsuit serves as a reminder of the importance of balancing market success with fair competition practices in the tech industry. The Apple lawsuit serves as a reminder of the importance of balancing market success with fair competition practices in the tech industry.

A Legal Outlook on the Apple Antitrust Lawsuit

SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 5 of 5. CONCLUSION The SEC’s motion for remedies and the entry of final judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court shall enter a final judgment enjoining Ripple from further violations of the securities laws and imposing a civil penalty of $125,035,150. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 943, 948, and 951. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 7, 2024 New York, New York About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on August 07, 2024, dropbox.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 5 of 5. SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., Court Filing, retrieved on August 05, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 5 of 5. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here CONCLUSION The SEC’s motion for remedies and the entry of final judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court shall enter a final judgment enjoining Ripple from further violations of the securities laws and imposing a civil penalty of $125,035,150 . The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 943, 948, and 951. $125,035,150 SO ORDERED. Dated: August 7, 2024 New York, New York About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on August 07, 2024, dropbox.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on August 07, 2024, dropbox.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. dropbox.com

Ripple Hit with $125 Million Fine in SEC Lawsuit

The Center for Investigative Reporting Inc. v. OpenAI Court Filing, retrieved on June 27, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 12 of 18. Count II: Violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501 by Defendant Microsoft 124. The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference into this Count. 125. Plaintiff owns the exclusive rights to the Registered Works under 17 U.S.C. § 106. 126. Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the Registered Works by downloading those works from the internet. 127. Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the Registered Works by encoding the Registered Works in computer memory. 128. Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the Registered Works by regurgitating those works verbatim or nearly verbatim in response to prompts by Copilot users. 129. Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the Registered Works by producing significant amounts of material from those works in response to prompts by ChatGPT users. 130. Defendant Microsoft infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the Registered Works by abridging those works in response to prompts by Copilot users. 131. Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft’s infringements were willful and with full knowledge of Plaintiff’s rights in the Registered Works. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on June 27, 2024, motherjones.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. The Center for Investigative Reporting Inc. v. OpenAI Court Filing, retrieved on June 27, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 12 of 18. The Center for Investigative Reporting Inc. v. OpenAI Court Filing, retrieved on June 27, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 12 of 18. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here Count II: Violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501 by Defendant Microsoft 124. The above paragraphs are incorporated by reference into this Count. 125. Plaintiff owns the exclusive rights to the Registered Works under 17 U.S.C. § 106. 126. Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the Registered Works by downloading those works from the internet. 127. Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the Registered Works by encoding the Registered Works in computer memory. 128. Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the Registered Works by regurgitating those works verbatim or nearly verbatim in response to prompts by Copilot users. 129. Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the Registered Works by producing significant amounts of material from those works in response to prompts by ChatGPT users. 130. Defendant Microsoft infringed Plaintiff’s exclusive rights in the Registered Works by abridging those works in response to prompts by Copilot users. 131. Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft’s infringements were willful and with full knowledge of Plaintiff’s rights in the Registered Works. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on June 27, 2024, motherjones.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on June 27, 2024, motherjones.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. motherjones.com

Microsoft Faces Lawsuit for Alleged Willful Copyright Infringement in Copilot and ChatGPT

The Center for Investigative Reporting Inc. v. OpenAI Court Filing, retrieved on June 27, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 3 of 18. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 30. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because this action arises under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., including as amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 31. Jurisdiction over Defendants is proper because they have purposefully availed themselves of New York to conduct their business. Defendants maintain offices and employ staff in New York who, upon information and belief, were engaged in training and/or marketing of ChatGPT and/or Copilot, and thus in the removal of Plaintiff’s copyright management information as discussed in this Complaint and/or the sale of products to New York residents resulting from that removal. Defendants consented to personal jurisdiction in this Court in at least Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc., 23-cv-08292. They further waived any challenge to personal jurisdiction in this District by declining to contest it in their first pre-answer motions in The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, 23-cv-11195, Raw Story Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 24-cv-01514 (OpenAI Defendants only), The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 24-cv-01515, and Daily News v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 24-cv-03285. 32. CIR also has one of its main offices in this District in New York, NY, further demonstrating that the injuries occurred in this District. 33. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) because Defendants or their agents reside or may be found in this District. 34. Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District. Specifically, Defendants employ staff in New York who, upon information and belief, were engaged in the activities alleged in this Complaint. 35. Defendants consented to venue in this District in at least Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc., 23-cv-08292. They further waived any challenge to venue in this District by declining to contest it in their first pre-answer motions in The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, 23-cv-11195, Raw Story Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 24-cv-01514 (OpenAI Defendants only), The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 24-cv-01515, and Daily News v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 24-cv-03285. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on June 27, 2024, motherjones.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. The Center for Investigative Reporting Inc. v. OpenAI Court Filing, retrieved on June 27, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 3 of 18. The Center for Investigative Reporting Inc. v. OpenAI Court Filing, retrieved on June 27, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 3 of 18. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here JURISDICTION AND VENUE 30. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because this action arises under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., including as amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 31. Jurisdiction over Defendants is proper because they have purposefully availed themselves of New York to conduct their business. Defendants maintain offices and employ staff in New York who, upon information and belief, were engaged in training and/or marketing of ChatGPT and/or Copilot, and thus in the removal of Plaintiff’s copyright management information as discussed in this Complaint and/or the sale of products to New York residents resulting from that removal. Defendants consented to personal jurisdiction in this Court in at least Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc., 23-cv-08292. They further waived any challenge to personal jurisdiction in this District by declining to contest it in their first pre-answer motions in The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, 23-cv-11195, Raw Story Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 24-cv-01514 (OpenAI Defendants only), The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 24-cv-01515, and Daily News v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 24-cv-03285. 32. CIR also has one of its main offices in this District in New York, NY, further demonstrating that the injuries occurred in this District. 33. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) because Defendants or their agents reside or may be found in this District. 34. Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District. Specifically, Defendants employ staff in New York who, upon information and belief, were engaged in the activities alleged in this Complaint. 35. Defendants consented to venue in this District in at least Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc., 23-cv-08292. They further waived any challenge to venue in this District by declining to contest it in their first pre-answer motions in The New York Times Company v. Microsoft Corporation, 23-cv-11195, Raw Story Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 24-cv-01514 (OpenAI Defendants only), The Intercept Media, Inc. v. OpenAI, Inc., No. 24-cv-01515, and Daily News v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 24-cv-03285. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on June 27, 2024, motherjones.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on June 27, 2024, motherjones.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. motherjones.com

Why New York Is the Chosen Venue for the CIR Lawsuit Against OpenAI

The Center for Investigative Reporting Inc. v. OpenAI Court Filing, retrieved on June 27, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 2 of 18. PARTIES 12. The Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc. is the nation’s oldest nonprofit investigative newsroom. It is the product of a merger between Mother Jones, founded in 1976 by the esteemed author Adam Hochschild, publishing executive Richard Parker, and others; and the Center for Investigative Reporting, founded in 1977 by three esteemed investigative news reporters, Lowell Bergman, Dan Noyes, and David Weir. CIR has evolved to a diversified multimedia nonprofit organization that reaches millions of listeners, and readers producing on all three major platforms—audio, video and print—to produce investigative stories. CIR runs, inter alia, the brands Mother Jones, Reveal and CIR Studios. 13. Mother Jones is a reader-supported news magazine and website known for groundbreaking investigative and in-depth journalism on issues of national and global significance. Since its start in 1976, Mother Jones has won many awards for its reporting, illustration, photography, videos, and social media. Since 2001, it has been selected a finalist for the prestigious National Magazine Award for General Excellence 11 times, winning on three occasions. 14. Reveal produces investigative journalism for the Reveal national public radio show and the Reveal podcast. Its radio show is listened to by millions of public radio listeners around the country and nearly 3 million podcast listeners every month. Reveal also operates an online news site. Reveal has received countless awards for its investigatory reporting, including multiple George Foster Peabody Awards, George Polk awards, Emmy awards, Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Awards, IRE Awards, and Edward R. Murrow Awards and has been a finalist for various other awards, including the Pulitzer Prize. 15. The Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) California corporation headquartered in San Francisco, CA with offices in New York, NY, and Washington, DC. 16. Defendants are the organizations responsible for the creation, training, marketing, and sale of ChatGPT AI products. 17. Some of the Defendants consist of interrelated OpenAI entities, referred to herein collectively as the OpenAI Defendants. These include the following: 18. OpenAI Inc. is a Delaware nonprofit corporation with a principal place of business in San Francisco, CA. 19. OpenAI OpCo LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business in San Francisco, CA. OpenAI OpCo LLC is the sole member of OpenAI, LLC. Previously, OpenAI OpCo was known as OpenAI LP. 20. OpenAI GP, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business in San Francisco, CA. It is the general partner of OpenAI OpCo and controls OpenAI OpCo. 21. OpenAI, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business in San Francisco, CA. It owns some of the services or products operated by OpenAI. 22. OpenAI Global LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business in San Francisco, CA. Its members are OAI Corporation LLC and Microsoft Corporation. 23. OAI Corporation, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business in San Francisco, CA. Its sole member is OpenAI Holdings, LLC. 24. OpenAI Holdings, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business in San Francisco, CA. Its sole members are OpenAI, Inc. and Aestas Corporation. 25. Microsoft Corporation is a Washington corporation with a principal place of business and headquarters in Redmond, Washington. 26. Microsoft has described itself as being in partnership with OpenAI. In a 2023 interview, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said that “ChatGPT and GPT family of models … is something that we’ve been partnered with OpenAI deeply now for multiple years.”[1] 27. This tight-knit relationship is also borne out financially. Microsoft has invested billions of dollars in OpenAI Global LLC and will own a 49% stake in the company after its investment has been repaid. 28. Microsoft also provides the data center and bespoke supercomputing infrastructure used to train ChatGPT, which it created in collaboration with, and exclusively for, the OpenAI Defendants. It also offers to the public its own AI product called Copilot that is powered by OpenAI’s GPT models. 29. In a 2023 interview, Microsoft’s CEO stated that, “[i]f OpenAI disappeared tomorrow,” Microsoft could still “continue the innovation” alone because, among other reasons, “we have the data, we have everything.”[2] Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on June 27, 2024, motherjones.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. [1] Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella’s Big Bet on AI, WSJ Podcasts (Jan. 18, 2023), https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-big-bet-on-ai/b0636b90- 08bd-4e80-9ae3-092acc47463a. [2] Intelligencer Staff, Satya Nadella on Hiring the Most Powerful Man in AI, Intelligencer, (Nov. 21, 2023), https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/11/on-with-kara-swisher-satya-nadella-onhiring-sam-altman.html. The Center for Investigative Reporting Inc. v. OpenAI Court Filing, retrieved on June 27, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 2 of 18. The Center for Investigative Reporting Inc. v. OpenAI Court Filing, retrieved on June 27, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 2 of 18. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here PARTIES 12. The Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc. is the nation’s oldest nonprofit investigative newsroom. It is the product of a merger between Mother Jones, founded in 1976 by the esteemed author Adam Hochschild, publishing executive Richard Parker, and others; and the Center for Investigative Reporting, founded in 1977 by three esteemed investigative news reporters, Lowell Bergman, Dan Noyes, and David Weir. CIR has evolved to a diversified multimedia nonprofit organization that reaches millions of listeners, and readers producing on all three major platforms—audio, video and print—to produce investigative stories. CIR runs, inter alia, the brands Mother Jones, Reveal and CIR Studios. 13. Mother Jones is a reader-supported news magazine and website known for groundbreaking investigative and in-depth journalism on issues of national and global significance. Since its start in 1976, Mother Jones has won many awards for its reporting, illustration, photography, videos, and social media. Since 2001, it has been selected a finalist for the prestigious National Magazine Award for General Excellence 11 times, winning on three occasions. 14. Reveal produces investigative journalism for the Reveal national public radio show and the Reveal podcast. Its radio show is listened to by millions of public radio listeners around the country and nearly 3 million podcast listeners every month. Reveal also operates an online news site. Reveal has received countless awards for its investigatory reporting, including multiple George Foster Peabody Awards, George Polk awards, Emmy awards, Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Awards, IRE Awards, and Edward R. Murrow Awards and has been a finalist for various other awards, including the Pulitzer Prize. 15. The Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) California corporation headquartered in San Francisco, CA with offices in New York, NY, and Washington, DC. 16. Defendants are the organizations responsible for the creation, training, marketing, and sale of ChatGPT AI products. 17. Some of the Defendants consist of interrelated OpenAI entities, referred to herein collectively as the OpenAI Defendants. These include the following: 18. OpenAI Inc. is a Delaware nonprofit corporation with a principal place of business in San Francisco, CA. 19. OpenAI OpCo LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business in San Francisco, CA. OpenAI OpCo LLC is the sole member of OpenAI, LLC. Previously, OpenAI OpCo was known as OpenAI LP. 20. OpenAI GP, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business in San Francisco, CA. It is the general partner of OpenAI OpCo and controls OpenAI OpCo. 21. OpenAI, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business in San Francisco, CA. It owns some of the services or products operated by OpenAI. 22. OpenAI Global LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business in San Francisco, CA. Its members are OAI Corporation LLC and Microsoft Corporation. 23. OAI Corporation, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business in San Francisco, CA. Its sole member is OpenAI Holdings, LLC. 24. OpenAI Holdings, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business in San Francisco, CA. Its sole members are OpenAI, Inc. and Aestas Corporation. 25. Microsoft Corporation is a Washington corporation with a principal place of business and headquarters in Redmond, Washington. 26. Microsoft has described itself as being in partnership with OpenAI. In a 2023 interview, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said that “ChatGPT and GPT family of models … is something that we’ve been partnered with OpenAI deeply now for multiple years.”[1] 27. This tight-knit relationship is also borne out financially. Microsoft has invested billions of dollars in OpenAI Global LLC and will own a 49% stake in the company after its investment has been repaid. 28. Microsoft also provides the data center and bespoke supercomputing infrastructure used to train ChatGPT, which it created in collaboration with, and exclusively for, the OpenAI Defendants. It also offers to the public its own AI product called Copilot that is powered by OpenAI’s GPT models. 29. In a 2023 interview, Microsoft’s CEO stated that, “[i]f OpenAI disappeared tomorrow,” Microsoft could still “continue the innovation” alone because, among other reasons, “we have the data, we have everything.”[2] Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on June 27, 2024, motherjones.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on June 27, 2024, motherjones.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. motherjones.com [1] Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella’s Big Bet on AI, WSJ Podcasts (Jan. 18, 2023), https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-big-bet-on-ai/b0636b90- 08bd-4e80-9ae3-092acc47463a. [2] Intelligencer Staff, Satya Nadella on Hiring the Most Powerful Man in AI, Intelligencer, (Nov. 21, 2023), https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/11/on-with-kara-swisher-satya-nadella-onhiring-sam-altman.html.

Is ChatGPT a Liar? Oldest Non-profit Newsroom Files Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against OpenAI

Elon Musk v OpenAI, Court Filing, retrieved on April 30, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 29 of 29. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury for all issues triable to a jury. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on August 05, 2024, deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Elon Musk v OpenAI, Court Filing, retrieved on April 30, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 29 of 29. Elon Musk v OpenAI, Court Filing, retrieved on April 30, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 29 of 29. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury for all issues triable to a jury. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on August 05, 2024, deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on August 05, 2024, deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. deadline.com

Stories, News & Mentions about LAWVU

Lawvu’s Stories on HackerNoon

Lawvu's News & Mentions