CEO Bob Iger also took a shot at Netflix, noting that ESPN is not about "one day of football" The post Disney Backed Out of ‘Redundant’ Venu Because of the Rise of Sports Skinny Bundles appeared first on TheWrap.

Disney Backed Out of ‘Redundant’ Venu Because of the Rise of Sports Skinny Bundles

During the Bloomberg segment, Roth highlighted VENU's innovative mission to elevate live concerts by integrating cutting-edge technology, a unique financing structure, and fan-centric experiences.

Bloomberg Features J.W. Roth - Highlighting Venu Holding Corporation's Bold Vision for the Future of Fan-Owned Live Entertainment

As Barclays head of US equity strategy Venu Krishna pointed out in Yahoo Finance's latest Chartbook, Big Tech earnings from the giants — Nvidia, Amazon (AMZN), Alphabet (GOOGL, GOOG), Apple (AAPL), Meta (META), and Microsoft (MSFT) — have seen earnings estimates rise more than the rest ...

Why DeepSeek has been so unsettling for the stock market in 3 charts

This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now. Have an account?

Venu Sports Streaming Service Will Never Launch — Here's Why - Business Insider

The House of Mouse is combining its Hulu + Live TV service with the pay-TV streamer Fubo's business. The deal paves the way for a new sports streamer, Venu, to debut in the coming months, with sports content from ESPN, Warner Bros. Discovery, and Fox.

Disney Shakes up Sports-Streaming Strategy With Fubo but Could Confuse - Business Insider

Walt Disney Co said on Monday it would merge its Hulu + Live TV business with smaller rival FuboTV , removing a significant hurdle to the launch of its sports streaming venture with Fox Corp and Warner Bros Discovery .

Disney's Hulu + Live TV business to combine with Fubo, clearing way for Venu Sports | Reuters

Disney/Fubo Deal Clears the Way for Venu Sports Streaming Service - Business Insider

Venu

venu

Earth’s Aerial Biosphere Offers Insights into Venusian Microbial Survival

Microbial Life on Venus Requires a Unique Life Cycle to Overcome Extreme Conditions

Researchers Proposes a Life Cycle for Venusian Microbes

Authors:
(1) Sara Seager, Departments of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Physics, Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA;
(2) Janusz J. Petkowski, Department of Earth;
(3) Peter Gao, Department of Astronomy, University of California at Berkeley, California, USA;
(4) William Bains, Department of Earth;
(5) Noelle C. Bryan, Department of Earth;
(6) Sukrit Ranjan, Department of Earth;
(7) Jane Greaves, School of Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom and Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Table of Links Abstract and 1. Introduction and Overview Challenges and Assumptions for Life in the Venusian Clouds
A Proposed Cycle for Venusian Aerial Microbial Life
Discussion
Summary, Acknowledgments, Author Disclosure Statement, Funding Information, and References Abstract We revisit the hypothesis that there is life in the Venusian clouds to propose a life cycle that resolves the conundrum of how life can persist aloft for hundreds of millions to billions of years. Most discussions of an aerial biosphere in the Venus atmosphere temperate layers never address whether the life—small microbial-type particles—is free floating or confined to the liquid environment inside cloud droplets. We argue that life must reside inside liquid droplets such that it will be protected from a fatal net loss of liquid to the atmosphere, an unavoidable problem for any free-floating microbial life forms. However, the droplet habitat poses a lifetime limitation: Droplets inexorably grow (over a few months) to large enough sizes that are forced by gravity to settle downward to hotter, uninhabitable layers of the Venusian atmosphere. (Droplet fragmentation—which would reduce particle size—does not occur in Venusian atmosphere conditions.) We propose for the first time that the only way life can survive indefinitely is with a life cycle that involves microbial life drying out as liquid droplets evaporate during settling, with the small desiccated ‘‘spores’’ halting at, and partially populating, the Venus atmosphere stagnant lower haze layer (33–48 km altitude). We, thus, call the Venusian lower haze layer a ‘‘depot’’ for desiccated microbial life. The spores eventually return to the cloud layer by upward diffusion caused by mixing induced by gravity waves, act as cloud condensation nuclei, and rehydrate for a continued life cycle. We also review the challenges for life in the extremely harsh conditions of the Venusian atmosphere, refuting the notion that the ‘‘habitable’’ cloud layer has an analogy in any terrestrial environment. Key Words: Venus— Clouds—Life—Habitability—Sulfuric Acid—Life Cycle—Aerial Biosphere. Astrobiology 21, xxx–xxx. 1. Introduction and Overview Life on Venus has been a topic of speculation for more than half a century, with published papers ranging from science-fiction-like to invalid conjecture to legitimate hypothesis (Morowitz and Sagan, 1967; Grinspoon, 1997; Cockell, 1999; Schulze-Makuch and Irwin, 2002, 2006; Schulze-Makuch et al., 2004; Grinspoon and Bullock, 2007; Limaye et al., 2018). Today, only Venus’ atmospheric cloud layers (a large region spanning from 48 to 60 km altitude) have seemingly habitable conditions—the surface (at 735 K) is too hot for any plausible solvent and for most organic covalent chemistry. How the clouds could become inhabited is not known. In principle, life could arise in the clouds independent from the ground (Woese, 1979; Dobson et al., 2000) with material from meteoritic input (Sleep, 2018a, 2018b) from the asteroid belt (including Ceres, and even from Mars). Life may even have been directly seeded by impacts from Earth ejecta (Melosh, 1988; Reyes-Ruiz et al., 2012; Beech et al., 2018). A more commonly agreed on, and perhaps more conceivable scenario, is that life originated on the surface, as it most likely did on Earth, and migrated into the clouds. Recent modeling by Way et al. (2016) suggests the existence of habitable surface and oceans as late as *700 Mya. Consideration of life on Venus is extensively summarized in a recent paper (Limaye et al., 2018). Almost all previous work on life in Venusian clouds does not specify what exactly ‘‘life in the clouds’’ means (for one exception see Schulze-Makuch et al., 2004). Does microscopic life reside inside cloud liquid droplets? Or is microscopic life free floating in the air between cloud droplets? Earth has an aerial biosphere created by microbial life that regularly migrates to clouds from the ground (Vaı¨tilingom et al., 2012; Amato et al., 2017). Studies of Earth’s aerial biosphere shows that microbes mostly reside inside cloud droplets but some are free-floating in the atmosphere (Section 4.1). Some microbes (both inside and outside droplets) are found to be metabolically active, even though there is no evidence, as of yet, of cell division (Amato et al., 2019). Microbial life cannot reside in Earth’s atmosphere indefinitely, mostly because of lack of continuous cloud cover, and after days to weeks microbes are deposited back down on Earth’s surface (Burrows et al., 2009; Bryan et al., 2019). Earth’s aerial biosphere is intimately connected to the habitable surface of the planet. We argue that life, if it exists in Venus’ atmosphere, must reside inside cloud liquid droplets for the majority of its life cycle (Section 2.1). Life engulfed by cloud droplets will be protected from a fatal net loss of liquid to the atmosphere, an unavoidable problem for any free-floating microbial lifeforms. But a droplet habitat implies a lifetime limitation. As liquid droplets coalesce and grow, they eventually reach a size that, due to gravity, settles out of the temperate layers of the atmosphere at an appreciable rate. Over time, the population of inhabited droplets should therefore decline to zero. (Droplet fragmentation—which would reduce particle size—does not occur in Venusian atmosphere conditions [Section 3.4].) The conundrum is that there is no way for liquid droplets—and hence life inside of them—to persist indefinitely in Venus’ temperate atmosphere layers. In this article, we describe this problem, and a solution to it. We hypothesize how life escapes being ‘‘rained out’’ down to inhospitably hot atmosphere layers by cycling between small, desiccated spores and larger, metabolically active, droplet-inhabiting cells. Venusian life escapes settling to the surface by forming a resistant, spore-like form that survives the evaporation of the inevitable downward droplet flow to atmosphere layers of high temperature. The desiccated spores become suspended in the Venus atmosphere lower haze layer, which we thus call a ‘‘depot’’ for desiccated microbial life. Because the dynamics of the relatively stagnant lower haze layer are not well known, the main uncertainty in our life cycle hypothesis is how the spores are transported back up into the clouds again. The spores most likely travel upward by vertical mixing induced by gravity waves, and once in the cloud layer they form the nucleus of a new droplet. The depot is ‘‘leaky,’’ that is spores will also vertically mix downward to atmosphere layers with fatally high temperatures. Our proposed life cycle includes cell division that occurs in the larger droplets, and sporulation for individual cells, enabling cell numbers to be replenished against loss. In this work, we use the terms ‘‘microbial life’’ or ‘‘microbes’’ for microscopic life, without intending to imply that hypothetical Venusian microbes might in any way be taxonomically related to microbial life on Earth. We use the term ‘‘spore’’ to denote a cell in a dormant state of longterm metabolic inactivity, which is further resistant to (and protected from) environmental stresses. We begin with a highlighted review on the very harsh and inhospitable conditions in the Venusian atmosphere and related, required assumptions for life to exist (Section 2). We next present our Venusian life cycle hypothesis (Section 3), which optimistically assumes that the challenges described in Section 2 can be met. We put the hypothesis in the context with Earth’s aerial biosphere and other characteristics of the Venusian hypothesized aerial biosphere in Section 4. We conclude with a summary in Section 5. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. Authors: (1) Sara Seager, Departments of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Physics, Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA; (2) Janusz J. Petkowski, Department of Earth; (3) Peter Gao, Department of Astronomy, University of California at Berkeley, California, USA; (4) William Bains, Department of Earth; (5) Noelle C. Bryan, Department of Earth; (6) Sukrit Ranjan, Department of Earth; (7) Jane Greaves, School of Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom and Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Authors: Authors: (1) Sara Seager, Departments of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Physics, Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA; (2) Janusz J. Petkowski, Department of Earth; (3) Peter Gao, Department of Astronomy, University of California at Berkeley, California, USA; (4) William Bains, Department of Earth; (5) Noelle C. Bryan, Department of Earth; (6) Sukrit Ranjan, Department of Earth; (7) Jane Greaves, School of Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom and Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Table of Links Abstract and 1. Introduction and Overview Abstract and 1. Introduction and Overview Challenges and Assumptions for Life in the Venusian Clouds A Proposed Cycle for Venusian Aerial Microbial Life Discussion Summary, Acknowledgments, Author Disclosure Statement, Funding Information, and References Challenges and Assumptions for Life in the Venusian Clouds Challenges and Assumptions for Life in the Venusian Clouds A Proposed Cycle for Venusian Aerial Microbial Life A Proposed Cycle for Venusian Aerial Microbial Life Discussion Discussion Summary, Acknowledgments, Author Disclosure Statement, Funding Information, and References Summary, Acknowledgments, Author Disclosure Statement, Funding Information, and References Abstract We revisit the hypothesis that there is life in the Venusian clouds to propose a life cycle that resolves the conundrum of how life can persist aloft for hundreds of millions to billions of years. Most discussions of an aerial biosphere in the Venus atmosphere temperate layers never address whether the life—small microbial-type particles—is free floating or confined to the liquid environment inside cloud droplets. We argue that life must reside inside liquid droplets such that it will be protected from a fatal net loss of liquid to the atmosphere, an unavoidable problem for any free-floating microbial life forms. However, the droplet habitat poses a lifetime limitation: Droplets inexorably grow (over a few months) to large enough sizes that are forced by gravity to settle downward to hotter, uninhabitable layers of the Venusian atmosphere. (Droplet fragmentation—which would reduce particle size—does not occur in Venusian atmosphere conditions.) We propose for the first time that the only way life can survive indefinitely is with a life cycle that involves microbial life drying out as liquid droplets evaporate during settling, with the small desiccated ‘‘spores’’ halting at, and partially populating, the Venus atmosphere stagnant lower haze layer (33–48 km altitude). We, thus, call the Venusian lower haze layer a ‘‘depot’’ for desiccated microbial life. The spores eventually return to the cloud layer by upward diffusion caused by mixing induced by gravity waves, act as cloud condensation nuclei, and rehydrate for a continued life cycle. We also review the challenges for life in the extremely harsh conditions of the Venusian atmosphere, refuting the notion that the ‘‘habitable’’ cloud layer has an analogy in any terrestrial environment. Key Words: Venus— Clouds—Life—Habitability—Sulfuric Acid—Life Cycle—Aerial Biosphere. Astrobiology 21, xxx–xxx. 1. Introduction and Overview Life on Venus has been a topic of speculation for more than half a century, with published papers ranging from science-fiction-like to invalid conjecture to legitimate hypothesis (Morowitz and Sagan, 1967; Grinspoon, 1997; Cockell, 1999; Schulze-Makuch and Irwin, 2002, 2006; Schulze-Makuch et al., 2004; Grinspoon and Bullock, 2007; Limaye et al., 2018). Today, only Venus’ atmospheric cloud layers (a large region spanning from 48 to 60 km altitude) have seemingly habitable conditions—the surface (at 735 K) is too hot for any plausible solvent and for most organic covalent chemistry. How the clouds could become inhabited is not known. In principle, life could arise in the clouds independent from the ground (Woese, 1979; Dobson et al., 2000) with material from meteoritic input (Sleep, 2018a, 2018b) from the asteroid belt (including Ceres, and even from Mars). Life may even have been directly seeded by impacts from Earth ejecta (Melosh, 1988; Reyes-Ruiz et al., 2012; Beech et al., 2018). A more commonly agreed on, and perhaps more conceivable scenario, is that life originated on the surface, as it most likely did on Earth, and migrated into the clouds. Recent modeling by Way et al. (2016) suggests the existence of habitable surface and oceans as late as *700 Mya. Consideration of life on Venus is extensively summarized in a recent paper (Limaye et al., 2018). Almost all previous work on life in Venusian clouds does not specify what exactly ‘‘life in the clouds’’ means (for one exception see Schulze-Makuch et al., 2004). Does microscopic life reside inside cloud liquid droplets? Or is microscopic life free floating in the air between cloud droplets? Earth has an aerial biosphere created by microbial life that regularly migrates to clouds from the ground (Vaı¨tilingom et al., 2012; Amato et al., 2017). Studies of Earth’s aerial biosphere shows that microbes mostly reside inside cloud droplets but some are free-floating in the atmosphere (Section 4.1). Some microbes (both inside and outside droplets) are found to be metabolically active, even though there is no evidence, as of yet, of cell division (Amato et al., 2019). Microbial life cannot reside in Earth’s atmosphere indefinitely, mostly because of lack of continuous cloud cover, and after days to weeks microbes are deposited back down on Earth’s surface (Burrows et al., 2009; Bryan et al., 2019). Earth’s aerial biosphere is intimately connected to the habitable surface of the planet. We argue that life, if it exists in Venus’ atmosphere, must reside inside cloud liquid droplets for the majority of its life cycle (Section 2.1). Life engulfed by cloud droplets will be protected from a fatal net loss of liquid to the atmosphere, an unavoidable problem for any free-floating microbial lifeforms. But a droplet habitat implies a lifetime limitation. As liquid droplets coalesce and grow, they eventually reach a size that, due to gravity, settles out of the temperate layers of the atmosphere at an appreciable rate. Over time, the population of inhabited droplets should therefore decline to zero. (Droplet fragmentation—which would reduce particle size—does not occur in Venusian atmosphere conditions [Section 3.4].) The conundrum is that there is no way for liquid droplets—and hence life inside of them—to persist indefinitely in Venus’ temperate atmosphere layers. In this article, we describe this problem, and a solution to it. We hypothesize how life escapes being ‘‘rained out’’ down to inhospitably hot atmosphere layers by cycling between small, desiccated spores and larger, metabolically active, droplet-inhabiting cells. Venusian life escapes settling to the surface by forming a resistant, spore-like form that survives the evaporation of the inevitable downward droplet flow to atmosphere layers of high temperature. The desiccated spores become suspended in the Venus atmosphere lower haze layer, which we thus call a ‘‘depot’’ for desiccated microbial life. Because the dynamics of the relatively stagnant lower haze layer are not well known, the main uncertainty in our life cycle hypothesis is how the spores are transported back up into the clouds again. The spores most likely travel upward by vertical mixing induced by gravity waves, and once in the cloud layer they form the nucleus of a new droplet. The depot is ‘‘leaky,’’ that is spores will also vertically mix downward to atmosphere layers with fatally high temperatures. Our proposed life cycle includes cell division that occurs in the larger droplets, and sporulation for individual cells, enabling cell numbers to be replenished against loss. In this work, we use the terms ‘‘microbial life’’ or ‘‘microbes’’ for microscopic life, without intending to imply that hypothetical Venusian microbes might in any way be taxonomically related to microbial life on Earth. We use the term ‘‘spore’’ to denote a cell in a dormant state of longterm metabolic inactivity, which is further resistant to (and protected from) environmental stresses. We begin with a highlighted review on the very harsh and inhospitable conditions in the Venusian atmosphere and related, required assumptions for life to exist (Section 2). We next present our Venusian life cycle hypothesis (Section 3), which optimistically assumes that the challenges described in Section 2 can be met. We put the hypothesis in the context with Earth’s aerial biosphere and other characteristics of the Venusian hypothesized aerial biosphere in Section 4. We conclude with a summary in Section 5. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv

Life in Venusian Clouds: A Hypothesis for Microbial Survival and Life Cycle

Challenges for Life in the Venusian Clouds Include Severe Acidity, Extreme Dryness, & Limited Water

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

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 3 of 29. JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT 32. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this is a civil case arising under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1965, Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1121, and Declaratory Judgment Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2201, and has supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because all claims herein form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as the matter in controversy well exceeds $75,000 in value and is between citizens of different states. 33. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that jurisdiction over Samuel Altman is proper because he is domiciled in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 34. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that jurisdiction over Gregory Brockman is proper because he is domiciled in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 35. Jurisdiction over OpenAI, Inc. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 36. Jurisdiction over OpenAI, L.P. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 37. Jurisdiction over OpenAI, L.L.C. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 38. Jurisdiction over OpenAI GP, L.L.C. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 39. Jurisdiction over OpenAI OpCo, LLC is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 40. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Global, LLC is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 41. Jurisdiction over OAI Corporation, LLC is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 42. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Holdings, LLC is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 43. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Investment LLC is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 44. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund Management, LLC is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 45. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund GP I, L.L.C. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 46. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund I, L.P. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 47. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund SPV GP I, L.L.C. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 48. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund SPV GP II, L.L.C. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 49. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund SPV GP III, L.L.C. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 50. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund SPV GP IV, L.L.C. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 51. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund SPV I, L.P. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 52. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund SPV II, L.P. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 53. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund SPV III, L.P. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 54. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund SPV IV, L.P. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 55. Jurisdiction over Aestas Management Company, LLC is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 56. Jurisdiction over Aestas, LLC is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 57. Upon information and belief, venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because all Defendants are residents of the State of California and at least one of the Defendants is a resident of this District, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this District. 58. This action is properly assigned to the San Francisco Division of this District under Civil Local Rule 3-2(c) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred, and a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, in San Francisco County, which is served by the San Francisco Division. 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 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 3 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 3 of 29. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT 32. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this is a civil case arising under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1965, Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1121, and Declaratory Judgment Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2201, and has supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because all claims herein form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as the matter in controversy well exceeds $75,000 in value and is between citizens of different states. 33. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that jurisdiction over Samuel Altman is proper because he is domiciled in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 34. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that jurisdiction over Gregory Brockman is proper because he is domiciled in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 35. Jurisdiction over OpenAI, Inc. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 36. Jurisdiction over OpenAI, L.P. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 37. Jurisdiction over OpenAI, L.L.C. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 38. Jurisdiction over OpenAI GP, L.L.C. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 39. Jurisdiction over OpenAI OpCo, LLC is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 40. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Global, LLC is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 41. Jurisdiction over OAI Corporation, LLC is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 42. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Holdings, LLC is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 43. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Investment LLC is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 44. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund Management, LLC is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 45. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund GP I, L.L.C. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 46. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund I, L.P. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 47. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund SPV GP I, L.L.C. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 48. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund SPV GP II, L.L.C. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 49. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund SPV GP III, L.L.C. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 50. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund SPV GP IV, L.L.C. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 51. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund SPV I, L.P. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 52. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund SPV II, L.P. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 53. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund SPV III, L.P. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 54. Jurisdiction over OpenAI Startup Fund SPV IV, L.P. is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 55. Jurisdiction over Aestas Management Company, LLC is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 56. Jurisdiction over Aestas, LLC is proper because it has its principal place of business in the State of California and in this District, and because a substantial portion of the relevant acts complained of herein occurred in the State of California and in this District. 57. Upon information and belief, venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because all Defendants are residents of the State of California and at least one of the Defendants is a resident of this District, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this District. 58. This action is properly assigned to the San Francisco Division of this District under Civil Local Rule 3-2(c) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred, and a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, in San Francisco County, which is served by the San Francisco Division. 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 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

Jurisdiction and Venue in Musk's OpenAI Suit 

United States v. Apple INC Court Filing, retrieved on March 21, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 18 of 25. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here VIII. Jurisdiction, Venue, and Commerce 191. The United States brings this action pursuant to Section 4 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C § 4, to prevent and restrain Apple’s violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2. 192. The Attorneys General assert these claims based on their independent authority to bring this action pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 26, and common law, to obtain injunctive and other equitable relief based upon Apple’s anticompetitive practices in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2. 193. The Attorneys General are the chief legal officers of their respective states. They have authority to bring actions to protect the economic wellbeing of their states and residents, and to seek injunctive relief to remedy and protect against harm resulting from violations of the antitrust laws. 194. Apple’s actions and course of conduct are ongoing and are likely to continue or recur, including through other practices with the same purpose or effect. 195. Apple’s actions complained of herein have harmed, and continue to harm, competition, consumers, and the general welfare and economies of the Plaintiff States. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under Section 4 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 4, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a), and 1345. 196. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Apple, and venue is proper in this District under Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 22, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because Apple transacts business and is found within this District. 197. Apple is a corporation headquartered in Cupertino, California. Apple is one of the largest publicly traded companies in the world, generating hundreds of billions of dollars from the sale of smartphones, computers, tablets, and related services and accessories. 198. Apple engages in, and its activities substantially affect, interstate trade and commerce. Apple provides a range of products and services that are marketed, distributed, and offered to consumers throughout the United States, in the plaintiff States, across state lines, and internationally. 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 March 21, 2024, from 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. justice.gov

Examining Jurisdiction, Venue, and Commerce in Apple's Antitrust Saga

**PALO ALTO, United States of America, February 20th, 2024/Chainwire/--**The joint organizers behind the first annual global Sui conference, Sui Basecamp, today announced the initial wave of confirmed speakers for the Parisian event taking place on April 10 and 11, 2024. Sui Basecamp is a celebration of the developers and entrepreneurs building on Sui, the innovative Layer 1 blockchain and smart contract platform, and will feature speakers and thought leaders from all over the world and throughout the greater Web3 ecosystem. Sui Basecamp’s initial wave of speakers includes: Arianna Simpson, General Partner at a16z Balaji S. Srinivasan, Angel Investor, Tech Founder and author of The Network State Meltem Demirors, Aspiring Cult Leader Evan Cheng, Chief Executive Officer of Mysten Labs and Original Contributor to Sui Nikola Plecas, Global Head of Product GTM and Product Commercialization at Visa Crypto Rachel Conlan, Chief Marketing Officer at Binance Sam Blackshear, Chief Technology Officer at Mysten Labs and Creator of Move Vincent Chok, Chief Executive Officer of First Digital Trust Logan Jastremski, Managing Partner at Frictionless Capital Adeniyi Abiodun, Chief Product Officer of Mysten Labs Benoît Pellevoizin, Head of Marketing and Communications at CoinShares France Robert Knight, Features Writer at Cointelegraph Greg Siourounis, Managing Director of Sui Foundation Hosted by Mysten Labs and Sui Foundation, Sui Basecamp will take place at two select venues – the first day and opening night party, Sui Soiree, will be at Pavillon Cambon Capucines, the former headquarters of Crédit Foncier de France, before attendees migrate to Pavillon Vendôme for the second day’s festivities. Both locations are adjacent to Paris Blockchain Week’s main event. Early bird tickets, at the discounted prices of $99 USD, are available today through March 1. Ticket prices will remain discounted, at $149 USD, from March 2 through 31, then increase to the full price of $299 from April 1 until the event. Registration is now open at . https://sui.io/basecamp About Sui Sui is a first-of-its-kind Layer 1 blockchain and smart contract platform designed from the bottom up to make digital asset ownership fast, private, secure, and accessible to everyone. Its object-centric model, based on the Move programming language, enables parallel execution, sub-second finality, and rich on-chain assets. With horizontally scalable processing and storage, Sui supports a wide range of applications with unrivaled speed at low cost. Sui is a step-function advancement in blockchain and a platform on which creators and developers can build amazing, user-friendly experiences. Learn more: https://sui.io About Mysten Labs Mysten Labs is a team of leading distributed systems, programming languages, and cryptography experts whose founders were senior executives and lead architects of pioneering blockchain projects. The mission of Mysten Labs is to create foundational infrastructure for web3. Learn more: https://mystenlabs.com Sui Foundation The Sui Foundation is an independent organization that is dedicated to the advancement and adoption of Sui. The Sui Foundation supports the Sui community and its projects that enable individuals and creators to have unprecedented ownership over their data and content. Media Contact: lexi.wangler@mystenlabs.com Contact Lexi Wangler lexi.wangler@mystenlabs.com This story was distributed as a release by Chainwire under HackerNoon’s Business Blogging Program. Learn more about the program here.

Sui Reveals Initial Wave Of Speakers, Famed Venue For First Annual Basecamp Event

The United States v. Meta Platforms Court Filing October 24, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 4 of 100. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here B. Venue 17. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because all Defendants reside in this District. All Defendants have their principal place of business in Menlo Park, a city in this District. Moreover, a substantial part of the unlawful conduct complained of herein occurred in this District, where Meta’s headquarters is located. 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 4:23-cv-05448 retrieved on October 25, 2023, from 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. Washingtonpost.com

Stories, News & Mentions about VENU

Venu’s Stories on HackerNoon

Venu's News & Mentions