Three years ago, a Californian man claimed that he'd been rejected hundreds of times by Workday's AI-driven HR system – now a judge has ruled that a class action based on the complaint will be heard in court.

US District Judge Rita Lin has ruled that Workday must face the claims brought against it, which includes claims that the company's AI-based candidate screening system discriminated on the grounds of age, race, and other protected characteristics.

With the case set to proceed, this makes it the first to consider the impact of letting AI-powered software make decisions on job candidates – a significant case given the rise of recruitment.

Indeed, a report from HireVue suggests seven-in-ten companies are using AI in HR and recruitment processes. The shift to AI hiring isn't popular, either, with two-thirds of Americans telling Pew that they didn't want to apply for a job via AI.

A spokesperson for Workday told ITPro the “claims in the suit are false” and dismissed claims that AI recruiting tools make hiring decisions.

“Workday’s AI recruiting tools don’t make hiring decisions in California or anywhere else,” the spokesperson said. “Our customers maintain full control of their hiring process and our tools are designed with human oversight at their core.”

Workday added that its technology “looks only at job qualifications, not protected traits like race, age, or disability”.

“We rigorously test our products as part of our Responsible AI program to confirm our tools do not harm protected groups.”

Workday case considerations

Lin ruled that anti-discrimination laws do indeed apply when Workday's software is used outside of California, where the company is based and where the claim was filed.

Workday's lawyers had argued that "it makes no sense for a Texas employer with a Texas applicant who will perform work in Texas," but Lin disagreed.

Lin also refused to drop a claim alleging that the software filters out candidates using "proxy indicators", including gaps in employment history, which could impact those with disabilities or illnesses.

One claim was dismissed, however. This sought to include discrimination against Asian Americans in the suit, on the grounds that proper procedure wasn't followed.

History of the case

In 2023, Derek Mobley first sued Workday claiming that he had been rejected by the company's software, which is used by other companies to sift through candidates, between 80 and 100 times.

Mobley believed that the Workday pre-selection system was discriminating against him because he is a black American, over 40 and suffers disabilities. At the time, Workday said the lawsuit was "without merit."

Workday attempted to have the case thrown out in 2024, but Judge Lin dismissed those challenges, ruling that the company wasn't an employment agency but could for the case be considered an employer.

She dismissed claims that the discrimination was intentional. At the time, Workday said it was confident that the remaining allegations would be "easily refuted."

Earlier this year, Mobley was joined by four other would-be candidates, with the judge ruling they could be considered together as a class action.

One of the new plaintiffs, Jill Hughes, said she submitted hundreds of applications that were rejected, with some responses saying she didn't meet the job's minimum requirement, when she actually did.

The AI recruitment conundrum

With the case set to go ahead, it could reveal much sought after details about how AI is being used in recruitment and how it influences who is being hired – and not.

The case comes as AI has overrun recruitment, with companies using it to power everything from sifting through CVs to conducting interviews, while would-be candidates use AI to find open roles, apply automatically, and boost their responses in interviews.

This has created a situation where AI is essentially talking to AI in order to hire a human for a job. Anthropic raised eyebrows last year when it told candidates not to use AI when applying, for example.

Workday isn't the first company to be caught out by the risks of using AI for recruitment. Back in 2018, Amazon was forced to pull an AI tool it was testing for recruitment after it became clear the system was methodically filtering out CVs submitted by women.

FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA

OpenAI and Microsoft have both been named in a complaint filed in the Northern District of California US District Court, which alleges that the ChatGPT creator has been using personal data to train its models without first obtaining permission.

It marks the second major lawsuit launched against the company in the space of a month after it allegedly defamed a radio host by generating untrue statements about him.

The most recent legal accusations relate to the alleged non-consensual use of personal data. The plaintiffs involved have been left anonymous in the complaint, which is seeking class-action status, but $3 billion in damages was mentioned due to the “millions of class members” potentially involved.

Of the defendants, the lawsuit alleges “unlawful and harmful conduct in developing, marketing, and operating their AI products, including ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, Dall-E, and Vall-E”.

It goes on to say that the products listed “use stolen private information, including personally identifiable information, from hundreds of millions of internet users, including children of all ages, without their informed consent or knowledge”.

OpenAI’s models were trained by scraping data from the internet, according to the complaint. 

“Despite established protocols for the purchase and use of personal information, defendants took a different approach: Theft,” it read.

While scraping data from webpages is not a new technique, the failure to seek consent coupled with the difficulty in extracting personal information for the resulting models has resulted in legal concerns.

The complaint read: "Through their AI products, integrated into every industry,” says the complaint, “defendants collect, store, track, share, and disclose private information of millions of users". These include:

• All details entered into the products 
• Account information users enter when signing up 
• Name 
• Contact details 
• Login credentials 
• Emails 
• Payment information for paid users 
• Transaction records; 
• Identifying data pulled from users’ devices and browsers, like IP addresses and location, including geolocation of the users 
• Social media information 
• Chat log data 
• Usage data 
• Analytics 
• Cookies 
• Key strokes
• Typed searches, as well as other online activity data

As well as the exhaustive list of data collected from the plaintiffs, the complaint also mentioned data collected through integrations with tools such as Slack and Microsoft Teams.

Is AI facing other legal issues?

Several lawsuits have been filed related to the performance of AI technology.

One challenging the legality of GitHub Copilot is currently working its way through the legal system. At question is how Copilot, an AI pair programmer capable of serving up coding suggestions, has been trained. 

It is alleged that the use of code found in public GitHub repositories has violated the rights of developers or the licences under which the repositories have been made public. An attempt to have the case dismissed in May was denied, in part, meaning the lawsuit has longer to run.

“We firmly believe AI will transform the way the world builds software, leading to increased productivity and most importantly, happier developers,” a GitHub spokesperson told ITPro.

“We are confident that Copilot adheres to applicable laws and we’ve been committed to innovating responsibly with Copilot from the start. We will continue to invest in and advocate for the AI-powered developer experience of the future.”

The training of models is not the only aspect of generative AI to attract the attention of the legal profession. 

OpenAI is also currently being sued for defamation after ChatGPT provided an inaccurate legal summary in response to a query.  

The case centers on a complaint filed by Florida radio host Mark Walters that ChatGPT defamed him by erroneously claiming that he had been accused of financial crimes.

The technology has also come under the scrutiny of regulators. The Italian data protection regulator recently ordered OpenAI to implement a ‘right to be forgotten’ option amid concerns that the collection and processing of personal data is in violation of GDPR.

Why is AI having these problems?

Generative AI faces two major technical challenges. 

The first is sourcing training data without infringing privacy or violating restrictions. OpenAI has taken the approach in the past of scraping any available data from webpages - including data entered into its tools - into its models. 

While this has enabled the company to build up a large data set, questions are being asked regarding the rights it has around this gathering and use. It is this sourcing, or scraping, of training data that forms the basis for many of the complaints.

The second is the trust given to the output of generative AI platforms, particularly where a ‘hallucination’ has occurred. This is where an AI model has insufficient data to generate an accurate output. 

This type of hallucination is what triggered the defamation lawsuit, and underlines the importance of checking the output of tools such as ChatGPT.

Generative AI is a relatively new technology that has only become practical in recent years with improvements in processing power and storage. Lawmakers are therefore working to catch up and understand its implications.

Amid widely spread fears regarding the risks posed by AI are genuine concerns around privacy and the use of personal data. 

As an example, staffers in the US House of Representatives were recently instructed to only use ChatGPT Plus - which features privacy controls - and not paste sensitive data into the system.

Use of the technology has also been forbidden by a number of financial institutions and enterprises amid fears that sensitive financial information or company secrets might find their way into the chatbot’s models.

OpenAI recently updated its data usage and retention policies to permit customers to opt out of data sharing, although that policy did not apply to data submitted to the API before 1 March 2023 and doesn’t apply to OpenAI’s non-API consumer services, including ChatGPT.

Data platform company Splunk has filed a lawsuit against rival Cribl, alleging that its CEO and other employees stole source code and technical secrets for its own advantage.

Splunk alleged that former employee Clint Sharp, who left the company in 2017, took code without permission that he then used when he co-founded Cribl the same year.

Additionally, it claims that since its formation Cribl has illegally sourced technical documents from outgoing Splunk employees in order to undermine the company.

“Mr Sharp founded Cribl using code he intentionally and unlawfully took from Splunk when he was a Splunk employee without a licence or permission to do so,” read the complaint.

“Since that time, Cribl and Mr Sharp have recruited numerous Splunk employees to Cribl, and have systematically encouraged employees to take Splunk’s confidential technical and business documents with them. In turn, Cribl has used the information it misappropriated to compete unfairly against Splunk.”

In a blog post, Splunk alleges that it attempted to settle the matter privately, but that this was unsuccessful. It characterises Cribl’s actions as a “coordinated campaign of misappropriation” and claims that the company used Splunk’s Technology Alliance Partner (TAP) programme to further its theft.

After launching in 2017, Cribl joined the TAP program, an agreement that allows partners to add to Splunk’s Enterprise platform, through the use and limited copying of Splunk software.

However, the TAP program agreement states that partners may only use the software to demonstrate the use of extensions with the software and to develop extensions further. Using copies of the software to determine source code would constitute a violation of the terms of agreement.

"The allegations in Splunk’s lawsuit are false, and we will defend against these baseless claims," Cribl stated in a blog post.

"We have built interoperability using our own hard work and open source implementations, such as Eventgen. While Splunk tries to stifle competition through litigation, we will keep our relentless focus on our customers to give them choice and control over their data."

Splunk has requested an injunction against Cribl, Clint Sharp and all associated Cribl entities, from further infringing Splunk copyrights. It has also requested an accounting of the profits that Cribl has made from the activity and subsequent damages. The company has requested a trial by jury.

"Proving infringement of copyright in source code, as Splunk is alleging here, tends to be difficult," said Michael Buckworth, founder at UK law firm Buckworths. "A former employee would be incredibly foolish to use a carbon copy of code he has misappropriated; rather he would likely recode the software to deliver substantially similar functionality.

"New code achieving the same outcome as existing code is unlikely to infringe copyright in existing code leaving the damaged party to look at patent infringement or breach of contractual obligations," he added.

"Splunk may believe that they can prove each allegation that they have made with the result that they could secure significant damages from Cribl, or even have it shut down.

"Alternatively, this may be a strategic move to dry up investment and other financial support in Cribl. There is nothing that will turn off investors more than a high-profile IP dispute! Either way both parties will now need to prove their position and live with significant costs if they fail.”

Splunk operates in more than 21 regions internationally, providing customers with a suite that provides oversight over their data and allows them to conduct big data analytics. It also aims to improve observability across multi-cloud environments. Last year it announced a new cloud security suite in addition to its other offerings.

Cribl supplies data management solutions to its customers, aiming to provide data flexibility and stack observability. Its service Cribl Stream is used by DevOps engineers and other industry professionals in order to process data in real time, supply context to data, and encrypt sensitive fields.

IT Pro has approached Splunk for comment.

This article has been updated to include a statement from Cribl.

The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) massive antitrust lawsuit against Google is still going on. The latest wrinkle is Google and Microsoft battling over whether the latter must turn over crucial business records.

Google has asked a federal judge to order Microsoft to turn over these documents, but Microsoft wondered why it should have to.

Google served a subpoena to Microsoft a few months ago seeking records relating to Microsoft’s Bing search engine and its Internet Explorer and Edge internet browsers. Google thinks the records will reveal whether Microsoft was restrained from competing with Google or if it just failed to compete successfully.

Google’s search engine is the market leader by a huge margin, while Bing’s search market share remains in single digits. Google’s Chrome browser also competes with Microsoft’s browsers.

In a court filing unsealed late Thursday, Google said Microsoft failed to comply with the subpoena, according to Reuters.

“In particular, there are 19 Microsoft employees who held important positions relating to activities at the core of this case but whose files Microsoft refuses to commit to search at this time,” Google said in its court filing.

Meanwhile, Microsoft complained in a court filing that Google’s legal demands are too burdensome. Microsoft says Google’s additional requests for records means Microsoft would have to search the files of 55 employees and former employees.

Microsoft argues that Google isn’t offering specific reasons for why it needs these additional files. Google claims the documents it’s seeking are relevant to the case.

Last October, the Justice Department sued Google, kicking off a spate of federal and state antitrust lawsuits against the search giant and Facebook.

The DOJ says a year-long investigation found that Google improperly used its digital dominance to negatively affect corporate rivals and consumers.

The lawsuit could have serious implications for Google and the entire tech industry, which is under scrutiny due to the amount of data, money, and power it has amassed.

A federal court has extended a key deadline for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in its antitrust case against Facebook. The FTC now has until August 19 to file an amended complaint against the social media giant.

The FTC originally sued Facebook for antitrust practices in December, along with 46 states, Guam, and the District of Columbia. The suit alleged the company used monopolistic practices to maintain its dominance in the social media space. That suit failed last month when a federal judge dismissed it and gave the FTC until July 29 to file an amended complaint.

On Friday, the FTC filed a motion to extend that deadline, and Facebook agreed not to oppose the request. The social media company will respond to the complaint by October 4. If Facebook moves to dismiss the case, the FTC will have until November 17 to respond. Facebook would then get until December 1 to issue its legal volley.

The FTC said the extended deadline would enable it to complete internal processes, arguing it won't burden Facebook. The court agreed to the extension on Friday.

This latest procedural development in the case follows Facebook’s petition earlier this month asking the FTC to recuse chair Lina Khan from deliberations about resubmitting the case. Khan, a known critic of big tech's market practices, made public statements in the past expressing her opinion that Facebook was anti-competitive, the petition said.

The Facebook lawsuit is pivotal for an FTC that has already abandoned another antitrust case recently.

In March the FTC decided not to pursue an action against Qualcomm, which had been ongoing for four years. The Commission would have needed to petition the Supreme Court to pursue the case, which had been overturned in Qualcomm's favor on appeal. The decision to abandon the case was made under Kelly Slaughter, acting FTC chair at the time.

Facebook has asked Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chair Lina Khan to recuse herself from the Commission's decision to refile its antitrust case against the social media giant.

The FTC and 46 states had sued Facebook in December, alleging the company used monopolistic practices to extend the dominance of its social networking platform. The complaint cited activities including Facebook's purchases of Instagram and WhatsApp, along with its alleged use of anti-competitive terms and conditions with software developers. Guam and the District of Columbia also sued.

At the end of June, a federal judge threw out the suit, arguing prosecutors failed to provide enough evidence the company holds a monopoly in the social networking market. States had also waited too long to bring their case, he added. He gave the FTC 30 days to refile the case but also suggested it would face serious challenges if it did so. The FTC has been deliberating on whether to refile.

In its petition, Facebook argued Khan has a history of public statements accusing Facebook of anti-competitive conduct. "Indeed, she has led an organization lobbying the Commission to impose particular remedies against Facebook and, more recently, commented publicly as to her personal beliefs on the merits of the very complaint filed by the Commission last December," the petition said.

Facebook's petition follows a similar one Amazon filed last month, which also called for Khan to recuse herself from the FTC's investigation into the e-commerce giant's practices. The investigation is separate from an antitrust lawsuit that Washington, DC filed against Amazon in May.

Khan is an outspoken advocate for traditional antitrust principles, which she laid out in a 2017 Yale Law Journal article. That article, which addressed Amazon specifically, argued it might be necessary to view large tech companies like Amazon as common carriers.

Her response to the petition will be pivotal to the decision about refiling the Facebook case, which will fall to the FTC's commissioners for a vote. Khan's vote cements a 3-2 Democrat majority on the commission. Without her, it is unlikely the vote will make it through.

Tech giants Huawei and Verizon Communications have agreed to settle a pair of lawsuits alleging patent infringement, according to Reuters.

The trial in one of the two lawsuits had just opened last week in Texas.

Huawei sued Verizon in February 2020, alleging it used a dozen of its patents without authorization in sectors such as computer networking, download security and video communications. The lawsuit was seeking unspecified compensation and royalty payments.

At the time, Verizon countered by calling Huawei’s lawsuits “nothing more than a PR stunt” and “a sneak attack on our company and the entire tech ecosystem.” Verizon countersued Huawei, claiming the Chinese company was the one violating Verizon’s patents.

Huawei responded that it was “simply asking that Verizon respect Huawei’s investment in research and development by either paying for the use of our patents, or refraining from using them.”

However, all the back and forth appears to be over. Huawei and Verizon filed joint motions late Sunday to dismiss the various lawsuits and counterclaims.

In a company statement, Huawei said it was “pleased that Verizon and Huawei reached an agreement that ends the companies’ patent litigation. The terms of the agreement are confidential.”

Huawei has been a flashpoint in the U.S.-China relationship for several years. When it comes to US sanctions on Chinese firms, no company has been impacted more than Huawei. The telecoms giant has been labeled as a security threat based on perceived ties with the Chinese government.

In December, the FCC ordered certain telecom companies to remove Huawei equipment from their networks as part of the revocation of the company’s authorization to operate in the US.

To date, Huawei remains on the US economic blacklist with no signs of being taken off despite the new Biden administration taking over in January 2021 and rolling back some of the previous administration’s executive orders on Chinese tech companies.

A coalition of bipartisan attorneys general from 37 US states are suing Google over alleged practices that they allege help the company maintain an effective market monopoly for its Play Store.

The lawsuit also claims that the tech giant paid off Samsung and other app developers in order to limit market competition.

The allegations against Google’s Play Store come from an investigation involving 50 states in September 2019 and has resulted in three lawsuits against the company.

Now, the states, which are led by Utah, New York, North Carolina, and Tennessee, said in a lawsuit filed at the Northern District of California that “Google leverages its monopoly power with Android to unlawfully maintain its monopoly in the Android app distribution market”.

The lawsuit alleges that a one-off payment was offered to Samsung in exchange for the limiting of development on its own competing app store.

“Google initially proposed paying Samsung up to [Redacted] ; in return, Samsung would give up its direct commercial relationships in app distribution with consumers and developers,” states the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also alleges that Google bought off key app developers to stifle competition in the Android app distribution market by deterring them from making their apps available outside the Play Store.

“To do so, Google shared its monopoly profits by providing these app developers in-kind services and adding distribution restrictions through an addendum to the DDA” it said in the lawsuit.

“Google’s monopoly is a menace to the marketplace. Google Play is not fair play. Google must be held accountable for harming small businesses and consumers,” said Utah attorney general Sean Reyes. “It must stop using its monopolistic power and hyper-dominant market position to unlawfully leverage billions of added dollars from smaller companies, competitors and consumers beyond what should be paid.”

Wilson White, senior director of public policy at Google, said in a statement that it was “strange” a group of state attorneys general chose to file a lawsuit attacking a system that “provides more openness and choice than others”.

“This complaint mimics a similarly meritless lawsuit filed by the large app developer Epic Games, which has benefitted from Android’s openness by distributing its Fortnite app outside of Google Play,” he said.

“This lawsuit isn’t about helping the little guy or protecting consumers. It’s about boosting a handful of major app developers who want the benefits of Google Play without paying for it,” added White.

IT Pro has asked Samsung to comment on the lawsuit.

Last year, the Department of Justice (DoJ) charged Google with violating federal antitrust law. The investigation determined that the tech giant improperly used its digital dominance to affect corporate rivals and consumers negatively, and alleges that the company maintained a monopoly in search and search advertising.

Meanwhile, US antitrust bills that are designed to curb big tech passed the House Committee stage last month. This included the American Innovation and Choice Online Act which looks to prohibit discriminatory conduct by dominant platforms, while also banning self-preferencing, prohibiting big tech companies from favouring their own products on their platforms.

Big tech has sued to overturn a new Florida law targeting social media companies, calling it "hopelessly vague" and unconstitutional.

On Thursday, trade associations NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCITA) filed a lawsuit to negate SB7072. The bill, signed into law by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on Monday, would prevent social media companies from banning political candidates in the run-up to elections and would make it easier for state residents to sue the companies for perceived bias in their censorship. It is due to come into effect on July 1.

The trade associations argue that the law would infringe upon the first amendment to the US Constitution, protecting freedom of speech. It would also violate Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act by attempting to prevent online platforms from making their own decisions about how to restrict objectionable content, the complaint said.

"Rather than preventing what it calls "censorship," the Act does the exact opposite: it empowers government officials in Florida to police the protected editorial judgment of online businesses that the State disfavors and whose perceived political viewpoints it wishes to punish," the lawsuit warned.

The complaint called out Florida for excluding theme park owners, such as the Walt Disney Company, which operates in the state, from the law.

"This undisguised singling out of disfavored companies reflects the Act's true purpose, which its sponsors freely admitted: to target and punish popular online services for their perceived views and for certain content-moderation decisions that state officials opposed," the lawsuit said.

The industry associations added that content moderation benefits users by weeding out material including child abuse, revenge porn, white supremacist, terrorist material, and election misinformation from foreign adversaries.

The Florida State Hispanic Chamber of Commerce was also critical of the new Florida law but isn't party to the lawsuit. This week, it issued a press release calling SB 7072 "a dangerous step towards a state-run internet."

Washington, DC has sued Amazon for anti-competitive practices. The lawsuit, filed in DC Superior Court on Tuesday, accuses the company of unfairly manipulating its third-party sellers with an intent to monopolize the online retail sales market.

In the lawsuit, DC Attorney General Karl A Racine focuses on a policy in Amazon's business solutions agreement (BSA) that applies to third-party sellers on its platform. The policy prohibits sellers from offering their products for lower prices on other e-commerce platforms, including their own websites.

This practice is anti-competitive and artificially raised prices, alleges the DC attorney general, because it forces third-party sellers to fold Amazon's high seller fees into their product prices and then charge those prices everywhere. Those fees could sometimes account for 40% of the product price.

Amazon originally called this policy the price parity provision (PPP). It was in place until 2013 in Europe, when UK and German regulators launched an investigation. Amazon removed the PPP in that region but kept it in its mandatory agreement with US sellers until 2019, when it removed it after US government scrutiny.

The lawsuit explains the company replaced PPP with what Racine calls the "effectively-identical" fair pricing policy (FPP). Amazon could ban sellers who violated the FPP by offering their products cheaper on another platform.

The lawsuit complained, "Competition and consumers were directly harmed by virtue of higher prices, as well as through the loss of choice, innovation, and competition among online retail sales platforms, as other online retail sales platforms were not able to use lower product prices to lure buyers and sellers to their competing online retail sales platform and capture some of Amazon's dominant market share."

These policies have helped the e-commerce giant capture more market share, claimed the lawsuit, which also accused the company of creating unreasonable vertical agreements with sellers. The mandatory agreements demonstrate its intent to monopolize online retail sales, the lawsuit said, adding there was a "dangerous probability" it would succeed.

The lawsuit is another sign of changing government views on antitrust issues. At the federal level, the President nominated Lina Khan, a prominent antitrust lawyer and critic of big tech, as FTC commissioner in March. Khan has warned against allowing platforms like Amazon to engage in anti-competitive behavior.

In March 2020, Racine joined a group of 34 state AGs to urge Amazon, Craigslist, eBay, Facebook, and Walmart to crack down on online price gouging on their platforms during the pandemic.

The Department of Defense (DoD) may have to rethink the $10 billion JEDI cloud computing contract it awarded to Microsoft following a court decision in its legal battle with Amazon.

In an interview at the Aspen Institute on April 30, Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks said the DoD would have to consider the project in the context of ongoing litigation.

"We're going to have to assess where we are with regard to the ongoing litigation around JEDI and determine what the best path forward is for the department," she said.

The statement echoed a briefing sent to lawmakers in January. In the briefing, the Pentagon warned that Amazon's legal action against the government and Microsoft jeopardized the project.

The Pentagon’s problem relates to count number four of Amazon's litigation, which alleges improper influence at the highest levels of Government. The cloud giant says this unfairly affected the outcome of the bidding process. It alleges that former President Trump influenced the DoD to avoid giving the contract to Amazon.

The briefing document outlined two scenarios. In the first scenario, the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) would rule to dismiss count four of the AWS complaint. This wouldn't end the litigation, as AWS has three other counts to consider, but it would likely limit that litigation to around five months. The Pentagon would suspend JEDI until that litigation process was complete.

The second scenario became a reality on April 29 when the COFC published a decision denying the DoD's request to dismiss count four in the courts. The DoD's briefing document warned that this would threaten the JEDI contract’s future. It would need extensive litigation involving depositions from current and former White House and DoD officials, it warned.

"These motions will be complex and elongate the timeline significantly," said the report. "The prospect of such a lengthy litigation process might bring the future of the JEDI Cloud procurement into question."

The report said that either scenario leaves the Pentagon with a gap in its capabilities which it calls an "urgent, unmet requirement." This would extend across all three classification levels and from the home front to the tactical edge, at scale.

The DoD's Office of Inspector General has launched an administrative review of the JEDI contract. However, last month, Senator Chuck Grassley of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary wrote to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin warning he had serious concerns about the scope of the review.

"DoD OIG did not examine key issues that occurred before the request for proposal (RFP) process, including allegations of pressure from senior leadership to conduct the entire contract without a competitive bidding process," he said, also flagging the "unusual and significant" involvement of senior DoD leaders in contract decisions.

The broadband industry is suing the State of New York to stop it from imposing a $15-per-month cap on broadband fees for low-income families.

The state passed a law in mid-April to provide affordable internet access for approximately seven million New Yorkers across 2.7 million households. Eligible recipients included those who received free or reduced-price lunches, supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) benefits, Medicaid, senior citizen or disability rent protection, or affordability benefits from utilities.

The Empire State also unveiled an Affordable Broadband Portal to help New Yorkers find the affordable broadband options in their area and announced an in-depth statewide broadband mapping study to find broadband availability, reliability, and cost.

On Friday, a collection of industry groups filed suit against New York State Attorney General Letitia James, arguing states can't regulate broadband services. The suit contends the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruled in 2018 that broadband is an interstate information service that can't be regulated as a common-carrier service.

"The Rate Regulation expressly seeks to set the rates and speed of an interstate communication services," it said. "No state has ever successfully engaged in such regulations."

The FCC's 2018 ruling under chairman Ajit Pai came after a public consultation fraught with controversy. It was hotly contested because it changed the Commission's view of broadband communications from a common-carrier utility to a luxury, relaxing its control over broadband ISPs and effectively overturning federal net neutrality rules.

While the ruling included language to stop states from regulating broadband themselves, the ability to pre-empt state decisions hasn't been tested in court. The broadband industry is arguing the point in a legal battle with California, which seeks to impose state-level net neutrality laws.

Broadband providers already serve low-income users via programs like Lifeline and the new Emergency Broadband Benefit, which comes into effect this month, the lawsuit added.

The New York State Telecommunications Association, the CTIA, ACA Connects, USTelecom, the NCTA, and the Satellite Broadcasting & Communications Assocation filed the suit.

New York governor Andrew Cuomo dismissed the broadband industry's complaint.

"I knew giant telecom companies would be upset by our efforts to level the playing field, and right on cue, they're pushing back," he said, pointing to the need for lower-cost connectivity during the pandemic. "This is nothing more than a transparent attempt by billion-dollar corporations putting profit ahead of creating a more fair and just society."

As part of its announcement last month, the state also launched ConnectED NY, an emergency fund to provide 50,000 economically disadvantaged students with free internet access until June 2022.

Google has been using a secret program to track bids on its digital ad-buying platform and it's accused of using that information to give itself an unfair advantage over competitors, according to court documents filed in a Texas antitrust lawsuit.

Texas is one of a dozen states suing Google for antitrust practices in the search and advertising markets, and its lawsuit just inadvertently revealed some alleged behind-the-scenes information.

In the initial version of the filing, which The Wall Street Journal viewed, Google accidentally failed to redact some information, revealing its secretive business practices. A federal judge allowed Google to refile a redacted version later.

In those documents, Google reportedly acknowledged the existence of an initiative called “Project Bernanke,” an apparent reference to former Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke.

Texas alleges this program was the equivalent of insider trading due to Google’s complicated role in the online advertising marketplace.

Texas says Google operates simultaneously as a major ad exchange operator, a representative of buyers and sellers on the exchange, and an ad buyer itself. By being both an owner and a client, Google gamed the system because it had access to exclusive data other ad buyers didn’t, according to the antitrust lawsuit.

Texas alleges that Google used information on what other ad buyers were willing to pay for space to bid just the bare minimum to beat rivals and secure ad placements, the state alleges. It could pay publishers less on its winning bids for ads.

In the court documents that Google filed, the search giant acknowledged “the details of Project Bernanke's operations are not disclosed to publishers.” But it denied that the program gave Google an unfair advantage, calling it “comparable to data maintained by other buying tools.”

Texas is one of a dozen states suing Google, accusing it of antitrust practices in the search and advertising markets. In October 2020, the Department of Justice and 11 states sued Google — California joined the lawsuit later.

The lawsuit says Google used exclusionary agreements to lock up the search engine market by requiring it to be the default search engine for mobile devices and computers.

In October, Google responded to the original lawsuit, calling its antitrust arguments “dubious” and arguing that its agreements are no different from those other companies have used to distribute software. It also said rival search services paid to be featured as prominent options on Apple’s Safari browser.

Software company Xinuos is suing IBM and Red Hat, claiming they stole the Linux source code and pushed its own products out of the market. The move rekindles a legal spat over ownership of the original Unix source.

Xinuos, which is based in the US Virgin Islands, sells server operating systems to commercial customers. The lawsuit, filed in the US Court of the Virgin Islands, accuses IBM and Red Hat of using wrongfully copied software code and engaging in anti-competitive misconduct to corner the market in Unix and Linux server operating systems.

The complaint claims IBM stole Xinuos' intellectual property and misled the public in its SEC statements by saying a third party that owned all of the Unix and UnixWare copyrights had waived all infringement claims against it.

"Thereafter, IBM and Red Hat divided the market for enterprise clients to protect IBM's precious high-end server, software, and services business, they promoted each other's operating system products, and they granted each other special technical access and abilities that were not made generally available and from which Xinuos and others were specifically excluded," the complaint continues. "These bad acts continue to this day."

Unix has a stormy legal history. Novell purchased the rights to the program's source code in 1993, subsequently agreeing to transfer some rights surrounding Unix (including UnixWare, Novell's version of Unix) to the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO). In 2000, Caldera bought UnixWare from SCO, changing its name to the SCO Group two years later.

The SCO Group then sued IBM for infringing on its copyright by including Unix source code in Linux. Novell responded by claiming it was still the legal owner of Linux, sparking a legal response from the SCO Group, which lost its case against Novell in 2007. SCO Group then filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy while it pursued an ultimately unsuccessful appeal.

A group of equity investors partnered to create UnXis, which purchased SCO Group's server operating system products, OpenServer and UnixWare, in 2011. At the time, the new company stated there was "no place for litigation in our vision or plan." In 2013, it changed its name to Xinuos and released OpenServer X based on FreeBSD while providing a migration path from the former SCO products.

California has become the latest state to sue Google for antitrust practices in the search and advertising markets, filing a request to join an existing Department of Justice (DOJ) lawsuit that also includes multiple other states.

On October 20, the DOJ and 11 states sued Google, accusing it of using anti-competitive practices in the search and advertising markets.

The suit said Google used exclusionary agreements to lock up the search engine market by requiring it to be the default search engine for mobile devices and computers. The complaint called out its long-term agreement with Apple to be the default search engine on iOS devices. It also said Google used agreements prohibiting the pre-installation of any competing search services.

California seeks no changes to the suit other than to add its name to those litigating against the search and advertising giant.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra accused Google of rigging the advertising market. "This lawsuit paves the way for search engine innovation with greater regard for privacy and data protection," he said in a statement posted Friday.

The lawsuit was the culmination of a yearlong DOJ and multi-state investigation into Google's business practices — California didn't participate in the investigations. Instead, California conducted its own antitrust probe, according to Politico.

Whereas the DOJ sued Google under the Sherman antitrust act, California has its own antitrust laws: the Cartwright Act and the Unfair Competition Act, which allow government enforcers to seek civil penalties for violations.

Google responded to the original lawsuit in October, calling its antitrust arguments "dubious" and arguing that its agreements are no different than those other companies have used to distribute software. it also said rival search services paid to be featured as prominent options on Apple's Safari browser.

California's move against Google came two days after it sued Facebook for antitrust practices as part of a wide-ranging action against the social media firm that included the FTC and 48 states.

If courts grant its request, California will join Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, and Texas in the lawsuit against Google.

Epic Games is suing Google and Apple over the removal of its popular game Fortnite from their app stores, amid a growing battle around the slice of sales taken by the tech giants.

Google and Apple take a 30% cut of all payments made in games and apps downloaded via their stores. To avoid losing that revenue, Epic Games said it would offer a 20% discount to players who purchase in-game currency directly from Fortnite rather than through the app, prompting Apple and Google to boot the game from their official stores.

Apple said it removed Fortnite because the feature had the "express intent of violating the App Store guidelines," while Google also said the move violates its policies, but added that it would "welcome the opportunity to continue our discussions with Epic," according to a report from Sky News.

In response, Epic filed lawsuits against both companies — and released a video lambasting Apple's decision based on its own classic 1984-themed advertisement. Apple's original ad was released to both promote the forthcoming Macintosh and to criticise IBM's then-current monmopolisation of the desktop PC market. Epic's video turned this theme around on the company, saying Apple has "become what it once railed against" and calling for the platform-holders to "free Fortnite".

"Apple's removal of Fortnite is yet another example of Apple flexing its enormous power in order to impose unreasonable restraints and unlawfully maintain its 100% monopoly over the iOS in-app payment processing market," Epic said in its Apple complaint, according to CNN.

The company similarly said in its complaint against Google that the tech giant was "using its size to do evil upon competitors, innovators, customers, and users in a slew of markets it has grown to monopolize."

Fortnite only arrived on the Apple App Store and Google Play in April, 18 months after offering it for Android as a download outside of the official market. Epic had been slow to allow the game to be downloaded via the stores because of the potential revenue loss, instead offering its own installer. At the time, CEO Tim Sweeney said the 30% cut was "disproportionate to the cost of the services these stores perform." However, Epic said it had to shift to the official store because Google kept showing pop-ups warning that third-party software is dangerous or even malware.

It still remains possible to sideload Fortnite onto Android phones, but not iPhones. Anyone with the game already installed on an iPhone can continue playing for the time being, though updates may eventually break it.

This isn't the first time that Epic and its CEO Tim Sweeney have taken up arms against perceived monopolistic practises within the games industry; he has previously accused Microsoft of trying to build a "walled garden" for PC gaming through its UWP apps, and has been a vocal opponent of the dominance held by Valve's digital distribution service Steam over the sale of games, even going so far as to launch the Epic Store as a competing platform.

Epic also isn't the only digital developer to take issue with paying Apple and Google 30% of mobile revenue. Streaming app Spotify filed an antitrust complaint with the EU about Apple's cut, which the company said forced it to charge iPhone users more if they registered with the service via the App Store. Similar complaints have been filed to the EU against Apple by ebook seller Rakuten, tracking device maker Tile, and messaging app Telegram.

Those complaints have sparked an investigation into Apple's App Store rules, with European Commission executive vice-president Margrethe Vestager saying in June: "It appears that Apple obtained a 'gatekeeper' role when it comes to the distribution of apps and content to users of Apple's popular devices. We need to ensure that Apple's rules do not distort competition in markets where Apple is competing with other app developers, for example with its music streaming service Apple Music or with Apple Books."

In the US, the CEOs of both Apple and Google, alongside fellow big tech leaders Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg, have recently been summoned before the House Judiciary Committee's panel on antitrust and monopoly issues. After questioning the CEOs, committee chair David Cicilline concluded that "they have too much power".

Qualcomm is suing Apple for allegedly failing to adhere to the terms and conditions it has set out for using its chips in iOS devices, saying the iPhone maker has used the information it provided to help rival Intel.

The chipmaker filed its lawsuit against the tech giant last week in San Diego, saying Apple breached the contract between the two companies,Bloomberghas reported.

It's the latest filing in an ongoing battle between the two companies over licensing fees that Apple purportedly hasn't paid Qualcomm, despite the smartphone, tablet and computer manufacturer using its chips as an integral part of some of its devices.

The company's chips are present in a large number of iPhones to help them connect to networks, but recently, Apple has started using Intel in some models of its iPhone to carry out the same job, including the iPhone 7.

Now Qualcomm has accused Apple of allowing Intel access to its software secrets, after Apple reportedly requested information from Qualcomm and included an Intel engineer in on the query. Apparently, this isn't the first time Apple has asked for a competitor to try and access Qualcomm's confidential information. The Cupertino-based company apparently asked another engineer for information aboutdata download technology.

Apple has previously accused Qualcomm of charging too much for the use of its patented technology, although the chipmaker retaliated by saying that Apple is lying to regulators to get out of paying the full fees.

There are rumours Apple could completely drop Qualcomm chips from its devices now the company has reportedly stopped providing some of the software needed for the tech manufacturer to test its devices, a source toldReuterslast week.

The chipmaker said this wasn't the case though. "We are committed to supporting Apple's new devices consistent with our support of all others in the industry," Qualcomm said in a statement.

09/08/2017:The US International Trade Commission (USITC) has started an investigation into Apple products to see whether they infringe on Qualcomm patents.

The investigation, based on a Qualcomm complaint filed on 7 July 7, will seek to determine whether certain mobile electronic devices, such as the iPhone 7, and components in the devices including baseband processor modems, infringe on Qualcomm patents - something Apple has denied.

Qualcomm has asked the commission to issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order on any Apple products found to infringe on its patents.

"The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain mobile electronic devices and radio frequency and processing components thereof that infringe patents asserted by the complainant" said the USITC. It has identified Apple as the respondent in the investigation.

Now, the case will be assigned to one of the trade commission's administrative law judges, who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The judge will then determine whether Apple is violating section 337 and the decision is subject to review by the commission.

The USITC is going to make a final determination as soon as it can, and after 45 days will set a target date for completing the investigation.

It added: "USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the US Trade Representative within that 60-day period."

Don Rosenberg, executive VP and general counsel of Qualcomm, said: "Qualcomm is pleased with the ITC's decision to investigate Apple's unfair trade practices and the unauthorized importation of products using Qualcomm's patents."

He added: "We look forward to the ITC's expeditious investigation of Apple's ongoing infringement of our intellectual property and the accelerated relief that the Commission can provide."

Qualcomm has also sued for patent infringement in Germany in a lawsuit which commenced on 17 July, seeking "damages and injunctive relief for iPhones imported or sold in Germany".

The chip maker launched a complaint with the USITC in July to prevent Apple from selling some of its iPhones in the US, as it claims the tech giant has infringed six of its patents. It wants to bar the import of some iPhones and Apple products that use Intel wireless processors as it claims the devices using these chips are using Qualcomm inventions without its permission.

Intel hit back at Qualcomm, saying the firm was simply trying to maintain its monopoly of mobile chips in the US, and that the exclusion order would severely damage competitive conditions in the US.

IT Pro has contacted Apple for comment.

24/07/2017: Intel accuses Qualcomm of creating chip "monopoly"

Intel has hit back at Qualcomm for attempting to get Apple products running Intel processors banned in the US.

Qualcomm had demanded the ban at the start of July, claiming these products infringed its patents, but Intel has responded by accusing Qualcomm of trying to "maintain its modern monopoly".

In a letterto the International Trade Commission (ITC), Intel saidthat Qualcomm's aim is not to exclude supposedly infringing products from the US but to "exclude Intel modems from the United States, while giving free passage to allegedly infringing Apple products that incorporate a Qualcomm modem".

Intel also claims that Qualcomm is trying to use its complaint to "maintain its modern monopoly and perpetuate its broader and anticompetitive scheme".

The chipmaker added that an exclusion order on Apple products being sold in the US would "severely damage competitive conditions in the United States economy by reinforcing Qualcomm's hold on the premium LTE modern merchant market".

Intel claimed an exclusion order would fence it out of the LTE market and would send a message to other manufacturers about the risks of defying Qualcomm.

Apple and Qualcomm are locked in dispute over patents, with Qualcomm believing that some Intel-running iPhones infringe on its own patents, and therefore these products should be banned.The patents in question relate to chips prolonging battery life, as well as a method for handling video streams.

An Apple spokesperson previously toldIT Pro:"Qualcomm's illegal business practices are harming Apple and the entire industry. They supply us with a single connectivity component, but for years have been demanding a percentage of the total cost of our products - effectively taxing Apple's innovation."

Apple sued Qualcomm for $1 billion in January this year, claiming it had been overcharged for some patents.

Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Samsung took Apple's side in the latest dispute last week.The groupstated that Qualcomm's practices are anti-competitive and harmful to consumers. It declared that "Qualcomm is trying to use the ITC as a tool to maintain their anti-competitive practices in the face of lawsuits from Apple and the FTC".

However, Intel isn't innocent of attempts to monopolise the chip market.It was fined 1 billion by the EUin 2009 for allegedly offering kickbacks to computer manufacturers to encourage them to use its own chips instead of rival AMD's, and to delay launches of products featuring AMD chips.

Qualcomm has been on Intel's radar ever since announcing that along with Microsoft it will release the first ARM-based Windows PCs later this year. Intel has been a heavyweight for 40 years in this market and in a blog post explicitly warned that in the beginning of its microprocessor business it "needed to enforce its patent rights against various companies", mentioning AMD, Cyrix, and Chips and Technologies.

It underlined how "some companies may try to emulate Intel's proprietary x86 ISA without Intel's authorization" and that it doesn't welcome unlawful infringement of its patents.

07/07/2017:Qualcomm demands ban on iPhones, claiming patent infringement

Chipmaker Qualcomm has filed a complaint with the US International Trade Commission (ITC) in a bid to prevent Apple selling some iPhones in the US, claiming that the company has infringed six of its patents.

Qualcomm wants the ITC to investigate Apple and bar the import of particular iPhones and other products into the US to stop it from using Qualcomm's technology. It also wants to ban iPhones that use cellular baseband processors, and is seeking a cease and desist order to bar further sales of Apple products that have already been imported to the US.

The Snapdragon maker is only looking to block imports of iPhones that use wireless processors made by rival Intel, which would leave its own chip sales unaffected. According to theFinancial Times, Intel first began supplying these processors to Apple in the iPhone 7 last September. Qualcomm claims that the devices using Intel chips are allegedly using a number of Qualcomm inventions without its permission.

The patents in question relate to prolonging battery life, as well as a method for handling video streams.

Dan Rosenberg, executive vice president and general counsel of Qualcomm, said: "Qualcomm's inventions are at the heart of every iPhone and extend well beyond modem technologies or cellular standards."

He added: "The patents we are asserting represent six important technologies, out of a portfolio of thousands, and each is vital to iPhone functions. Apple continues to use Qualcomm's technology while refusing to pay for it. These lawsuits seek to stop Apple's infringement of six of our patented technologies."

Qualcomm also filed a complaint against Apple in the US District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging that Apple infringes the same six patents in the complaint filed in the ITC. It seeks damages and injunctive relief.

The company expects the ITC investigation to commence in August and for the case to be tried next year. Despite this, the ITC could take around 18 months to conduct an investigation and make a ruling so restrictions on iPhone sales won't potentially happen until the release of Apple's 2018 iPhone model, presumably the iPhone 9.

An Apple spokesperson told IT Pro:"Qualcomm's illegal business practices are harming Apple and the entire industry. They supply us with a single connectivity component, but for years have been demanding a percentage of the total cost of our products - effectively taxing Apple's innovation."

The spokesperson added: "We believe deeply in the value of intellectual property but we shouldn't have to pay them for technology breakthroughs they have nothing to do with. We've always been willing to pay a fair rate for standard technology used in our products and since they've refused to negotiate reasonable terms we're asking the courts for help."

Reported circulated last month thatApple was falling back on inferior Intel hardwareto meet supply demands for the iPhone 8.

Apple was allegedly looking to reduce its reliance on Qualcomm by increasing the percentage of baseband modems supplied by Intel this year. This echoed its policy for the iPhone 7, which saw Intel receive an outsourced proportion of 30%. This created a problem for Apple as the Intel chips offer inferior performance to Qualcomm's.

Qualcomm sued Applein April, claiming that it deliberately did not use these chips to their full potential in the iPhone 7 so they would not perform any better than those made by Intel. There is a consensus that the iPhone maker would shift back to Qualcomm hardware for its next phone, but this may not be the case considering their feud.

11/04/2017:Qualcomm has countersued Apple, claiming the tech giant deliberately failed to use Qualcomm's iPhone 7 modem chips to their full potential so they would not perform any better than ones made by Intel.

The lawsuit comes after several from Apple served on Qualcomm earlier this year.

Qualcomm listed several complaints in adocument,including claims that Apple breached agreements and mischaracterised agreements and negotiations with Qualcomm; interfered with Qualcomm's long-standing agreements with Qualcomm licensees that manufacture iPhones and iPads; encouraged regulatory attacks on Qualcomm's business in various jurisdictions around the world by misrepresenting facts and making false statements.

Qualcomm also alleged that Apple chose not to utilise the full performance of Qualcomm's modem chips in its iPhone 7, misrepresented the performance disparity between iPhones using Qualcomm modems and those using competitor-supplied modems, and threatened Qualcomm to prevent it from making any public comparisons about the superior performance of the Qualcomm-powered iPhones.

"Apple could not have built the incredible iPhone franchise that has made it the most profitable company in the world, capturing over 90% of smartphone profits, without relying upon Qualcomm's fundamental cellular technologies. Now, after a decade of historic growth, Apple refuses to acknowledge the well established and continuing value of those technologies," said Qualcomm executive VPand general counsel Don Rosenberg.

He added that Apple had "launched a global attack on Qualcomm and is attempting to use its enormous market power to coerce unfair and unreasonable license terms from Qualcomm.

"We intend to vigorously defend our business model, and pursue our right to protect and receive fair value for our technological contributions to the industry."

Apple had reportedly throttled Qualcomm chips in a bid to keep a uniform experience across the iPhone range.

Qualcomm said it is seeking, among other things, "damages from Apple for reneging on its promises in several agreements and to enjoin Apple from further interference with Qualcomm's agreements with the companies that manufacture iPhones and iPads for Apple".

The Qualcomm lawsuit comes after Apple filed its own lawsuit in January in the US demanding $1 billion from Qualcomm, arguing that it had been overcharged on the use of Qualcomm's patents, with Qualcomm allegedly charging for patents on technologies it had nothing to do with. Apple also filed lawsuits against the firm in the UK and China.

Three former Oracle employees are suing the company for allegedly paying women less than men carrying out a similar job.

The three women Rong Jewett, Sophy Wang and Xian Murray filed the lawsuit at San Mateo Court in California on 28 August. They seek a class-action lawsuit to represent all other women who have worked at Oracle, according to TechCrunch.

The lawsuit states: "Oracle has discriminated against its female employees by systematically paying them lower wage rates than Oracle pays to male employees performing substantially equal or similar work under similar working conditions."

Jewett worked as an application engineer and senior application engineer from approximately April 2012 to July 2016. Wang worked as an application engineer, senior application engineer, project lead and principal application engineer from approximately October 2008 to March 2017. Lastly, Murray worked as a software engineer, senior engineer and project lead from March 2011 to October 2016. All three women worked at Oracle's headquarters in Redwood Shores in California.

The three ex-staffers aim to represent all women employed by Oracle in California in IT, product development or support job functions at any time during the time period beginning four years prior to the filing of the original complaint.

"As a result of its unlawful and/or unfair business practices, Oracle has reaped and continues to reap unfair and illegal profits at the expense of Plaintiffs and Class members. Accordingly, Oracle should be disgorged of its illegal profits, and Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to restitution with interest of such ill-gotten profits in an amount according to proof at the time of trial," stated the lawsuit.

Oracle told IT Pro it did not want to provide a comment.

Oracle was hit by a lawsuit from the US Department of Labor back in January which claimed the company engaged in systematic discrimination against employees in violation of pay and hiring laws.

It claimed the company violated equal opportunities practices by paying white male employees more than colleagues with the same job title, discriminating against female, African American, and Asian employees. The lawsuit also alleged Oracle favoured recruiting Asian workers in its hiring practices for product development and other technical roles, which included a referral bonus scheme for Asian employees who recruited other Asian applicants.

19/01/2017: Oracle sued by US for "systematic discrimination"

Oracle has been hit by a lawsuit from the US Department of Labour, which claims the company has engaged in a "systematic" discrimination against employees in violation of pay and hiring laws.

The suit, filed by the department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), claims Oracle violated equal opportunities practices by paying white male employees more than colleagues with the same job title, discriminating against female, African American and Asian employees.

The OFCCP also alleges that Oracle operated a "systematic practice of favouring Asian workers in its recruiting and hiring practices for product development and other technical roles", including referral bonus scheme for Asian employees who recruited other Asian applicants.

As a federal contractor, Oracle is bound by laws including section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits contractors from engaging in employee and hiring discrimination and requires them to submit to regular equal opportunities reviews.

Oracle has secured "hundreds of millions in federal government contracts" manufacturing software and hardware products for US departments, according to the suit.

"Federal contractors are required to comply with all applicable anti-discrimination laws... we filed this lawsuit to enforce those requirements," said OFCCP acting director, Thomas Dowd.

But, according to the lawsuit, during a 2014 compliance review of Oracle's practices at its headquarters in Redwood Shores, the company "refused to comply with the agency's routine requests for employment data and records". This included a refusal to provide information on employee compensation and a complete list of hiring data for specific product lines.

The lawsuit states: "OFCCP attempted for almost a year to resolve Oracle's alleged discrimination violations before filing the suit. If Oracle fails to provide relief as ordered in the lawsuit, OFCCP requests that all its government contracts be canceled and that it be debarred from entering into future federal contracts."

Deborah Hellinger, head of global corporate communications at Oracle, has rejected the acusations, stating: "The complaint is politically motivated, based on false allegations, and wholly without merit. Oracle values diversity and inclusion, and is a responsible equal opportunity and affirmative action employer. Our hiring and pay decisions are non-discriminatory and made based on legitimate business factors including experience and merit."

US authorities issued a violation notice to Oracle in March 2016, and again in June to avoid enforcement proceedings, but were ultimately unable to secure Oracle's voluntary compliance with the law.

The OFCCP has called for the court at the Office of Administrative Law Judges to "enjoin Oracle permanently from discriminating against females, African Americans and Asians in compensation practices" and against "African American, Hispanic and Caucasian applicants in hiring practices".

The suit also calls for Oracle to compensate employees affected by the alleged practice, which would cover lost wages, salary adjustments and lost opportunities for promotion. If Oracle fails to abide by the terms of the lawsuit, the OFCCP is seeking to debar the company from securing future contracts.

Intel and John McAfee have settled a lawsuit and counter lawsuit over the rights to use McAfee's name.

The creator of the popular antivirus software confirmed that both sides have reached an agreement, according to a Reuters report. US District Judge Paul Oetken in New York dismissed McAfee's September 2016 lawsuit and a countersuit by Intel, just five days after an agreement between the two parties was signed.

McAfee sued Intel after it warned him that using his own name for his digital gaming and cybersecurity company would infringe its trademarks. McAfee wanted to rename MGT Capital Investments as John McAfee Global Technologies. Intel then accused McAfee of trademark infringement and unfair competition, seeking unspecified damages.

The settlement now means that McAfee cannot use his name, trademark his name or the phrase John McAfee Privacy Phone or use John McAfee Global Technologies in relation to security-related products and services.

But McAfee can use his name in advertising, promotions and presentations. This includes his role in founding McAfee Associates, a company he sold to Intel for $7.7 billion in 2010. Intel spun off its IT security division, now called McAfee LLC, selling a 51% share to private investment company TPG Capital. The spin-off is valued at $4.2 billion and Intel retained a minority stake.

Neither party admitted wrongdoing in the settlement agreement, which court papers said was "amicable".

A spokesman for Intel said the firm was pleased to settle the matter.

Apple has accused Qualcomm Beijing of abusing its position in the industry as the dominant chip supplier by violating Chinese laws in an attempt to maintain a monopoly, according to a lawsuit filed on Wednesday.

Qualcomm, which is a major supplier of wireless connectivity chips to Apple and Samsung devices, is also alleged to have under delivered on promises it made to license patents widely and inexpensively, according to Reuters. Apple is now seeking 1 billion yuan (115 million) in damages as a result.

The lawsuit comes after the FTC issued a complaint against Qualcomm on 17 January, in which the company was accused of using anti-competitive tactics. Apple also issued a complaint on Friday to the federal court in California, requesting $1 billion in rebates for overcharged Qualcomm chips. It now appears the lawsuit has spread to Qualcomm's eastern divisions.

Although the company has not seen the lawsuit brought by Apple, Qualcomm stated the complaint "alleges a violation of China's Anti-Monopoly Law, and the other requests a determination of the terms of a patent license between Qualcomm and Apple for Qualcomm's cellular standard essentials patents".

Qualcomm claimed it has attempted to settle the matter with Apple, but insist the tech giant is simply trying to manoeuvre for a better deal.

"These filings by Apple's Chinese subsidiary are just part of Apple's efforts to find ways to pay less for Qualcomm's technology," said Don Rosenberg, executive VP and general counsel of Qualcomm. "Apple was offered terms consistent with terms accepted by more than one hundred other Chinese companies and refused to even consider them."

But Apple contests that it's regularly charged over "five times" more in its transactions than other companies, according to a statement to Business Insider, relating to its complaint on Friday. "Despite being just one of over a dozen companies who contributed to basic cellular standards, Qualcomm insists on charging Apple at least five times more in payments than all the other cellular patent licensors we have agreements with combined," the company said.

"To protect this business scheme, Qualcomm has taken increasingly radical steps - most recently withholding nearly $1 billion in payments from Apple as retaliation for responding truthfully to law enforcement agencies investigating them," it added.

Pressure is mounting against Qualcomm as the company faces legal action for unfair practices around the globe. In February 2015 Qualcomm was forced to hand over $975 million to China following a yearlong antitrust probe, and was most recently fined $854 million by South Korean authorities for unfair practices in patent licensing.

Snapchat has been accused of misleading investors to boost its IPO valuation, according to a lawsuit filed against the firm by a former employee.

In a complaint submitted to Los Angeles Superior Court on Wednesday, the ex-Snapchat employee claims he discovered evidence of misrepresentation and was fired from the company for being a whistleblower.

Anthony Pompliano, who was in his position as growth lead at Snapchat for just three weeks, believes his termination was due to "the avarice of the small group of executives at the helm", following his apparent discovery of an "institutional pandemic" of misleading information surrounding Snapchat's IPO.

Snapchat's parent company, Snap, confidentially filed an initial public offering in November, according to Bloomberg, with sources close to the firm anticipating the messaging app will be valued between $20 billion and $25 billion when confirmation is made in early 2017. If true, this would make it the largest IPO from a US tech firm since Facebook went public in 2012 valued at $81.2 billion.

The complaint, seen by the Hollywood Reporter, is heavily redacted and omits specific details of the accusations against Snapchat, however Pompliano maintains that the firm falsely represented growth.

"Snapchat fraudulently induced Mr. Pompliano away from Facebook to run Snapchat's new user growth and engagement team by falsely representing to him, among other things, the Company's growth," said attorney David Michaels in the complaint.

Snapchat has responded to these claims in a statement to the Hollywood Reporter, claiming the complaint "has no merit" and "is totally made up by a disgruntled former employee."

IT Pro has contacted Snapchat, but had not received a response at the time of publication.

The complaint also argues that Snapchat poached Pompliano from his former position at Facebook in an attempt to gain insight into the social media's confidential practices, and pressured him into breaking non-disclosure agreements. It's alleged that his refusal to do so "drew the ire of Snapchat's senior management" and he was seen as an "impediment to their planned IPO because he refued to turn a blind eye to Snapchat's misrepresentations" to advertisers and investors.

"Because the truth concerning Mr. Pompliano's termination was so potentially damaging to Snapchat's planned IPO, terminating him wasn't enough to ensure the public was kept in the dark," said Michaels. "Accordingly, post termination, Snapchat has sought to destroy his career and reputation by waging a smear campaign against Mr. Pompliano, by making false representations concerning the circumstances of his termination."

Pompliano is now suing Snapchat for efforts to discredit his character after he had left the company, preventing him from securing future employment.

Pompliano v. Snap by ashley6cullins on Scribd

Oracle has argued that Google's copyright victory over the use of Java APIs should be thrown out, due to the fact that Google withheld key evidence.

Annette Hurst, lead attorney for Oracle, told the federal court that launching the Google Play store on Chrome OS - which the search giant did midway through the trial - was "a game changer".

This, she said, completely undermined Google's central argument, which hinged on the fact that as Android wasn't encroaching on the desktop market for the Java SE platform, it was covered under the principles of 'fair use'.

"Oracle [Android] isn't 'transformative'; it's on desktops and laptops," Hurst told presiding Judge William Alsup, pointing out that Google was doing this using Java code. "That's outrageous, under copyright law."

According to Oracle's lawyers, these plans should have been shared during the trial's discovery phase and by not doing so, the company is "lying to the jury".

Google, however, has argued that as the feature was not ready for a full production rollout it was under no obligation to disclose it and that Oracle knew the company was planning to move Android apps to a laptop environment.

"No party had a duty to supplement discovery with matters beyond the scope of trial," said Google attorney Christa Anderson. "Our answers were appropriate and complete."

Alsup will issue a written ruling on whether or not to dismiss the case based on Oracle's arguments, but advised Google's attorney that "if I had been in your position, I would have disclosed".

18/08/2016: Google did not violate Oracle's IP with Android, jury rules

Google did not commit intellectual property theft when it built Android, a jury has ruled.

The case is the latest in a series of court battles between Oracle and Google regarding the latter's use of Java APIs in the creation of the Android mobile operating system, which now has the largest install base of all mobile platforms.

While Google argued its use of the APIs was covered by fair use, which permits the partial use of copyrighted material for "transformative" purposes, Oracle claimed the company had acted illegally, costing it billions of dollars in revenue and leading to a claim for $9.3 billion in damages.

This question has been resolved, for now at least, by today's federal court jury, which found Google's use of the Java APIs did indeed constitute fair use.

In a statement released immediately after the ruling, Oracle general counsel Dorian Daley said: "We strongly believe that Google developed Android by illegally copying core Java technology to rush into the mobile device market. Oracle brought this lawsuit to put a stop to Google's illegal behaviour. We believe there are numerous grounds for appeal and we plan to bring this case back to the Federal Circuit on appeal."

Google had not released a statement at the time of publication.

18/05/2016: Oracle CEO blames Google for 98 per cent drop in revenues

Oracle CEO Safra Catz has blamed Google's use of Java APIs for massive drops in the company's revenue, a San Francisco court has heard.

The two companies are embroiled in a copyright dispute over Google's use of the Oracle-owned Java APIs in its Android operating system.

Google claims the APIs should be covered under fair use principles, while Oracle is demanding over $9 billion worth of damages for their unauthorised use.

By including Java APIs in Android and then freely distributing it to device manufacturers, Catz told the jury, Google massively undercut the license fees paid to Oracle by existing customers.

Samsung, for example, reduced its license payments down from $40 million to just $1 million, constituting a drop of 97.5 per cent.

According to Catz, Oracle was compelled to offer a similarly precipitous discount to Amazon during the development of the Kindle Paperwhite, after it began using Android for its Fire tablets.

Catz even claimed that Google acknowledged it was breaking the rules. She spoke of an alleged conversation with Google's lawyer Kent Walker at an event in 2012.

"Google is a really special company," Walker allegedly said, "and the old rules don't apply to us."

"Thou shalt not steal," Catz is said to have replied, "It's an oldie but it's a goodie".

Not to be outdone, Google has itself claimed that Oracle is only pursuing the case because it cannot compete in the marketplace. The company pointed to Oracle's abandoned device development project, which was shelved due to "very limited internal expertise".

29/03/2016: Oracle demands $9.3bn damages from Google in Java retrial

Oracle has demanded $9.3 billion in damages from Google to compensate for the use of Java in Android.

Oracle first sued Google in 2010, claiming the search giant infringed on its intellectual ownership of a number of Java APIs by including them in the Android operating system.

The case went to trial in 2012, but while Oracle scored a partial victory last year by successfully arguing that it can copyright code and the way it interfaces with other software, the jury could not reach a decision over whether Google's infringement of this copyright was covered under 'fair use'.

A new trial to resolve this issue is set to begin in a federal district court in San Francisco on 9 May, and Oracle court filings include a document put together by an expert hired by Oracle, putting damages at $9.3 billion (6.5 billion).

Of that amount, $475 million are actual damages for alleged unauthorised usage of the APIs, while $8.8 billion is the amount of Google's profits Oracle believes it is owed.

Google denies any wrongdoing regarding its use of the Java APIs, which is has claimed are covered by fair use. In a court filing last week, Google said the 37 Java APIs it uses are "a fraction of a per cent of the code" that makes up the Android OS.

A pre-trial hearing before a judge is due on 27 April, ahead of the trial commencing.

Java, which is one of the most widely-used programming languages, has had security issues recently, with the discovery of a critical bug in the software leading Oracle to release a number of patches last month.

AMD has been hit with a class action lawsuit following revelations its Bulldozer octa-core chips only used a maximum of four cores at a time.

The lead claimant is Tom Dickey, although he is bringing the on behalf of a number of others as well as himself. The suit claims AMD made false claims when promoting the CPUs, allegedly tricking consumers and businesses into buying hardware that was less powerful than advertised.

The issue rests largely on the architecture of the chips; the 'modular' design adopted by AMD means each core cannot function independently and must work in pairs. However, this fact was not publicly advertised.

"In fact, the Bulldozer chips functionally have only four cores - not eight, as advertised," the claim reads. "Notably, AMD built the Bulldozer processors by stripping away components from two cores and combining what was left to make a single 'module.' But by removing certain components of two cores to make one module, they no longer work independently. As a result, AMD's Bulldozers suffer from material performance degradation and cannot perform eight instructions simultaneously and independently as claimed."

AMD, while it hasn't commented on the lawsuit specifically, denies the claim the modular design leads to performance degredation, saying it has minimal effect.

If Dickey et al are successful, however, the company faces damages of a minimum $5 million (3.3 million).

The case continues in the U.S. District Court For the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, case number 5:15-cv-04922-PSG.

Ebay has showed its support for Google in the EU antitrust case currently being brought against the search giant.

The online marketplace's CEO has rejected assertions from Brussels that the company has been squeezed out by the search engine in favour of its own in-house shopping service.

In a statement to the Financial Times, John Donahoe stated that Ebay was "a strong commerce competitor" to Google, strengthening the search company's case that it isn't anti-competitive.

Google has disputed the European Competition Commissioner's claims that its share of the EU web search market which totals over 90 per cent has led to unfair market dominance in this sector.

It has highlighted the vast gulf between unique page views of it and its competitors as proof that this is false. While Google Shopping received 13 million views during February, Amazon and Ebay both enjoyed a total of more than 100 million each, as measured by ComScore.

This has been met with doubt from other comparison-shopping sites, however, such as UK service Foundem. CEO Shivaun Raff said that as Ebay and Amazon are "merchant platforms," they don't truly reflect Google Shopping's business model.

Rather than acting as a vendor in their own right, services like Google Shopping instead collate listings from third-party merchants across the web, collecting a finder's fee in exchange for referrals.

Cantor Fitzgerald analyst Youssef Squali agrees with the scepticism surrounding Google as a primary source in e-commerce. Speaking to the FT, he said that "generally, Amazon remains the first place where people start their commercial queries".