A federal judge has determined that Apple's chief security officer, Thomas Moyer, committed perjury during an Epic Games v. Apple trial in 2021. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Moyer falsely claimed Apple doesn't categorize apps for security screenings, contradicting evidence showing a special category existed for iMessage and FaceTime. The judge has made a criminal contempt referral to the U.S. Attorney’s Office and referred the matter to the State Bar of California for potential disciplinary action. This ruling has no bearing on the original Epic v. Apple case outcome.
A federal judge ruled that Apple violated a 2021 antitrust order by not allowing developers to steer users to outside payment options, rejecting Apple's proposed changes to its App Store rules. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers determined Apple's new rules, which permitted developers to communicate with users about alternative payment methods outside the app, still didn't comply with her original order to allow in-app links and buttons directly to external payment systems. While Apple argued its approach protected user privacy and security, the judge deemed it insufficient, effectively upholding the previous ruling requiring Apple to allow developers more control over the payment process.
HN commenters largely agree with the judge's ruling that Apple violated antitrust law by not allowing developers to link to external payment options. Some argue this is a small concession that won't significantly impact Apple's revenue, while others believe it's a crucial step toward fairer competition and lower prices for consumers. A few point out the hypocrisy of Apple demanding open access on other platforms while maintaining a closed ecosystem on iOS. Several express skepticism that Apple will truly comply, predicting they'll find loopholes or implement burdensome alternative requirements. The lack of concrete consequences for past violations is also a common concern, with some calling for stronger penalties to deter future anti-competitive behavior. A minority of comments defend Apple, suggesting the ruling infringes on their right to control their platform and that in-app purchases provide valuable security and convenience.
The FTC's antitrust lawsuit against Meta kicked off in federal court. The FTC argues that Meta illegally monopolized the virtual reality market by acquiring Within, maker of the popular fitness app Supernatural, and is seeking to force Meta to divest the company. Meta contends that the acquisition was pro-competitive, benefiting consumers and developers alike. The trial's outcome holds significant weight for the future of VR and the FTC's ability to challenge Big Tech acquisitions in nascent markets.
HN commenters discuss the difficulty of defining the relevant market in the Meta antitrust case, with some arguing that virtual reality fitness is a distinct market from broader social media or even general VR, while others believe the focus should be on Meta's overall social media dominance. Several commenters express skepticism about the FTC's case, believing it's weak and politically motivated, and unlikely to succeed given the high bar for antitrust action. The acquisition of Within is seen by some as a relatively small deal unlikely to warrant such scrutiny. Some discussion also revolves around the potential chilling effect of such lawsuits on acquisitions by large companies, potentially stifling innovation. A few commenters also mention the unusual courtroom setup with VR headsets provided, highlighting the novelty of the technology involved in the case.
Apple is challenging a UK court order demanding they create a "backdoor" into an encrypted iPhone belonging to a suspected terrorist. They argue that complying would compromise the security of all their devices and set a dangerous precedent globally, potentially forcing them to create similar backdoors for other governments. Apple claims the Investigatory Powers Act, under which the order was issued, doesn't authorize such demands and violates their human rights. They're seeking judicial review of the order, arguing existing tools are sufficient for the investigation.
HN commenters are largely skeptical of Apple's claims, pointing out that Apple already complies with lawful intercept requests in other countries and questioning whether this case is truly about a "backdoor" or simply about the scope and process of existing surveillance capabilities. Some suspect Apple is using this lawsuit as a PR move to bolster its privacy image, especially given the lack of technical details provided. Others suggest Apple is trying to establish legal precedent to push back against increasing government surveillance overreach. A few commenters express concern over the UK's Investigatory Powers Act and its implications for privacy and security. Several highlight the inherent conflict between national security and individual privacy, with no easy answers in sight. There's also discussion about the technical feasibility and potential risks of implementing such a system, including the possibility of it being exploited by malicious actors.
Meta is arguing that its platform hosting pirated books isn't illegal because they claim there's no evidence they're "seeding" (actively uploading and distributing) the copyrighted material. They contend they're merely "leeching" (downloading), which they argue isn't copyright infringement. This defense comes as publishers sue Meta for hosting and facilitating access to vast quantities of pirated books on platforms like Facebook and Instagram, claiming significant financial harm. Meta asserts that publishers haven't demonstrated that the company is contributing to the distribution of the infringing content beyond simply allowing users to access it.
Hacker News users discuss Meta's defense against accusations of book piracy, with many expressing skepticism towards Meta's "we're just a leech" argument. Several commenters point out the flaw in this logic, arguing that downloading constitutes an implicit form of seeding, as portions of the file are often shared with other peers during the download process. Others highlight the potential hypocrisy of Meta's position, given their aggressive stance against copyright infringement on their own platforms. Some users also question the article's interpretation of the legal arguments, and suggest that Meta's stance may be more nuanced than portrayed. A few commenters draw parallels to previous piracy cases involving other companies. Overall, the consensus leans towards disbelief in Meta's defense and anticipates further legal challenges.
Nintendo has been granted a new patent related to its free-to-play mobile game, Pokémon GO, which strengthens their case against the upcoming monster-collecting game, Palworld. This patent covers specific gameplay mechanics related to location-based creature encounters and capturing. While the original lawsuit against Palworld's developer, Pocketpair, focused on similarities in character design and overall gameplay concepts, this new patent provides more concrete grounds for infringement claims. Nintendo is also actively pursuing further patents related to Pokémon GO, suggesting a continued aggressive stance in protecting their intellectual property and potentially strengthening their legal battle against Palworld.
Hacker News users discuss Nintendo's aggressive patenting strategy regarding features seemingly inspired by Pokémon in the upcoming game Palworld. Several commenters express skepticism about the validity and enforceability of these patents, particularly regarding "catching creatures" and "creature following," which are considered common game mechanics. Some argue that these broad patents stifle creativity and innovation within the gaming industry. Others point out the irony of Nintendo patenting mechanics they themselves may have borrowed or adapted from earlier games. The discussion also touches upon the potential legal challenges and costs involved for an indie studio like Pocketpair, the developers of Palworld, to fight these patents. Some predict that Palworld will likely have to alter its gameplay significantly to avoid infringement. A few users speculate about the motivation behind Nintendo's actions, questioning whether it's genuine concern for intellectual property protection or a strategic move to suppress a potential competitor.
A US judge ruled in favor of Thomson Reuters, establishing a significant precedent in AI copyright law. The ruling affirmed that Westlaw, Reuters' legal research platform, doesn't infringe copyright by using data from rival legal databases like Casetext to train its generative AI models. The judge found the copied material constituted fair use because the AI uses the data differently than the original databases, transforming the information into new formats and features. This decision indicates that using copyrighted data for AI training might be permissible if the resulting AI product offers a distinct and transformative function compared to the original source material.
HN commenters generally agree that Westlaw's terms of service likely prohibit scraping, regardless of copyright implications. Several point out that training data is generally considered fair use, and question whether the judge's decision will hold up on appeal. Some suggest the ruling might create a chilling effect on open-source LLMs, while others argue that large companies will simply absorb the licensing costs. A few commenters see this as a positive outcome, forcing AI companies to pay for the data they use. The discussion also touches upon the potential for increased competition and innovation if smaller players can access data more affordably than licensing Westlaw's content.
Former tech CEO and founder of online invitation company Evite, Al Lieb, is suing to have records of his 2016 domestic violence arrest expunged from the internet. Despite charges being dropped and the case dismissed, Lieb argues that the persistent online presence of his arrest record unfairly damages his reputation and career prospects. He's targeting websites like Mugshots.com that publish arrest information, claiming they profit from this information and refuse to remove it even after legal proceedings conclude. Lieb believes individuals have a right to privacy and to move on from past mistakes when charges are dropped.
Hacker News commenters largely discuss the legal and ethical implications of attempting to remove public arrest records from the internet. Several express skepticism about the plaintiff's chances of success, citing the importance of public access to such information and the established difficulty of removing content once it's online (the Streisand effect is mentioned). Some debate the merits of his arguments regarding potential harm to his reputation and career, while others suggest alternative strategies like focusing on SEO to bury the negative information. A few comments highlight the tension between individual privacy rights and the public's right to know, with some arguing that the nature of the alleged crime should influence the decision of whether to unseal or remove the record. There's also discussion about the potential for abuse if such removals become commonplace, with concerns about powerful individuals manipulating public perception. A common thread is the acknowledgment that the internet has fundamentally changed the landscape of information accessibility and permanence.
Qualcomm has prevailed in a significant licensing dispute with Arm. A confidential arbitration ruling affirmed Qualcomm's right to continue licensing Arm's instruction set architecture for its Nuvia-designed chips under existing agreements. This victory allows Qualcomm to proceed with its plans to incorporate these custom-designed processors into its products, potentially disrupting the server chip market. Arm had argued that the licenses were non-transferable after Qualcomm acquired Nuvia, but the arbitrator disagreed. Financial details of the ruling remain undisclosed.
Hacker News commenters largely discuss the implications of Qualcomm's legal victory over Arm. Several express concern that this decision sets a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing companies to sub-license core technology they don't fully own, stifling innovation and competition. Some speculate this could push other chip designers to RISC-V, an open-source alternative to Arm's architecture. Others question the long-term viability of Arm's business model if they cannot control their own licensing. Some commenters see this as a specific attack on Nuvia's (acquired by Qualcomm) custom core designs, with Qualcomm leveraging their market power. Finally, a few express skepticism about the reporting and suggest waiting for further details to emerge.
Summary of Comments ( 127 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43856795
Hacker News commenters discuss the implications of the judge's ruling against the Apple executive, with many focusing on the rarity and significance of a criminal contempt referral. Several question the strength of the evidence, wondering what constituted "lying under oath" in this specific context and expressing skepticism that it warrants such a serious consequence. Some speculate about Apple's legal strategy and potential outcomes, while others highlight the unusual nature of a judge taking such direct action. A few commenters also note the impact this could have on Apple's appeal and the overall antitrust case. Some users question the impartiality of the judge and the narrative presented in the article. The discussion reflects uncertainty about the details and a general curiosity about how this development will affect the ongoing legal battle.
The Hacker News post titled "Judge Rules Apple Executive Lied Under Oath, Makes Criminal Contempt Referral" has generated several comments discussing the implications of the judge's ruling and the behavior of Apple's executive, Eddy Cue.
Several commenters express skepticism about the likelihood of any significant consequences for Cue, despite the judge's referral. One user points out the rarity of perjury prosecutions and questions whether the Department of Justice will prioritize this case, especially given the difficulty of proving intent. Another user suggests the judge's actions might be more about sending a message than expecting real repercussions. A similar sentiment is echoed by another commenter who believes the judge's referral is a strong statement of disapproval but ultimately symbolic.
Some comments delve into the specifics of the case, highlighting the apparent contradiction between Cue's sworn testimony and the presented evidence. One commenter focuses on the seemingly blatant nature of the lie, suggesting it points to a calculated risk on Cue's part. Another user questions the legal strategy employed by Apple, speculating that it might have backfired by leading to this contempt referral.
The discussion also touches upon the broader implications for Apple and its legal battles. One commenter suggests this incident further tarnishes Apple's image, particularly in light of ongoing antitrust concerns. Another user raises the possibility that this ruling could influence other legal proceedings involving Apple.
A few comments express surprise at Cue's behavior, considering his position and experience. One commenter wonders why Cue would risk perjury, speculating about potential pressures or motivations. Another suggests the incident reflects poorly on Apple's corporate culture.
Finally, some comments offer a more cynical perspective, suggesting that such behavior is commonplace in high-stakes corporate litigation. One user argues that executives are often coached to provide misleading testimony without technically committing perjury. Another comment dismisses the incident as "business as usual" in the tech industry.
Overall, the comments reflect a mix of skepticism about the practical consequences for Cue, analysis of the legal and strategic implications of the ruling, and broader commentary on corporate behavior and the tech industry.