It can be quite annoying to click through an Amazon ad in your results only to find out that the product you want can't be shipped to your place. Now, imagine you're the small business owner being charged for those ads. (Forget corporations and drop shippers, I know you all hate them.) There you are, thinking you're going to make a killing based on how much ad action you're getting. Except those ads don't translate to sales, because Amazon has been serving them to people who can't even buy your products. That's apparently what happened to at least one seller who told Bloomberg that he was charged between $200,000 and $300,000 for ads served to California residents, where he can't sell his advanced gaming computer items. 

The seller stopped shipping to California due to the state's personal computer power consumption regulations, which would require him to get costly lab reports for his products. But Amazon's automated system apparently continued advertising his products there and allegedly denied that there was an issue when he flagged the problem and followed up for several weeks. Since he was being charged thousands, the seller, who employs 80 people in Virginia to assemble custom computers, reportedly made zero profit in November, December and January. 

Amazon has acknowledged the issue in a statement sent to Engadget. It told us that it had investigated the matter and found that it only affected "a tiny fraction" of sellers. It also said that it had already apologized to the seller who talked to Bloomberg and that the company is in the process of refunding him $15,000. That's a tiny fraction of the hundreds of thousands the seller said he'd lost, but Amazon says it only served "a very small portion" of his listings to California residents. "We will similarly contact and refund any affected sellers, and are updating our processes to ensure any such ads are not charged going forward," the spokesperson said. 

The company's advertising system generally can't geo-target advertisements like Google ads can, because it focuses on matching buyers to certain brands or products they may be interested in. It also can't ensure that the product it's advertising complies with state regulations and, hence, can be shipped to its residents. As Bloomberg notes, this is far from the first time Amazon faced an issue regarding its advertisements. Last year, the Federal Trade Commission filed an antitrust lawsuit against the company, and one of the regulator's accusations was that it was "deliberately increasing junk ads that worsen search quality." A report that came out after the lawsuit revealed that Amazon can strike deals with other companies to make sure their listings are devoid of junk ads, though, which is why Apple's official product pages might look cleaner and less cluttered compared to its competitors'.

In case you need another reason to shout "tax the rich" from the rooftops, it's here, and it's going to make you angry. A study found that 35 major US companies paid their top five executives more than they paid in federal income taxes between 2018 and 2022, the Guardian reports. The findings, which come from The Institute for Policy Studies and Americans for Tax Fairness, are even less shocking when you learn the worst offender: Tesla.

Elon Musk's company earned $4.4 billion during those five years and gave its executives $2.5 billion. Despite that, Tesla not only didn't pay any federal taxes, but it received $1 million in refunds from the government. Musk himself is the second richest person in the world, with Forbes reporting he had a net worth of $207.9 billion at the start of March.

Tesla is one of 35 companies that paid less federal income tax than they paid their top five executives during that period. In total, the well-deserving and not-at-all greedy execs of these companies raked in $9.5 billion over these years, while cumulatively those same companies received $1.8 billion back from the government. Eighteen of these businesses reported net profits over the five years but didn't pay a cent of federal income tax. (All but one got refunds).

The study lists other notable companies like T-Mobile, Netflix, Ford Motor and Match Group alongside Tesla. T-Mobile made $17.9 billion, paid executives $675 million and received $80 million in refunds. The mobile provider has spent an incredible amount of money on lobbying Congress for tax breaks, spending $9 million in 2022 alone. Netflix actually did pay some taxes, but the $236 million was just 1.6 percent of its $15.1 billion in earnings — and just over a third of what it paid those top five executives. The statutory rate for federal income tax is 21 percent, so yeah, feel free to scream.

The non-fungible token (NFT) bubble burst quite some time ago, but the US Government has only just published a report looking into the surrounding legal framework. The study, carried out jointly by the US Copyright Office (USCO) and the Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) following a 2022 request by the Senate, determined that current intellectual property laws are robust enough to deal with copyright or trademark infringement in NFTs. The agencies also determined that although there are some benefits to the tokens, "trademark infringement and misuse is prevalent on NFT marketplaces."

As a reminder, an NFT is a digital certificate of authenticity conferring ownership of a collectible, such as an artwork or piece of music. It's effectively a verified link to a piece of media which may or may not live on the blockchain, but whoever owns the destination of an NFT's URL can change the media it points to at any time. In one notable case in 2021, Signal founder Moxie Marlinspike created an NFT that he promised would appear to be a poop emoji when someone bought it.

The offices noted that NFTs and associated smart contracts can aid trademark owners in managing, licensing and transferring IP rights. Those who weighed in on the issue in public comments pointed out that NFTs can help artists make money from future sales of their work too. That's not inherently a bad thing, even if a large swath of NFT art is butt-ugly.

However, the study noted "widespread concern that NFT buyers and sellers do not know what IP rights are implicated in the creation, marketing and transfer of NFTs and that NFTs may be used to facilitate copyright or trademark infringement."

The report notes that the decentralized nature of NFTs and blockchain networks complicates any attempts to enforce trademarks. "While some individual NFT platforms have developed protocols to help trademark owners enforce their rights, there is no centralized authority that requires all platforms to do so," the report reads. "There are also no cross-platform mechanisms to allow trademark owners to identify and take down infringing content, settle trademark-related disputes involving blockchain-based domain names, or confirm that sellers own the trademark rights associated with the assets they offer."

With all of that in mind, the offices said that educating the public about NFTs could help ensure a better understanding and awareness of the tokens and how they work. Still, they recommended in their report to Congress that the current use of NFTs doesn't require changes to current IP laws. They also noted that "incorporating NFTs into their registration and recordation practices is not necessary or advisable at this time." In other words, they don't think they should have to deal with NFTs either.

It's getting hard to keep up with copyright lawsuits against generative AI, with a new proposed class action hitting the courts last week. This time, authors are suing NVIDIA over its AI platform NeMo, a language model that allows businesses to create and train their own chatbots, Ars Technica reported. They claim the company trained it on a controversial dataset that illegally used their books without consent.

Authors Abdi Nazemian, Brian Keene and Stewart O’Nan demanded a jury trial and asked Nvidia to pay damages and destroy all copies of the Books3 dataset used to power NeMo large language models (LLMs). They claim that dataset copied a shadow library called Bibliotek consisting of 196,640 pirated books. 

"In sum, NVIDIA has admitted training its NeMo Megatron models on a copy of The Pile dataset," the claim states. "Therefore, NVIDIA necessarily also trained its NeMo Megatron models on a copy of Books3, because Books3 is part of The Pile. Certain books written by Plaintiffs are part of Books3— including the Infringed Works—and thus NVIDIA necessarily trained its NeMo Megatron models on one or more copies of the Infringed Works, thereby directly infringing the copyrights of the Plaintiffs. 

In response, NVIDIA told The Wall Street Journal that "we respect the rights of all content creators and believe we created NeMo in full compliance with copyright law."

Last year, OpenAI and Microsoft were hit with a copyright lawsuit from nonfiction authors, claiming the companies made money off their works but refused to pay them. A similar lawsuit was launched earlier this year. That's on top of a lawsuit from news organizations like The Intercept and Raw Story, and of course, the legal action that kicked all of this off from The New York Times. 

"There is no Founding Agreement, or any agreement at all with Musk," OpenAI said in a court filing as a defendant in Elon Musk's lawsuit. We're, of course, talking about the lawsuit Musk filed against OpenAI, which accuses it of violating its status as a non-profit, as well as of violating a founding agreement promising the organization would never operate for profit and would release its AI publicly. The company said the billionaire's claims are based on "convoluted — often incoherent — factual premises." It called that founding agreement "a fiction Musk has conjured to lay unearned claim to the fruits of an enterprise he initially supported, then abandoned, then watched succeed without him."

If the case goes to discovery, there's evidence that would show that Musk supported OpenAI's transition into a for-profit structure, "to be controlled by Musk himself," OpenAI continued. Further, the billionaire allegedly ceased supporting the project when his ideas weren't followed. That statement echoes the company's blog post from earlier this month, wherein it published purported emails to and from Musk from when he was still involved with the organization. Based on those exchanges, Musk knew and was in favor of turning OpenAI into a for-profit entity. He even wanted full control of it as CEO and to have majority equity. Musk also agreed with a suggestion to attach the organization to Tesla, so that the automaker could provide its funding. In the end, the parties didn't come to agreement, and Musk ended his involvement. 

"Seeing the remarkable technological advances OpenAI has achieved, Musk now wants that success for himself," OpenAI wrote in its filing. "Musk purports to bring this suit for humanity, when the truth — evident even from the face of Musk’s contradictory pleading — is that he brings it to advance his own commercial interests."

Musk introduced his own artificial intelligence company called xAI last year, with the rather lofty goal of understanding "the true nature of the universe." A few days after OpenAI published its blog post wherein it claimed that Musk knew it never intended to open source its technology, the billionaire announced that xAI was going to open source its Grok chatbot. While it could very well be a dig at OpenAI, open sourcing Grok could also get his company feedback from the developer community, which xAI could then use to improve its technology. 

Just as Engadget was hitting publish on its first posts, I was putting a freshly minted English degree to use working at an indie bookshop in Los Angeles. In seemingly unrelated news, Amazon had just reported its first profitable year after switching from selling books to selling “everything” four years before. (It still sold a lot of books.)

Our bookstore did a good job keeping shelves stocked with a balance of the more worthy popular hits and smaller, better fare. But we couldn’t have every book a customer might want, so we offered to order any in-print title. If a distributor had it, it’d take about a week to get in, longer if we had to go through the publisher. That seemed fine for most customers.

But sometimes “about a week” was too long. A few people came right out and said, “Nah, I’ll order it on Amazon.” In 2005, Amazon launched Prime, the membership program that, for $79 a year, gave customers unlimited two-day shipping on most orders. At launch, CEO Jeff Bezos called it “‘all-you-can-eat’ express shipping.” No one knew at the time how hungry the world was for Amazon’s brand of convenience. And now, nearly two decades later, we’ve seen the shifts that accommodate that buffet — in labor, retail and the entire customer experience.

Prime wasn’t an overnight success. It’s estimated that six years after launch, just four million households paid for the service. But 10 years later, in 2021, Bezos claimed it had accrued 200 million members worldwide. Outside of that milestone, Amazon hasn’t made its membership numbers public, but it’s likely the figure is higher now.

That shipping should be both free and fast has become an expectation, and no company has done more to alter the landscape of logistics than Amazon. On its own, the company operates over a hundred warehouses in the US, each ranging from 600,000 to four million square feet. Each one employs between 1,000 and 1,500 people, and an army of around 750,000 robots works alongside humans in many locations.

The company operates a fleet of cargo planes, is experimenting with drone deliveries and deploys thousands of delivery vans — though none of those Amazon-branded vans are driven by actual employees. Rather, separate companies, known as delivery service partners (DSP), subcontract drivers to operate those vans. Amazon employs 1.5 million people either full or part time (with one million in the US), but those figures don’t include independent contractors and temporary personnel. In addition to the DSP program, Amazon Flex lets individuals use their own cars to deliver smile-emblazoned packages to porches. The company outsources delivery to traditional providers too, relying on both UPS and the US Postal Service, the latter it has compelled to deliver packages on Sundays since 2013.

Such vast orchestration to deliver Stanley Quenchers and pimple patches faster than anyone has paid off. However, it’s hard to look at growth and revenue numbers without considering the human costs. Contracted drivers pee in bottles because meeting quotas leaves no time for bathroom breaks. Workers sustain serious injuries at automated warehouses. The company has been sued for retaliatory firing, intrusive employee surveillance practices and failure to follow COVID safety guidelines. Amazon again made the dirty dozen list in 2023 for workplace safety, according to the advocacy group National COSH. And while it has taken steps to improve, with better compensation, the company takes anti-union actions typical of a massive corporation, joining others in calling the National Labor Relations Board “unconstitutional.”

Apart from worker issues, Amazon’s dominance has made life harder for retail businesses in general, particularly the big chains. The Amazon Effect became shorthand for the mall-emptying squeeze of e-commerce on traditional retail. Even businesses that team up with Amazon don’t fare well. Third-party sellers on the site are subject to punitive measures and must contend with increasing fees, which sometimes put them out of business. Sellers who do perform well have seen products copied and sold by Amazon’s private label. Notable partnerships have had dismal results, such as when Borders outsourced its early web sales or the exclusivity deal with Toys ‘R’ Us. Of course, Borders no longer exists, and Toys ‘R’ Us filed for bankruptcy in 2017.

Trying to beat Amazon on speed and price is pointless. Joining them is unwise. So retailers compete in other ways. At the bookstore, we focused on our strengths: a varied, multi-talented staff who could size up a customer’s reading tastes and stick a good book in their hands. If someone came into our store circa 2005 and said they were into fantasy, there’s a good chance our book buyer would pass them a copy of George R.R. Martin’s latest, years before HBO had anything to do with it.

We had a curated ‘zine section and hosted live events with bestselling authors, cult magazine founders and local writers. But mostly, we capitalized on folks who wanted something more from their shopping experience than just speed and convenience, people who didn’t mind if it took a week to get a book, as long as it came with a little local community. Some just wanted to browse books while sitting under the tree (there’s a tree in the middle of the store), petting a cat (in my day, that was Lucy) and listening to what we felt were pretty wicked playlists.

Today, Skylight Books is still a force of creativity and verve in the Los Feliz neighborhood, and it has even expanded into an annex next door. In general, after the initial casualties from the retail apocalypse and COVID, independent bookstores are doing OK, with established names staying put and new stores opening. Elsewhere in the retail industry, big chains continue to close locations, but independent retail seems to be growing. Personally, I enjoy the new bakeries, brewpubs and bulk stores that have sprung up around the neighborhoods where I now live.

I can’t, as a commerce writer, ignore that a decent portion of my job directs readers to Amazon’s website. The company is playing a part in displaying the very words you’re reading, as Engadget’s site is facilitated by Amazon Web Services (AWS) through Yahoo’s cloud partnership. The company is one of the biggest on the planet, the second largest employer in the US and a good portion of every retail dollar spent in the US goes into Amazon’s revenue chest.

With its acquisition of Whole Foods’ 500+ stores, Amazon is doing fine in the physical retail sector. Yet the company doesn’t tend to win when it tries to fabricate other retail experiences. Amazon Books, Amazon Style and Amazon 4-Star were all small-scale retail spaces that tried to leverage Amazon’s brand, massive trove of buyer data and cutting-edge retail technology. At their peak, those stores comprised about 70 brick-and-mortar locations, all of which are now closed. The cashierless Amazon Go still has more than 20 locations in the US, but Amazon shut down nine of them in 2023 and hasn’t announced plans to open more.

Those misfires could be statistically inevitable; more than half of new businesses go under before they hit the 10-year mark. But perhaps those stores failed because, as physical spaces, they couldn’t capitalize on Amazon’s primary strength: zero-effort buying. Shopping at Amazon.com isn’t particularly pleasant. The website is cluttered and confusing. Suspect products and fake reviews erode shoppers’ trust. It isn’t even the cheapest place to shop. But that 1-Click™ buy button and turbo delivery makes stuff appear on our doorsteps like it slid there on greased rails.

Yet when people get up the energy to leave their homes, they may hope for more: human experiences created by people from their own neighborhoods who do what they do out of passion, not because market data indicates dollars to be had in a given sector. With its trillion-dollar valuation, Amazon isn’t going anywhere, but under its massive shadow, there’s still room for businesses that focus on the human element of commercial transactions, places where people might want to spend some of the time Amazon’s speed and convenience may have saved them.

To celebrate Engadget's 20th anniversary, we're taking a look back at the products and services that have changed the industry since March 2, 2004.

Warning: The following article covers matters of a sensitive nature.

A SpaceX employee has filed a lawsuit against the company, accusing it of siding with a supervisor who pressured her into having sexual relations with him. The plaintiff said that she and other female employees also had to endure "humiliating comments" questioning their credentials, that she was passed up for promotions in favor of male candidates and that she experienced retaliation when she complained about being paid less than her male counterparts. 

The plaintiff, Michelle Dopak, has been working at the aerospace corporation's headquarters in California since 2017. According to her complaint, she experienced discrimination early on in her employment when she was passed up for job opportunities in favor of external male candidates. Her male colleagues allegedly spread rumors about their female coworkers, as well, claiming that they only got their jobs because of their looks. Dopak and two of her female colleagues met with Gwynne Shotwell to complain about both issues — "an action that no male colleague or employee at SpaceX would ever feel the need to do to justify their hiring and stop such discriminatory actions," the lawsuit reads. The SpaceX president, however, apparently didn't take any action. 

After a reorganization in 2019, the plaintiff was placed under the supervision of a male boss who allegedly pressured her into having a sexual relationship that lasted years. When she got pregnant as a result, she said her married supervisor offered her $100,000 to have an abortion, which she had refused. She also accused SpaceX of colluding with her boss to transfer 48,289 shares worth $3,718,253 out of his name so that he could get out of paying child support. 

Her complaints didn't end there. After getting promoted to a position she had been chasing for years, she found out that a male colleague who was hired at the same time was being paid $5,000 more. The company officials she talked to about the pay disparity couldn't justify it and allegedly offered her only $2,500 more if she also took a reduction in stock benefits. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff said the offer was "a message that if you complain at SpaceX, we will just retaliate against you and find other ways to punish you."

The lawsuit accuses SpaceX of forcing female employees who have claims of sexual harassment and discrimination into bringing their claims to arbitration so that they could be kept secret from the public. "SpaceX has also attempted to coerce and force [the plaintiff] into only bringing her claims in arbitration even though such claims are barred from being forced to arbitration," the complaint continues.

The plaintiff is asking for general, compensatory and consequential damages, including lost wages, earnings and other employee benefits. She's also asking the court to prohibit SpaceX from continuing any "unfair and unlawful business practices." SpaceX is currently facing another proposed class action lawsuit that claims it pays women and minorities tens of thousands less than what it pays white male employees. In January, the National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint against SpaceX, as well, accusing it for illegally firing a group of engineers who criticized Elon Musk for making crude jokes on X about the sexual misconduct accusations against him.

Nikon has announced it is buying RED, the high-end cinema camera company, for an undisclosed sum. In a statement, the camera giant, which has suffered along with most of the imaging industry in recent years, said RED will become a wholly-owned subsidiary, as found by The Verge. RED currently has about 220 employees, and no layoff plans have been made public in response to the sale. 

RED was founded in 2005 and has since had its cameras used in popular productions, including Squid Game, Peaky Blinders and Captain Marvel — a market Nikon plans to expand into with this acquisition. Nikon has withdrawn from less profitable areas of the camera market in recent years, including ending development on new DSLRs

The move could benefit both parties, as RED's president Jarred Lang shared on Facebook: "This strategic partnership brings together Nikon's extensive history and expertise in product development, know-how in image processing, as well as optical technology and user interface with RED's revolutionary digital cinema cameras and award-winning technologies." RED's 2018 attempt to expand on its own (into smartphones, no less) didn't last long, and the products soon were discontinued. 

Interestingly, RED sued its new owner in 2022, claiming that Nikon knowingly used RED's patented data compression technology in its Z9 camera. Nikon, in turn, argued the legitimacy of RED's patents before the two companies agreed to a dismissal. 

Elon Musk, who sued OpenAI for violating its non-profit mission and chasing profits, allegedly wanted the organization to merge with Tesla when it was starting to plan its transition into a for-profit entity in order to accomplish its goals. Well, either that or get full control of the company, OpenAI said in a blog post. The organization responded to Musk's lawsuit by publishing old emails from 2015 to 2018 when he was still involved in its operations. 

When OpenAI introduced itself to the world back in 2015, it announced that it had $1 billion in funding. Apparently, Musk was the one who suggested that figure, even though OpenAI had raised less than $45 million from him and around $90 million from other donors. "We need to go with a much bigger number than $100M to avoid sounding hopeless... I think we should say that we are starting with a $1B funding commitment... I will cover whatever anyone else doesn't provide," he wrote, according to the company. 

In 2017, OpenAI's leaders realized that they truly did need a lot more money — billions of dollars — because artificial intelligence required vast quantities of computing power. That's when they started discussing its transition into a for-profit structure. OpenAI said Musk was involved in the planning and originally wanted majority equity, control of the initial board of directors and the CEO position. However, the organization felt that it was against its mission to give one person absolute control over it. They couldn't get to an agreement, and Musk reportedly withheld funding while talks were ongoing.

Musk then forwarded an email to OpenAI in 2018, which suggested attaching the organization to Tesla so that the automaker could provide its funding. He explained in his letter that he believed it was "the only path that could even hope to hold a candle to Google." OpenAI didn't say how their discussions progressed after that, but Musk's idea obviously didn't push through, and he soon left the company. In the last email from Musk that the organization posted, he said his "probability assessment of OpenAI being relevant to DeepMind/Google without a dramatic change in execution and resources is 0%." 

In his lawsuit, Musk accused OpenAI of being a "closed-source de facto subsidiary" of Microsoft, which uses its AI technology for products like Bing after investing $13 billion into the company. "Microsoft stands to make a fortune selling GPT-4 to the public, which would not be possible if OpenAI — as it is required to do — makes the technology freely available to the public," the lawsuit argued. OpenAI said Musk was aware its mission did not imply open sourcing its artificial intelligence technology, though. It released an email in which Ilya Sutskever, its co-founder and chief scientist, told Musk: "As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in OpenAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science." Musk then responded with "Yup."

"We're sad that it's come to this with someone whom we've deeply admired — someone who inspired us to aim higher, then told us we would fail, started a competitor, and then sued us when we started making meaningful progress towards OpenAI's mission without him," the company wrote in its post. After Musk filed his lawsuit, the company sent internal memos to its staff denying his allegations. Chief Strategy Officer Jason Kwon said in one memo that Musk's claims "may stem from [his] regrets about not being involved with the company today." Sam Altman said in another memo that he misses the person he knew who competed with others by building better technology. He also responded to a five-year old tweet from Musk thanking him for defending Tesla.

Musk's lawsuit accuses OpenAI of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition. He is currently seeking a jury trial and wants the court to order OpenAI to follow its "longstanding practice of making AI research and technology" available to the public, as well as to prohibit it from using its technology for the financial benefit of Microsoft and any other particular organization or individual. Musk has yet to respond to OpenAI's post.

Microsoft has filed a motion seeking to dismiss key parts of a lawsuit The New York Times filed against the company and Open AI, accusing them of copyright infringement. If you'll recall, The Times sued both companies for using its published articles to train their GPT large language models (LLMs) without permission and compensation. In its filing, the company has accused The Times of pushing "doomsday futurology" by claiming that AI technologies pose a threat to independent journalism. It follows OpenAI's court filing from late February that's also seeking to dismiss some important elements on the case. 

Like OpenAI before it, Microsoft accused The Times of crafting "unrealistic prompts" in an effort to "coax the GPT-based tools" to spit out responses matching its content. It also compared the media organization's lawsuit to Hollywood studios' efforts to " stop a groundbreaking new technology:" The VCR. Instead of destroying Hollywood, Microsoft explained, the VCR helped the entertainment industry flourish by opening up revenue streams. LLMs are a breakthrough in artificial intelligence, it continued, and Microsoft collaborated with OpenAI to "help bring their extraordinary power to the public" because it "firmly believes in LLMs' capacity to improve the way people live and work."

The company is asking the court to dismiss three claims, including one saying it's liable for end-user copyright infringement through the use of GPT-based tools and another that says it violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Microsoft also wants the court to dismiss the element of the case wherein The Times accused it of misappropriating time-sensitive breaking news and consumer purchasing recommendations. As an example, The Times argued in its lawsuit that it will lose revenue if users ask ChatGPT to research articles on Wirecutter, which the news company owns, because potential buyers will no longer click on its referral links. But that's "mere speculation about what The Times apparently fears might happen," and it didn't give a single real-world example in its complaint, Microsoft said.

"Microsoft doesn't dispute that it worked with OpenAI to copy millions of The Times's works without its permission to build its tools," Ian Crosby, lead counsel for The Times, told the publication." Instead, it oddly compares L.L.M.s to the VCR even though VCR makers never argued that it was necessary to engage in massive copyright infringement to build their products."

OpenAI and Microsoft are facing more lawsuits related to the content used to train the former's LLMs other than this particular one. Nonfiction writers and fiction authors, including Michael Chabon, George R.R. Martin, John Grisham and Jodi Picoult, accused the companies of stealing their work for AI training. More recently, The Intercept, Raw Story and AlterNet filed separate lawsuits against the company, because ChatGPT allegedly reproduces their content "verbatim or nearly verbatim" while removing proper attribution.