The US International Trade Commission has agreed with Sonos' claims that Google had infringed on its speaker and cast patents. It issued its initial decision back in August, and this finalizes its ruling, which prohibits Google from importing products found to have violated Sonos' intellectual properties. Since Google manufactures its products in China, that means it won't be able to gets them shipped to the US when the import ban takes effect in 60 days.

Sonos sued Google in 2020 over five patents, which include one that details a technology allowing wireless speakers to sync with one another. As The New York Times notes, the products affected include Google's Home smart speakers, Pixel phones and computers, as well as Chromecast devices. While Google is facing an import ban, a spokesperson said that the tech giant doesn't expect the ruling to interrupt its ability to import and sell devices. 

"While we disagree with today's decision, we appreciate that the International Trade Commission has approved our modified designs," the spokesperson told Protocol. "We will seek further review and continue to defend ourselves against Sonos' frivolous claims about our partnership and intellectual property." The commission didn't challenge those alternative designs in its final decision, which means Google can implement them. 

In fact, the Nest team has recently announced some changes to speaker groups, which it says is "due to a recent legal ruling." The most notable change is that, going forward, users will no longer be able to adjust the volume of all speakers in a group all at once. They'd have to adjust each speaker individually instead.

In a statement, Sonos Chief Legal Officer Eddie Lazarus admitted that there's a possibility that "Google will be able to degrade or eliminate product features in a way that circumvents the importation ban that the ITC has imposed." However, he said the tech giant's products will still "infringe many dozens of Sonos patents" — that is, unless Google pays Sonos royalties for its technologies. 

His whole statement reads:

"We appreciate that the ITC has definitively validated the five Sonos patents at issue in this case and ruled unequivocally that Google infringes all five. That is an across the board win that is surpassingly rare in patent cases and underscores the strength of Sonos’s extensive patent portfolio and the hollowness of Google’s denials of copying. These Sonos patents cover Sonos' groundbreaking invention of extremely popular home audio features, including the set up for controlling home audio systems, the synchronization of multiple speakers, the independent volume control of different speakers, and the stereo pairing of speakers. 

There is a possibility that Google will be able to degrade or eliminate product features in a way that circumvents the importation ban that the ITC has imposed. But while Google may sacrifice consumer experience in an attempt to circumvent this importation ban, its products will still infringe many dozens of Sonos patents, its wrongdoing will persist, and the damages owed Sonos will continue to accrue. Alternatively, Google can —as other companies have already done — pay a fair royalty for the technologies it has misappropriated."

Snapchat creator Snap has sued the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for rejecting an application the company had filed to trademark the word “spectacles” in relation to its wearable of the same name. In a complaint spotted by The Verge, Snap claims its usage of the term “evokes an incongruity between an 18th-century term for corrective eyewear and Snap’s high-tech 21st-century smart glasses.”

The complaint stems from an ongoing disagreement between Snap and the USPTO over whether “spectacles” is a term that can be applied to any pair of smart glasses. In an opinion the agency’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board published in November, the USPTO said Snap’s use of Spectacles had failed to acquire the “distinctiveness” necessary for a trademark. “Spectacles is so commonly used to describe the nature of the product or competing products, rather than any particular source of the product(s),” the USPTO said at the time. In suing the USPTO, Snap hopes to overturn the appeal board’s decision.

Snap first filed for a Spectacles trademark in 2016, the same year it released the first-generation model. Despite a clever marketing campaign involving Minion-like vending machines, the wearable was a bust for the company. At one point, Snap reportedly had thousands of unsold pairs collecting dust in Chinese warehouses. However, even after losing $40 million on the first version, it went on to release two new models and recently debuted a pair of augmented reality Spectacles.

To that end, Snap claims, thanks to social media marketing, word of mouth and media coverage, consumers have come to associate the word “spectacles” with its brand, a claim the USPTO disputes. In the same November opinion, the agency wrote Spectacles’ “social media accounts have an underwhelming number of followers, and the number of followers is surprisingly small.”

France's data regulator CNIL has fined Google €150 million ($170 million) and Meta/Facebook €60 million ($68 million) for violating EU privacy rules. Both companies failed to allow French users to easily reject cookie tracking technology as required by EU privacy rules, according to CNIL's news release.  

The fines were specifically levied against Google's US and Irish operations (€90 million and €60 million respectively) and against Facebook's Irish arm. Both companies face daily fines of €100,000 if they don't change their practices within three months of CNIL's official decision. 

In addition to the fines, the restricted committee ordered the companies to provide Internet users located in France with a means of refusing cookies as simple as the existing means of accepting them, in order to guarantee their freedom of consent, within three months. If they fail to do so, the companies will have to pay a penalty of 100,000 euros per day of delay.

"​​We are reviewing the authority's decision and remain committed to working with relevant authorities," a Meta spokesperson told Politico. "Our cookie consent controls provide people with greater control over their data, including a new settings menu on Facebook and Instagram where people can revisit and manage their decisions at any time, and we continue to develop and improve these controls."

"People trust us to respect their right to privacy and keep them safe. We understand our responsibility to protect that trust and are committing to further changes and active work with the CNIL in light of this decision under the ePrivacy Directive," a Google spokesperson said in a statement.

CNIL said it has issued 100 orders and sanctions related to non-compliance with cookie legislation since it went into force on March 31, 2021. The regulator previously fined Google €100 million for cookie violations under European e-Privacy rules and €50 million for GDPR violations. 

Google is still fighting the €100 million fine before France's highest court. It's expected to fight the latest sanction as well, according Politico. At the same time, the fines against Google and Meta's Irish operations point to major tension between the EU and Ireland. Europe sees Ireland's actions as too friendly toward tech giants headquartered there, and hostile toward user privacy. 

Nikola Tesla may have been pleased that both of his names were employed by electric car companies, but perhaps less so that Nikola sued Tesla, and vice-versa. Now, Nikola Corp. is reportedly dropping its $2 billion patent infringement lawsuit against Tesla Inc. as Nikola company founder Trevor Milton faces a criminal indictment on fraud charges, Bloomberg has reported. 

According to a filing in a San Francisco court, both companies have agreed to withdraw all claims and counter-claims against each other. Nikola accused Tesla of copying several patented designs for a windshield design, fuselage and side door. Tesla denied all the claims and countersued. 

Nikola unveiled the hydrogen-powered Nikola One semi-truck in 2016 with the promise of an 800-1,200 mile range with no pollution. However, it was accused by the SEC of deceiving investors, in one instance via a video that appeared to show the truck moving under power when it was simply rolling down a hill. CEO Trevor Milton was subsequently charged with two counts of securities fraud and one count of wire fraud by a federal grand jury. He has denied the claims.

Back in June 2020, Lululemon got into the flourishing home gym market in the midst of the pandemic by purchasing home fitness startup Mirror for $500 million. Now, Nike has filed a lawsuit against the company over Mirror, accusing it of patent infringement. According to CNBC and The Wall Street Journal, Nike's lawsuit allege that Mirror — a full-size interactive mirror that brings a live fitness instructor into the user's home — and its apps use technologies that it invented and patented. 

The sports apparel giant specifically mentioned that it filed a patent application in 1983 for a device that can prompt users to exercise, monitor their heart rate, determine their speed while running and the calories they burned. Nike also has a number of mobile apps for fitness, including the Nike Run Club and Nike Training Club. 

Nike sent Lululemon a list of patents it allegedly infringed on back on November 3rd. As you'd expect, the company more known for making yoga pants and other types of gym clothes disagreed with Nike's assessment. A spokesperson told the publications in a statement that the patents "in question are overly broad and invalid." They also said that Lululemon is confident in its position and "look forward to defending it in court."

Mirror operates as a standalone company within Lululemon, putting the workout clothes-maker in direct competition with the likes of Peloton and Tonal. Lululemon CEO Clavin McDonald previously said that the purchase was all about connecting with consumers, because they're bound to spend more the more they engage with the brand. Last month, however, the company halved its sales forecast for the device, calling 2021 "a challenging year for digital fitness." 

This isn't the only patent-related legal battle Lululemon is embroiled in. Last year, it filed a patent infringement lawsuit of its own against Peloton, alleging that the design the other company used for a new line of leggings and sports bras infringe on its intellectual property.

Elizabeth Homes, the former CEO and founder of Theranos, has been found guilty on charges of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Holmes faces up to 20 years in prison for defrauding investors in her blood testing startup. The verdict comes after a months-long trial, and more than three years after she was first charged and forced to step down as CEO in 2018.

During the trial, Holmes’ lawyers tried to portray her as a young and inexperienced entrepreneur. “Elizabeth Holmes worked herself to the bone for 15 years trying to make lab testing more affordable,” one of Holmes’ attorneys said in opening arguments. “She failed … but failure is not a crime.”

Holmes, who testified during the trial, said she hadn’t intended to mislead the public or investors, and had been advised to protect the company’s “trade secrets.” As The New York Times pointed out, she “spent much of her testimony arguing that others at Theranos were responsible for the company’s shortcomings.”

The prosecution alleged that Holmes knew about serious flaws in the company’s technology and hid the issues from investors. Former patients who had received inaccurate blood tests also testified, including an Arizona woman who received an incorrect result for an HIV test, and a woman who was misdiagnosed with a miscarriage.

Holmes’ story has been a source of widespread fascination even for those outside of Silicon Valley. At its peak, Theranos was valued at more than $9 billion, and had a board of directors filled with former high-ranking government officials, including two former Secretaries of State, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz. Holmes, who had dropped out of Stanford to start the company, regularly appeared on magazine covers and was often compared to Steve Jobs and other iconic founders. (Holmes herself was reportedly infatuated with Jobs and adopted his signature black turtlenecks.)

Former Wall Street Journal reporter John Carreyrou was the first to report on issues with Theranos’ technology in 2015, and his coverage prompted multiple investigations and lawsuits that ultimately resulted in criminal charges for Holmes and former COO Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani. (Balwani’s trial is scheduled to begin in February.)

Since then, there has been no shortage of pop culture depictions of Holmes. After Carreyrou’s best seller, Bad Blood, there was an HBO documentary and several podcasts about Theranos’ rise and ultimate downfall. Hulu is set to debut a new miniseries about the saga, with Amanda Seyfried starring as Holmes, in March. And Apple recently nabbed the Jennifer Lawrence-led film adaptation of Bad Blood.

Developing…

Riot Games has agreed to pay $100 million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed in November 2018 by former employees alleging gender discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation. The League of Legends publisher was only going to pay $10 million per the preliminary settlement in 2019, but the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing went to court to block the agreement. $10 million was much too small, the agency argued, and the women suing the company could be entitled to as much as $400 million.

The lawsuit was originally filed by Melanie McCracken and Jess Negrón after a Kotaku report exposed the developers' "men-first" and "bro" company culture. In the report, Kotaku detailed employees' experiences within the company, such as instances of "genital grabbing" and senior leaders passing around lists of employees they would sleep with. One former employee who left the company due to sexism said working for Riot was like "working at a giant fraternity."

Under the terms of the settlement, $80 million will go towards members of the class-action lawsuit, while $20 million will go towards the plaintiffs' legal fees. All employees and contractors in California who identify as women and who worked at Riot between November 2014 until present day qualify for a payout. Those who've been with the company longer will get a bigger cut than newer workers. And there are quite a lot of newer ones — while only around 1,000 workers were qualified for a payout in 2019, there are now around 2,300 eligible personnel. In a statement, the developer told The Washington Post:

"Three years ago, Riot was at the heart of what became a reckoning in our industry. We had to face the fact that despite our best intentions, we hadn’t always lived up to our values. As a company we stood at a crossroads; we could deny the shortcomings of our culture, or we could apologize, correct course, and build a better Riot. We chose the latter... While we'e proud of how far we’ve come since 2018, we must also take responsibility for the past. We hope that this settlement properly acknowledges those who had negative experiences at Riot."

In addition to paying $100 million, Riot Games is also required to get a third-party expert to conduct "sex/gender equity analysis of total compensation, assignment and promotion outcomes for California employees." Riot must also allow pay transparency and will have to be monitored by a third party, who'll keep an eye on things like HR complaints and pay equity, for three years. The monitor will be able to recommend changes to the company that Riot can implement. 

Genie Harrison, the women's rights attorney who represented the plaintiffs, said in a statement:

"This is a great day for the women of Riot Games – and for women at all video game and tech companies – who deserve a workplace that is free of harassment and discrimination. We appreciate Riot’s introspection and work since 2018 toward becoming a more diverse and inclusive company, its willingness to take responsibility for its past, and its commitment to fairness and equality in the future. Along with the DFEH and DLSE, the brave women of Riot who carried the torch of justice have achieved a precedent-setting result that stands as a beacon for other women and as a warning that employers had better pay and treat women fairly, or else be held accountable."

A Russian court levied a 7.2 billion rouble ($98 million) fine against Google on Friday for what it claims are repeated failures by the company to delete content the country has deemed illegal. Though Russia has tagged numerous tech companies throughout the year with fines for not following its increasingly restrictive internet content rules, Friday's judgement marks the first time that the court has imposed fines based on a company's annual revenue. 

Additionally, the Russian court fined Meta (and its subsidiary, Instagram) 2 billion roubles ($27.15 million) for similar offenses. Per Reuters, Meta is accused of failing to remove around 2,000 banned items while Google had reportedly failed to take down 2,600 bits of illicit content. Those include posts promoting drug use or dangerous behaviors, instructions for making improvised weapons and explosives, as well as anything regarding what and who it designates as extremists or terrorists. Or the spreading of "gay propaganda," apparently.

Google has announced it will review the court documents before deciding how to proceed. The company has 10 days to file an appeal.

This ruling is only the latest in Moscow's attempts to exert greater degrees of control over not just its national network but the internet as a whole and sets up an even larger confrontation come January 1st, when Russian authorities have demanded tech companies set up local servers for their online services.

A TikTok moderator has sued the social media platform and its parent ByteDance over trauma caused by graphic videos, Bloomberg has reported. In a proposed class-action lawsuit, moderator Candie Frazier said that she has screened videos showing violence, school shootings, fatal falls and even cannibalism. "Plaintiff has trouble sleeping and when she does sleep, she has horrific nightmares," the lawsuit states.

Compounding the problem, TikTok allegedly requires moderators to work 12-hour shifts with only a one-hour lunch and two 15-minute breaks. "Due to the sheer volume of content, content moderators are permitted no more than 25 seconds per video, and simultaneously view three to ten videos at the same time," according to the complaint. 

Plaintiff has trouble sleeping and when she does sleep, she has horrific nightmares.

Along with other social media companies including Facebook and YouTube, TikTok developed guidelines to help moderators cope with child abuse and other traumatic images. Among the suggestions is that companies limit moderator shifts to four hours and provide psychological support. However, TikTok allegedly failed to implement those guidelines, according to the lawsuit.

Content moderators take the brunt of graphic and traumatic images that appear on social media, making sure that users don't have to experience them. One company that provides content moderators for large tech firms even acknowledged in a consent form that the job can cause post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, social media companies have been criticized by their mods and others for not paying enough given the psychological hazards, and not providing enough mental health support. A similar lawsuit was filed against Facebook in 2018. 

Frazier is hoping to represent other Tiktok screeners in a class-action suit, and is asking for compensation for psychological injuries and a court order for a medical fund for moderators. 

The tussle between Amazon and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has taken another turn after the company reached a nationwide settlement with the agency. Amazon has agreed to remind current and former workers across the US about their labor rights on notices posted in workplaces, and on the mobile app and website for workers. Amazon will also send a copy of the notice to email addresses it has on file for any employee who worked at its facilities between March 22nd and December 22nd.

The notice informs workers that they have the legal right to join, form or assist with a union. They can select a representative to bargain with Amazon on their behalf and "act together with other employees for your benefit and protection."  

In addition, workers have more leeway to organize in company facilities. In the notice, Amazon states it will not tell them to leave a property or threaten disciplinary action "when you are exercising your right to engage in union or protected concerted activities by talking to your co-workers in exterior non-work areas during non-work time." Nor will it ask workers about union activity, or why they're speaking to co-workers, according to the notice.

It'll be easier for the NLRB to sue Amazon if the agency believes it violated the agreement. In such cases, the company agreed to let the NLRB forego an administrative hearing process, which can take a long time to complete.

“This settlement agreement provides a crucial commitment from Amazon to millions of its workers across the United States that it will not interfere with their right to act collectively to improve their workplace by forming a union or taking other collective action,” NLRB general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo told The New York Times. Engadget has contacted Amazon for comment.

The agreement is related to six cases brought forward by workers who complained Amazon was impeding their efforts to organize. The company previously settled NLRB cases on an individual basis, but this a broader agreement. The agreement includes references to employees, but not contractors, who make up the bulk of Amazon's delivery workforce. It's unclear whether they will be afforded the same rights and protections under the deal.

The NLRB and Amazon have been at odds in recent times. In November, the labor board ordered Amazon to rerun a union election at an Alabama warehouse. It said Amazon interfered with the process. Workers at other facilities have attempted to organize — those at a fulfillment center in New York are trying once again to unionize after failing to obtain enough signatures last time.

Amazon has long been criticized over working conditions. Lawmakers this week sought answers from the company over whether its policies contributed to the deaths of six people after a tornado struck a warehouse in Illinois. Amazon recently warned its workers that an even more demanding workload than usual during the holiday period could have a significant impact on their mental health.