A bold new collaboration between OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and iconic Apple designer Jony Ive has been forced into an abrupt pause after a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction over a trademark dispute—putting one of Silicon Valley’s most high-profile hardware bets in legal limbo.

The partnership, announced in May, centers on building a next-generation artificial intelligence device—an ambitious effort to marry Altman’s frontier AI development with Ive’s celebrated minimalist hardware design ethos. As part of the plan, OpenAI revealed it would acquire io Products, a product and engineering company co-founded by Ive, in a deal reportedly worth $6.5 billion. The initiative was quietly years in the making, with backing from Altman’s personal investment arm and rumored support from SoftBank.

But the fanfare was short-lived.

Just days after OpenAI publicized the acquisition, a lesser-known California startup named IYO Inc. filed a federal trademark lawsuit claiming it had previously pitched its AI device concept to both Altman’s and Ive’s teams back in 2022. IYO, which is also developing AI-integrated hardware, argues that OpenAI’s new “io” branding is confusingly similar to its own and that the tech giant is infringing on a name and concept it introduced first.

IYO CEO Jason Rugolo said in court filings that his company not only has prior trademark rights but also shared confidential ideas about hardware use cases and branding—only to watch a powerful duo later roll out something strikingly similar.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson agreed that IYO’s claim merited serious consideration. She issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting OpenAI, Altman, and Ive from using “the IYO mark, and any mark confusingly similar thereto, including the IO mark,” for any product marketing or public materials related to the AI hardware initiative. A full hearing on the matter is scheduled for October.

As a result, OpenAI has scrubbed all mention of the new hardware venture from its website. The May 21st announcement page now displays a notice stating the content is “temporarily down due to a court order,” and includes a terse message: “We don’t agree with the complaint and are reviewing our options.”

In a sharply worded public statement, IYO’s Rugolo made clear he’s not intimidated by OpenAI’s muscle.

“IYO will not roll over and let Sam and Jony trample on our rights, no matter how rich and famous they are,” Rugolo said Monday.

The case shines a rare spotlight on the opaque and competitive world of AI hardware development—a sector still in its early days, but one that major players like OpenAI, Google, and Apple see as the future of computing. While AI models like ChatGPT have dominated headlines, many in the industry believe the next frontier lies in physical devices purpose-built to interact seamlessly with these models, potentially reshaping how people access information, communicate, and perform daily tasks.

For Ive, the legal controversy marks a sharp detour from his usual low-key, high-design profile. After departing Apple in 2019, he launched the design firm LoveFrom and has taken on select projects ranging from luxury audio to pandemic-era public service work. His reentry into the consumer tech spotlight through OpenAI was widely seen as a signal that AI hardware could be as disruptive—and as culturally defining—as the smartphone.

Now, that vision is on hold.

The October hearing will determine whether OpenAI can continue developing and promoting the device under its current branding—or whether it will need to completely rethink how it brings its first AI-native gadget to market.

Source: AP News – OpenAI scrubs mention of Jony Ive partnership after judge’s ruling over trademark dispute

The post OpenAI and Jony Ive’s AI Hardware Venture Halted by Court Order appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The U.S. Justice Department has ramped up its efforts to break up Google, filing a new proposal that would force the tech giant to divest its crucial digital ad technology. This bold move follows a federal judge’s recent ruling that Google’s advertising practices have been stifling competition. The new legal battle over Google’s ad technology adds to the ongoing pressure from the government, which is also pushing to separate Google’s Chrome browser from its search engine dominance.

The Latest Legal Twist: A Call for Dismantling Google’s Ad Network

Filed in Virginia federal court on Monday, the Justice Department’s proposal seeks to have Google offload its AdX business and DFP ad platform—key technologies that connect advertisers with publishers who sell digital ad space. These tools, which are central to Google’s digital ad network, are at the heart of the government’s argument that Google has been using its market power to unfairly suppress competition.

In its 17-page filing, the Justice Department asked U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema to impose significant restrictions on Google. This includes a proposed 10-year ban on Google from running a digital ad exchange, in an effort to undercut the company’s dominance in the online advertising space.

The move comes just weeks after a federal judge ruled that Google’s ad network violated antitrust laws, but the case is far from over. Google has already signaled its intent to appeal, but the legal battle will continue through the upcoming remedy hearings, scheduled for September.

Google’s Response: Dire Warnings and Counterproposals

Unsurprisingly, Google is fighting back. The company has slammed the Justice Department’s proposal, claiming it would “cause economic chaos” and harm millions of advertisers and publishers. Google argues that dismantling its ad network would destabilize the entire digital advertising ecosystem, degrading the online experience for users.

In its counterproposal, Google suggests a less drastic solution—appointing a trustee to oversee its ad network for three years to ensure more transparency and foster competition. While the company’s plan seeks to address some of the government’s concerns, it falls short of the Justice Department’s demand for a more comprehensive breakup.

A Double Blow: Ad Network and Search Engine Scrutiny

This latest attempt to break up Google’s advertising operations is part of a larger legal assault on the company. The Justice Department is also pushing for the separation of Google’s search engine and Chrome browser, which was also ruled to be an illegal monopoly by another federal judge last August.

If the Justice Department’s proposed breakups are approved, it would mark the largest corporate breakup in the U.S. since the 1980s when AT&T was forced to split into seven regional companies. Given that Google’s search engine and ad network are at the core of its business—generating billions in revenue—this proposed breakup could have far-reaching implications.

The Stakes: A $265 Billion Business and an Evolving Market

Google’s dominance in search and digital advertising remains formidable, with its parent company, Alphabet, generating a whopping $265 billion in revenue last year. However, the company faces increasing challenges, including new legal battles and the rise of artificial intelligence, which is reshaping how consumers interact with technology and search for information online.

Despite these hurdles, Alphabet remains a corporate powerhouse, valued at $2 trillion. Yet, the ongoing antitrust cases threaten to disrupt its core business operations, forcing Google to adapt to a changing tech landscape.

What’s Next: Will Google’s Digital Empire Survive the Breakup?

As the legal drama unfolds, all eyes will be on the upcoming remedy hearings in September, which will determine whether the courts will impose the government’s proposed breakup. If the Justice Department gets its way, it would set a major precedent for how the U.S. government deals with monopolistic practices in the tech industry.

For now, Google is preparing for the long haul, even as it faces the potential loss of its advertising and search empires. Stay tuned for what could become a landmark moment in the fight against tech monopolies.

Source: AP News – US expands attempt to blow up Google with proposed teardown of its ad technology

The post Google Faces New Legal Threat as U.S. Pushes to Break Up Its Ad Tech appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

A California federal judge has ruled that Apple violated a court order requiring the company to allow more competition in its App Store, particularly in app downloads and payment methods. The ruling, issued on Wednesday by US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, follows an antitrust lawsuit brought by Fortnite developer Epic Games.

In a sweeping 80-page decision, Gonzalez Rogers determined that Apple failed to comply with a previous injunction she imposed in 2021, which aimed to open up the App Store to more competition. The judge said Apple’s actions showed a clear disregard for the court’s directive.

“This is an injunction, not a negotiation,” Gonzalez Rogers stated firmly. “There are no do-overs once a party willfully disregards a court order.” She went on to announce that she would refer Apple to federal prosecutors for a criminal contempt investigation.

Epic Games, which has long accused Apple of stifling competition and charging excessive commission fees, raised concerns in March 2024 that Apple’s practices had only worsened. Epic claims that Apple imposed a new 27% fee on developers for transactions that occur outside the App Store. This, combined with Apple’s standard 30% commission for in-app purchases, effectively prevents developers from exploring more affordable payment alternatives.

Moreover, Epic alleges that Apple began discouraging external payment methods by warning users about the supposed dangers of external links, which they called an attempt to “manipulate” user behavior and maintain its monopolistic grip.

Apple, for its part, has denied any wrongdoing. In a filing, the company argued it had made significant efforts to comply with the court order while trying to protect its business model and consumer interests.

At a prior hearing, Gonzalez Rogers suggested that Apple’s recent changes appeared to have one goal: to stifle competition. Now, with the referral to prosecutors, the company faces serious legal scrutiny over its continued non-compliance.

Neither Apple nor Epic Games has provided immediate comment on the ruling.

Source: CNN – US judge rules Apple violated order to reform App Store

The post Apple Faces Legal Trouble for Violating App Store Reform Order appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg once considered separating Instagram from Facebook due to fears over potential antitrust litigation, according to an email presented in court on the second day of the ongoing antitrust trial.

In the 2018 email, Zuckerberg expressed concerns about the growing scrutiny on big tech companies. He suggested that spinning Instagram out of Meta might be the only way to meet the company’s goals in a rapidly evolving market. He also mentioned that Meta could be forced to separate Instagram and WhatsApp in the future if regulatory pressure intensified.

“There is a non-trivial chance that we could be forced to spin Instagram out and perhaps WhatsApp in the next five to 10 years,” Zuckerberg wrote.

This revelation came during the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) trial, where Meta faces allegations of illegally monopolizing the social media market by acquiring competitors like Instagram and WhatsApp. The trial could potentially force Meta to break off these two platforms, which it bought over a decade ago for $1 billion and $22 billion, respectively.

Zuckerberg, the first witness in the trial, spent more than seven hours on the stand over two days. The emails in question were related to discussions on whether Meta should buy Instagram and what impact the acquisition would have on competition in the market.

Throughout his testimony, Zuckerberg faced tough questioning about Meta’s acquisition of Instagram. Daniel Matheson, the attorney leading the case for the FTC, pointed out that Zuckerberg had referred to Instagram as a “rapidly growing, threatening network.” Matheson also raised the point that Zuckerberg’s goal in acquiring Instagram might have been to neutralize a competitor.

However, Zuckerberg defended his decision, saying that Meta wasn’t just trying to squash competition. Instead, he explained that Facebook was in the process of building its own mobile camera app, but Instagram was already excelling in that area.

“I wanted to buy them because they were better at it,” Zuckerberg said, rejecting the idea that the purchase was solely about eliminating a rival.

Matheson brought up emails written by Zuckerberg and his associates dating back to the time before and after Instagram’s acquisition. One email from 2012 mentioned that Instagram and another startup, Path, were developing networks that could be “very disruptive” to Facebook’s business. Zuckerberg explained that the email was part of a larger conversation about whether to buy companies to accelerate Facebook’s growth.

Despite acknowledging the contents of these documents, Zuckerberg downplayed their significance, suggesting that they didn’t fully capture the broader strategic reasons behind Meta’s purchases.

Later in the day, Meta’s attorney, Mark Hansen, began his questioning, emphasizing that Meta’s services are free and that the company faces significant competition. He argued that charging for services like Facebook would drive users away, as alternatives are readily available.

Zuckerberg echoed this point, asserting that Meta operates in a highly competitive environment. The trial is one of the first major tests of the FTC’s power under President Donald Trump to challenge the dominance of big tech companies.

The FTC’s lawsuit, filed in 2020, alleges that Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp were part of a strategy to crush competition and establish a monopoly in the social media market. The FTC has a narrow view of Meta’s competitors, focusing on platforms like Instagram and WhatsApp, while excluding major rivals like TikTok, YouTube, and Apple’s messaging service.

As the case moves forward, it could have significant consequences for the future of Meta and the broader tech industry. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who is overseeing the case, already denied Meta’s request for summary judgment, meaning the case will go to trial. The outcome could shape the future of tech acquisitions and antitrust regulations for years to come.

Source: AP News – Meta CEO Zuckerberg considered spinning off Instagram in 2018 over antitrust worries, email says

The post Zuckerberg Considered Spinning Off Instagram Over Antitrust Concerns appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Settlement Details

The agreement, which received preliminary approval last week from Judge Charles Adams of the Santa Clara County Superior Court, will benefit a class of at least 6,632 employees who worked at Google in California between February 15, 2018, and December 31, 2024. The judge described the settlement as fair, reasonable, and a positive outcome for the affected employees.

Despite agreeing to the settlement, Google denies any wrongdoing. Company spokesperson Courtenay Mencini reaffirmed Google’s commitment to fair pay, hiring, and career advancement, stating:
“We continue to disagree with the allegations that we treated anyone differently and remain committed to paying, hiring, and leveling all employees fairly.”

Claims Against Google

The lawsuit was led by Ana Cantu, a former Google employee who identifies as Mexican and racially Indigenous. Cantu filed the suit on behalf of Hispanic, Latinx, Indigenous, Native American, American Indian, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and Alaska Native employees.

According to the lawsuit:

• Cantu excelled in her role over seven years in Google’s People Operations and Cloud departments but was denied promotions and salary increases.
• White and Asian employees were allegedly placed in higher job levels for performing the same work.
• Employees who raised concerns reportedly faced withheld raises and promotions.
• The lawsuit argued that Google’s actions violated the California Equal Pay Act.

Cantu left Google in September 2021.

Exclusion of Black Employees from the Class

As part of the settlement, Black employees were excluded from the class after negotiations between Cantu’s lawyers and Google. The decision to remove Black employees from the class was a key factor in finalizing the settlement agreement.

Financial Breakdown of the Settlement

Of the $28 million settlement, net proceeds will total $20.4 million after deductions, which include:

• $7 million for legal fees and penalties related to California’s Private Attorneys General Act.
• Other administrative costs related to the case.

A final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for September 11.

Next Steps

As the court reviews the settlement for final approval, impacted Google employees in California will have the opportunity to claim their share of the settlement funds. Meanwhile, Google continues to defend its employment practices, despite agreeing to resolve the case.

Cantu’s legal team has yet to comment on the settlement as of Tuesday.

This case underscores the ongoing challenges surrounding pay equity and career advancement in major tech companies, raising broader questions about diversity, inclusion, and corporate accountability in Silicon Valley.

Source: CNN – Google agrees to pay $28 million to settle claims it favored white and Asian workers

The post Google Settles Discrimination Lawsuit for $28 Million appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

A year after its financial downfall, Prytania Media has filed a lawsuit against former investor NetEase, accusing it of defamation. The lawsuit, filed on January 3, 2025, seeks $400 million in damages and alleges that NetEase executives leaked confidential financial information in retaliation for the Strains’ attempts to help the company comply with U.S. regulations.

Prytania Media—founded by Jeff and Annie Strain and parent company of now-defunct studios Crop Circle Games, Possibility Space, and Fang & Claw—claims that NetEase’s actions contributed significantly to its collapse.

The suit alleges that NetEase mishandled sensitive financial information and leaked it to investors, painting a misleading picture of financial instability. The legal battle has already escalated, with NetEase filing a motion to transfer the case from a Louisiana civil court to federal court.

NetEase has denied the allegations, stating, “The claims by Prytania Media and its founders are without merit, and we will vigorously defend ourselves.” The company asserts that its business conduct remains above board and expects the legal process to clear its name.

According to the lawsuit, Prytania’s compliance efforts with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) regulations began soon after NetEase’s $20 million investment in Crop Circle Games. The investment granted NetEase a 20% stake in the studio. However, the lawsuit alleges that former NetEase executive and Crop Circle board member Han Chenglin resisted these efforts. The suit claims Han once emailed the Strains, suggesting they downplay NetEase’s involvement to avoid scrutiny from CFIUS.

While CFIUS reporting is not always mandatory, the lawsuit notes that it is “highly encouraged.”

In February 2024, Jeff Strain reportedly received a message from Transcend fund managing director Andrew Sheppard, informing him that accusations of fraud and fund misuse were being leveled against Crop Circle Games. Sheppard allegedly confirmed that NetEase was the source of these allegations.

The claims suggested that funds had been moved between subsidiaries without stakeholder approval and that financial reports were “potentially materially inaccurate.” This period coincided with Crop Circle Games beginning employee furloughs, further exacerbating its financial struggles. The lawsuit states that these allegations, which the Strains call “false and defamatory,” severely damaged the company’s credibility.

NetEase has responded by requesting the lawsuit be moved to federal court, arguing that the Strains improperly included Crop Circle Games as a defendant.

The timing is also notable: on the same day the lawsuit was filed (January 3, 2025), Jeff and Annie Strain resigned from the Crop Circle Games board. NetEase argues that the lawsuit lacks direct claims against Crop Circle, stating that the Strains’ only argument for implicating the studio is that board member Han Chenglin allegedly made defamatory remarks.

NetEase’s filing asserts, “Plaintiffs fail to allege any wrongful conduct by Crop Circle… Instead, they describe Crop Circle as a victim of the alleged defamation, making it indistinguishable from the plaintiffs themselves.”

This lawsuit represents the latest development in the Prytania Media saga since its April 2024 shutdown. If the case moves forward, it could uncover further details about the company’s internal financial struggles and the extent of NetEase’s involvement.

Game Developer has reached out to legal representatives for the Strains and will provide updates as they become available.

Source

The post Prytania Media Sues NetEase for $400M Over Alleged Defamation appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.