A Texas jury ruled that Intel may hold a license to patents owned by VLSI Technology through its agreement with Finjan Inc., both controlled by Fortress Investment Group -- potentially nullifying over $3 billion in previous patent infringement verdicts against Intel. Reuters reports: VLSI has sued Intel in multiple U.S. courts for allegedly infringing several patents covering semiconductor technology. A jury in Waco, Texas awarded VLSI $2.18 billion in their first trial in 2021, which a U.S. appeals court has since overturned and sent back for new proceedings.

An Austin, Texas jury determined that VLSI was entitled to nearly $949 million from Intel in a separate patent infringement trial in 2022. Intel has argued in that case that the verdicts should be thrown out based on a 2012 agreement that gave it a license to patents owned by Finjan and other companies "under common control" with it. U.S. District Judge Alan Albright held the latest jury trial in Austin to determine whether Finjan and VLSI were under the "common control" of Fortress. VLSI said it was not subject to the Finjan agreement, and that the company did not even exist until four years after it was signed.

SourceHut, an open-source-friendly git-hosting service, says web crawlers for AI companies are slowing down services through their excessive demands for data. From a report: "SourceHut continues to face disruptions due to aggressive LLM crawlers," the biz reported Monday on its status page. "We are continuously working to deploy mitigations. We have deployed a number of mitigations which are keeping the problem contained for now. However, some of our mitigations may impact end-users."

SourceHut said it had deployed Nepenthes, a tar pit to catch web crawlers that scrape data primarily for training large language models, and noted that doing so might degrade access to some web pages for users. "We have unilaterally blocked several cloud providers, including GCP [Google Cloud] and [Microsoft] Azure, for the high volumes of bot traffic originating from their networks," the biz said, advising administrators of services that integrate with SourceHut to get in touch to arrange an exception to the blocking.

After Meta convinced an arbitrator to temporarily prevent a whistleblower from promoting their book about the company (titled: Careless People), the book climbed to the top of Amazon's best-seller list. And the book's publisher Macmillan released a defiant statement that "The arbitration order has no impact on Macmillan... We will absolutely continue to support and promote it." (They added that they were "appalled by Meta's tactics to silence our author through the use of a non-disparagement clause in a severance agreement.")

Saturday the controversy was even covered by Rolling Stone: [Whistleblower Sarah] Wynn-Williams is a diplomat, policy expert, and international lawyer, with previous roles including serving as the Chief Negotiator for the United Nations on biosafety liability, according to her bio on the World Economic Forum...

Since the book's announcement, Meta has forcefully responded to the book's allegations in a statement... "Eight years ago, Sarah Wynn-Williams was fired for poor performance and toxic behavior, and an investigation at the time determined she made misleading and unfounded allegations of harassment. Since then, she has been paid by anti-Facebook activists and this is simply a continuation of that work. Whistleblower status protects communications to the government, not disgruntled activists trying to sell books."
But the negative coverage continues, with the Observer Sunday highlighting it as their Book of the Week. "This account of working life at Mark Zuckerberg's tech giant organisation describes a 'diabolical cult' able to swing elections and profit at the expense of the world's vulnerable..."

Though ironically Wynn-Williams started their career with optimism about Facebook's role in the app internet.org. . "Upon witnessing how the nascent Facebook kept Kiwis connected in the aftermath of the 2011 Christchurch earthquake, she believed that Mark Zuckerberg's company could make a difference — but in a good way — to social bonds, and that she could be part of that utopian project...

What internet.org involves for countries that adopt it is a Facebook-controlled monopoly of access to the internet, whereby to get online at all you have to log in to a Facebook account. When the scales fall from Wynn-Williams's eyes she realises there is nothing morally worthwhile in Zuckerberg's initiative, nothing empowering to the most deprived of global citizens, but rather his tool involves "delivering a crap version of the internet to two-thirds of the world". But Facebook's impact in the developing world proves worse than crap. In Myanmar, as Wynn-Williams recounts at the end of the book, Facebook facilitated the military junta to post hate speech, thereby fomenting sexual violence and attempted genocide of the country's Muslim minority. "Myanmar," she writes with a lapsed believer's rue, "would have been a better place if Facebook had not arrived." And what is true of Myanmar, you can't help but reflect, applies globally...
"Myanmar is where Wynn-Williams thinks the 'carelessness' of Facebook is most egregious," writes the Sunday Times: In 2018, UN human rights experts said Facebook had helped spread hate speech against Rohingya Muslims, about 25,000 of whom were slaughtered by the Burmese military and nationalists. Facebook is so ubiquitous in Myanmar, Wynn-Williams points out, that people think it is the entire internet. "It's no surprise that the worst outcome happened in the place that had the most extreme take-up of Facebook." Meta admits it was "too slow to act" on abuse in its Myanmar services....

After Wynn-Williams left Facebook, she worked on an international AI initiative, and says she wants the world to learn from the mistakes we made with social media, so that we fare better in the next technological revolution. "AI is being integrated into weapons," she explains. "We can't just blindly wander into this next era. You think social media has turned out with some issues? This is on another level."

Microsoft has spotted a malvertising campaign that downloaded nastyware hosted on GitHub and exposed nearly a million devices to information thieves. From a report: Discovered by Microsoft Threat Intelligence late last year, the campaign saw pirate vid-streaming websites embed malvertising redirectors to generate pay-per-view or pay-per-click revenue from malvertising platforms. "These redirectors subsequently routed traffic through one or two additional malicious redirectors, ultimately leading to another website, such as a malware or tech support scam website, which then redirected to GitHub" according to Microsoft's threat research team.

GitHub hosted a first-stage payload that installed code that dropped two other payloads. One gathered system configuration info such as data on memory size, graphics capabilities, screen resolution, the operating system present, and user paths. Third-stage payloads varied but most "conducted additional malicious activities such as command and control (C2) to download additional files and to exfiltrate data, as well as defense evasion techniques."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Wired: Thomson Reuters has won the first major AI copyright case in the United States. In 2020, the media and technology conglomerate filed an unprecedentedAI copyright lawsuit against the legal AI startup Ross Intelligence. In the complaint, Thomson Reuters claimed the AI firm reproduced materials from its legal research firm Westlaw. Today, a judge ruled (PDF) in Thomson Reuters' favor, finding that the company's copyright was indeed infringed by Ross Intelligence's actions. "None of Ross's possible defenses holds water. I reject them all," wrote US District Court of Delaware judge Stephanos Bibas, in a summary judgement. [...] Notably, Judge Bibas ruled in Thomson Reuters' favor on the question of fair use.

The fair use doctrine is a key component of how AI companies are seeking to defend themselves against claims that they used copyrighted materials illegally. The idea underpinning fair use is that sometimes it's legally permissible to use copyrighted works without permission -- for example, to create parody works, or in noncommercial research or news production. When determining whether fair use applies, courts use a four-factor test, looking at the reason behind the work, the nature of the work (whether it's poetry, nonfiction, private letters, et cetera), the amount of copyrighted work used, and how the use impacts the market value of the original. Thomson Reuters prevailed on two of the four factors, but Bibas described the fourth as the most important, and ruled that Ross "meant to compete with Westlaw by developing a market substitute." "If this decision is followed elsewhere, it's really bad for the generative AI companies," says James Grimmelmann, Cornell University professor of digital and internet law.

Chris Mammen, a partner at Womble Bond Dickinson who focuses on intellectual property law, adds: "It puts a finger on the scale towards holding that fair use doesn't apply."

After finalizing loan terms with the IMF, El Salvador's Legislative Assembly approved changes to the country's Bitcoin Law last week by a 55-2 vote, "effectively removing bitcoin's status as legal currency," reports Reason. Under the new rules, bitcoin is no longer considered "currency," though it remains "legal tender." Another change makes using bitcoin entirely voluntary. (Previously, the law mandated that businesses accept bitcoin for any goods or services they provided.) Additionally, bitcoin can no longer be used to pay taxes or settle government debts. The government is also stepping back from its involvement in Chivo Wallet, the state-backed digital wallet...

The reforms come as part of a broader financial agreement between Bukele and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). One of the conditions for a proposed $1.4 billion Extended Fund Facility loan was that El Salvador mitigate "potential risks of the Bitcoin project." The IMF has been critical of the country's crypto policies since Bukele made bitcoin legal tender in 2021. "There are large risks associated with using Bitcoin as legal tender, especially given the high volatility of its price. We don't recommend it," the organization said in 2022.

Despite these changes, the administration insists it remains committed to bitcoin. Milena Mayorga, El Salvador's ambassador to the United States, has said that El Salvador is still a "bitcoin country" and will maintain — and even expand — its bitcoin reserves. "You have to adapt to the current situation and this is the decision that was taken in the Assembly, but that does not mean that the country will stop having a bitcoin reserve," she explained.
Government data suggests El Salvador now holds 6,072 Bitcoin worth $586,888,000.

The rumors are true: OpenAI today launched Operator, an AI agent capable of performing web-based tasks through its own browser, as a research preview for U.S. subscribers of its $200 monthly ChatGPT Pro tier. The agent uses GPT-4's vision capabilities and reinforcement learning to interact with websites through mouse and keyboard actions without requiring API integration, OpenAI said in a blog post.

Operator can self-correct and defer to users for sensitive information though there are some limitations with complex interfaces. OpenAI said it's partnering with DoorDash, Instacart, OpenTable and others to develop real-world applications, with plans to expand access to Plus, Team and Enterprise users.

Check out our list of the best AI web browsing agents.

LinkedIn has been sued by Premium customers alleging the platform disclosed private messages to third parties without consent to train generative AI models. The lawsuit seeks damages for breach of contract and privacy violations, accusing LinkedIn of attempting to minimize scrutiny over its actions. Reuters reports: According to a proposed class action filed on Tuesday night on behalf of millions of LinkedIn Premium customers, LinkedIn quietly introduced a privacy setting last August that let users enable or disable the sharing of their personal data. Customers said LinkedIn then discreetly updated its privacy policy on Sept. 18 to say data could be used to train AI models, and in a "frequently asked questions" hyperlink said opting out "does not affect training that has already taken place."

This attempt to "cover its tracks" suggests LinkedIn was fully aware it violated customers' privacy and its promise to use personal data only to support and improve its platform, in order to minimize public scrutiny and legal fallout, the complaint said. The lawsuit was filed in the San Jose, California, federal court on behalf of LinkedIn Premium customers who sent or received InMail messages, and whose private information was disclosed to third parties for AI training before Sept. 18. It seeks unspecified damages for breach of contract and violations of California's unfair competition law, and $1,000 per person for violations of the federal Stored Communications Act. LinkedIn said in a statement: "These are false claims with no merit."