court

Auto Added by WPeMatico

BuzzFeed Unmasks Mastermind Who Urged Peter Thiel To Destroy Gawker

BuzzFeed Unmasks Mastermind Who Urged Peter Thiel To Destroy Gawker

One day in 2011 a 26-year-old approached Peter Thiel and said “Look, I think if we datamined Gawker’s history, we could find weak points that we could exploit in the court of law,” according to the author of a new book. An anonymous reader quotes BuzzFeed News:
Peter Thiel’s campaign to ruin Gawker Media was conceived and orchestrated by a previously unknown associate who served as a middleman, allowing the billionaire to conceal his involvement in the bankrolling of lawsuits that eventually drove the New York media outlet into bankruptcy. BuzzFeed News has confirmed the identity of that mystery conspirator, known in Thiel’s inner circle as “Mr. A,” with multiple sources who said that he provided the venture capitalist and Facebook board member with a blueprint to covertly attack Gawker in court. That man, an Oxford-educated Australian citizen named Aron D’Souza, has few known connections to Thiel, but approached him in 2011 with an elaborate proposal to use a legal strategy to wipe out the media organization. That plot ultimately succeeded… D’Souza was aware of Thiel’s public comments likening Valleywag to al-Qaeda, and presented a brazen idea: Pay someone or create a company to hire lawyers to go after Gawker.
TechCrunch reported earlier this month that Gawker’s old posts “will be captured and saved by the non-profit Freedom of the Press Foundation,” which was co-founded in 2012 by the late John Perry Barlow. But in addition, the Gawker estate “continues to threaten possible legal action against Thiel, and hopes to begin discovery to examine the billionaire’s motivations for secretly funding his legal war,” the article concludes. If a New York bankruptcy court approves, and if the process “unearths anything of meaning, the estate may have grounds to sue Thiel on the grounds of tortious interference, the use of legal means to purposely disrupt a business.

“To head that off, Thiel bid for the remaining Gawker assets — including the flapship domain Gawker.com, its archive, and outstanding legal claims, like those against himself — though Holden has made it known that he may block any sale to Thiel, no matter how much the venture capitalist is willing to bid.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Go to Source

Posted by amiller in Blog, court
Manafort Left an Incriminating Paper Trail Because He Couldn't Figure Out How to Convert PDFs to Word Files

Manafort Left an Incriminating Paper Trail Because He Couldn't Figure Out How to Convert PDFs to Word Files

There are two types of people in this world: those who know how to convert PDFs into Word documents and those who are indicted for money laundering. Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort is the second kind of person , Slate reports. From the report: Back in October, a grand jury indictment charged Manafort and his business associate Rick Gates with a variety of crimes, including conspiring “to defraud the United States.” On Thursday, special counsel Robert Mueller filed a new indictment against the pair, substantially expanding the charges. As one former federal prosecutor told the Washington Post, Manafort and Gates’ methods appear to have been “extensive and bold and greedy with a capital ‘G,’ but … not all that sophisticated.” One new detail from the indictment, however, points to just how unsophisticated Manafort seems to have been. Here’s the relevant passage from the indictment. I’ve bolded the most important bits: Manafort and Gates made numerous false and fraudulent representations to secure the loans. For example, Manafort provided the bank with doctored [profit and loss statements] for [Davis Manafort Inc.] for both 2015 and 2016, overstating its income by millions of dollars. The doctored 2015 DMI P&L submitted to Lender D was the same false statement previously submitted to Lender C, which overstated DMI’s income by more than $4 million. The doctored 2016 DMI P&L was inflated by Manafort by more than $3.5 million. To create the false 2016 P&L, on or about October 21, 2016, Manafort emailed Gates a .pdf version of the real 2016 DMI P&L, which showed a loss of more than $600,000. Gates converted that .pdf into a “Word” document so that it could be edited, which Gates sent back to Manafort. Manafort altered that “Word” document by adding more than $3.5 million in income. He then sent this falsified P&L to Gates and asked that the “Word” document be converted back to a .pdf, which Gates did and returned to Manafort. Manafort then sent the falsified 2016 DMI P&L .pdf to Lender D. So here’s the essence of what went wrong for Manafort and Gates, according to Mueller’s investigation: Manafort allegedly wanted to falsify his company’s income, but he couldn’t figure out how to edit the PDF.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Go to Source

Posted by amiller in Blog, court
Man, Seeking New Copy of Windows 7 After Forced Windows 10 Upgrade, Sues Microsoft

Man, Seeking New Copy of Windows 7 After Forced Windows 10 Upgrade, Sues Microsoft

Catalin Cimpanu, writing for BleepingComputer: An Albuquerque man has sued Microsoft and its CEO — Satya Nadella — seeking a fresh copy of Windows 7 or $600 million in damages. According to a civil complaint filed last week on February 14, Frank K. Dickman Jr. of Albuquerque, New Mexico, is suing Microsoft because of a botched forced Windows 10 upgrade. “I own a ASUS 54L laptop computer which has an OEM license for Windows Version 7,” Dickman’s claim reads. “The computer was upgraded to Windows Version 10 and became non-functional immediately. The upgrade deleted the cached, or backup, version of Windows 7.” Dickman says that the laptop’s original OEM vendor is “untrustworthy,” hence, he cannot obtain a legitimate copy of Windows 7 to downgrade his laptop.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Go to Source

Posted by amiller in Blog, court
Judge Won't Let FCC's Net Neutrality Repeal Stop Lawsuit Alleging Charter Throttled Netflix

Judge Won't Let FCC's Net Neutrality Repeal Stop Lawsuit Alleging Charter Throttled Netflix

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hollywood Reporter: [I]n the first significant decision referring to the repeal [of net neutrality] since FCC chairman Ajit Pai got his way, a New York judge on Friday ruled that the rescinding of net neutrality rules wasn’t relevant to an ongoing lawsuit against Charter Communications. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed the lawsuit almost exactly a year ago today. It’s alleged that Charter’s Spectrum-TWC service promised internet speeds it knew it couldn’t deliver and that Spectrum-TWC also misled subscribers by promising reliable access to Netflix, online content and online games. According to the complaint, the ISP intentionally failed to deliver reliable service in a bid to extract fees from backbone and content providers. When Netflix wouldn’t pay, this “resulted in subscribers getting poorer quality streams during the very hours when they were most likely to access Netflix,” and after Netflix agreed to pay demands, service “improved dramatically.” This arguably is the kind of thing that net neutrality was supposed to prevent. And Charter itself pointed to the net neutrality repeal in a bid to block Schneiderman’s claims that Charter had engaged in false advertising and deceptive business practices. New York Supreme Court Justice O. Peter Sherwood isn’t sold.

He writes in an opinion that the FCC’s order “which promulgates a new deregulatory policy effectively undoing network neutrality, includes no language purporting to create, extend or modify the preemptive reach of the Transparency Rule,” referring to how ISPs have to disclose “actual network performance.” And although Charter attempted to argue that the FCC clarified its intent to stop state and local governments from imposing disclosure obligations on broadband providers that were inconsistent with FCC’s rules, Sherwood notes other language from the “Restoring Internet Freedom Order” how states will “continue to play their vital role in protecting consumers from fraud, enforcing fair business practices… and generally responding to consumer inquiries and complaints.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Go to Source

Posted by amiller in Blog, court
Comcast Sues Vermont Over Conditions On New License Requiring the Company To Expand Its Network

Comcast Sues Vermont Over Conditions On New License Requiring the Company To Expand Its Network

An anonymous reader quotes a report from VTDigger: Cable television giant Comcast is suing the Vermont Public Utility Commission over the panel’s decision to require the company to expand its network and step up support for community access TV if it wants to continue doing business in Vermont. A key issue is the services Comcast must provide to local community access systems that carry municipal government and school board meetings and other local events. The 26 community access systems have been pushing — against resistance by Comcast — for high-definition video, greater ability to operate from remote locations, and inclusion in the interactive program guides that Comcast customers can use to decide what to watch. The PUC — formerly known as the Public Service Board — in January issued a new 11-year permit for Comcast to operate in Vermont. In July the panel rejected the company’s request to drop some of the conditions attached to the permit.

In a lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Burlington, Comcast argued that the PUC “exceeded its authority under federal and Vermont law” by imposing “numerous conditions on Comcast’s continued cable operations in the state that are arbitrary, unprecedented and will ultimately harm local cable subscribers by resulting in millions of dollars in increased cable costs.” It said the commission “did so despite overwhelming record evidence that Vermont cable subscribers do not want to incur any additional costs or fees for the kinds of conditions imposed” in the commission’s January order.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Go to Source

Posted by amiller in Blog, court
Maine Dairy Company Settles Lawsuit Over Oxford Comma

Maine Dairy Company Settles Lawsuit Over Oxford Comma

Daniel Victor reports via The New York Times: Ending a case that electrified punctuation pedants, grammar goons and comma connoisseurs, Oakhurst Dairy settled an overtime dispute with its drivers that hinged entirely on the lack of an Oxford comma in state law. The dairy company in Portland, Me., agreed to pay $5 million to the drivers (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source), according to court documents filed on Thursday. The relatively small-scale dispute gained international notoriety last year when the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that the missing comma created enough uncertainty to side with the drivers, granting those who love the Oxford comma a chance to run a victory lap across the internet. But the resolution means there will be no ruling from the land’s highest courts on whether the Oxford comma — the often-skipped second comma in a series like “A, B, and C” — is an unnecessary nuisance or a sacred defender of clarity, as its fans and detractors endlessly debate.

The case began in 2014, when three truck drivers sued the dairy for what they said was four years’ worth of overtime pay they had been denied. Maine law requires time-and-a-half pay for each hour worked after 40 hours, but it carved out exemptions for: The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of: agricultural produce; meat and fish products; and perishable foods. What followed the last comma in the first sentence was the crux of the matter: “packing for shipment or distribution of.” The court ruled that it was not clear whether the law exempted the distribution of the three categories that followed, or if it exempted packing for the shipment or distribution of them. Had there been a comma after “shipment,” the meaning would have been clear.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Go to Source

Posted by amiller in Blog, court
What We Learned From Day 1 of the Uber and Alphabet Trial

What We Learned From Day 1 of the Uber and Alphabet Trial

Recode highlights the presentations each side gave on Day 1 in the Waymo v. Uber trial: Alphabet’s self-driving arm, Waymo, and Uber gave their opening statements in front of a jury on Monday, commencing the courtroom phase of what has already been a messy legal battle. The day was entirely about opening arguments, but both Uber’s and Waymo’s strategy centers largely on one thing: Our opponent stooped to the levels they did because they were afraid we would beat them. Uber claims Waymo’s lawsuit is baseless and is only suing because they were upset they were losing top talent at a time when competing companies began gaining ground. Waymo claims Uber was worried about getting beat in the self-driving car race so it stole Waymo’s trade secrets when it hired one of its former executives. If Uber loses the case, it could have to pay out millions of dollars in damages and potentially stall its self-driving efforts. For Waymo, losing the case will have largely reputational risks. Alphabet rarely, if ever, sues over any issues with people or other companies, which means this litigation carries a lot of weight. Uber as the defense doesn’t have to prove anything, just cast enough doubt on Waymo’s claims. Waymo has to prove both motivation on the part of Uber to intentionally steal trade secrets, and that the information Uber stole was proprietary. “That was quite the story,” Uber attorney Bill Carmody said in his opening statement. “I want to tell you right up front. It didn’t happen, there’s no conspiracy, there’s no cheating, period end of story.” It’ll be up to the jury to determine if Waymo has presented enough evidence to prove that not only did Uber steal trade secrets, that the company was using them in their current self-driving technology. Painting Waymo as a company that was growing increasingly concerned over losing top engineers to Uber — in addition to harboring personal grievances against Levandowski — could help the ride-hail company convince the jury that Waymo had ulterior motives with its lawsuit. Recode has a detailed list in their report of all the evidence Uber and Waymo presented against one another, as well as their strategies going forward.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Go to Source

Posted by amiller in Blog, court
University of California IT Workers Replaced By Offshore Outsourcing Firm To File Discrimination Lawsuit

University of California IT Workers Replaced By Offshore Outsourcing Firm To File Discrimination Lawsuit

The IT workers from the University of California’s San Francisco campus who were replaced by an offshore outsourcing firm late last year intend to file a lawsuit challenging their dismissal. “It will allege that the tech workers at the university’s San Francisco campus were victims of age and national origin discrimination,” reports Computerworld. From the report: The IT employees lost their jobs in February after the university hired India-based IT services firm HCL. Approximately 50 full-time university employees lost their jobs, but another 30 contractor positions were cut as well. “To take a workforce that is overwhelmingly over the age of 40 and replace them with folks who are mainly in their 20s — early 20s, in fact — we think is age discrimination,” said the IT employees’ attorney, Randall Strauss, of Gwilliam Ivary Chiosso Cavalli & Brewer. The national origin discrimination claim is the result of taking a workforce “that reflects the diversity of California” and is summarily let go and is “replaced with people who come from one particular part of the world,” said Strauss. The lawsuit will be filed in Alameda County Superior Court.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Go to Source

Posted by amiller in Blog, court
Mylan's Epic EpiPen Price Hike Wasn't About Greed — It's Worse, Lawsuit Claims

Mylan's Epic EpiPen Price Hike Wasn't About Greed — It's Worse, Lawsuit Claims

Mylan engaged in a campaign to squash a rival to its EpiPen allergy treatment and artificially inflate the price of the drug to maintain a market monopoly, French drugmaker Sanofi said in a lawsuit. From a report: With the lofty prices and near-monopoly over the market, Mylan could dangle deep discounts to drug suppliers — with the condition that they turn their backs on Sanofi’s Auvi-Q — the lawsuit alleges. Suppliers wouldn’t dare ditch EpiPens, the most popular auto-injector. And with the high prices, the rebates wouldn’t put a dent in Mylan’s hefty profits, Sanofi speculates. Coupled with a smear campaign and other underhanded practices, Mylan effectively pushed Sanofi out of the US epinephrine auto-injector market, Sanofi alleges. The lawsuit, filed Monday in a federal court in New Jersey, seeks damages under US Antitrust laws.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Go to Source

Posted by amiller in Blog, court
Uber Must Provide Waymo With Data Regarding Its Otto Acquisition, Rules Court

Uber Must Provide Waymo With Data Regarding Its Otto Acquisition, Rules Court

An appeals court today has ruled that Anthony Levandowski, the Uber executive accused of taking documents from Google’s Waymo, can’t use the Fifth Amendment to prevent Uber from turning over documents in the case. “The court has now directed Uber to provide data associated with its Otto acquisition to Waymo,” reports The Tech Portal. From the report: Following the case, Levandowski invoked the fifth amendment, so as to prevent any other information which could implicate him from coming to the surface. Meanwhile, Waymo has been claiming that Levandowski and Uber signed an agreement with each other just a few days after the former quit his job at Google. The company has also asked Uber to provide it with a log containing details of the cab aggregator’s legal involvement with Levandowski. Levandowski has been opposing the motion, stating that it would violate his fifth amendment. However, a new court ruling has quashed these hopes. With this ruling, Waymo can technically also request Uber for a copy of the due diligence report. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said: “Mr. Levandowski argues that he is entitled to relief under the Fifth Amendment because production of the unredacted privilege log could potentially incriminate him. We are not persuaded that the district court erred in its ruling requiring defendants to produce an unredacted privilege log.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Go to Source

Posted by amiller in Blog, court