SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Microsoft said Monday it had used a court order to take control of computers that were installing ransomware and other malicious software on local government networks and threatening to disrupt the November election.
The maker of the Windows operating system said it seized a series of internet protocol addresses hosted by U.S. companies that had been directing activity on computers infected with Trickbot, one of the most common pieces of malware in the world.
More than a million computers have been infected with Trickbot, and the operators use the software to install more pernicious programs, including ransomware, for both criminal groups and national governments that pay for the access, researchers said.
Trickbot has shown up in a number of public governments, which could be hurt worse if the operators encrypt files or install programs that interfere with voter registration records or the display and public reporting
A federal judge denied a request from Epic Games to force Apple to reinstate Epic’s Fortnite game on the App Store while awaiting the results of an antitrust lawsuit.
U.S. District Court judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers also ruled in favor of Epic, permanently granting a prior temporary order that stops Apple from retaliating against Epic by removing support for Epic’s Unreal Engine.
The antitrust lawsuit began August 13 when Epic announced a discount policy and direct payment mechanism for Fortnite that Apple and Google said violated their respective terms of service. Epic CEO Tim Sweeney has long argued that the 30% commissions the big companies take of every game transaction is unfair and that Epic should be able to directly sell its in-app goods to players for lower prices. Epic only charges 12% as a fee for developers in its own store.
Google v. Oracle, a decade-long war over the future of software, neared its end in the Supreme Court this week as a battle of metaphors. Over the course of two hours, justices and attorneys compared Java — the coding language that Oracle acquired in 2010 — to a restaurant menu, a hit song, a football team, an accounting system, the instructions for finding a blend of spices in a grocery store, a safecracking manual, and the QWERTY keyboard layout.
The reliance on familiar analogies wasn’t necessarily surprising. Google v. Oracle covers a complex question: what elements of computer code can be copyrighted, and if that code is covered by copyright, when it’s still legal to use pieces of it under fair use. The argument dates back a
A Paris appeals court on Thursday upheld an order for Google to negotiate with media groups in a long-running dispute about revenues from online news.
The ruling came as the US internet giant announced it was close to a deal on compensating French media groups for news shown in Google search results.
Such a deal would represent a climbdown by Google, which has so far refused to comply with new EU rules giving more copyright protection to media firms for news displayed on search engines and social media.
France was the first European country to ratify the law, which could act as a lifeline to newspaper groups grappling with shrinking print sales.
In April, the French competition authority ordered Google to negotiate with the press in good faith — a ruling it appealed, accusing the authority of overstepping its jurisdiction.
The appeals court sided with the competition authority.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday considered a multibillion-dollar copyright battle between
Google, with justices appearing to look for a resolution that would retain legal protections for software code without throwing the tech industry into disarray.
During about 90 minutes of oral arguments, the justices considered issues related to how software developers use application-program interfaces, or APIs—prewritten packages of computer code that allow programs, websites or apps to talk to one another.
Oracle has accused Google of illegally copying more than 11,000 lines of Java API code to develop its Android operating system, which runs more than two billion mobile devices world-wide.
Google’s unlicensed use of that code is no better than “if someone wanted to write a book that reproduced the 11,000 best lines of ‘Seinfeld’,” Oracle lawyer Joshua Rosenkranz told the court.
In a landmark moment in the history of the U.S. software industry, the Supreme Court held a hearing today on a long-running legal dispute that pits tech giants Oracle and Google against one another.
The case centers around whether or not a key foundation of today’s increasingly software-driven economy—blocks of code known as “application programming interfaces”, or APIs—is subject to copyright protection. Oracle claims Google infringed copyright when it used elements of the Oracle-owned Java programming language to build its Android operating system, which now powers billions of smartphones and other devices. Google denies the claim, which involves about 11,500 lines of code out of millions of new lines that it wrote to create Android. The two companies have been battling one another in the courts for over a decade, with Oracle demanding $9 billion in compensation.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court considered on Wednesday whether Google should have to pay Oracle billions of dollars in a long-running lawsuit over software used on many of the world’s smartphones, wrestling during a lively argument with the potentially enormous implications of what has been called the copyright case of the decade.
Several justices noted how consequential a decision in the case could be. “I’m concerned,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. told a lawyer for Google, “that, under your argument, all computer code is at risk of losing protection.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted the opposite concern. “We’re told that if we agree with Oracle, we will ruin our tech industry in the United States,” he said.
The justices heard the argument by telephone, and they used a series of low-tech analogies to test the two sides’ arguments. Their questions included ones on safecracking, football playbooks, typewriter keyboards,
Oral arguments were held before the Supreme Court over the copyright case between Oracle and Google
Google stands to pay Oracle nearly $9 billion for 11,000 lines of code in Android software if the court rules in Oracle’s favor
Big tech is throwing in behind Google while media and entertainment companies and the Trump administration is backing Oracle
The Supreme Court faces upending the tech industry by determining whether Google stole code from Oracle in building its Android operating system in a case that could redefine the meaning of the fair use doctrine. All eight justices on Wednesday grilled the tech giants’ legal teams as well the U.S. deputy solicitor general in a potentially far-reaching case.
Google said its incorporation of 11,500 lines of Oracle Java code constitutes fair use, while Oracle argued the action violated its ownership rights. The lawsuit has been working its way through the
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court wrestled at length Wednesday over a $9 billion copyright battle between tech giants Google and Oracle that has gone on for a decade.
But after an extended, 90-minute oral argument conducted by telephone in deference to the COVID-19 pandemic, several justices indicated their solution might be to send the case back to a lower court for even more review.
A majority of justices appeared to doubt that Google had the right to copy some of Oracle’s Java programming language to create Android, the world’s most popular mobile software. But they worried that a ruling against Google could set back software innovation by requiring costly duplication.
US Supreme Court justices peppered lawyers for Google and Oracle with questions on computer code and copyright Wednesday in a court clash which could have major ramifications for the technology sector and digital innovation.
Oral arguments were heard in a decade-old legal battle between the two Silicon Valley giants stemming from Oracle’s claim that Google illegally copied parts of the Java programming language to develop its Android mobile operating system.
The case revolves around whether copyright protection should be extended to application software interfaces (APIs), or the bit of code that allow programs and apps to work together, and if so, whether Google’s implementation was a “fair use” of copyrighted material.
In the court session held remotely, Google attorney Thomas Goldstein argued that the practice of reusing software interfaces “is critical to modern interoperable computer software” and allows developers “to write millions of creative applications that are used by more