Regulators Shift into Gear to Investigate an AI Tie Up
January 19, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Solicitors, lawyers, and avocats want to mark the anniversary of the AI big bang. About one year ago, Microsoft pushed Google into hitting its Code Red button. Investment firms, developers, and wild-eyed entrepreneurs knew smart software was the real deal, not a digital file of a cartoon like that NFT baloney. In the last 12 months, AI went from jargon and eliciting yawns to the treasure map to the fabled city of El Dorado (even if it was a suburb of Grants, New Mexico. Google got the message quickly. The lawyers. Well, not too quickly.
Regulators look through the technological pile of 2023 gadgets. Despite being last year’s big thing, the law makers and justice deciders move into action mode. Exciting. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough.
“EU Joins UK in Scrutinizing OpenAI’s Relationship with Microsoft” documents what happens when lawyers — after decades of inaction — wake to do something constructive. Social media gutted the fabric of many cultural norms. AI isn’t going to be given a 20 year free pass. No way.
The write up reports:
Antitrust regulators in the EU have joined their British counterparts in scrutinizing Microsoft’s alliance with OpenAI.
What will happen now? Here’s my short list of actions:
- Legal eagles on both sides of the Atlantic will begin grooming their feathers in order to be selected to deal with the assorted forms, filings, hearings, and advisory meetings. Some of the lawyers will call Ferrari to make sure they are eligible to buy a supercar; others may cast an eye on an impounded oligarch-linked yacht. Yep, big bucks ahead.
- Microsoft and OpenAI will let loose an platoon of humanoid art history and business administration majors. These professionals will create a wide range of informative explainers. Smart software will be pressed into duty, and I anticipate some smart automation to provide Teflon the the flow of digital documentation.
- Firms — possibly some based in the EU and a few bold souls in the US — will present information making clear that competition is a good thing. Governments must regulate smart software
- Entities hostile to the EU and the US will also output information or disinformation. Which is what depends on one’s perspective.
In short, 2024 will be an interesting year because one of the major threat to the Google could be converted to the digital equivalent of a eunuch in an Assyrian ruler’s court. What will this mean? Google wins. Unanticipated consequence? Absolutely.
Stephen E Arnold, January 19, 2024
AI Inventors Barred from Patents. For Now
January 17, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
For anyone wondering whether an AI system can be officially recognized as a patent inventor, the answer in two countries is no. Or at least not yet. We learn from The Fashion Law, “UK Supreme Court Says AI Cannot Be Patent Inventor.” Inventor Stephen Thaler pursued two patents on behalf of DABUS, his AI system. After the UK’s Intellectual Property Office, High Court, and the Court of Appeal all rejected the applications, the intrepid algorithm advocate appealed to the highest court in that land. The article reveals:
“In the December 20 decision, which was authored by Judge David Kitchin, the Supreme Court confirmed that as a matter of law, under the Patents Act, an inventor must be a natural person, and that DABUS does not meet this requirement. Against that background, the court determined that Thaler could not apply for and/or obtain a patent on behalf of DABUS.”
The court also specified the patent applications now stand as “withdrawn.” Thaler also tried his luck in the US legal system but met with a similar result. So is it the end of the line for DABUS’s inventor ambitions? Not necessarily:
“In the court’s determination, Judge Kitchin stated that Thaler’s appeal is ‘not concerned with the broader question whether technical advances generated by machines acting autonomously and powered by AI should be patentable, nor is it concerned with the question whether the meaning of the term ‘inventor’ ought to be expanded … to include machines powered by AI ….’”
So the legislature may yet allow AIs into the patent application queues. Will being a “natural person” soon become unnecessary to apply for a patent? If so, will patent offices increase their reliance on algorithms to handle the increased caseload? Then machines would grant patents to machines. Would natural people even be necessary anymore? Once a techno feudalist with truckloads of cash and flocks of legal eagles pulls up to a hearing, rules can become — how shall I say it? — malleable.
Cynthia Murrell, January 17, 2024
eBay: Still Innovating and Serving Customers with Great Ideas
January 16, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I noted “eBay to Pay $3 Million after Couple Became the Target of Harassment, Stalking.” If true, the “real” news report is quite interesting. The CBS professionals report:
“eBay engaged in absolutely horrific, criminal conduct. The company’s employees and contractors involved in this campaign put the victims through pure hell, in a petrifying campaign aimed at silencing their reporting and protecting the eBay brand,” Levy [a US attorney] said. “We left no stone unturned in our mission to hold accountable every individual who turned the victims’ world upside-down through a never-ending nightmare of menacing and criminal acts.”
MSFT Copilot could not render Munsters and one of their progeny opening a box. But the image is “good enough,” which is the modern way to define excellence. Well done, MSFT.
In what could have been a skit in the now-defunct “The Munsters”, allegedly some eBay professionals packed up “live spiders, cockroaches, a funeral wreath and a bloody pig mask.” The box was shipped to a couple of people who posted about the outstanding online flea market eBay on social media. A letter, coffee, or Zoom were not sufficient for the exceptional eBay executives. Why Zoom when one can bundle up some cockroaches and put them in a box? Go with the insects, right?
I noted this statement in the “real” news story:
seven people who worked for eBay’s Safety and Security unit, including two former cops and a former nanny, all pleaded guilty to stalking or cyberstalking charges.
Those posts were powerful indeed. I wonder if eBay considered hiring the people to whom the Munster fodder was sent. Individuals with excellent writing skills and the agility to evoke strong emotions are in demand in some companies.
A civil trial is scheduled for March 2025. The story has legs, maybe eight of them just like the allegedly alive spiders in the eBay gift box. Outstanding management decision making appears to characterize the eBay organization.
Stephen E Arnold, January 16, 2024
Google, There Goes Two Percent of 2022 Revenues. How Will the Company Survive?
January 1, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
True or false: Google owes $5 billion US. I am not sure, but the headline in Metro makes the number a semi-factoid. So let’s see what could force Googzilla to transfer the equivalent of less than two percent of Google’s alleged 2022 revenues. Wow. That will be painful for the online advertising giant. Well, fire some staff; raise ad rates; and boost the cost of YouTube subscriptions. Will the GOOG survive? I think so.
An executive ponders a court order to pay the equivalent of two percent of 2022 revenues for unproven alleged improper behavior. But the court order says, “Have a nice day.” I assume the court is sincere. Thanks, MSFT Copilot Bing thing. Good enough.
“Google Settles $5,000,000,000 Claim over Searches for Intimate and Embarrassing Things” reports:
Google has agreed to settle a US lawsuit claiming it secretly tracked millions of people who thought they were browsing privately through its Incognito Mode between 2016 and 2020. The claim was seeking at least $5 billion in damages, including at least $5,000 for each user affected. Ironically, the terms of the settlement have not been disclosed, but a formal agreement will be submitted to the court by February 24.
My thought is that Google’s legal eagles will not be partying on New Year’s Eve. These fine professionals will be huddling over their laptops, scrolling for fee legal databases, and using Zoom (the Google video service is a bit of a hassle) to discuss ways to [a] delay, [b] deflect, [c] deny, and [d] dodge the obviously [a] fallacious, [b] foul, [c] false, [d] flimsy, and [e] flawed claims that Google did anything improper.
Hey, incognito means what Google says it means, just like the “unlimited” data claims from wireless providers. Let’s not get hung up on details. Just ask the US regulatory authorities.
For you and me, we need to read Google’s terms of service, check our computing device’s security settings, and continue to live in a Cloud of Unknowing. The allegations that Google mapping vehicles did Wi-Fi sniffing? Hey, these assertions are [a] fallacious, [b] foul, [c] false, [d] flimsy, and [e] flawed . Tracking users. Op cit, gentle reader.
Never has a commercial enterprise been subjected to so many [a] unwarranted, [b] unprovable, [c] unacceptable, and [d] unnecessary assertions. Here’s my take: [a] The Google is innocent; [b] the GOOG is misunderstood, [c] Googzilla is a victim. I ticked a, b, and c.
Stephen E Arnold, January 1, 2024
The American Way: Loose the Legal Eagles! AI, Gray Lady, AI.
December 29, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
With the demands of the holidays, I have been remiss in commenting upon the festering legal sores plaguing the “real” news outfits. Advertising is tough to sell. Readers want some stories, not every story. Subscribers churn. The dead tree version of “real” news turn yellow in the windows of the shrinking number of bodegas, delis, and coffee shops interested in losing floor space to “real” news displays.
A youthful senior manager enters Dante’s fifth circle of Hades, the Flaming Legal Eagles Nest. Beelzebub wishes the “real” news professional good luck. Thanks, MSFT Copilot, I encountered no warnings when I used the word “Dante.” Good enough.
Google may be coming out of the dog training school with some slightly improved behavior. The leash does not connect to a shock collar, but maybe the courts will provide curtail some of the firm’s more interesting behaviors. The Zuckbook and X.com are news shy. But the smart software outfits are ripping the heart out of “real” news. That hurts, and someone is going to pay.
Enter the legal eagles. The target is AI or smart software companies. The legal eagles says, “AI, gray lady, AI.”
How do I know? Navigate to “New York Times Sues OpenAI, Microsoft over Millions of Articles Used to Train ChatGPT.” The write up reports:
The New York Times has sued Microsoft and OpenAI, claiming the duo infringed the newspaper’s copyright by using its articles without permission to build ChatGPT and similar models. It is the first major American media outfit to drag the tech pair to court over the use of stories in training data.
The article points out:
However, to drive traffic to its site, the NYT also permits search engines to access and index its content. "Inherent in this value exchange is the idea that the search engines will direct users to The Times’s own websites and mobile applications, rather than exploit The Times’s content to keep users within their own search ecosystem." The Times added it has never permitted anyone – including Microsoft and OpenAI – to use its content for generative AI purposes. And therein lies the rub. According to the paper, it contacted Microsoft and OpenAI in April 2023 to deal with the issue amicably. It stated bluntly: "These efforts have not produced a resolution."
I think this means that the NYT used online search services to generate visibility, access, and revenue. However, it did not expect, understand, or consider that when a system indexes content, that content is used for other search services. Am I right? A doorway works two ways. The NYT wants it to work one way only. I may be off base, but the NYT is aggrieved because it did not understand the direction of AI research which has been chugging along for 50 years.
What do smart systems require? Information. Where do companies get content? From online sources accessible via a crawler. How long has this practice been chugging along? The early 1990s, even earlier if one considers text and command line only systems. Plus the NYT tried its own online service and failed. Then it hooked up with LexisNexis, only to pull out of the deal because the “real” news was worth more than LexisNexis would pay. Then the NYT spun up its own indexing service. Next the NYT dabbled in another online service. Plus the outfit acquired About.com. (Where did those writers get that content?” I know the answer, but does the Gray Lady remember?)
Now with the success of another generation of software which the Gray Lady overlooked, did not understand, or blew off because it was dealing with high school management methods in its newsroom — now the Gray Lady has let loose the legal eagles.
What do I make of the NYT and online? Here are the conclusions I reached working on the Business Dateline database and then as an advisor to one of the NYT’s efforts to distribute the “real” news to hotels and steam ships via facsimile:
- Newspapers are not very good at software. Hey, those Linotype machines were killers, but the XyWrite software and subsequent online efforts have demonstrated remarkable ways to spend money and progress slowly.
- The smart software crowd is not in touch with the thought processes of those in senior management positions in publishing. When the groups try to find common ground, arguments over who pays for lunch are more common than a deal.
- Legal disputes are expensive. Many of those engaged reach some type of deal before letting a judge or a jury decide which side is the winner. Perhaps the NYT is confident that a jury of its peers will find the evil AI outfits guilty of a range of heinous crimes. But maybe not? Is the NYT a risk taker? Who knows. But the NYT will pay some hefty legal bills as it rushes to do battle.
Net net: I find the NYT’s efforts following a basic game plan. Ask for money. Learn that the money offered is less than the value the NYT slaps on its “real” news. The smart software outfit does what it has been doing. The NYT takes legal action. The lawyer engage. As the fees stack up, the idea that a deal is needed makes sense.
The NYT will do a deal, declare victory, and go back to creating “real” news. Sigh. Why? Microsoft has more money and can tie up the matter in court until Hell freezes over in my opinion. If the Gray Lady prevails, chalk up a win. But the losers can just up their cash offer, and the Gray Lady will smile a happy smile.
Stephen E Arnold, December 29, 2023
A Grade School Food Fight Could Escalate: Apples Could Become Apple Sauce
December 25, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
A squabble is blowing up into a court fight. “Beeper vs Apple Battle Intensifies: Lawmakers Demand DOJ Investigation” reports:
US senators have urged the DOJ to probe Apple’s alleged anti-competitive conduct against Beeper.
Apple killed a messaging service in the name of protecting apple pie, mom, love, truth, justice, and the American way. Ooops, sorry. That’s something from the Superman comix.
“You squashed my apple. You ruined my lunch. You ruined my life. My mommy will call your mommy, and you will be in trouble,” says the older, more mature child. The principal appears and points out that screeching is not comely. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Close enough for horseshoes.
The article said:
The letter to the DOJ is signed by Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, Utah Senator Mike Lee, Congressman Jerry Nadler, and Congressman Ken Buck. They have urged the law enforcement body to investigate “whether Apple’s potentially anti-competitive conduct against Beeper violates US antitrust laws.” Apple has been constantly trying to block Beeper Mini and Beeper Cloud from accessing iMessage. The two Beeper messaging apps allow Android users to interact with iPhone users through iMessage — an interoperability Apple has been opposed to for a long time now.
As if law enforcement did not have enough to think about. Now an alleged monopolist is engaged in a grade school cafeteria spat with a younger, much smaller entity. By golly, that big outfit is threatened by the jejune, immature, and smaller service.
How will this play out?
- A payday for Beeper when Apple makes the owners of Beeper an offer that would be tough to refuse. Big piles of money can alter one’s desire to fritter away one’s time in court
- The dust up spirals upwards. What if the attitude toward Apple’s approach to its competitors becomes a crusade to encourage innovation in a tough environment for small companies? Containment may be difficult.
- The jury decision against Google may kindle more enthusiasm for another probe of Apple and its posture in some tricky political situations; for example, the iPhone in China, the non-repairability issues, and Apple’s mesh of inter-connected services which may be seen as digital barriers to user choice.
In 2024, Apple may find that some government agencies are interested in the fruit growing on the company’s many trees.
Stephen E Arnold, December 25, 2023
Is Google Really Clever and Well Managed or the Other Way Round?
December 19, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
“Google Will Pay $700 Million to Settle a Play Store Antitrust Lawsuit with All 50 US States” reports that Google put up a blog post. (You can read that at this link. The title of the post is worth the click.) Neowin.net reported that Google will “make some changes.”
“What’s happened to our air vent?” asks one government regulatory professional. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
Change is good. It is better if that change is organic in my opinion. But change is change. I noted this statement in the Neowin.net article:
The public reveal of this settlement between Google and the US state attorney generals comes just a few days after a jury ruled against Google in a similar case with developer Epic Games. The jury agreed with Epic’s view that Google was operating an illegal monopoly with its Play Store on Android devices. Google has stated it will appeal the jury’s decision.
Yeah, timing.
Several observations:
- It appears that some people perceive Google as exercising control over their decisions and the framing of those decisions
- The business culture creating the need to pay a $700 million penalty are likely to persist because the people who write checks at Google are not the people facilitating the behaviors creating the legal issue in my opinion
- The payday, when distributed, is not the remedy for some of those snared in the Googley approach to business.
Net net: Other nation states may look at the $700 million number and conclude, “Let’s take another look at that outfit.”
Stephen E Arnold, December 19, 2023
Google and Its Epic Magic: Will It Keep on Thrilling?
December 17, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The Financial Times (the orange newspaper) published a paywalled essay/interview with Epic Games’s CEO Tim Sweeney. The hook for the sit down was the decision that a court proceeding determined that Google had acted in an illegal way. How? Google developed Android, then Google used that mobile system as a platform for revenue generation. These appear to have involved one-off special deals with some companies and a hefty commission on sales made via the Google Play Store.
Will the magic show continue to surprise and entertain the innocent at the party? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Close enough for horseshoes, but I wanted a Godzilla monster in a tuxedo doing the tricks. But that’s forbidden.
Several items struck me in the article “Epic Games Chief Concerned Google Will Get Away with App Store Charges.”
First, the trial made clear that Google was unable to back up certain data. Here’s how the Financial Times’s story phrased this matter:
The judge in the case, US district judge James Donato, also criticized the company for its failure to preserve evidence, with internal policies for deleting chats. He instructed the jury that they were free to conclude Google’s chat deletion policies were designed to conceal incriminating evidence. “The Google folks clearly knew what they were doing,” Sweeney said. “They had very lucid writings internally as they were writing emails to each other, though they destroyed most of the chats.” “And then there was the massive document destruction,” Sweeney added. “It’s astonishing that a trillion-dollar corporation at the pinnacle of the American tech industry just engages in blatantly dishonest processes, such as putting all of their communications in a form of chat that is destroyed every 24 hours.” Google has since changed its chat deletion policy.
Taking steps to obscure evidence suggests to me that Google operates in an ethical zone with which I and the judge find uncomfortable. The behavior also implies that Google professionals are not just clever, but that they do what pays off within a governance system which is comfortable with a philosophy of entitlement. Google does what Google does. Oh, that is a problem for others. Well, that’s too bad.
Second, according to the article, Google would pursue “alternative payment methods.” The online ad giant would then slap a fee to list a product in the Google Play Store. The method has a number of variations which can include a fee for promoting a product to offering different size listings. The idea is similar to a grocery chain charging a manufacturer to put annoying free standing displays of breakfast foods in the center of a high traffic aisle.
Third , Mr. Sweeney seems happy with the evidence about payola which emerged during the trial. Google appears to have payed Samsung to sell its digital goods via the Google Play Store. The pay-to-play model apparently prevented the South Korean company from setting up an alternative store for Android equipped mobile devices.
Several observations:
- The trial, unlike the proceedings in the DC monopoly probe produced details about what Google does to generate lock in, money, and Googliness
- The destruction of evidence makes clear a disdain for behavior which preserves the trust and integrity of certain norms of behavior
- The trial makes clear that Google wants to preserve its dominant position and will pay to remain Number One.
Net net: Will Google’s magic wow everyone as it did when the company was gaining momentum? For some, yes. For others, no, sorry. I think the costume Google has worn for decades is now weakening at the seams. But the show must go on.
Stephen E Arnold, December 17, 2023
An Effort to Put Spilled Milk Back in the Bottle
December 15, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Microsoft was busy when the Activision Blizzard saga began. I dimly recall thinking, “Hey, one way to distract people from the SolarWinds’ misstep would be to become an alleged game monopoly.” I thought that Microsoft would drop the idea, but, no. I was wrong. Microsoft really wanted to be an alleged game monopoly. Apparently the successes (past and present) of Nintendo and Sony, the failure of Google’s Grand Slam attempt, and the annoyance of refurbished arcade game machines was real. Microsoft has focus. And guess what government agency does not? Maybe the Federal Trade Commission?
Two bureaucrats to be engage in a mature discussioin about the rules for the old-fashioned game of Monopoly. One will become a government executive; the other will become a senior legal professional at a giant high-technology outfit. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. You capture the spirit of rational discourse in a good enough way.
The MSFT game play may not be over. “The FTC Is Trying to Get Back in the Ring with Microsoft Over Activision Deal” asserts:
Nearly five months later, the FTC has appealed the court’s decision, arguing that the lower court essentially just believed whatever Microsoft said at face value…. We said at the time that Microsoft was clearly taking the complaints from various regulatory bodies as some sort of paint by numbers prescription as to what deals to make to get around them. And I very much can see the FTC’s point on this. It brought a complaint under one set of facts only to have Microsoft alter those facts, leading to the courts slamming the deal through before the FTC had a chance to amend its arguments. But ultimately it won’t matter. This last gasp attempt will almost certainly fail. American regulatory bodies have dull teeth to begin with and I’ve seen nothing that would lead me to believe that the courts are going to allow the agency to unwind a closed deal after everything it took to get here.
From my small office in rural Kentucky, the government’s desire or attempt to get “back in the ring” is interesting. It illustrates how many organizations approach difficult issues.
The advantage goes to the outfit with [a] the most money, [b] the mental wherewithal to maintain some semblance of focus, and [c] a mechanism to keep moving forward. The big four wheel drive will make it through the snow better than a person trying to ride a bicycle in a blizzard.
The key sentence in the cited article, in my opinion, is:
“I fail to understand how giving somebody a monopoly of something would be pro-competitive,” said Imad Dean Abyad, an FTC attorney, in the argument Wednesday before the appeals court. “It may be a benefit to some class of consumers, but that is very different than saying it is pro-competitive.”
No problem with that logic.
And who is in charge of today Monopoly games?
Stephen E Arnold, December 15, 2023
23andMe: Fancy Dancing at the Security Breach Ball
December 11, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Here’s a story I found amusing. Very Sillycon Valley. Very high school science clubby. Navigate to “23andMe Moves to Thwart Class-Action Lawsuits by Quietly Updating Terms.” The main point of the write up is that the firm’s security was breached. How? Probably those stupid customers or a cyber security vendor installing smart software that did not work.
How some influential wizards work to deflect actions hostile to their interests. In the cartoon, the Big Dog tells a young professional, “Just change the words.” Logical, right? Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Close enough for horseshoes.
The article reports:
Following a hack that potentially ensnared 6.9 million of its users, 23andMe has updated its terms of service to make it more difficult for you to take the DNA testing kit company to court, and you only have 30 days to opt out.
I have spit in a 23andMe tube. I’m good at least for this most recent example of hard-to-imagine security missteps. The article cites other publications but drives home what I think is a useful insight into the thought process of big-time Sillycon Valley firms:
customers were informed via email that “important updates were made to the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration section” on Nov. 30 “to include procedures that will encourage a prompt resolution of any disputes and to streamline arbitration proceedings where multiple similar claims are filed.” Customers have 30 days to let the site know if they disagree with the terms. If they don’t reach out via email to opt out, the company will consider their silence an agreement to the new terms.
No more neutral arbitrators, please. To make the firm’s intentions easier to understand, the cited article concludes:
The new TOS specifically calls out class-action lawsuits as prohibited. “To the fullest extent allowed by applicable law, you and we agree that each party may bring disputes against the only party only in an individual capacity, and not as a class action or collective action or class arbitration” …
I like this move for three reasons:
- It provides another example of the tactics certain Information Highway contractors view the Rules of the Road. In a word, “flexible.” In another word, “malleable.”
- The maneuver is one that seems to be — how shall I phrase it — elephantine, not dainty and subtle.
- The “fix” for the problem is to make the estimable company less likely to get hit with massive claims in a court. Courts, obviously, are not to be trusted in some situations.
I find the entire maneuver chuckle invoking. Am I surprised at the move? Nah. You can’t kid this dinobaby.
Stephen E Arnold, December 11, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
