Cloudflare has emerged victorious in a patent infringement lawsuit against Sable Networks, securing a $225,000 settlement and forcing the patent holder to dedicate its entire portfolio to the public domain. The case, which began in March 2021 with Sable asserting nearly 100 claims across four patents, concluded after a Texas jury found Cloudflare not guilty of infringement in February 2024. Sable, described by Cloudflare as a "patent troll," had previously sued several tech companies, including Cisco and Juniper Networks, who settled out of court. Cloudflare's aggressive defense strategy included launching Project Jengo, a crowd-sourced initiative to invalidate Sable's patents. The settlement prevents Sable from asserting these patents against any other company in the future, marking a significant blow to patent trolling practices in the tech industry. In a blog post, Cloudflare adds: While this $225,000 can't fully compensate us for the time, energy and frustration of having to deal with this litigation for nearly three years, it does help to even the score a bit. And we hope that it sends an important message to patent trolls everywhere to beware before taking on Cloudflare.

dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct dct

Epic Games filed a new antitrust lawsuit against Google and Samsung, alleging they conspired to undermine third-party app stores. The suit focuses on Samsung's "Auto Blocker" feature, now enabled by default on new phones, which restricts app installations to "authorized sources" - primarily Google and Samsung's stores. Epic claims Auto Blocker creates significant barriers for rival stores, requiring users to navigate a complex process to install third-party apps. The company argues this feature does not actually assess app safety, but is designed to stifle competition. Epic CEO Tim Sweeney stated the lawsuit aims to benefit all developers, not secure special privileges for Epic. The company seeks either default deactivation of Auto Blocker or creation of a fair whitelisting process for legitimate apps. This legal action follows Epic's December victory against Google in a separate antitrust case. Epic recently launched its own mobile app store, which it claims faces unfair obstacles due to Auto Blocker.

z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h z0h

Last weekend Boeing announced that its CEO of Defense, Space, and Security "had left the company," according to Barrons. "Parting ways like this, for upper management, is the equivalent to firing," they write — though they add that setbacks on Starliner's first crewed test flight is "far too simple an explanation." Starliner might, however, have been the straw that broke the camel's back. [New CEO Kelly] Ortberg took over in early August, so his first material interaction with the Boeing Defense and Space business was the spaceship's failed test flight... Starliner has cost Boeing $1.6 billion and counting. That's lot of money, but not all that much in the context of the Defense business, which generates sales of roughly $25 billion a year.... [T]he overall Defense business has performed poorly of late, burdened by fixed price contracts that have become unprofitable amid years of higher than expected inflation. Profitability in the defense business has been declining since 2020 and started losing money in 2022. From 2022 to 2024 losses should total about $6 billion cumulatively, including Wall Street's estimates for the second half of this year. Still, it felt like something had to give. And the change shows investors something about new CEO Ortberg. "At this critical juncture, our priority is to restore the trust of our customers and meet the high standards they expect of us," read part of an internal email sent to Boeing employees announcing the change. "Why his predecessor — David Calhoun — didn't pull this trigger earlier this year is a mystery," wrote Gordon Haskett analyst Don Bilson in a Monday note. "Can't leave astronauts behind." "Ortberg's logic appears sound," the article concludes. "In recent years, Boeing has disappointed its airline and defense customers, including NASA... "After Starliner, defense profitability, and the strike, Ortberg has to tackle production quality, production rates, and Boeing's ailing balance sheet. Boeing has amassed almost $60 billion in debt since the second tragic 737 MAX crash in March 2019." Thanks to Slashdot reader Press2ToContinue for sharing the news.

America's National Transportation Safety Board "is issuing 'urgent safety recommendations' for some Boeing 737s..." reports CNN, "warning that critical flight controls could jam." The independent investigative agency is issuing the warning that an actuator attached to the rudder on some 737 NG and 737 MAX airplanes could fail... "Boeing's 737 flight manual instructs pilots confronted with a jammed or restricted rudder to 'overpower the jammed or restricted system (using) maximum force, including a combined effort of both pilots,'" the NTSB said in a news release. "The NTSB expressed concern that this amount of force applied during landing or rollout could result in a large input to the rudder pedals and a sudden, large, and undesired rudder deflection that could unintentionally cause loss of control or departure from a runway," the statement said. "The FAA said United was the only U.S. airline flying planes with the manufacturing defect in the rudder control system," notes the Seattle Times, "and that United has already replaced the component on nine 737s, the only jets in its fleet where it was identified as faulty. However, the NTSB alert may cause the grounding of some 737 MAXs and older model 737NGs flown by foreign air carriers that have not yet replaced the defective part."

Bryan Choi, an associate professor of law and computer science focusing on software safety, proposes shifting AI liability onto the builders of the systems: To date, most popular approaches to AI safety and accountability have focused on the technological characteristics and risks of AI systems, while averting attention from the workers behind the curtain responsible for designing, implementing, testing, and maintaining such systems... I have previously argued that a negligence-based approach is needed because it directs legal scrutiny on the actual persons responsible for creating and managing AI systems. A step in that direction is found in California's AI safety bill, which specifies that AI developers shall articulate and implement protocols that embody the "developer's duty to take reasonable care to avoid producing a covered model or covered model derivative that poses an unreasonable risk of causing or materially enabling a critical harm" (emphasis added). Although tech leaders have opposed California's bill, courts don't need to wait for legislation to allow negligence claims against AI developers. But how would negligence work in the AI context, and what downstream effects should AI developers anticipate? The article suggest two possibilities. Classifying AI developers as ordinary employees leaves employers then sharing liability for negligent acts (giving them "strong incentives to obtain liability insurance policies and to defend their employees against legal claims.") But AI developers could also be treated as practicing professionals (like physicians and attorneys). "{In this regime, each AI professional would likely need to obtain their own individual or group malpractice insurance policies." AI is a field that perhaps uniquely seeks to obscure its human elements in order to magnify its technical wizardry. The virtue of the negligence-based approach is that it centers legal scrutiny back on the conduct of the people who build and hype the technology. To be sure, negligence is limited in key ways and should not be viewed as a complete answer to AI governance. But fault should be the default and the starting point from which all conversations about AI accountability and AI safety begin. Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader david.emery for sharing the article.

California governor Gavin Newsom "vetoed a bill Saturday that would have required new cars to beep at drivers if they exceed the speed limit," reports the Associated Press: In explaining his veto, Newsom said federal law already dictates vehicle safety standards and adding California-specific requirements would create a patchwork of regulations. The National Highway Traffic Safety "is also actively evaluating intelligent speed assistance systems, and imposing state-level mandates at this time risks disrupting these ongoing federal assessments," the Democratic governor said... The legislation would have likely impacted all new car sales in the U.S., since the California market is so large that car manufacturers would likely just make all of their vehicles comply... Starting in July, the European Union will require all new cars to have the technology, although drivers would be able to turn it off. At least 18 manufacturers including Ford, BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Nissan, have already offered some form of speed limiters on some models sold in America, according to the National Transportation Safety Board. Thanks to Slashdot reader Gruntbeetle for sharing the news.

Uplevel provides insights from coding and collaboration data, according to a recent report from CIO magazine — and recently they measured "the time to merge code into a repository [and] the number of pull requests merged" for about 800 developers over a three-month period (comparing the statistics to the previous three months). Their study "found no significant improvements for developers" using Microsoft's AI-powered coding assistant tool Copilot, according to the article (shared by Slashdot reader snydeq): Use of GitHub Copilot also introduced 41% more bugs, according to the study... In addition to measuring productivity, the Uplevel study looked at factors in developer burnout, and it found that GitHub Copilot hasn't helped there, either. The amount of working time spent outside of standard hours decreased for both the control group and the test group using the coding tool, but it decreased more when the developers weren't using Copilot. An Uplevel product manager/data analyst acknowledged to the magazine that there may be other ways to measure developer productivity — but they still consider their metrics solid. "We heard that people are ending up being more reviewers for this code than in the past... You just have to keep a close eye on what is being generated; does it do the thing that you're expecting it to do?" The article also quotes the CEO of software development firm Gehtsoft, who says they didn't see major productivity gains from LLM-based coding assistants — but did see them introducing errors into code. With different prompts generating different code sections, "It becomes increasingly more challenging to understand and debug the AI-generated code, and troubleshooting becomes so resource-intensive that it is easier to rewrite the code from scratch than fix it." On the other hand, cloud services provider Innovative Solutions saw significant productivity gains from coding assistants like Claude Dev and GitHub Copilot. And Slashdot reader destined2fail1990 says that while large/complex code bases may not see big gains, "I have seen a notable increase in productivity from using Cursor, the AI powered IDE." Yes, you have to review all the code that it generates, why wouldn't you? But often times it just works. It removes the tedious tasks like querying databases, writing model code, writing forms and processing forms, and a lot more. Some forms can have hundreds of fields and processing those fields along with doing checks for valid input is time consuming, but can be automated effectively using AI. This prompted an interesting discussion on the original story submission. Slashdot reader bleedingobvious responded: Cursor/Claude are great BUT the code produced is almost never great quality. Even given these tools, the junior/intern teams still cannot outpace the senior devs. Great for learning, maybe, but the productivity angle not quite there.... yet. It's damned close, though. GIve it 3-6 months. And Slashdot reader abEeyore posted: I suspect that the results are quite a bit more nuanced than that. I expect that it is, even outside of the mentioned code review, a shift in where and how the time is spent, and not necessarily in how much time is spent. Agree? Disagree? Share your own experiences in the comments. And are developers really saving time with AI coding assistants?

J. Doyne Farmer is the director of the complexity economics program at the Institute for New Economic Thinking in Oxford's research and policy unit. And he reminds us that solar and wind energy "are very likely to get even less expensive and grow quickly," pointing out that "the rate at which a given kind of technology improves is remarkably predictable." The best-known example is Moore's Law... Like computer chips, many other technologies also get exponentially more affordable, though at different rates. Some of the best examples are renewable energy technologies such as solar panels, lithium batteries and wind turbines. The cost of solar panels has dropped an average of 10% a year, making them about 10,000 times cheaper than they were in 1958, the year of their pioneering use to power the Vanguard 1 satellite. Lithium batteries have cheapened at a comparable pace, and the cost of wind turbines has dropped steadily too, albeit at a slower rate. Not all technologies follow this course, however. Fossil fuels cost roughly what they did a century ago, adjusted for inflation, and nuclear power is no cheaper than it was in 1958. (In fact, partly due to heightened safety concerns, it's somewhat more expensive.) The global deployment of technologies follows another pattern, called an S curve, increasing exponentially at first and then leveling out. Careful analysis of the spread of many technologies, from canals to the internet, makes it possible to predict the pace of technological adoption. When a technology is new, predictions are difficult, but as it develops, they get easier. Applying these ideas to the energy transition indicates that key technologies such as solar, wind, batteries and green-hydrogen-based fuels are likely to grow rapidly, dominating the energy system within the next two decades. And they will continue to get cheaper and cheaper, making energy far more affordable than it has ever been. This will happen in electricity generation first and then in sectors that are harder to decarbonize, including aviation and long-range shipping. And in addition, "The future savings more than offset present investments to the extent that the transition would make sense from a purely economic standpoint even if we weren't worried about climate change. "The sooner we make investments and adopt policies that enable the transition, the sooner we will realize the long-term savings."

Thursday America's Food and Drug Administration approved Cobenfy, "the first new drug to treat people with schizophrenia in more than 30 years," reports ABC News: Most schizophrenia medications, broadly known as antipsychotics, work by changing dopamine levels, a brain chemical that affects mood, motivation, and thinking [according to Jelena Kunovac, MD, a board-certified psychiatrist and adjunct assistant professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, in the Department of Psychiatry]. Cobenfy takes a different approach by adjusting acetylcholine, another brain chemical that aids memory, learning and attention, she said. By focusing on acetylcholine instead of dopamine, Cobenfy may reduce schizophrenia symptoms while avoiding common side effects like weight gain, drowsiness and movement disorders, clinical trials suggest. These side effects often become so severe and unpleasant that, in some studies mirroring real-world challenges, many patients stopped treatment within 18 months of starting it. In clinical trials, only 6% of patients stopped taking Cobenfy due to side effects, noted Dr. Samit Hirawat, chief medical officer at Bristol Myers Squibb. "That's a significant improvement over the 20-30% seen with older antipsychotic drugs," he added... Schizophrenia is a mental health disorder that affects about 24 million people worldwide, or roughly one in 300 people, according to the World Health Organization. "Studies for additional therapeutic uses, including the treatment of Alzheimer's disease and bipolar disorder, are also underway."

4nk 4nk 4nk 4nk 4nk 4nk 4nk 4nk 4nk