LOS ANGELES — The California Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Apple must pay employees for time spent waiting for their bags and personal electronic devices to be searched when they leave work.
The decision means that the tech giant will have to pay millions of dollars to more than 12,000 hourly workers at California retail stores who fall under the mandatory bag-search policy.
According to court documents, Apple employees are required to clock out before submitting to an exit search which can take from five to 20 minutes.
On the busiest days, employees say the wait time can be as long as 45 minutes. Those who refuse to have their belongings searched are subject to discipline, including termination.
A lower court had previously sided with Apple, ruling that time spent by employees waiting for the exit searches cannot be considered "hours worked" under California law.
The plaintiffs escalated the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which asked the Supreme Court to address the state law issue.
The state's high court in its decision issued on Thursday rejected Apple's argument that its employees could easily avoid a search by choosing not to bring a bag or iPhone to work.
Quoting from a US Supreme Court decision, it noted that cell phones are "now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy."
"The irony and inconsistency of Apple's argument must be noted," the court added.
"Its characterization of the iPhone as unnecessary for its own employees is directly at odds with its description of the iPhone as an 'integrated and integral' part of the lives of everyone else."
Apple representatives could not immediately be reached for comment on the ruling.
The Apple case is the third the state high court has considered in recent years as related to minimum wage and time during which workers are under employers' control.
In 2018, the court ruled that Starbucks has to pay for off-the-clock work -- such as going through the checklist for closing the store -- that can last a few seconds or minutes past someone's shift.
Agence France-Presse
PARIS - US internet giant Google has agreed a settlement totaling 945 million euros ($1.0 billion) to end a tax dispute in France under an agreement announced in court on Thursday.
The company will pay a 500-million-euro fine for tax evasion, as well as a further 465 million euros to settle claims with French tax authorities.
In a statement, Google confirmed the settlement and hailed the fact it had put an end to fiscal differences that it had had with France for numerous years.
The settlement follows similar out-of-court agreements reached in Italy and Britain by Google in recent years, though the French agreement is much larger than the previous ones.
Google said it now wanted to see a coordinated reform for a clear international taxation framework.
French Justice Minister Nicole Galoubet and Budget Minister Gerald Darmanin welcomed the "definitive settling" of all the contentious issues, adding in a statement that it was the result of two years of intense work by the French authorities.
"This outcome is good news for the public finances and fiscal fairness in France," their statement said.
Belloubet said the settlement showed that the French authorities have the tools to ensure an equitable tax system.
"It is a historic settlement both for our public finances and because it marks the end of an era," Darmanin said. "By normalizing Google's situation in France, (the settlement) responds to our citizens' demands for fiscal fairness," he said.
G7 DEAL?
The settlement comes as France and its European allies seek to find common ground with the United States in a long-running dispute over the taxation of digital giants.
Google, like several other big American tech companies, has its European headquarters in Ireland, where the government has set the corporate tax rate at just 12.5 percent in a bid to attract big companies.
But leading EU states like France argue that this is allowing tech giants to avoid paying sufficient taxes on the huge profits and sales they accrue in big countries outside where the tech giants are headquartered.
The French parliament in July passed a law taxing digital giants on their French operations, drawing an angry response from US President Donald Trump and threats of retaliation.
The British government is now planning a similar move, at a time when it also hopes to build on its relationship with Washington as it exits the European Union.
But French President Emmanuel Macron said alongside Trump at the G7 summit in August that leaders had reached an agreement on the taxation of tech giants, though the precise details remain to be worked out.
Macron has said it will scrap its digital tax once a new international levy being discussed among the 134 OECD countries is in place, which Paris hopes will happen next year.
Pascal Saint-Amans, who is leading the negotiations as head of tax policy at the OECD, said after the G7 that progress is being made but several key issues still need to be hammered out.
The Google investigation in France was first opened by anti-fraud prosecutors in 2015 and was followed by searches at its Paris headquarters in 2016, an operation codenamed "Tulip" that mobilized a hundred police and experts.
In 2016, Google paid £130 million ($160,000) in a settlement with the British authorities and in 2017 agreed to pay 306 million euros to settle a tax dispute in Italy.
source: news.abs-cbn.com
SAN FRANCISCO - A former Google engineer was hit with criminal charges Tuesday alleging he stole trade secrets from the technology giant's self-driving car project before he went to work at Uber.
If convicted on the charges, Anthony Levandowski faces up to 10 years in prison and a penalty of $250,000 per violation, according federal prosecutors who announced the criminal indictment.
"All of us have the right to change jobs, none of us has the right to fill our pockets on the way out the door," US Attorney David Anderson said in a release announcing 33 counts of theft and attempted theft of trade secrets.
"Theft is not innovation."
Levandowski, 39, was a founding member of the group that worked on Waymo, a Google self-driving car project that is now a unit at parent company Alphabet.
Levandowski worked on the project from 2009 and was leader of the light-detecting and ranging (LiDAR) team when he resigned from Google without notice in January of 2016, according to the indictment.
The former star engineer left Google for his own startup called Otto, which was later acquired by Uber.
The theft allegations came out in a civil case in which Waymo accused Uber of stealing trade secrets. That case ended with a settlement between the two firms last year.
Levandowski was fired by Uber in 2017 as the two firms were preparing to go to court on the civil trial.
Waymo had alleged that Uber conspired with Levandowski, who according to Tuesday's indictment downloaded files that included circuit board schematics, instructions for installing and testing LiDAR, and an internal tracking document.
A source familiar with the confidential deal said Uber agreed to a financial settlement giving the Alphabet unit a small stake in Uber.
The indictment shows both the civil and criminal cases were about LiDAR, a laser-based system which is critical to enabling autonomous cars to get a three-dimensional picture of its surroundings.
The documents states that Levandowski downloaded thousands of files before leaving Google including "critical engineering information" about the hardware and instructions for calibrating and tuning Google's custom LiDAR.
Before the civil trial was cut short by the settlement, jurors saw evidence which was embarrassing for Uber, including a text message in which former Uber chief executive Travis Kalanick told Levandowski to "burn the village."
After the settlement, the newly named Uber CEO said that "we do not believe that any trade secrets made their way from Waymo to Uber."
Tesla, Waymo, Uber as well as major car companies and other technology firms are rivals in what is expected to be a large market for autonomous vehicles, whether for personal use or in commercial operations such as robo-taxis.
source: news.abs-cbn.com
SAN FRANCISCO, United States - A lawsuit filed Tuesday by developers alleges Apple is abusing its monopoly position in its online marketplace to extract excessive fees from those creating iPhone applications.
The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in California, claims Apple cornered the market with its iOS App Store, collecting a 30 percent commission on all app sales and in-app purchases.
The complaint comes as Apple holds its Worldwide Developers Conference in San Jose, California and just weeks after the US Supreme Court allowed a consumer lawsuit against Apple on similar grounds to proceed.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs, who are seeking class-action status for the suit, said Apple requires developers selling products through the App Store to pay an annual fee of $99, which hurts small and new developers.
They also said that by keeping all iOS apps into 1 marketplace -- some 2 million were available last year -- consumers never see most apps.
"Between Apple's 30 percent cut of all App Store sales, the annual fee of $99 and pricing mandates, Apple blatantly abuses its market power to the detriment of developers, who are forced to use the only platform available to them to sell their iOS app," said Steve Berman of the law firm Hagens Berman, which is representing the plaintiffs.
"In a competitive landscape, this simply would not happen."
The lawsuit seeks to force Apple to end its monopoly and allow competition in the distribution of iOS apps.
It also seeks to end Apple's pricing requirement including the minimum price mandate of 99 cents for paid apps.
Apple did not immediately respond to a query on the lawsuit.
In the past, Apple has defended its control of the App Store, saying it enables the iPhone maker to protect against malicious software and maintain quality standards.
Last month, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that consumers could proceed with a separate lawsuit on app pricing, rejecting Apple's argument that consumers lacked standing because the tech giant was merely an intermediary with app developers.
The class-action lawsuit from 2011 maintains that Apple abuses its monopoly position, resulting in higher prices.
source: news.abs-cbn.com
TOKYO - Chizuka Oe and Yoko Ogawa have been together for 25 years, but when they submitted their marriage registration at a Tokyo town hall, they knew it would be rejected.
"We were told that they cannot accept our registration because we are both women," said Ogawa, standing in the winter sun outside the building in Nakano in western Tokyo.
"There were several heterosexual couples next to us who submitted marriage registrations without any problem," she added.
The couple is now planning to take action: Along with 12 other same-sex couples, they will file lawsuits on Valentine's Day seeking to force the government to recognize gay marriage.
"Why don't we even have the simple choice of whether or not to get married?" asked Ogawa, who said she and Oe were forced to wait a long time before ultimately being turned down.
The 5 lesbian and 8 gay couples involved will file lawsuits across the country seeking damages of one million yen ($9000) a person for being denied the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.
Japan's constitution stipulates that "marriage shall be only with the mutual consent of both sexes" and the government says this means same-sex marriage is "not foreseen" in the constitution or civil law.
But lawyers for the plaintiffs and other legal experts counter that there is nothing in the constitution that would prohibit same-sex marriage.
They argue the language of the 1947 post-war constitution is only meant to ensure equality between prospective spouses and prevent forced marriages.
The government's failure to enact a law allowing same-sex marriage violates the constitutional principle that "all people are equal under the law," said Akiyoshi Miwa, who is representing some of the plaintiffs.
'AGONIZING' SITUATIONS
A survey in January found nearly 80 percent of Japanese aged 20 to 59 support legalizing gay marriage.
Japan is the only nation from the Group of Seven countries that does not recognize same-sex unions.
Historically, Japan was broadly tolerant of homosexuality, with documented cases of samurai warriors during feudal times having male lovers.
Same-sex relationships were even depicted in traditional art, such as ukiyoe, or wood block prints.
But as Japan industrialized and modernized from the late 19th century, Western prejudices against homosexuality were increasingly adopted.
Last year, the ruling party came under fire after one of its lawmakers claimed the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community was "unproductive" because they "cannot have children."
And Oe and Ogawa say they have struggled with confusion and prejudice stemming in part from Japan's lack of marriage equality.
When the couple attended the funeral for Ogawa's mother, relatives treated Oe with suspicion, particularly when she handled condolence money.
Ogawa said many relatives quizzed her on who Oe was.
She explained: "I was tired, sad, and in such an extreme situation it was agonising to explain that we are a lesbian couple, that we are the same as a regular heterosexual couple."
"If there was a legal system of same-sex marriage, it would have been easier," she added.
'A KEY GOAL'
In a landmark advance in 2015, Tokyo's bustling Shibuya district started issuing symbolic "partnership" certificates to same-sex couples.
Some other local governments -- including in the area where Oe and Ogawa live -- have followed suit, and corporate Japan is also showing signs of moving toward recognizing same-sex couples.
The certificate confers some rights: when Oe was hospitalized last year and needed a family member's signature, Ogawa was able to sign.
But not all gay couples in Japan live in areas with such certificates, meaning they can be prevented from visiting loved ones in hospitals or refused tenancy because their relationship is not legally recognized.
And the certificates "fail to give various legal rights and benefits that a marriage gives, such as inheritance and joint custody," said Takako Uesugi, another lawyer for the plaintiffs.
Only one partner in a same-sex couple is considered the legal parent of any children they share because gay marriages are not recognized so joint custody is considered impossible.
And a foreigner in a same-sex relationship with a Japanese partner cannot apply for spousal visas like their counterparts in heterosexual marriages.
The Valentine's Day lawsuits will seek damages, but the couples and their lawyers say they are ultimately hoping to force a change in the law.
"What we really want is a court ruling that says the failure to recognize same-sex marriage is unconstitutional," said Miwa.
source: news.abs-cbn.com
McDonald's Corp has lost its rights to the trademark "Big Mac" in a European Union case ruling in favor of Ireland-based fast-food chain Supermac's, a decision from the EU's Spain-based Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) showed.
The judgment, provided to Reuters by Supermac's, revoked McDonald's registration of the trademark, saying that the world's largest fast-food chain had not proven genuine use of it over the 5 years prior to the case being lodged in 2017.
The EUIPO did not respond to phone calls and emails requesting comment.
McDonald's was not immediately available to comment on the decision. The decision said the company can still appeal.
With the revocation, Supermac's said it can now expand in the United Kingdom and Europe. The ruling also allows the Irish chain to use the "Big Mac" name on any food items it will sell.
Supermac's said it had never had a product called "Big Mac" and that McDonald's had just used the similarity of the two names to block the Irish chain's expansion.
"Supermac's are delighted with their victory in the trademark application and in revoking the Big Mac trademark which had been in existence since 1996," founder Pat McDonagh told Reuters in an email.
"This is a great victory for business in general and stops bigger companies from "trademark bullying" by not allowing them to hoard trademarks without using them."
source: news.abs-cbn.com
SAN FRANCISCO - Tinder founders and early employees filed a lawsuit Tuesday accusing parent firm InterActiveCorp of cheating them out of billions of dollars by manipulating the value of stock options for the popular dating app.
The suit filed in New York contends that IAC and its spinoff Match Group, which owns Tinder, schemed to dramatically drive down the value of stock options and then eliminate them altogether.
The companies "made contractual promises to recruit and retain the men and women who built Tinder" but then "lied, bullied, and violated their contractual duties, stealing billions of dollars,"said attorney Orin Snyder, who filed the suit on behalf of Tinder co-founders Jonathan Badeen, Justin Mateen, Sean Rad and others from its startup days.
The suit names IAC and Match as defendants, accusing the companies of breach of contract and called for at least $2 billion in compensation along with punitive damages.
Tinder, created in 2012, uses geolocation to propose nearby romantic matches for users to quickly scroll through, then "swipe" left or right to signal interest.
It was launched as a project from IAC-owned Hatch Labs, and the holding company eventually acquired a majority stake.
According to the lawsuit, IAC last year "manufactured a fake Tinder valuation of $3 billion" which was unchanged from two years earlier, despite its revenues having grown 600 percent and user base grown 50 percent.
By "lowballing" the value of Tinder and then merging it into Match, the companies "robbed the Tinder plaintiffs of billions of dollars," the suit alleges.
IAC and Match said the allegations were "meritless" and pledged to contest the lawsuit.
"Mr. Rad (who was dismissed from the company a year ago) and Mr. Mateen (who has not been with the company in years) may not like the fact that Tinder has experienced enormous success following their respective departures, but sour grapes alone do not a lawsuit make," the companies said.
Match Group has paid out more than a billion dollars in equity compensation to Tinder founders and employees, according to IAC.
Plaintiffs in the case identified themselves as the team that built Los Angeles-based Tinder.
The lawsuit also claims the company sought to cover up allegations of sexual harassment against former Match Group chief Greg Blatt.
source: news.abs-cbn.com
SAN JOSE, United States - A federal court jury on Thursday ordered Samsung to pay Apple $533 million for copying iPhone design features in a patent case dating back seven years.
Jurors tacked on an additional $5 million in damages for a pair of patented functions. The award appeared to be a bit of a victory for Apple, which had argued in court that design was essential to the iPhone.
The case was sent back to the district court following a Supreme Court decision to revisit an earlier $400 million damage award. The jury essentially split the difference between Apple's request for $1 billion and Samsung’s argument for $28 million.
To arrive at a damages award of more than a half-billion dollars, jurors would likely have needed to buy into Apple's reasoning that design was so integral to the iPhone that it was essentially the "article of manufacture."
The lower figure sought by the South Korean consumer electronics titan would have involved treating the design features as components.
The jury had been asked to determine whether design features at issue in the case are worth all profit made from Samsung smartphones that copied them or whether those features are worth just a fraction because they are components.
"Samsung isn't saying it isn't required to pay profits," Samsung attorney John Quinn said during closing arguments on Friday.
"It is just saying it isn't required to pay profits on the whole phone."
Apple argued in court that the iPhone was a "bet-the-company" project at Apple and that design is as much the "article of manufacture" as the device itself.
The three design patents in the case apply to the shape of the iPhone's black screen with rounded edges and a bezel, and the rows of colorful icons displayed.
Samsung no longer sells the smartphone models at issue in the case.
Two utility patents also involved apply to "bounce-back" and "tap-to-zoom" functions.
The case dates back seven years. An original trial finding that Samsung violated Apple patents was followed by lengthy appellate dueling over whether design features such as rounded edges are worth all the money made from a phone.
TECHNOLOGY VS STYLE
Samsung challenged the legal precedent that requires the forfeiture of all profits from a product even if only a single design patent has been infringed.
The US Supreme Court in 2016 overturned the penalty imposed on the South Korean consumer electronics giant.
Justices ruled that Samsung should not be required to forfeit the entire profits from its smartphones for infringement on design components, sending the case back to a lower court.
The key question of the value of design patents rallied Samsung supporters in the tech sector, and Apple backers in the creative and design communities.
Samsung won the backing of major Silicon Valley and other IT sector giants, including Google, Facebook, Dell and Hewlett-Packard, claiming a strict ruling on design infringement could lead to a surge in litigation.
Apple was supported by big names in fashion and manufacturing. Design professionals, researchers and academics, citing precedents like Coca-Cola's iconic soda bottle.
The case is one element of a $548 million penalty -- knocked down from an original $1 billion jury award -- Samsung was ordered to pay for copying iPhone patents.
source: news.abs-cbn.com
