dispute
Latest
YouTube TV drops MLB Network after failing to renew deal
YouTube TV has dropped the MLB Network from its service after failing to renew its agreement.
Amazon UK won't ban Visa credit cards on January 19th after all
Amazon now says it will accept Visa cards in the UK after January 19th.
YouTube TV is finally coming back to Roku after a prolonged dispute
YouTube TV is finally back on Roku streaming devices following a dispute between the two parties that has dragged on since April of this year.
YouTube TV and NBCUniversal agree to temporary extension to avoid channel blackout
After coming to public blows earlier in the week, YouTube TV and NBCUniversal have come to terms on a “short-term” agreement for the streaming service to continue carrying the broadcaster’s content.
YouTube TV may drop 14 NBC Universal channels over a contract dispute
NBC Universal has warned YouTube TV subscribers that 14 of its channels may be removed if the two parties can't resolve a dispute.
HBO returns to Dish's lineup after a protracted absence
Dish Network is finally offering HBO, Cinemax and HBO Max to its subscribers after kicking HBO off its network nearly three years ago.
Roku pulls YouTube TV from its store as Google feud deepens
Existing users can still access the app on their Roku device.
Apple tried and failed to break RED's stranglehold on RAW video
RED has claimed victory in the latest battle over its patent on RAW video, this time against a mighty plaintiff: Apple. The dispute started earlier this year, when Apple set out to overturn RED's patent on RedCode RAW in a possible effort to avoid paying royalties on its ProRes RAW codec. A patent court ruled that Apple "has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail" with claims that RED's original 2007 patent was obvious and shouldn't have been issued in the first place.
CBS goes dark on DirecTV Now, other AT&T services in price dispute
Media giants are embroiled in yet another fight over TV rates, and viewers are once again paying the price. CBS' channels in 17 markets (including New York, San Francisco and Atlanta) have gone dark on AT&T services like DirecTV Now and U-verse after the two companies failed to reach an agreement on a new carriage contract before the old one expired at 2AM ET on July 19th. As is often the case in disputes like this, the two sides are each accusing each other of being unreasonable -- though AT&T in particular has also claimed that CBS is using All Access as a weapon.
Apple and Samsung settle seven-year patent battle
It looks like Apple and Samsung are finally burying the hatchet over the long-standing US patent dispute they've been fighting for the past several years. According to Reuters, the settlement was filed at the US District Court for the Northern District of California on Wednesday. No terms were disclosed.
Japanese tax investigation ends with Apple paying $118 million
After an in-depth investigation, one of Apple's Japanese subsidiaries paid ¥12 billion ($118 million) in back taxes, according to a report from the Yomiuri Shimbun. Japanese tax authorities ordered the payment after determining the company hadn't correctly paid taxes on funds it had quietly funneled out of the country. This whole thing might sound a little dry, but hey -- what better way to spend a Friday than to dig into some corporate cloak-and-dagger dealings? Let's take a closer look.
Some Dish subscribers will miss NBA and NHL playoff games
There's bad news for some folks hoping to catch the NBA or NHL finals today. The Tribune network, which owns WGN and affiliates for FOX, CBS and other networks, is no longer available on Dish. As usual with such disputes (which often involve Dish), the reason for the blackout is money. Tribune says that Dish "refuses to reach an agreement based on fair-market value" for its stations, while Dish says "Tribune is demanding an unreasonable rate increase for channels that are available for free over the air."
Walgreens has told Theranos to shape up or ship out
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the relationship between Walgreens and Theranos is becoming fractious. According to the paper's unnamed sources, the drugstore has threatened to end its partnership with the troubled blood-testing startup. It's believed that Walgreens delivered an ultimatum to the firm in late January, saying that it needs to clean up its act within 30 days or be kicked to the curb. If true, then we could see the two part ways as early as the end of February. Walgreens is already doing its best to distance itself from its former BFF after shutting down the Theranos Wellness Center in Palo Alto and re-routing Theranos-branded tests to third-party labs.
OnePlus unveils its own Android build without Cyanogen
Following a temporary ban in India, OnePlus has released its own alpha Lollipop ROM for the One based on stock Android 5.0 -- with no Cyanogen influence. For now, the alpha software is only available as a download, and you'll need to wipe your phone in order to get it. It's also very basic and OnePlus said it includes "no extras beyond the stock features of AOSP Lollipop," though it promised to build on it over time. OnePlus started talking about its own Android fork shortly before Cyanogen inked an exclusive deal with Indian smartphone maker Micromax.
Cyanogen backpedals on promise to update OnePlus phones in India
If you're in India, get ready to be more confused and maybe a bit angry about the OnePlus One situation. Cyanogen recently said that "the OnePlus One will get OTA firmware updates for all global devices, including global devices for our users in India." That was seemingly a denial to OnePlus' claim that it wouldn't get OTA updates there due to Cyanogen's deal with India's MicroMax. However, it turns out that Cyanogen's statement had weasel-wording that only a lawyer could love. It clarified today that OnePlus One smartphones sold in India indeed won't get the update -- only "global devices" purchased abroad. That appears to be the final word: once the Android Lollipop-based ROM is released for the One, no more OTA updates for India buyers until OnePlus builds its own ROM.
What you need to know about Amazon's fight with e-book publishers
Unless you've been living in a book-free cave, you may have heard that retail giant Amazon and book publisher Hachette are having a little tiff. It's all about digital versions of books -- so-called e-books -- and it boils down to this: Amazon wants to sell most of them for $10, and Hachette wants to set its own prices depending on the title and author. In the latest volley, Amazon tightened the screws by listing many Hachette pre-orders for printed titles as unavailable and pulling some product promotion pages. In a blog post, Amazon claimed it was trying to do well by consumers and (confusingly) invoked George Orwell. Meanwhile, 900-plus authors -- including household names like Stephen King and J.K. Rowling -- said they were innocent victims and took out a $104,000 ad decrying Amazon's hardball tactics. The dispute shows no sign of abating. So, who's right and, more importantly, who will win?
Apple discounts the books Amazon refuses to stock
If you head over to iTunes and look for book pre-orders at $9.99 or less, you may notice something strange: they're all Hachette titles. That's no coincidence -- Amazon is delaying shipment on Hachette books right now, a negotiating tactic it calls an "essential business practice." Authors and publishers think otherwise, with one referring to it as "extortion" that's "illegal when the Mafia does it." As Re/Code pointed out, however, it's ironic that Apple is offering cut rates on Hachette books, considering it was found guilty of conspiring with the publisher to raise prices. Apple has since settled class-action suits that resulted from that judgement, though it won't have to pay if it wins its appeal against the DoJ. Either way, Apple is set to profit by selling buzzy new titles like J.K. Rowling's well-reviewed Silkworm, since Amazon has essentially kneecapped itself. Let's face it though -- Apple also likely enjoys razzing the book industry's 800 pound gorilla.
Amazon admits it's limiting Hachette book sales to get better deals
Tried to pre-order JK Rowling's forthcoming The Silkworm on Amazon, only to find that no such option exists? The title is one of several victims of the company's very public spat with publishers Hachette, which Amazon is holding to ransom for cheaper pricing on e-books. Until now, however, the company remained tight-lipped on the tactic, but in a blog post, admitted that it was playing hardball with its rival. What that means for customers is that the retailer is only buying bare-minimum quantities of existing stock and will only offer new books for sale after their publication. In its mind, Amazon is fighting for better (i.e. cheaper) pricing for its customers, but we imagine that someone's forgotten about the poor authors who are likely to sell even fewer copies while this rages along. Update: Hachette, the victim in this stramash, has made a public statement saying that "Amazon indicates that it considers books to be like any other consumer good. They are not." It adds that it won't accept any cash to form an "author pool," a fund to compensate writers who are losing out during the conflict. In fact, the publisher has said that it'll wait until a fresh agreement is made, and then "discuss with Amazon its ideas about compensating authors for the damage its demand for improved terms may have done them." Full statement's after the break, but yes folks, this one is clearly going to run and run.
Candy Crush developer admits it can't really own the word 'Candy'
Although King's $7 billion empire is built on the slim foundation of its lone blockbuster, Candy Crush Saga, many thought its efforts to trademark "Saga" and "Candy" were a bit over-the-top. It now turns out the company isn't trying to crush every game maker that uses these words, and instead is taking each dispute on a case-by-case basis. To that end, it has cemented an out-of-court agreement to let the makers of Banner Saga and CandySwipe keep those monikers ("Candy" is only trademarked in Europe). Those two actually had legit challenges to the mark, but we imagine that other developers who deliberately used the terms to make a point (or for shits and giggles) may not get off so easily.
3D Realms responds to Gearbox, claims it owns Duke Nukem trademark
3D Realms isn't backing down from its most recent legal dispute with Gearbox, after the studio asserted it has the rights to develop its Duke Nukem game, and more than that, it has the sole rights to the Duke Nukem trademark. Following 3D Realms' tease of Duke Nukem: Mass Destruction, Gearbox announced it's suing the developer over unauthorized use of the Duke Nukem property and a violation of trademarks. In its complaint, Gearbox said 3D Realms sold the franchise rights to Gearbox in 2010 but then "sought to privately convince others that the sale never happened." 3D Realms filed its response to Gearbox last week, and the now Interceptor-owned studio provided Polygon with the following statement explaining its position: "On March 17, 2014, 3D Realms filed its answer to the complaint by Gearbox Software in Dallas, Texas. 3DR denies all allegations set forth in the complaint. In its answer, 3DR has submitted evidence showing that Gearbox at no point intended to enter into good faith negotiations but instead sought to force former owners, Scott Miller and George Broussard, to improperly surrender what rightfully belonged to 3DR. "It is our position that 3DR retains the right to develop the tentatively titled "Duke Nukem Survivor" game for specific platforms. This game was previously licensed for development to Interceptor Entertainment. Furthermore, it is our position that the Trademark for "Duke Nukem" was never assigned to Gearbox, but remains the sole property of 3DR." A spokesperson for Interceptor Entertainment explained "Duke Nukem Survivor" is the tentative title for Duke Nukem: Mass Destruction. Interceptor provided its own statement to Polygon, adding that "It's unfortunate that Gearbox has shown no intention of finding a peaceful solution with us. We will however continue to work towards a solution." Last month's legal action comes five months after 3D Realms and Gearbox's last dispute. 3D Realms filed a lawsuit against Gearbox in June 2013 over unpaid royalties from Duke Nukem Forever, only to withdraw it three months later after reviewing the evidence. [Image: Interceptor Entertainment]
