The Trump administration has accused Chinese AI startup Moonshot AI of illegally using Anthropic's proprietary AI technology to develop its latest Kimi K3 model. US officials claim Moonshot AI relied on outputs from Anthropic's Claude model without authorization and even used advanced Nvidia AI chips for training. The allegations have intensified the ongoing US-China technology rivalry, with Washington now considering sanctions and trade restrictions against the company.

China has rejected the accusations, calling them unfounded, while Anthropic has previously alleged that multiple Chinese AI firms violated its terms of service. Watch this report for the latest developments in the escalating global AI race.

Trump Administration accuses Moonshot AI of using Anthropic's AI Technology without authorisation

The aerospace giant, Boeing was sued, on Wednesday (June 7) by a company based in the US state of Colorado for allegedly “stealing” trade secrets for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and which could have led to leaks on the International Space Station. Meanwhile, Boeing has denied these charges and said that the lawsuit has “inaccuracies and omissions”.

<h2>What are the accusations against Boeing?</h2>

The lawsuit was filed&nbsp;by a company named Wilson Aerospace&nbsp;in a federal court in the United States city of Seattle. According to the complaint, Wilson Aerospace was working with Boeing for two years between 2014 and 2016 after the latter sought the former’s help for safely attaching engines to the SLS rocket.&nbsp;

This comes as Boeing has reportedly feared the loss of billions of dollars of NASA revenue. Wilson claims that after the company provided Boeing with the designs for a unique torque wrench,&nbsp;the latter cancelled the former’s contract. However, according to Wilson, Boeing continued to use its intellectual property without “full instructions” on how to build or install it.&nbsp;

Wilson has accused Boeing of creating “critically deficient in quality and performance,” versions of their design, adding that these “mismatched” tools may have caused or contributed to dangerous leaks which had delayed the launch of the SLS rocket, reported Sky News.&nbsp;

The lawsuit also said that Boeing was able to earn billions of dollars in revenue because of the “infringement of Wilson’s trade secrets.” It added that Boeing must turn over “all revenues and profits Boeing has obtained as a result.”&nbsp;

The lawsuit then claims that &nbsp;Boeing went on to blame the leaks which could endanger astronauts on Wilson’s design. “Boeing has not only stolen our intellectual property and damaged our company's reputation but has used the technology incorrectly and at the expense of astronauts' safety, which is beyond despicable,” said founder and president, David Wilson, as quoted by Sky News.&nbsp;

However, this is not the only project that two aerospace companies had collaborated on and in relation to a somewhat similar allegation Wilson said Boeing stole trade secrets related to bolt installation tools for its 787 Dreamliner aircraft which the Colorado-based company was asked to design in 2012.

<h2>Boeing’s response to the allegations, lawsuit</h2>

In a statement after the lawsuit was filed, the aerospace giant based in Arlington, Virginia, said, “This lawsuit is rife with inaccuracies and omissions.” It added, “We will vigorously defend against this in court.”&nbsp;

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) SLS rocket was first launched last year and was a part of the agency’s Artemis program which aims to put astronauts back on the Moon for the first time since the Apollo 17 mission in over 50 years.&nbsp; 
 
&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

The aerospace giant, Boeing was sued, on Wednesday (June 7) by a company based in the US state of Colorado for allegedly “stealing” trade secrets for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and which could have led to leaks on the International Space Station.

The aerospace giant, Boeing was sued, on Wednesday (June 7) by a company based in the US state of Colorado for allegedly “stealing” trade secrets for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and which could have led to leaks on the International Space Station. Meanwhile, Boeing has denied these charges and said that the lawsuit has “inaccuracies and omissions”. What are the accusations against Boeing? The lawsuit was filed by a company named Wilson Aerospace in a federal court in the United States city of Seattle. According to the complaint, Wilson Aerospace was working with Boeing for two years between 2014 and 2016 after the latter sought the former’s help for safely attaching engines to the SLS rocket. This comes as Boeing has reportedly feared the loss of billions of dollars of NASA revenue. Wilson claims that after the company provided Boeing with the designs for a unique torque wrench, the latter cancelled the former’s contract. However, according to Wilson, Boeing continued to use its intellectual property without “full instructions” on how to build or install it. Wilson has accused Boeing of creating “critically deficient in quality and performance,” versions of their design, adding that these “mismatched” tools may have caused or contributed to dangerous leaks which had delayed the launch of the SLS rocket, reported Sky News. The lawsuit also said that Boeing was able to earn billions of dollars in revenue because of the “infringement of Wilson’s trade secrets.” It added that Boeing must turn over “all revenues and profits Boeing has obtained as a result.” The lawsuit then claims that Boeing went on to blame the leaks which could endanger astronauts on Wilson’s design. “Boeing has not only stolen our intellectual property and damaged our company's reputation but has used the technology incorrectly and at the expense of astronauts' safety, which is beyond despicable,” said founder and president, David Wilson, as quoted by Sky News. However, this is not the only project that two aerospace companies had collaborated on and in relation to a somewhat similar allegation Wilson said Boeing stole trade secrets related to bolt installation tools for its 787 Dreamliner aircraft which the Colorado-based company was asked to design in 2012. Boeing’s response to the allegations, lawsuit In a statement after the lawsuit was filed, the aerospace giant based in Arlington, Virginia, said, “This lawsuit is rife with inaccuracies and omissions.” It added, “We will vigorously defend against this in court.” The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) SLS rocket was first launched last year and was a part of the agency’s Artemis program which aims to put astronauts back on the Moon for the first time since the Apollo 17 mission in over 50 years. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Boeing accused of stealing intellectual property for NASA rocket in lawsuit

“They said the age of heroes would never come again," says Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman wonderingly in 2017's Justice League, referring to the rise of metahumans (DC's in-universe term for superheroes) like herself, Superman, the Flash, and so on. It has indeed come in our world, and I cannot wait for it to be over. No, we are&nbsp;not beset by (that we know of) by intergalactic warlords like Steppenwolf or Darkseid and there aren't any&nbsp;spandex-clad creatures flying or swinging through our cities, shooting laser beams from their eyes or web from gadgets and whatnot. What I do see is, as a movie buff, a cinematic landscape overrun by superhero movies, movies based on established IPs, sequels, prequels, and remakes.&nbsp;

There is some indication that your typical moviegoer may be worn out by the inundation of cinema halls by these kinds of movies over the last decade and a half. There is a new hunger for original content in the air. But movie studios may be slow to catch up, which would surprise absolutely no one.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-explained-how-disney-is-trying-hard-not-to-fail-as-marvel-magic-wanes-563335">Explained: How Disney is trying hard not to fail as Marvel magic wanes</a>

<h2>Why studios are retreating to time-hallowed franchises</h2>

From Disney to Warner Bros Discovery, movie studios are falling back to old, tried-and-tested intellectual properties (IPs). After removing Bob Chapek as CEO, Disney announced "restructuring" which inevitably meant layoffs. 7,000 employees (3 per cent of its workforce) lost their jobs. Bob Iger, who had also led the company through its most profitable tenure from 2005 to 2020, was brought in from retirement and he quickly made it clear that his priority is profit. Earlier, in his original tenure he had expanded aggressively by acquiring valuable (in terms of popular appeal and expected returns) IPs like Pixar, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Marvel Entertainment. Now, he means to cash in on all that IP goodness to earn moolah and bring the company back on track.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/five-great-superhero-movies-that-are-not-dc-or-marvel-510918/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The company recently announced Toy Story 5, Frozen 3, and Zootopia 2. The MCU juggernaut will not stop until remains profitable for the company. And judging purely by the box office numbers, the movies in the cinematic universe remain moneymaking and this may be just a brief lull after the mega extravaganzas that were the last two Avengers movies.&nbsp;

At Warner Bros, or more accurately Warner Bros Discovery, the new CEO of the entity David Zaslav was also handed the reins of a beleaguered, loss-making company. And his response, too, was predictably dismal. Under his watch, the $90 million Batgirl movie, which was already relegated to an HBO Max (RIP!) streaming release, was cancelled altogether for presumably tax write-off purposes. He cancelled or put on sale a lot of other stuff, and at the same time announced an ambitious 10-year plan for the floundering DC property.&nbsp;

He instated James Gunn and his producing partner Peter Safran as co-heads of DC Studios, a successor to DC Films. This approach might actually do some good to DC movies, but it might be too little, too late.&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-marvels-loss-is-dcs-gain-how-james-gunn-can-cash-in-on-mcus-struggles-to-outdo-competition-540504">Marvel's loss is DC's gain: How DC Studios can cash in on MCU's struggles to outdo competition</a>

<h2>Is a focus on big-budget blockbusters new?</h2>

To be fair, all that isn't new. Ever since Steven Spielberg invented the modern blockbuster with 1975's Jaws, crowd-pleasers have dominated the box office charts. But things have never been so heavily skewed towards franchises and sequels as they are now. In the past, successful movies would often inspire sequels or spin-offs, but they were not the only game in town. There was still room for original stories to be told, and they could often find success on their own merits.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/10-marvel-dc-characters-who-need-their-own-movies-511168/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

With each new instalment of a successful franchise, the stakes are higher, and the budgets become larger. This creates a cycle of dependence, where studios feel the need to keep churning out sequels and prequels to meet the demand for more content from fans. There are people I know who get nonplussed while watching Marvel movies unless they come across a mention or connection or reference or Easter egg to another character or movie within the MCU every fifteen minutes or so. It is all unchallenging fluff that is not suited for the discerning movie buff.

Also, the COVID-19 pandemic may have hit a mortal blow to the theatrical experience as we know it. Now, a lot of people prefer staying at home unless the film provides spectacle and boasts of lots of visual effects.&nbsp;

In a nutshell, things have never been so dire.

Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-explained-from-the-matrix-to-the-terminator-how-artificial-intelligence-in-cinema-reflects-our-hopes-fears-577331">Explained: From The Matrix to The Terminator, how artificial intelligence in cinema reflects our hopes, fears</a>

<h2>Why big studios are usually loath&nbsp;to finance original films&nbsp;</h2>

The trend may be seeing an encouraging reversal, but for the most part, movies based on original ideas are becoming rare, and it is now unheard&nbsp;of&nbsp;an original movie not backed by a major director or star&nbsp;being financed by any of the big studios. A24 is one exception as it is one indie studio that has done a unique thing of turning itself into a brand, a place, where you can watch weird, exciting, and auteur-driven movies.

But as I said, A24 is an exception to the rule. So why do big studios rarely put their weight behind original stuff? One major factor is the current business model of the film industry, which seriously needs an overhaul. It places a premium on big-budget blockbusters and franchises that have a proven track record of success. As a result, studios are more likely to invest in sequels, remakes, and adaptations of popular books, comics, or video games rather than taking risks on untested ideas.

Also Read:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-explained--controversy-around-friends-a-classic-sitcom-or-a-relic-of-a-less-diverse-era-577770">&nbsp;Explained | Controversy around Friends: A classic sitcom or a relic of a less diverse era?</a>

<h2>Financing original content will actually benefit studios</h2>

And we know from recent developments, the execs making those stupid decisions are misguided. A24's <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-%E2%80%98everything-everywhere-all-at-once%E2%80%99-movie-review-this-michelle-yeoh-starrer-is-a-cinematic-miracle-516701">Everything Everywhere All At Once </a>became a worldwide phenomenon on a budget of $14.3–25 million, grossing more than $139 million. And of course, it took pretty much every major award at the Oscars. Even Rian Johnson's Knives Out was made on only (in blockbuster terms) $40 million and went on to gross $311.9 million. These movies are proof that clever, creative marketing can propel compelling stories to success even if a Tom Cruise or a Dwayne Johnson is not involved in the project.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

“They said the age of heroes would never come again," says Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman wonderingly in 2017's Justice League, referring to the rise of metahumans (DC's in-universe term for superheroes) like herself, Superman, the Flash, and so on.

“They said the age of heroes would never come again," says Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman wonderingly in 2017's Justice League, referring to the rise of metahumans (DC's in-universe term for superheroes) like herself, Superman, the Flash, and so on. It has indeed come in our world, and I cannot wait for it to be over. No, we are not beset by (that we know of) by intergalactic warlords like Steppenwolf or Darkseid and there aren't any spandex-clad creatures flying or swinging through our cities, shooting laser beams from their eyes or web from gadgets and whatnot. What I do see is, as a movie buff, a cinematic landscape overrun by superhero movies, movies based on established IPs, sequels, prequels, and remakes. There is some indication that your typical moviegoer may be worn out by the inundation of cinema halls by these kinds of movies over the last decade and a half. There is a new hunger for original content in the air. But movie studios may be slow to catch up, which would surprise absolutely no one. Also Read: Explained: How Disney is trying hard not to fail as Marvel magic wanes Why studios are retreating to time-hallowed franchises From Disney to Warner Bros Discovery, movie studios are falling back to old, tried-and-tested intellectual properties (IPs). After removing Bob Chapek as CEO, Disney announced "restructuring" which inevitably meant layoffs. 7,000 employees (3 per cent of its workforce) lost their jobs. Bob Iger, who had also led the company through its most profitable tenure from 2005 to 2020, was brought in from retirement and he quickly made it clear that his priority is profit. Earlier, in his original tenure he had expanded aggressively by acquiring valuable (in terms of popular appeal and expected returns) IPs like Pixar, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Marvel Entertainment. Now, he means to cash in on all that IP goodness to earn moolah and bring the company back on track. The company recently announced Toy Story 5, Frozen 3, and Zootopia 2. The MCU juggernaut will not stop until remains profitable for the company. And judging purely by the box office numbers, the movies in the cinematic universe remain moneymaking and this may be just a brief lull after the mega extravaganzas that were the last two Avengers movies. At Warner Bros, or more accurately Warner Bros Discovery, the new CEO of the entity David Zaslav was also handed the reins of a beleaguered, loss-making company. And his response, too, was predictably dismal. Under his watch, the $90 million Batgirl movie, which was already relegated to an HBO Max (RIP!) streaming release, was cancelled altogether for presumably tax write-off purposes. He cancelled or put on sale a lot of other stuff, and at the same time announced an ambitious 10-year plan for the floundering DC property. He instated James Gunn and his producing partner Peter Safran as co-heads of DC Studios, a successor to DC Films. This approach might actually do some good to DC movies, but it might be too little, too late. Also Read: Marvel's loss is DC's gain: How DC Studios can cash in on MCU's struggles to outdo competition Is a focus on big-budget blockbusters new? To be fair, all that isn't new. Ever since Steven Spielberg invented the modern blockbuster with 1975's Jaws, crowd-pleasers have dominated the box office charts. But things have never been so heavily skewed towards franchises and sequels as they are now. In the past, successful movies would often inspire sequels or spin-offs, but they were not the only game in town. There was still room for original stories to be told, and they could often find success on their own merits. With each new instalment of a successful franchise, the stakes are higher, and the budgets become larger. This creates a cycle of dependence, where studios feel the need to keep churning out sequels and prequels to meet the demand for more content from fans. There are people I know who get nonplussed while watching Marvel movies unless they come across a mention or connection or reference or Easter egg to another character or movie within the MCU every fifteen minutes or so. It is all unchallenging fluff that is not suited for the discerning movie buff. Also, the COVID-19 pandemic may have hit a mortal blow to the theatrical experience as we know it. Now, a lot of people prefer staying at home unless the film provides spectacle and boasts of lots of visual effects. In a nutshell, things have never been so dire. Also Read: Explained: From The Matrix to The Terminator, how artificial intelligence in cinema reflects our hopes, fears Why big studios are usually loath to finance original films The trend may be seeing an encouraging reversal, but for the most part, movies based on original ideas are becoming rare, and it is now unheard of an original movie not backed by a major director or star being financed by any of the big studios. A24 is one exception as it is one indie studio that has done a unique thing of turning itself into a brand, a place, where you can watch weird, exciting, and auteur-driven movies. But as I said, A24 is an exception to the rule. So why do big studios rarely put their weight behind original stuff? One major factor is the current business model of the film industry, which seriously needs an overhaul. It places a premium on big-budget blockbusters and franchises that have a proven track record of success. As a result, studios are more likely to invest in sequels, remakes, and adaptations of popular books, comics, or video games rather than taking risks on untested ideas. Also Read: Explained | Controversy around Friends: A classic sitcom or a relic of a less diverse era? Financing original content will actually benefit studios And we know from recent developments, the execs making those stupid decisions are misguided. A24's Everything Everywhere All At Once became a worldwide phenomenon on a budget of $14.3–25 million, grossing more than $139 million. And of course, it took pretty much every major award at the Oscars. Even Rian Johnson's Knives Out was made on only (in blockbuster terms) $40 million and went on to gross $311.9 million. These movies are proof that clever, creative marketing can propel compelling stories to success even if a Tom Cruise or a Dwayne Johnson is not involved in the project. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Is originality dead in Hollywood? Why studios are ditching original movies for reboots and sequels

As more and more companies pull out from Russia over its war on Ukraine, Kremlin is reportedly easing its copyright laws and allowing domestic companies to steal intellectual property from “unfriendly nations”.

Earlier this week, the Russian Ministry of Economic Development proposed relaxing piracy legislation to undermine sanctions imposed by the Western countries.

“The possibility of lifting restrictions on the use of intellectual property contained in certain goods, the supply of which to Russia is limited, is being considered,” the ministry said in a statement.

“This will smooth out the impact on the market of breaks in supply chains, as well as the shortage of goods and services that arose due to new sanctions by Western countries.”

According to a TASS report, such measures would “mitigate the impact on the market of supply chain brakes as well as shortages of goods and services that have arisen due to new sanctions of western countries.”

State-backed newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta reports that new laws allow will Russian firms to steal from unfriendly countries without paying to use their intellectual property.

“Since many Western studios have refused to release new films in Russia, the parliamentarian believes that thanks to the torrent tracker, users will be able to watch Hollywood films,” reports Gazetta.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/white-house-briefs-tiktokers-on-ukraine-as-information-war-against-russia-heats-up-461466">White House briefs TikTokers on Ukraine as information war heats up</a>

The list of ‘unfriend countries’ includes the US, Australia, Great Britain, Iceland, Canada, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, South Korea, Japan, Ukraine, Switzerland and EU member states.

More than a dozen companies originating in the West have halted operations in Russia in response to the attack on Ukraine.

Streaming platforms such as Netflix, Disney+Hotstar have blocked their services in Russia.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/in-pics-list-of-foreign-companies-pulling-out-of-russia-keeps-on-growing-459518">List of foreign companies pulling out of Russia keeps on growing</a>

Software companies like Microsoft, Google, Meta, Samsung, Apple, fashion designers like Zara and H&amp;M, apart from automobile companies such as Toyota, Renault, have all ceased operations.

Food and retail companies like McDonald's, Starbucks and Coca-Cola have exited the Russian market. While consumer goods brands Unilever and Kraft Heinz suspended all Russian imports and exports.

(With inputs from agencies)

As more and more companies pull out from Russia over its war on Ukraine, Kremlin is reportedly easing its copyright laws and allowing domestic companies to steal intellectual property from “unfriendly nations”.

As more and more companies pull out from Russia over its war on Ukraine, Kremlin is reportedly easing its copyright laws and allowing domestic companies to steal intellectual property from “unfriendly nations”. Earlier this week, the Russian Ministry of Economic Development proposed relaxing piracy legislation to undermine sanctions imposed by the Western countries. “The possibility of lifting restrictions on the use of intellectual property contained in certain goods, the supply of which to Russia is limited, is being considered,” the ministry said in a statement. “This will smooth out the impact on the market of breaks in supply chains, as well as the shortage of goods and services that arose due to new sanctions by Western countries.” According to a TASS report, such measures would “mitigate the impact on the market of supply chain brakes as well as shortages of goods and services that have arisen due to new sanctions of western countries.” State-backed newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta reports that new laws allow will Russian firms to steal from unfriendly countries without paying to use their intellectual property. “Since many Western studios have refused to release new films in Russia, the parliamentarian believes that thanks to the torrent tracker, users will be able to watch Hollywood films,” reports Gazetta. Also read | White House briefs TikTokers on Ukraine as information war heats up The list of ‘unfriend countries’ includes the US, Australia, Great Britain, Iceland, Canada, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, South Korea, Japan, Ukraine, Switzerland and EU member states. More than a dozen companies originating in the West have halted operations in Russia in response to the attack on Ukraine. Streaming platforms such as Netflix, Disney+Hotstar have blocked their services in Russia. Also read | List of foreign companies pulling out of Russia keeps on growing Software companies like Microsoft, Google, Meta, Samsung, Apple, fashion designers like Zara and H&M, apart from automobile companies such as Toyota, Renault, have all ceased operations. Food and retail companies like McDonald's, Starbucks and Coca-Cola have exited the Russian market. While consumer goods brands Unilever and Kraft Heinz suspended all Russian imports and exports. (With inputs from agencies)

Russia legalises piracy, allows patent thefts to counter West sanctions: Report

India has revoked a patent for a potato variety grown exclusively for PepsiCo Inc's popular Lay's potato chips, according to an order issued on Friday by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights (PPVFR) Authority

In 2019, PepsiCo sued some Indian farmers based in the western state of Gujarat for cultivating the FC5 potato variety, which has a lower moisture content required to make snacks such as potato chips.

Withdrawing the lawsuits the same year, the New York-based company said it wanted to settle the issue amicably.

Later, Kavitha Kuruganti, a farmers' rights activist, petitioned the PPVFR Authority for revocation of intellectual protection granted to PepsiCo's FC5 potato variety, saying that India's rules do not allow a patent on seed varieties.

The PPVFR Authority agreed with Kuruganti's contention that Pepsi cannot claim a patent over a seed variety.

"The certificate of registration...is hereby revoked with immediate effect," K. V. Prabhu, chairman of the PPVFR Authority said in the order, seen by Reuters.

A PepsiCo India spokesman said: "We are aware of the order passed by the PPVFR Authority and are in the process of reviewing the same."

PepsiCo has maintained that it developed the FC5 variety of potato, and registered the trait in 2016.

The company, which set up its first potato chips plant in India in 1989, supplies the FC5 seed variety to a group of farmers who in turn sell their produce to the company at a fixed price.

Lauding the PPVFR Authority's ruling, potato farmers from Gujarat called it a victory for growers.

"The order is a big victory for farmers of India, and reaffirms their right to cultivate any crops," said Bipin Patel, who was one of the Gujarat-based farmers sued by Pepsi in 2019.

India has revoked a patent for a potato variety grown exclusively for PepsiCo Inc's popular Lay's potato chips, according to an order issued on Friday by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights (PPVFR) Authority In 2019, PepsiCo sued some Indian farmers based in the western state of Gujarat for cultivating the FC5 potato variety, which has a lower moisture content required to make snacks such as potato chips.

India has revoked a patent for a potato variety grown exclusively for PepsiCo Inc's popular Lay's potato chips, according to an order issued on Friday by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights (PPVFR) Authority In 2019, PepsiCo sued some Indian farmers based in the western state of Gujarat for cultivating the FC5 potato variety, which has a lower moisture content required to make snacks such as potato chips. Withdrawing the lawsuits the same year, the New York-based company said it wanted to settle the issue amicably. Later, Kavitha Kuruganti, a farmers' rights activist, petitioned the PPVFR Authority for revocation of intellectual protection granted to PepsiCo's FC5 potato variety, saying that India's rules do not allow a patent on seed varieties. The PPVFR Authority agreed with Kuruganti's contention that Pepsi cannot claim a patent over a seed variety. "The certificate of registration...is hereby revoked with immediate effect," K. V. Prabhu, chairman of the PPVFR Authority said in the order, seen by Reuters. A PepsiCo India spokesman said: "We are aware of the order passed by the PPVFR Authority and are in the process of reviewing the same." PepsiCo has maintained that it developed the FC5 variety of potato, and registered the trait in 2016. The company, which set up its first potato chips plant in India in 1989, supplies the FC5 seed variety to a group of farmers who in turn sell their produce to the company at a fixed price. Lauding the PPVFR Authority's ruling, potato farmers from Gujarat called it a victory for growers. "The order is a big victory for farmers of India, and reaffirms their right to cultivate any crops," said Bipin Patel, who was one of the Gujarat-based farmers sued by Pepsi in 2019.

Major win for farmers as India revokes patent for PepsiCo's Lay's potatoes

Iran on Saturday slammed new US sanctions against 10 of its citizens and an Iranian company over their alleged involvement in a massive state-sponsored hacking and intellectual property theft scheme.

The US Treasury Department unveiled charges on Friday against nine Iranians along with sanctions against 10 individuals and the Mabna Institute, which it accused of hacking hundreds of universities on behalf of Iran&#39;s Revolutionary Guards.

Foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Ghassemi called the accusations &quot;false&quot;.

&quot;Iran condemns the United States&#39; provocative, illegal and unjustified actions, which are a major new sign of the hostility and animosity of US leaders towards the Iranian people,&quot; he said in a statement on the ministry&#39;s website.

&quot;They will not prevent the scientific development of the Iranian people.&quot;

The two founders of the Mabna Institute, Gholamreza Rafatnejad, 38, and Ehsan Mohammadi, 37, were among the nine Iranians indicted in New York and whose assets are subject to US seizure.

Since 2013, the Mabna Institute carried out cyber intrusions into the computer systems of 144 US universities, the Treasury Department said, and 176 universities in 21 foreign countries.

Mabna Institute employees and contractors &quot;engaged in the theft of valuable intellectual property and data from hundreds of US and third-country universities... for private financial gain,&quot; it said.

&quot;For many of these intrusions, the defendants acted at the behest of the Iranian government and, specifically, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps,&quot; Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said.

The US Department of Labour, the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, dozens of private firms and non-governmental organisations such as the United Nations Children&#39;s Fund were also allegedly targeted.

Geoffrey Berman, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, said the Iranians conducted &quot;spearphishing&quot; attacks designed to steal passwords from email accounts in what he called one of the largest state-sponsored hacking schemes ever uncovered.

Since taking office in January 2017, US President Donald Trump has adopted a tough stance against Iran and repeatedly denounced a landmark deal that Tehran reached with world powers to curb its nuclear programme.

Trump said in January that the 2015 deal must be &quot;fixed&quot; by May 12 or the United States will walk away.

Iran on Saturday slammed new US sanctions against 10 of its citizens and an Iranian company over their alleged involvement in a massive state-sponsored hacking and intellectual property theft scheme

Iran on Saturday slammed new US sanctions against 10 of its citizens and an Iranian company over their alleged involvement in a massive state-sponsored hacking and intellectual property theft scheme. The US Treasury Department unveiled charges on Friday against nine Iranians along with sanctions against 10 individuals and the Mabna Institute, which it accused of hacking hundreds of universities on behalf of Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Ghassemi called the accusations "false". "Iran condemns the United States' provocative, illegal and unjustified actions, which are a major new sign of the hostility and animosity of US leaders towards the Iranian people," he said in a statement on the ministry's website. "They will not prevent the scientific development of the Iranian people." The two founders of the Mabna Institute, Gholamreza Rafatnejad, 38, and Ehsan Mohammadi, 37, were among the nine Iranians indicted in New York and whose assets are subject to US seizure. Since 2013, the Mabna Institute carried out cyber intrusions into the computer systems of 144 US universities, the Treasury Department said, and 176 universities in 21 foreign countries. Mabna Institute employees and contractors "engaged in the theft of valuable intellectual property and data from hundreds of US and third-country universities... for private financial gain," it said. "For many of these intrusions, the defendants acted at the behest of the Iranian government and, specifically, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps," Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said. The US Department of Labour, the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, dozens of private firms and non-governmental organisations such as the United Nations Children's Fund were also allegedly targeted. Geoffrey Berman, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, said the Iranians conducted "spearphishing" attacks designed to steal passwords from email accounts in what he called one of the largest state-sponsored hacking schemes ever uncovered. Since taking office in January 2017, US President Donald Trump has adopted a tough stance against Iran and repeatedly denounced a landmark deal that Tehran reached with world powers to curb its nuclear programme. Trump said in January that the 2015 deal must be "fixed" by May 12 or the United States will walk away.

Iran slams US sanctions over hacking scheme

The United States imposed sanctions on Friday on 10 Iranians and an Iranian company for alleged hacking hundreds of universities in the US and abroad and the theft of &quot;valuable intellectual property and data.&quot;

The Mabna Institute engaged in &quot;the theft of personal identifiers and economic resources for private financial gain&quot; and for the benefit of Iran&#39;s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the US Treasury Department said.

The two founders of the Mabna Institute are among the 10 people whose assets are subject to US seizure, it said. Nine of the 10 were indicted separately for conspiracy to commit computer intrusions and other charges.

The United States imposed sanctions on Friday on 10 Iranians and an Iranian company for alleged hacking hundreds of universities in the US and abroad and the theft of 'valuable intellectual property and data'

The United States imposed sanctions on Friday on 10 Iranians and an Iranian company for alleged hacking hundreds of universities in the US and abroad and the theft of "valuable intellectual property and data." The Mabna Institute engaged in "the theft of personal identifiers and economic resources for private financial gain" and for the benefit of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the US Treasury Department said. The two founders of the Mabna Institute are among the 10 people whose assets are subject to US seizure, it said. Nine of the 10 were indicted separately for conspiracy to commit computer intrusions and other charges.

US imposes sanctions on Iranians for hacking

The Trump administration is expected to unveil up to $60 billion in new tariffs on Chinese imports by Friday, targeting technology, telecommunications and intellectual property, two officials briefed on the matter said Monday.

One business source, who has discussed the issue with the administration, said that the China tariffs may be subject to a public comment period, which would delay their effective date and allow industry groups and companies to lodge objections.

This would be considerably different from the quick implementation of the steel and aluminium tariffs, which are set to go into effect on March 23, just 15 days after President Donald Trump signed the proclamations.

A delayed approach could allow time for negotiations with Beijing to try to resolve trade issues related to the administration&#39;s &quot;Section 301&quot; probe into China&#39;s intellectual property practices before tariffs take effect.

The White House declined to comment Monday. China has vowed to take retaliatory measures in response.

Reuters first reported on the $60 billion in tariffs last week.

A source who had direct knowledge of the administration&#39;s thinking told Reuters last week that the tariffs, authorized under the 1974 U.S. Trade Act, would be chiefly targeted at information technology, consumer electronics and telecoms and other products benefiting from U.S. intellectual property. But they could be much broader and hit consumer products such as clothing and footwear, with a list eventually running to 100 products, this person said.

China runs a $375 billion trade surplus with the United States and when President Xi Jinping&#39;s top economic adviser visited Washington recently, the administration pressed him to come up with a way of reducing that number.

In January, Trump told Reuters he was considering a big &quot;fine&quot; as part of a probe into China&#39;s alleged theft of intellectual property. Trump said the Chinese government had forced U.S. companies to transfer their intellectual property to China as a cost of doing business there.

Expectations of the anti-China tariffs have alarmed dozens of U.S. business groups, who warned on Sunday they would raise prices for consumers, kill jobs and drive down financial markets.

The White House declined to comment on Monday. China has vowed to take retaliatory measures in response

The Trump administration is expected to unveil up to $60 billion in new tariffs on Chinese imports by Friday, targeting technology, telecommunications and intellectual property, two officials briefed on the matter said Monday. One business source, who has discussed the issue with the administration, said that the China tariffs may be subject to a public comment period, which would delay their effective date and allow industry groups and companies to lodge objections. This would be considerably different from the quick implementation of the steel and aluminium tariffs, which are set to go into effect on March 23, just 15 days after President Donald Trump signed the proclamations. A delayed approach could allow time for negotiations with Beijing to try to resolve trade issues related to the administration's "Section 301" probe into China's intellectual property practices before tariffs take effect. The White House declined to comment Monday. China has vowed to take retaliatory measures in response. Reuters first reported on the $60 billion in tariffs last week. A source who had direct knowledge of the administration's thinking told Reuters last week that the tariffs, authorized under the 1974 U.S. Trade Act, would be chiefly targeted at information technology, consumer electronics and telecoms and other products benefiting from U.S. intellectual property. But they could be much broader and hit consumer products such as clothing and footwear, with a list eventually running to 100 products, this person said. China runs a $375 billion trade surplus with the United States and when President Xi Jinping's top economic adviser visited Washington recently, the administration pressed him to come up with a way of reducing that number. In January, Trump told Reuters he was considering a big "fine" as part of a probe into China's alleged theft of intellectual property. Trump said the Chinese government had forced U.S. companies to transfer their intellectual property to China as a cost of doing business there. Expectations of the anti-China tariffs have alarmed dozens of U.S. business groups, who warned on Sunday they would raise prices for consumers, kill jobs and drive down financial markets.

US expected to hit China with $60 billion in new tariffs, say sources

China is trying to gain access to sensitive US&nbsp;technologies and intellectual properties through telecommunications companies, academia and joint business ventures, US&nbsp;senators and spy chiefs warned on Tuesday at a Senate hearing.

Republican Senator Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he worried about the spread in the United States of what he called &quot;counterintelligence and information security risks that come prepackaged with the goods and services of certain overseas vendors.&quot;

&quot;The focus of my concern today is China, and specifically Chinese telecoms (companies) like Huawei (Technologies Co Ltd) and ZTE Corp, that are widely understood to have extraordinary ties to the Chinese government,&quot; Burr said.

Chinese firms have come under greater scrutiny in the United States in recent years over fears they may be conduits for spying, something they have consistently denied.

A Huawei spokesman said the company is aware of &quot;U.S. government activities seemingly aimed at inhibiting Huawei`s business in the U.S. market.&quot; He also said the firm is trusted by governments and customers in 170 countries and poses no greater cyber security risk than other vendors.

ZTE officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Burr said he worried that foreign commercial investment and acquisitions might jeopardize sensitive technologies and that U.S. academic research and laboratories may be at risk of infiltration by China`s spies.

Several of the U.S. spy agency chiefs who testified at the committee`s annual worldwide threats hearing cited concerns raised by what they called China`s &quot;all of society&quot; approach toward gaining access to technology and intellectual property.

&quot;The reality is that the Chinese have turned more and more to more creative avenues using non-traditional collectors,&quot; said FBI Director Christopher Wray in response to a question about student spies.

Senator Mark Warner, the committee`s Democratic vice chairman, said he worried about commercialization of surveillance technologies as well as the close relationship between the Chinese government and companies.

&quot;Some of these Chinese tech companies may not even have to acquire an American company before they become pervasive in our markets,&quot; Warner said.

Wray said the United States needed a more &quot;strategic perspective on China`s efforts to use acquisitions and other types of business ventures.&quot;

Under questioning from Republican Senator Tom Cotton, none of the Intelligence officials said they would use a Huawei or ZTE product.

Last week, Cotton and Republican Senator Marco Rubio introduced legislation that would block the government from buying or leasing telecoms equipment from Huawei or ZTE, citing concern the companies would use their access to spy on U.S. officials.

In 2012, Huawei and ZTE were the subject of a U.S. investigation into whether their equipment provided an opportunity for foreign espionage and threatened critical U.S. infrastructure - something they have consistently denied.&nbsp;

&quot;Chinese cyber espionage and cyber attack capabilities will continue to support China`s national security and economic priorities,&quot; said Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence.

US senators and spy chiefs warned at a Senate hearing

China is trying to gain access to sensitive US technologies and intellectual properties through telecommunications companies, academia and joint business ventures, US senators and spy chiefs warned on Tuesday at a Senate hearing. Republican Senator Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he worried about the spread in the United States of what he called "counterintelligence and information security risks that come prepackaged with the goods and services of certain overseas vendors." "The focus of my concern today is China, and specifically Chinese telecoms (companies) like Huawei (Technologies Co Ltd) and ZTE Corp, that are widely understood to have extraordinary ties to the Chinese government," Burr said. Chinese firms have come under greater scrutiny in the United States in recent years over fears they may be conduits for spying, something they have consistently denied. A Huawei spokesman said the company is aware of "U.S. government activities seemingly aimed at inhibiting Huawei`s business in the U.S. market." He also said the firm is trusted by governments and customers in 170 countries and poses no greater cyber security risk than other vendors. ZTE officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Burr said he worried that foreign commercial investment and acquisitions might jeopardize sensitive technologies and that U.S. academic research and laboratories may be at risk of infiltration by China`s spies. Several of the U.S. spy agency chiefs who testified at the committee`s annual worldwide threats hearing cited concerns raised by what they called China`s "all of society" approach toward gaining access to technology and intellectual property. "The reality is that the Chinese have turned more and more to more creative avenues using non-traditional collectors," said FBI Director Christopher Wray in response to a question about student spies. Senator Mark Warner, the committee`s Democratic vice chairman, said he worried about commercialization of surveillance technologies as well as the close relationship between the Chinese government and companies. "Some of these Chinese tech companies may not even have to acquire an American company before they become pervasive in our markets," Warner said. Wray said the United States needed a more "strategic perspective on China`s efforts to use acquisitions and other types of business ventures." Under questioning from Republican Senator Tom Cotton, none of the Intelligence officials said they would use a Huawei or ZTE product. Last week, Cotton and Republican Senator Marco Rubio introduced legislation that would block the government from buying or leasing telecoms equipment from Huawei or ZTE, citing concern the companies would use their access to spy on U.S. officials. In 2012, Huawei and ZTE were the subject of a U.S. investigation into whether their equipment provided an opportunity for foreign espionage and threatened critical U.S. infrastructure - something they have consistently denied. "Chinese cyber espionage and cyber attack capabilities will continue to support China`s national security and economic priorities," said Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence.

US senators concerned about Chinese access to intellectual property

intellectual-property

Intellectual Property, News on Intellectual Property, stories on Intellectual Property, articles on Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property stories at Wion, Intellectual Property news, Intellectual Property latest news