OpenAI scrubs mention of Jony Ive partnership after judge's ruling over trademark dispute
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A budding partnership between OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and legendary iPhone designer Jony Ive to develop a new artificial intelligence hardware product has hit a legal snag after a federal judge ruled they must temporarily stop marketing the new venture.
OpenAI last month announced it was buying io Products, a product and engineering company co-founded by Ive, in a deal valued at nearly $6.5 billion.
But it quickly faced a trademark complaint from a startup with a similarly sounding name, IYO, which is also developing AI hardware that it had pitched to Altman's personal investment firm and Ive's design firm in 2022.
U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson ruled late Friday that IYO has a strong enough trademark infringement case to proceed to a hearing in October. Until then, she ordered Altman, Ive and OpenAI to refrain from 'using the IYO mark, and any mark confusingly similar thereto, including the IO mark in connection with the marketing or sale of related products.'
OpenAI responded by scrubbing its website of mentions of the new venture, including a web page of the May 21 announcement.
In its place, the company had a message Monday that said the page 'is temporarily down due to a court order' and added: 'We don't agree with the complaint and are reviewing our options.'
IYO CEO Jason Rugolo applauded the ruling Monday in a written statement that said the startup will aggressively protect its brand and tech investments.
'IYO will not roll over and let Sam and Jony trample on our rights, no matter how rich and famous they are,' Rugolo said.
Wednesdays
Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture.
——
The Associated Press and OpenAI have a licensing and technology agreement that allows OpenAI access to part of AP's text archives.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Texas governor calls for special session after vetoing a bill to ban THC-infused goods
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas Gov. Greg Abbott vetoed a bill that would have banned consumable hemp products containing THC ingredients in the state, but said he's open to lawmakers passing a new effort to regulate what has become a booming business. In fact, he's already summoned lawmakers to a special session in July to do just that. But the Republican's 11th-hour veto Sunday night, delivered just minutes before the bill would become law, drew sharp criticism from some of his top conservatives allies who want to eradicate a business they consider dangerous. The veto was a victory for thousands of retailers and hemp farmers in Texas who worried they could be put out of business, and for advocates who said a ban would harm people who use THC to treat PTSD and other serious conditions. At a press conference Monday, Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who has led the effort to crack down on the THC market, said he was confused by the governor's actions and that the veto amounts to legalizing marijuana in Texas. Here's what else to know: What is THC and how is it regulated? Tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, is the compound that gives marijuana its psychoactive properties. It can be derived from hemp, a plant that is related to but different from marijuana and is used to produce textiles, plastics and other goods. A 2018 federal law allowed states to regulate hemp, which must contain less than 0.3% THC, but variants of hemp can be modified to have more potent concentrations. This has opened up a lucrative market of hemp-derived THC goods that are available in many convenience stores across the country, including in states like Texas where marijuana is strictly prohibited. Critics of the Texas bill pointed to the thousands of jobs and millions in revenue the industry has brought into the state. Many retailers have also said that it allows people to access the medicinal benefits of marijuana without navigating the state's limited medical marijuana program. Supporters of the bill have expressed concerns about the dangers of THC consumables because there is little federal oversight into how they are manufactured. The fate of THC in other states Several other states have moved to regulate hemp-derived THC goods. States where marijuana is legal, such as Colorado, restrict THC consumables with age limits and caps on potency per serving. Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee and other states where recreational marijuana is prohibited have also pushed for more regulation. Texas' bill would have been one of the more far-reaching because it did not allow any amount of THC, according to experts. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis in Florida refused to sign similar legislation last year over concerns that it would hurt small businesses. The governor's veto On Sunday, the Texas governor called for a special session to take up the THC bill and other proposals this July. In his veto of the bill, Abbott encouraged lawmakers to consider age restrictions and regulation around the marketing and packaging of THC consumables rather than an outright ban to avoid hemp farmers, pharmacists and others from being prosecuted for owning small amounts. 'Legislators could consider a structure similar to the way alcohol is regulated, with strict enforcement by an agency like the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission,' Abbott said in his proclamation vetoing the bill. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the president of the Senate, said Monday that regulation instead of prohibition would be the same as legalizing marijuana in the state. 'I'm not going to legalize marijuana in the state of Texas,' Patrick said. 'By this veto, he has now put us in a box.' Supporters of the veto Many industry groups and retailers applauded the governor's decision on Monday and thanked him for taking their concerns seriously. 'This is a victory for all Texans who have spoken loudly and clearly,' the Hemp Industry & Farmers of America said in a statement Sunday. 'This is what we have been asking for,' the Texas Hemp Coalition said in an Instagram post in response to the governor's proclamation. 'Thank you for trusting us!' ___ Lathan is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
The Republican attempt to discourage Trump lawsuits has hit a big obstacle
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans have hit a roadblock in an effort that could deter nonprofits, individuals and other potential litigants from filing lawsuits to block President Donald Trump over his executive actions. As Trump faces lawsuits nationwide, GOP lawmakers had sought to bar federal courts from issuing temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions against the federal government unless the plaintiffs post what in many cases would be a massive financial bond at the beginning of the case. The proposal was included in the Senate version of Trump's massive tax and immigration bill, but ran into trouble with the Senate parliamentarian, who said it violates the chamber's rules. It is now unlikely to be in the final package. Federal judges can already require plaintiffs to post security bonds, but such funds are commonly waived in public interest cases. The GOP proposal would make the payment of the financial bond a requirement before a judge could make a ruling, which critics said would have a chilling effect on potential litigants who wouldn't have the resources to comply. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer hailed the parliamentarian's ruling in a press statement and called the GOP effort 'nothing short of an assault on the system of checks and balances that has anchored the nation since it's founding.' 'But Senate Democrats stopped them cold,' Schumer said. Lawmakers are running scores of provisions by the Senate parliamentarian's office to ensure they fit with the chamber's rules for inclusion in a reconciliation bill. The recommendations from Elizabeth MacDonough will have a major impact on the final version of the legislation. On Friday, she determined that a proposal to shift some food stamps costs from the federal government to states would violate the chamber's rules. But some of the most difficult questions are still to come as Republicans hope to get a bill passed and on Trump's desk to be signed into law before July 4th. Republicans could still seek to include the judiciary provision in the bill, but it would likely be challenged and subject to a separate vote in which the provision would need 60 votes to remain. The parliamentarian's advice, while not binding, is generally followed by the Senate. Republicans and the White House have been highly critical of some of the court rulings blocking various Trump orders on immigration, education and voting. The courts have agreed to block the president in a number of cases, and the administration is seeking appeals as well. In April, the House voted to limit the scope of injunctive relief ordered by a district judge to those parties before the court, rather than applying the relief nationally. But that bill is unlikely to advance in the Senate since it would need 60 votes to advance. That's left Republicans looking for other avenues to blunt the court orders. 'We are experiencing a constitutional crisis, a judicial coup d'etat,' Rep. Bob Onder, R-Mo., said during the House debate.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Oil sells off as traders calmly look beyond the bombs in the Middle East
NEW YORK (AP) — If oil prices are any measure, Iran just flinched. The price of oil tumbled Monday afternoon in an historical move as traders bet that Iran's decision to bomb a U.S. base in Qatar signals it is not planning to do the one thing that could really hurt America: Shut down the flow of oil by attacking crude shipments. 'When the response comes and it is muted, oil drops,' said Tom Kloza, chief market strategist at consultancy Turner Mason & Co, calling the limited Iran response far short of what many traders feared. 'This rivals some of the historic selloffs.' There's still plenty Iran could do to push prices back up, and the markets could be getting it all wrong, But oil analysts say there are plenty of reasons fear has receded. Scary then calm The price of West Texas Intermediate, the U.S. benchmark, fell 7.2% to $68.51 per barrel on Monday after Iran announced a missile attack on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which the U.S. military uses. Traders were relieved because Iran said it had matched the number of bombs dropped by the U.S. on Iranian nuclear sites this weekend, a possible sign of a desire to deescalate the conflict. Markets were initially nervous as oil futures opened for trading Sunday. The price of Brent crude jumped 4% as traders anxiously watched the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway on Iran's southern border that legislators in Tehran were demanding be closed in retaliation. That would have walloped the global economy because much of world's crude and liquified gas passes through it. The drop in oil Monday brings the price back to where it was before fighting between Iran and Israel began over a week ago, when a barrel of U.S. crude was just above $68. That's good news for President Donald Trump who wants the Federal Reserve to stop worrying about inflation and start cutting interest rates. It's also good for motorists this summer if the trend holds. Drivers were already paying higher prices at the pump before the U.S. attack. The average price nationwide is $3.18 per gallon, according to GasBuddy surveys, about 10 cents more than two weeks ago. 'It would be suicidal' The question now is will Tehran continue to keep oil flowing. Some traders were doubtful Iran would try to close the Strait of Hormuz even before its limited attack Monday. They noted that much of country's own crude passes through the waterway — 1.5 million barrels a day — and oil is a big revenue generator for the country that they would be loath to disrupt. 'It's a silly notion that the Iranians would look to do that,' said Kloza. 'I've been covering oil for 50 years and we've never seen the Strait of Hormuz compromised.' Asked about the prospect of a shutdown on NBC's 'Meet the Press' Sunday, Vice President J.D. Vance put it more simply: 'I think that would be suicidal.' At current oil prices, Tehran receives roughly $40 billion in revenue annually from oil transiting the same waters. That is a tenth of what the entire of country produces in goods and services. Yes, but Andy Lipow, an Houston based oil analyst, says history suggests Iran won't disrupt its own flow of oil, but that countries, like people, don't always act in their economic interests. 'The question for the oil markets is, 'Is his time different?',' he said. 'You might have an emotional decision.' He notes also that Iran has other ways to push oil higher without completely closing off the waterway. Iran could jam navigational devices, slowing transit, or drop mines in the water, forcing the U.S. Navy to do more escorts. Or it could bomb a tanker, he said, sending the premiums that shippers need to pay insurers sky high. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. Big gamble If traders are wrong and oil shoots back up, the impact could be widely felt. A surge in oil prices would come at a bad time. Trump insists that the inflation scare is largely over, but many economists think higher prices are still coming because the full impact of his tariffs are only now beginning to show up on everyday goods. Trump is clearly aware things could change fast. 'To The Department of Energy: DRILL, BABY, DRILL!!! And I mean NOW!!!' he wrote on Truth Social Monday, adding. 'EVERYONE, KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN. I'M WATCHING!'
