EU-sanctioned Indian refiner Nayara takes Microsoft to court over outage
NEW DELHI (Reuters) -Russia-backed Indian refiner Nayara Energy Monday said it has started legal proceedings against Microsoft following the abrupt and unilateral suspension of critical services by the U.S.-headquartered software giant.
"Microsoft is currently restricting Nayara Energy's access to its own data, proprietary tools, and products—despite these being acquired under fully paid-up licenses," the refiner said in a statement.
Nayara, a major buyer of Russian oil, was recently sanctioned by the European Union as the refinery is majority-owned by Russian entities, including oil major Rosneft.
Microsoft last Tuesday halted services for Nayara Energy, sources familiar with the matter said, adding that the company's employees' Outlook email accounts and Teams have not been working.
Microsoft declined to comment on the issue.
Nayara Energy has filed a petition before Delhi High Court seeking an interim injunction and resumption of services to safeguard its rights and ensure continued access to essential digital infrastructure, the company said.
It said Microsoft had not consulted the company before withdrawing the services.
"This action has been taken unilaterally, without prior notice, consultation or recourse, and under the guise of compliance," it said.
Since the imposition of EU sanctions against Nayara, at least two tankers skipped loading refined products from Vadinar and one crude tanker carrying Russian Urals was diverted.
Its chief executive resigned and the company had to appoint Sergey Denisov as CEO.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Big Tech's AI Spend Could Reach $400 Billion
Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) and Meta (NASDAQ:META) are pushing Big Tech's AI infrastructure spend toward an estimated $400 billion, with public filings already showing $344 billion this year. The increase is funding data centers, AI ready servers and model training as Morgan Stanley sees the surge adding up to 0.5% to U.S. GDP in 2025 and 2026 and projects $2.9 trillion in related investment from 2025 to 2028. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 7 Warning Sign with MSFT. Microsoft set a record with $24.2 billion in capex last quarter and plans more than $30 billion this quarter, while Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) logged $31.4 billion, and Alphabet raised its full year capex forecast to $85 billion. Meta raised the low end of 2025 guidance and is expanding its internal AI unit, signaling further planned Street has reacted unevenly: Microsoft and Meta shares climbed, with Microsoft hitting a $4 trillion value and Meta up more than 8%, while Amazon slid 8% after weak cloud results. Apple remains an outlier with $9.47 billion invested over nine months, up 45% year over year, prioritizing efficiency. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio
Business Insider
12 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Ex-Google exec says AI is coming for your job — even if you're a podcaster, developer, or CEO
Mo Gawdat, the former chief business officer of Google X, has a stark message for white-collar professionals: artificial intelligence isn't just coming for entry-level work — it's coming for everyone, from software developers to CEOs to podcasters. In a Monday conversation on the "Diary of a CEO" podcast, Gawdat predicted that most knowledge workers will be replaced in the next decade and that many still underestimate just how rapidly this transformation will unfold. He cited his own startup, which builds emotional and relationship-focused artificial intelligence and is run by just three people. "That startup would have been 350 developers in the past," he said. "As a matter of fact, podcaster is going to be replaced," he told host Steven Bartlett. Even elite professionals shouldn't feel immune. "AGI is going to get better at everything than humans — at everything, including being a CEO," he said. "The onething they don't think of is AI will replace them, too." Gawdat, who previously worked for Google X, the tech firm's research arm, described the present moment as a brief transition phase — the "era of augmented intelligence" — where humans can still work alongside AI. But that will soon give way to "machine mastery," where AI systems will perform entire roles, from assistants to architects. The former Google X executive said he's not anti-AI. He said he's actively working to build ethical systems that reflect human values like love and connection. But he warned that AI is being deployed by people and institutions driven by profit and ego, not ethics. "Unless you're in the top 0.1%, you're a peasant," Gawdat said. "There is no middle class." He predicted a "short-term dystopia" beginning around 2027, driven by mass unemployment, social unrest, and an economic structure that fails to adapt. Still, he said, a better future, one filled with freedom, creativity, and human connection, is possible. "We were never made to wake up every morning and just occupy 20 hours of our day with work," he said. "We defined our purpose as work — that's a capitalist lie." "But the truth is it could be the best world ever," he said. "The society completely full of laughter and joy. Free healthcare, no jobs, spending more time with their loved ones. A world where all of us are equal." In a 2023 episode of the same podcast, Gawdat went even further: AI is "beyond an emergency," he said. "It's the biggest thing we need to do today. It's bigger than climate change, believe it or not." At the time, he called on governments to tax AI-powered businesses at 98% to slow the industry demand and fund the support systems needed for people who will be displaced. "The likelihood of something incredibly disruptive happening within the next two years that can affect the entire planet is definitely larger with AI than it is with climate change," Gawdat said. Microsoft, Nvidia, and Meta push back on doomsday AI predictions Not everyone shares Gawdat's apocalyptic forecast for AI. A July study by Microsoft researchers found that AI chatbots are more useful for assisting with tasks involving research, writing, and communication — not replacing entire jobs. Other experts remain divided. Geoffrey Hinton, the so-called "Godfather of AI," has echoed Gawdat's concern, warning that AI will "replace everybody" doing "mundane intellectual labor." Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei predicted half of entry-level white-collar jobs could vanish within five years. But Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang disagreed. He believes AI will reshape how work is done, not eliminate it — calling prompting AI a "highly cognitive skill" and describing AI as "the greatest technology equalizer." Meta's chief AI scientist, Yann LeCun, has also dismissed doomsday predictions, saying he " pretty much disagrees with everything Dario says" and believes humans will remain the "boss" of future AI systems.
Forbes
12 minutes ago
- Forbes
Monetizing Generative AI In Healthcare: Two Competing Paths
Generative AI is advancing faster than any technology in modern memory. When OpenAI released ChatGPT in late 2022, few in the medical community took notice. Most doctors saw it as a novelty, perhaps useful for administrative tasks or as a basic reference tool, but too unreliable for clinical care. In just a few years, that perception has shifted. Today's GenAI tools from companies like Google, Microsoft and Nvidia outperform most physicians on national medical exams and clinical challenges. Although none are currently recommended for patient use without physician oversight, that restriction is likely to be lifted soon. GenAI capabilities continue to double annually, and OpenAI's GPT-5 model is expected to launch within days. That raises a pressing question: How will generative AI be monetized in healthcare? Two competing visions are emerging. The first follows a familiar playbook: tech companies developing new FDA-approved tools for diagnosis and treatment. The second is clinician-led and would allow patients to use readily available, inexpensive large language models to manage their chronic diseases and assess new symptoms. To understand the advantages of each approach, it's first helpful to examine how different generative AI tools are from the AI applications used in medicine today. The Current Standard: Narrow AI Healthcare's traditional AI tools rely on technologies developed more than 25 years ago. Known as 'narrow AI,' these models are trained on large datasets to solve specific, well-defined problems. These applications are developed by training AI models to compare two datasets, detect dozens of subtle differences between them and assign a probability factor to each. For reliable results, the training data must be objective, accurate and replicable. That's why nearly all narrow AI tools are applied in visual specialties like radiology, pathology and ophthalmology — not cognitive fields that depend on subjective entries in the electronic medical record. Although these tools outperform clinicians, they are 'narrow' and can be used only for the specific task they were designed to complete. Take mammography, for example. Early-stage breast cancer can mimic benign conditions such as fibrocystic disease, causing radiologists to disagree when interpreting the same image. A narrow AI model trained on 10,000 mammograms (half from patients with confirmed cancer and half without) can detect far more differences than the human eye, resulting in 10-20% greater diagnostic accuracy than doctors. To evaluate narrow AI tools, the FDA assesses both the accuracy of the training data and the consistency of the tool's performance, similar to how it approves new drugs. This approach, however, doesn't work for generative AI. The development process and resulting technology are fundamentally different. The New Opportunity: Generative AI Today's large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini are trained on the near-totality of internet-accessible content, including thousands of medical textbooks and academic journals. This broad, in-depth training enables LLMs to respond to virtually any medical question. But unlike narrow AI, their answers are highly dependent on how users frame their questions, prompt the model and follow up for clarification. That user dependency makes traditional FDA validation, which relies on consistent and repeatable responses, effectively impossible. However, the multimodal nature of generative AI (working across writing, audio, images and video) opens a wide range of opportunities for clinicians. For example, I recently spoke with a surgeon who used ChatGPT to interpret a post-operative chest X-ray. The AI not only provided an accurate assessment, but it did so immediately, a full 12 hours before the radiologist issued a formal report. Had there been a serious problem that the surgeon failed to recognize, the LLM would have proven lifesaving. Even without formal approval, physicians and patients increasingly consult GenAI for medical expertise. While there's still debate over whether LLMs are ready for independent clinical use by patients, the pace of progress is breathtaking. Microsoft recently reported that its Diagnostic Orchestrator tool achieved 85.5% accuracy across 304 New England Journal of Medicine case studies, compared to only 20% for physicians. How Will Generative AI Be Monetized In Medicine? As generative AI becomes more powerful each year, two distinct approaches are emerging for how it might be monetized in healthcare. Each model has trade-offs: Medical care often fails to deliver optimal outcomes at a price patients can afford. This monetization model would seek to close those gaps. Take diabetes, where fewer than half of patients achieve adequate disease control. The result: hundreds of thousands of preventable and costly heart attacks, kidney failure and limb amputations each year. In other cases, patients struggle to access timely, affordable advice for new symptoms or for managing their multiple chronic conditions One way to solve these problems would be through GenAI tools built by entrepreneurial companies. Venture funding would allow startups to apply a process called distillation to extract domain-specific knowledge from open-source foundation models like DeepSeek or Meta's LLaMA. They would then refine these models, training them on radiologist interpretations of thousands of X-rays, transcripts from patient advice centers or anonymized recordings of conversations with patients. The result: specialized generative AI tools designed to address specific gaps in care delivery. Developing these tools will be expensive, both in terms of model training and the FDA approval process. Companies would also face legal liability for adverse outcomes. Still, if successful, these tools would likely command high prices and deliver substantial profits. Although less profitable than an FDA-approved device or bot, the second path to GenAI monetization would prove easier to develop, much less expensive and far more transformative. Rather than developing new software, this approach empowers patients to use existing large language models (ChatGPT, Gemini or Claude) to access similar expertise. In this model, clinicians, educators or national specialty societies — not private companies — would take the lead and share in the benefits. They would create low-cost instructional materials for various patient-learning preferences ranging from digital guides and printed pamphlets to YouTube videos and short training courses. These resources would teach patients how to use any of the publicly available large language models safely and effectively. Using these educational tools, patients would learn how to enter blood glucose readings from home monitors or blood pressure measurements from electronic cuffs. The large language model would then assess their clinical progress and suggest whether medication adjustments might be needed. Patients could also ask questions about new symptoms, receive likely diagnoses and learn when to seek immediate medical care. In conjunction with their physician, they could use GenAI's image and video capabilities to identify signs of wound infections and alert their surgeons. Those individuals with chronic heart failure could monitor their condition more closely and catch signs of decompensation early — allowing cardiologists to intervene before hospitalization becomes necessary. A GI specialist could identify complex intestinal conditions using daily patient-reported inputs, or a neurologist could diagnose ALS by analyzing videos of a patient's gait. Unlike startup models that require tens of millions in funding and FDA approval, these educational tools could be developed and deployed quickly by doctors and other clinicians. Because they teach patients how to use existing tools rather than offer direct medical advice, they would avoid many regulatory burdens and face reduced legal liability. And with 40% of physicians already working part-time or in gig roles, there are hundreds, or likely thousands, of experts ready to contribute. And since generative AI tools can provide information in dozens of languages and literacy levels, they would offer unprecedented accessibility. Which Path Will We Take? The two models aren't mutually exclusive, and both will likely shape the future of medicine. Given the potential for massive financial return from the first approach, we can assume that dozens of entrepreneurs are already developing disease-focused generative AI tools. But rather than waiting for technology companies to introduce GenAI tools, physicians working alone or in conjunction with educational companies have the opportunity to drive the process and improve our nation's health.
