Apple Watch ban: Here’s what happens next

 An extensive legal battle is brewing after the Biden administration declined to veto an International Trade Commission (ITC) import ban on the Apple Watch. 

The ITC ruled in December that Apple infringed on wearable heart monitoring technology patented by California startup AliveCor. Apple currently uses an electrocardiogram sensor in question in its high-end Apple Watch models.  

U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai on Tuesday allowed the ITC decision to go through, despite Apple’s apparent lobbying effort to get the Biden administration to block the potential ban on its popular smartwatch. 

From here, the two companies are set to engage in a drawn-out legal dispute. Here’s what will happen next. 

Appeals court will decide Apple’s fate

The Commerce Department’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruled in December that the AliveCor patents at the center of the ITC case were invalid. The PTAB decision put the ITC’s Apple Watch import ban on hold.

AliveCor is appealing the PTAB ruling, while Apple is appealing the ITC ruling. A federal appeals court will ultimately decide whether Apple Watches will face an import ban.  

William Mandir, a partner at intellectual property law firm Sughrue Mion, said that appeals courts typically side with the PTAB decision around 75 percent of the time, giving Apple an early advantage. 

“In general, it’s an uphill battle, which on its face seems to favor Apple,” Mandir said. “But you’d have to really dive into the specifics to see what the merits are on appeal.”

AliveCor first shared its technology with Apple in 2015 in hopes of securing a partnership with the tech giant.

The startup said that Apple introduced Apple Watch models in 2018 that had built-in heart monitoring sensors — and blocked third-party app providers from accessing users’ heart rate data — forcing AliveCor to cancel sales of its Apple Watch heart monitoring accessory. 

Those claims would be moot if an appeals court affirmed the PTAB ruling. Apple said in court filings that it first began developing and patenting its own heart monitoring systems more than a decade ago.

“The patents on which AliveCor’s case rest have been found invalid, and for that reason, we should ultimately prevail in this matter,” an Apple spokesperson said in a statement.   

Import ban won’t happen anytime soon

The appeals process is expected to drag into the middle of 2024, as the general timeline for PTAB appeals is 12 to 18 months, according to AliveCor.

That means Apple Watch models won’t face an import ban for some time, and Apple could explore several avenues to avoid the ban entirely.

AliveCor is pushing for a settlement where Apple pays the startup to license its heart-monitoring technology. That would prevent an Apple Watch import ban, but AliveCor said that Apple hasn’t shown interest in settling.  

“We can license our IP to them tomorrow or the next second if they would like to, but they don’t want to have a conversation. It’s all about going with litigation rather than innovation,” AliveCor CEO Priya Abani told The Hill. 

Even if Apple lost the appeal and chose not to settle, the company could still keep Apple Watch sales alive by making modifications to the device.

“They would have to take out the feature that was found to infringe or disable it. Another option is they could keep the feature if there’s a way to redesign it so it still works but doesn’t infringe the patent,” Sughrue Mion managing partner John Rabena said. “The watches wouldn’t go away, but maybe a feature would.” 

Apple Watch sparked other legal challenges

AliveCor is pursuing a separate antitrust lawsuit against Apple, which it expects to go on trial in early 2024.

The startup claims that Apple made software updates accompanying the introduction of its own heart monitoring app that prevented other companies from accessing Apple Watch users’ heart rate data, blocking competition and cutting off AliveCor users. 

“With a single update, Apple thus eliminated competition that consumers clearly wanted and needed, depriving them of choice for heart rate analysis that is better than what Apple can provide,” AliveCor wrote in its May 2021 complaint. “And all for an incremental value gain for an already-two-trillion-dollar company.”

Apple argued that it’s under no obligation to to provide its platform for use by another company.

A federal judge in March 2022 ruled against Apple’s bid to dismiss the lawsuit, stating that the update’s purpose was to “prevent third parties from identifying irregular heart rate situations and from offering competing heart rate analysis apps.” 

Abani said that Apple frequently uses a similar tactic with other app developers to quash competition, saddling users with fewer choices and less innovative technology. She described AliveCor’s lawsuit as a “David vs. Goliath battle” with enormous implications for the future of startups in the U.S.

Apple was dealt another blow last month when an ITC judge ruled that Apple infringed on pulse oximeter sensors patented by medical tech company Masimo.

The case will go before the full commission this year, where the ITC could enact yet another import ban on Apple Watch models that use the technology. 

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3873145-apple-watch-ban-heres-what-happens-next/

Spanish authorities detect first suspected case of Marburg disease

 Spain has detected its first suspected case of Marburg disease, a deadly infectious disease that has led to the quarantining of more than 200 people in Equatorial Guinea, health authorities in the Spanish region of the Valencia said on Saturday.

A 34-year-old man, who had recently been in Equatorial Guinea, has been transferred from a private hospital to an isolation unit at the Hospital La Fe in Valencia while tests are carried out, the regional health authorities said.

Three health staff who are treating the man have been isolated as a precautionary measure, authorities said.

The results of tests to determine if the patient has the virus should be known this weekend, a spokesperson for the Spanish Health Ministry said.

Marburg virus can have a fatality rate of up to 88%, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). There are no vaccines or antiviral treatments approved to treat it.

Equatorial Guinea quarantined more than 200 people and restricted movement on Feb. 13 in its Kie-Ntem province, where the hemorrhagic fever was first detected.

The small central African country has so far reported nine deaths as well as 16 suspected cases of the disease, with symptoms including fever, fatigue, blood-stained vomit and diarrhoea, according to the WHO.

The WHO said it was increasing its epidemiological surveillance in Equatorial Guinea.

Cameroonian authorities detected two suspected cases of Marburg disease on Feb. 13 in Olamze, a commune on the border with Equatorial Guinea, the public health delegate for the region, Robert Mathurin Bidjang, said on Feb. 14.

Cameroon had restricted movement along the border to try to avoid contagion.

https://www.yahoo.com/now/spanish-authorities-detect-first-suspected-081558177.html

Google's news-blocking test in Canada a 'terrible mistake', says PM Trudeau

  Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Friday it was a "terrible mistake" for Alphabet Inc's Google to block news content in reaction to a government bill that would compel the tech giant to pay publishers in Canada for news content.

Google said this week it was testing blocking some Canadian users' access to news as a potential response to the Trudeau government's "Online News Act," which is expected to be passed into law.

Trudeau, speaking to reporters in Toronto, said the blocking of news in Canada was an issue "bothering" him.

"It really surprises me that Google has decided that they'd rather prevent Canadians from accessing news than actually paying journalists for the work they do," he said.

"I think that's a terrible mistake and I know Canadians expect journalists to be well paid for the work they do.”

Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The "Online News Act," which Trudeau's Liberal government introduced last year, created rules for platforms like Meta's Facebook and Google to negotiate commercial deals and pay news publishers.

Facebook has also raised concerns about the legislation and warned it might be forced to block news-sharing on its platform.

The legislation passed Canada's House of Commons in December and is currently in the unelected upper chamber of the parliament, which rarely blocks legislation the lower house clears.

The rules aim to help the Canadian news industry, which has called for regulation of tech firms, citing growing financial losses while Facebook and Google steadily gain greater market share of online advertising income.

Ottawa's proposal is similar to a ground-breaking law that Australia passed in 2021, which too triggered threats from Google and Facebook to curtail their services. Both eventually struck deals with Australian media companies after a series of amendments to the legislation were offered.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/googles-news-blocking-test-canada-222343459.html

Mexico rethinks asylum initiative after controversial US announcement

 Mexico is rethinking its approach toward asylum seekers after the Biden administration unveiled a controversial new proposal to limit asylum eligibility in the United States.

Mexico’s refugee assistance agency, known as COMAR, launched a pilot program in southern Mexico on Monday to explore expediting asylum denials to those it deems likely to travel onward to the US.

The aim is to deter those migrants from accessing temporary documents issued by COMAR while their cases are being evaluated, which they might use to travel north – a common phenomenon, according to COMAR’s head Andrés Ramírez.

But after the Biden administration announced its proposed new asylum rules on Tuesday, COMAR plans to abandon the strategy and use what it learned from the pilot program to come up with a different solution, Ramírez said.

The US proposal – which has been panned by human rights advocates and immigration experts – largely bars migrants who have not taken a legal pathway and instead traveled through other countries on their way to the US southern border from applying for asylum in the US. It would take effect in May.

Among its proposed new conditions on eligibility for US asylum: being denied protection in a third country through which they traveled.

Ramírez now worries that accelerating asylum denials could actually increase Mexico’s attractiveness as a pit stop for those ultimately aiming to request asylum in the US.

“The new policy that was recently announced [by the United States] changes the whole thing. We need to rethink it,” Ramírez said.

Migrant numbers at the US-Mexico border have been on the rise since last year, with increasing numbers of people from Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Colombia – many fleeing repressive government and stark economic pressures.

Passing through Mexico

Though the one-week pilot program did not include actually issuing swift denials, it studied behaviors of individuals from nationalities deemed by COMAR most likely to be traveling for economic reasons rather than for international protection – Senegalese and Angolan migrants in particular, according to Ramírez.

Enter your email to subscribe to the CNN Fareed Zakaria global analysis newsletter.

close dialog

Receive Fareed Zakaria’s Global Briefing

including insights and must-read world news

By subscribing you agree to our

privacy policy.

By Mexican law, asylum seekers are required to stay in the state where they filed for asylum to see the process through.

Once registered with COMAR, asylum seekers are provided with deportation protection, access to the public health care system and work eligibility.

Ramírez says that his agency recently noticed that many migrants who began the asylum process in the city of Tapachula, in southern Mexico, later abandoned the process. They used a preliminary COMAR document to travel within the country toward its northern border.

“They are abusing the system,” said Ramírez. “That shows us that many of these people are not really interested in (Mexico’s) refugee system and the asylum procedure.”

He estimated that in Tapachula, Mexico about 70% of the individuals from countries other than Haiti were abusing the system.

Haitians, he said, have been continuing with the local asylum process there at a higher rate.

A record number of applications

Mexico has received a surge of asylum applications in recent years, Ramírez says.

In January 2023, nearly 13,000 people signed up to seek asylum in Mexico, according to COMAR data. That’s more than double the number of asylum registrations from one year ago in January 2022, the data shows.

If applications continue at this pace, 2023 could be on track to becoming the refugee agency’s busiest year ever.

The record for most applications ever was set in 2021, he said, when COMAR received nearly 130,000 asylum applications.

“We were at the risk of collapsing. It was terrible,” Ramírez said.

His priority now is to figure out a way to prevent the asylum system in Mexico from being overwhelmed, he says.

After the results of this week’s experiment documenting the behaviors of individuals who likely qualified for expedited denials is analyzed, his team will submit proposals with new solutions to combat what they see as abuses of the system – an approach that Ramírez says will ultimately allow COMAR to prioritize asylum seekers who intend to make Mexico home.

“For us it’s very important to take care of the asylum system in Mexico,” Ramírez said. “If the asylum system is collapsed, then we’re done.”

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/24/americas/mexico-asylum-policy-intl-latam/index.html

House GOP Investigate State Dept-Funded 'Disinformation' Group Behind Conservative Blacklists

 by Amy Gamm via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) sent a letter on Thursday to the U.S. State Department demanding records and a briefing by the agency regarding its alleged funding of a “disinformation tracking group” that is blacklisting conservative-leaning news outlets.

The letter (pdf) cites as evidence the Washington Examiner’s series of investigative reports uncovering the State Department’s alleged partnership with activist organizations, specifically one “foreign organization,” to “suppress lawful speech and defund disfavored news outlets under the guise of combatting disinformation.”

“The Committee is disturbed by recent reporting that taxpayer money ended up in the hands of a foreign organization running an advertising blacklist of organizations accused of hosting disinformation on their websites, including several conservative-leaning news organizations,” Comer wrote.

The letter goes on to detail the Washington Examiner’s findings.

According to the outlet, major ad companies look to “nonpartisan” groups that claim to detect and fight “disinformation” online to help determine which news outlets and websites they should avoid.

Some of these “disinformation monitors,” the Washington Examiner went on to explain, “are compiling secret blacklists and feeding them to ad companies, with the aim of defunding and shutting down disfavored speech.”

One such group is British Global Disinformation Institute (GDI), which has compiled a “dynamic exclusion list” of 2,000 websites and rates those outlets based on their “alleged disinformation ‘risk’ factor,” according to the Washington Examiner.

GDI’s website further explains its purpose. Calling itself an “independent, non-profit, open source, intelligence hub,” GDI “tracks disinformation and extremism across platforms online” to “serve a broad array of governments, NGOs [non-governmental organizations], online platforms, and media.”

In his letter, Comer cites a $330,000 figure that, according to the Washington Examiner, GDI received from State Department funds.

“The federal government should not be censoring free speech nor policing what news outlets Americans choose to consume,” Comer wrote in the letter.

“And taxpayer funds should never be given to third parties with the intent that they be used to censor lawful speech or abridge the freedom of the press,” he continued.

While calling for the State Department to schedule a staff-level briefing “no later than March 2,” Comer went on to list the types of documents and communications that he demands the Department deliver to the committee by March 9 “to enable oversight of the Department’s administration of funds flowing to organizations working to censor lawful speech and suppress press freedoms.”

GDI’s Naughty and Nice Lists of US News Media Organizations

In Dec. 2022, GDI published a study, called “Disinformation Risk Assessment: The Online News Market in the United States,” of 69 U.S. news websites that the organization analyzed between June and October 2022, placing each of them into one of five categories of disinformation risk—minimum, low, medium, high, or maximum.

GDI defines disinformation as “adversarial narratives, which are intentionally misleading; financially or ideologically motivated; and/or aimed at fostering long-term social, political, or economic conflict; and which create a risk of harm by undermining trust in science or targeting at-risk individuals or institutions.”

According to its criteria, GDI found that the ten most disinformation risky websites were all conservative-leaning, including Newsmax (maximum), The Federalist (maximum), The American Spectator (maximum), the New York Post (high), Reason Magazine (high), RealClearPolitics (high), The Daily Wire (high), The Blaze (high), One America News Network (high), and The American Conservative (high).

In contrast, the ten least risky sites earning the “minimum-risk” or “low-risk” designation were NPR (minimum), AP News (minimum), The New York Times (minimum), ProPublica (minimum), Insider (low), USA Today (low), The Washington Post (low), BuzzFeedNews.com (low), The Wall Street Journal (low), and The Huffington Post (low).

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/house-gop-investigate-state-department-funded-disinformation-group-behind-conservative

Not enough data to support multiple annual COVID boosters: U.S. CDC advisers

 There is not sufficient evidence to recommend more than one COVID-19 booster shot a year for older people and those with weakened immune systems, an expert advisory group to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said on Friday.

The COVID-19 working group of the CDC's Advisory Committee For Immunization Practices (ACIP) supported an annual booster campaign, likely in the fall, especially for populations considered at high risk, Dr. Sara Oliver, a CDC official who heads the group, said during a meeting of the agency's outside advisers.

The agency currently recommends older and immunocompromised people receive COVID booster shots more frequently since vaccine effectiveness usually wanes faster for those populations compared to younger people with robust immune systems.

In the spring of 2022, the CDC recommended immunocompromised and people over age 50 receive an additional shot if they had received their first booster at least four months earlier.

The CDC advisers did not vote on new recommendations for how the COVID-19 shots should be administered on Friday.

But ACIP advised showing flexibility in recommendations for those with compromised or weakened immune systems to allow more frequent doses for those most vulnerable to severe COVID.

Both the CDC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are working on how to best update COVID vaccines to target circulating variants annually, similar to flu vaccine campaigns.

About 53.3 million people in the United States - around 16% of the U.S. population - have received a COVID-19 booster shot since updated versions of the vaccines were authorized in September.

That compares with 230 million people, around 70% of the population, that received an initial two-dose series of the COVID vaccines.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/not-enough-data-support-multiple-202632599.html

Russia's Medvedev floats idea of pushing back Poland's borders

 Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev said on Friday that the only way for Moscow to ensure a lasting peace with Ukraine was to push back the borders of hostile states as far as possible, even if that meant the frontiers of NATO member Poland.

Medvedev, who is now deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, made the comments in a message on his Telegram account exactly a year after Russia sent tens of thousands of troops into Ukraine in what it called a "special military operation" to protect Russian speakers and ensure its own security.

Ukraine says it is defending itself from an unprovoked colonial-style war of aggression and has vowed to retake all of its own territory by force, including Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014.

Medvedev, an ally of President Vladimir Putin, forecast on Friday that Russia would be victorious and that some kind of loose agreement would eventually end the fighting.

"Victory will be achieved. We all want it to happen as soon as possible. And that day will come," said Medvedev. He predicted that tough negotiations with Ukraine and the West would follow that would culminate in "some kind of agreement."

But he said that deal would lack what he called "fundamental agreements on real borders" and not amount to an over-arching European security pact, making it vital for Russia to extend its own borders now.

"That is why it is so important to achieve all the goals of the special military operation. To push back the borders that threaten our country as far as possible, even if they are the borders of Poland," said Medvedev.

Poland shares long eastern borders with Ukraine and with Russia's ally Belarus, and a frontier of some 200 km (125 miles) in its northeastern corner with the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad.

Any encroachment on Poland's borders would bring Russia for the first time into direct conflict with NATO. U.S. President Joe Biden pledged in a speech in Warsaw this week to defend "every inch" of NATO territory if it was attacked.

Medvedev, 57, has adopted an increasingly hawkish tone and made a series of outspoken interventions since the war began with some political analysts suggesting he is one of the people that Putin might one day consider as a successor.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russias-medvedev-floats-idea-pushing-091433077.html