Brazilian Court Requires Suspension of Elon Musk’s X after Expiration of Deadline

The Supreme Court of Brazil has ordered the suspension of social media platform X’s activities in the country as the company failed to appoint a legal representative within the specified deadline.

Judge Alexandre de Moraes, in a continuing legal battle with X’s owner Elon Musk, issued an order on Friday evening for the complete suspension of X’s operations until all court orders are fulfilled, fines are paid, and a new legal representative is appointed in the country.

The National Telecommunications Agency of Brazil has been given 24 hours to enforce the court’s decision, after which over 20,000 broadband providers in the country will be required to block access to X.

The agency’s director, Carlos Manuel Baigorri, confirmed that the order has been communicated to internet providers, with the expectation that all businesses will have implemented the blocks by the weekend.

Initially, Judge Moraes instructed Apple and Google to block X apps and VPN applications. However, these references were later removed pending further information from the involved parties.

Individuals or companies attempting to use X through VPNs will face fines of 50,000 reais per day.

Following X’s failure to appoint new legal representatives, Musk announced that the platform would not comply with the court’s orders.

Musk criticized Brazil’s actions, accusing the country of stifling the truth and intimidating those seeking it.

The conflict between Musk and the Brazilian authorities began in April, with accusations of spreading misinformation and censorship.

President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva emphasized the need for compliance with Brazilian laws and court decisions, warning against disrespect for the country’s sovereignty.

In response to Musk’s actions, local bank accounts linked to Starlink, Musk’s satellite and internet provider, were blocked to enforce fines imposed on X.

As legal experts criticized the decision affecting Starlink, the internet provider assured customers of continued service despite the financial implications.

Starlink has requested the Supreme Court to reconsider Moraes’ decision and lift the freeze on its accounts, or alternatively, limit the freeze to the fine amount imposed on X.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Technology companies express concerns over potential “irreparable harm” due to White House-backed sales suspension of Apple Watch | Science and Technology News

Apple expressed concerns about potential “irreparable harm” after the White House backed a ban on imports of certain watches due to a dispute over blood oxygen technology.

The tech giant has submitted an emergency motion to the court, seeking permission to continue selling two popular models, the Series 9 and Ultra 2, until the patent dispute with medical monitoring tech company Masimo is resolved.

Apple has requested the ban to be temporarily lifted until U.S. Customs determines whether a redesigned version of its watch infringes Masimo’s patents, with a decision expected on January 12th.

Masimo has accused Apple of stealing pulse oximetry technology for monitoring blood oxygen levels and incorporating it into their watch, as well as luring some of its employees to switch to Apple.

The US ITC has ordered a ban on the import and sale of models utilizing blood oxygen level reading technology.

Wealth management analyst Dan Ives stated that the halt in watch sales before the holiday season could cost Apple $300-400 million, but the company is still expected to make nearly $120 billion in sales for the quarter, including the holiday period.

Read more:
– Have an old iPhone? You could be entitled to compensation in a UK court case
– Apple updates iPhone 12 software after radiation test

U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai upheld the ITC’s decision, but previously purchased Apple Watches with blood oxygen measurement capabilities are not affected by the ban.

Apple contests the ITC’s decision, claiming it is based on factual errors and that Masimo does not sell significant quantities of competing products in the U.S., and would not be harmed by a ban on orders.

Source: news.sky.com