Inkhabar webdesk

(Reuters) -Super Micro Computer trimmed its first-quarter revenue forecast on Thursday, citing a shift in customer delivery schedules for large artificial intelligence deals. Shares of the company fell around 7% after it said "design win upgrades" pushed some expected revenue to the second quarter. The AI server maker said it now expects first-quarter revenue for fiscal year 2026 to be $5 billion, compared with its earlier forecast of between $6 billion and $7 billion. Analysts were expecting $6.52 billion revenue for the quarter ended September 30, according to data compiled by LSEG. Super Micro, however, reiterated its fiscal year 2026 revenue forecast of at least $33 billion, driven by what it described as "robust demand" for its AI solutions. Its stock has risen about 72% so far this year. The company said it has secured new business of more than $12 billion with delivery requested in the second quarter of fiscal 2026. Insatiable demand for servers that provide the computing power needed to run services such as ChatGPT has turned companies such as Super Micro and Dell into big winners of the generative AI boom. "The AI data center market is moving very quickly with customers requesting the leading edge designs. We believe Super Micro is nimble enough to react to customer requests despite the near-term revenue disruptions," Rosenblatt Securities analyst Kevin Cassidy said in a note. Major tech companies, including Alphabet, Amazon.com, Meta, Microsoft and CoreWeave, are on track to spend $400 billion on AI infrastructure this year, according to Morgan Stanley estimates. In August, Super Micro reported weakness in internal control over its financial reporting. The company disclosed in a regulatory filing that unresolved issues could "adversely affect" its ability to report results of operations in a timely and accurate manner. (Reporting by Jaspreet Singh in Bengaluru; Editing by Vijay Kishore)

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

By Sara Merken (Reuters) -Two federal judges admitted in response to an inquiry by U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley that members of their staff used artificial intelligence to help prepare recent court orders that Grassley called "error-ridden." In letters released by Grassley's office on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate in Mississippi and U.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals in New Jersey said the decisions in the unrelated cases did not go through their chambers' typical review processes before they were issued. Both judges said they have since adopted measures to improve how rulings are reviewed. Neals, based in Newark, in his letter said a draft decision in a securities lawsuit "was released in error – human error – and withdrawn as soon as it was brought to the attention of my chambers." He said a law school intern used OpenAI's ChatGPT for research without authorization or disclosure. Neals said his chambers has since created a written AI policy and enhanced its review process. Reuters previously reported that research produced using AI was included in the decision, citing a person familiar with the circumstances. Wingate said in his letter that a law clerk in his court in Jackson used Perplexity "as a foundational drafting assistant to synthesize publicly available information on the docket." He said posting the draft decision "was a lapse in human oversight." Wingate had removed and replaced the original order in the civil rights lawsuit and previously declined to give an explanation, saying it contained "clerical errors." The judges did not immediately respond to requests for comment sent to their court staff. Grassley had asked the judges to explain whether AI was used in the decisions after lawyers in the cases said they contained factual inaccuracies and other serious errors. Grassley in a statement on Thursday said he commended the judges for acknowledging the mistakes and urged the judiciary to adopt stronger AI guidelines. "Each federal judge, and the judiciary as an institution, has an obligation to ensure the use of generative AI does not violate litigants' rights or prevent fair treatment under the law," Grassley said. Lawyers have also increasingly faced scrutiny from judges across the country for apparent misuse of AI. Judges have levied fines or other sanctions in dozens of cases over the past few years after lawyers failed to vet the output the technology generated. (Reporting by Sara Merken; Editing by David Bario and Marguerita Choy)

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

(Reuters) -Microsoft on Thursday introduced new features in its digital assistant Copilot such as collaboration and deeper integration with other applications like Outlook and Google, beefing up its AI services to stave off competition. Other artificial intelligence service providers such as Anthropic and OpenAI are upgrading their models and launching products aimed at capturing a wider share of the booming AI market. If it gets permission, Copilot can see and use reasoning over a user's tabs on Microsoft's Edge browser, summarize and compare information and take action like booking a hotel. Previous browsers can also be turned into "storylines" so people can revisit older ideas. Along with the software features, the company introduced an avatar called "Mico" – a nod to Microsoft Copilot – which can show expressions and change color to make conversations feel natural, the company said. The upgrades are an attempt to boost the appeal of Microsoft's browser to gain ground on Alphabet's Google Chrome, while OpenAI also entered the browser market with Atlas. Groups turns Copilot into a shared space, able to support up to 32 people, allowing users to collaborate on writing and other projects. The company has also improved Copilot's health-related questions, addressing how to ground responses from credible sources, as concerns over misinformation from AI-generated responses rise. All the updates are live in the United States, Microsoft said, adding that it will roll them out across the UK, Canada and beyond in the next few weeks. (Reporting by Zaheer Kachwala in Bengaluru; Editing by Leroy Leo)

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

By Sara Merken (Reuters) -Two federal judges admitted in response to an inquiry by U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley that members of their staff used artificial intelligence to help prepare recent court orders that Grassley called "error-ridden." In letters released by Grassley's office on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate in Mississippi and U.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals in New Jersey said the decisions in the unrelated cases did not go through their chambers' typical review processes before they were issued. Both judges said they have since adopted measures to improve how rulings are reviewed. Neals, based in Newark, in his letter said a draft decision in a securities lawsuit "was released in error – human error – and withdrawn as soon as it was brought to the attention of my chambers." He said a law school intern used OpenAI's ChatGPT for research without authorization or disclosure. Neals said his chambers has since created a written AI policy and enhanced its review process. Reuters previously reported that research produced using AI was included in the decision, citing a person familiar with the circumstances. Wingate said in his letter that a law clerk in his court in Jackson used Perplexity "as a foundational drafting assistant to synthesize publicly available information on the docket." He said posting the draft decision "was a lapse in human oversight." Wingate had removed and replaced the original order in the civil rights lawsuit and previously declined to give an explanation, saying it contained "clerical errors." The judges did not immediately respond to requests for comment sent to their court staff. Grassley had asked the judges to explain whether AI was used in the decisions after lawyers in the cases said they contained factual inaccuracies and other serious errors. Grassley in a statement on Thursday said he commended the judges for acknowledging the mistakes and urged the judiciary to adopt stronger AI guidelines. "Each federal judge, and the judiciary as an institution, has an obligation to ensure the use of generative AI does not violate litigants' rights or prevent fair treatment under the law," Grassley said. Lawyers have also increasingly faced scrutiny from judges across the country for apparent misuse of AI. Judges have levied fines or other sanctions in dozens of cases over the past few years after lawyers failed to vet the output the technology generated. (Reporting by Sara Merken; Editing by David Bario and Marguerita Choy)

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

LONDON (Reuters) -Apple on Thursday lost a London lawsuit accusing the U.S. tech company of abusing its dominant position by charging app developers an unfair 30% commission through its app store. The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruled against Apple after a trial of the lawsuit, brought on behalf of around 20 million iPhone and iPad users in the United Kingdom and valued at up to 1.5 billion pounds ($2.01 billion), earlier this year. Rachael Kent, the British academic who brought the case, argued Apple had made "exorbitant profits" by excluding all competition for the distribution of apps and in-app purchases. The CAT ruled that Apple had abused its dominant position by shutting out competition in the app distribution market and by "charging excessive and unfair prices in the form of the commission which it charges developers". The tribunal said members of the claimant class were entitled to damages, with how damages are to be calculated to be argued at a hearing next month. Apple – which has faced mounting pressure from regulators in the U.S. and Europe over the fees it charges developers – said it would appeal against the ruling, which it said "takes a flawed view of the thriving and competitive app economy". "This ruling overlooks how the App Store helps developers succeed and gives consumers a safe, trusted place to discover apps and securely make payments," an Apple spokesperson said. The case was the first mass lawsuit against a tech giant to come to trial under Britain's fledgling class action-style regime, with many other cases waiting in the wings. ($1 = 0.7451 pounds) (Reporting by Sam Tobin; editing by William James)

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)

LONDON (Reuters) -Apple on Thursday lost a London lawsuit accusing the U.S. tech company of abusing its dominant position by charging app developers an unfair 30% commission through its App Store. The Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled against Apple after a trial of the lawsuit, brought on behalf of around 20 million iPhone and iPad users in the United Kingdom and valued at up to 1.5 billion pounds ($2.01 billion), earlier this year. The case was the first mass lawsuit against a tech giant to come to trial under Britain's fledgling class action-style regime, with many other cases waiting in the wings. ($1 = 0.7451 pounds) (Reporting by Sam Tobin; editing by William James)

(The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.)