विज्ञान

LONDON (Reuters) -Qualcomm is fighting a 480 million-pound ($646.8 million) London lawsuit brought on behalf of smartphone owners, which alleges the chipmaker has abused its dominant position to force Apple and Samsung to pay inflated royalties. A British consumers' association that goes by the name of Which? is bringing the case and its lawyers say around 29 million people who bought iPhones or Samsung devices since 2015 are entitled to compensation. The group alleges Qualcomm made the manufacturers pay inflated royalties even if its chips are not used in a device under a worldwide so-called no licence, no chips policy. Lawyers representing Which? said in court documents prepared for a five-week trial starting on Monday that this operates as "an industry-wide private tax which ensures higher profits for Qualcomm and inflates the cost of devices." Qualcomm, however, says the lawsuit mischaracterises its long-standing requirement for manufacturers to obtain a licence for its standard essential patents before buying chipsets. The company's lawyers also rejected the suggestion by Which? that Qualcomm could demand certain royalties from Apple and Samsung, who "can and do exert enormous buyer power". The case brought by Which? at London's Competition Appeal Tribunal is to determine whether Qualcomm is liable to the claimant class, with a further trial to determine any damages if Which? is successful. A similar consumer lawsuit against Qualcomm in California, which challenged the company's patent licensing and exclusive-dealing chip agreements with Apple and other manufacturers, was dismissed in 2023. ($1 = 0.7421 pound) (Reporting by Sam Tobin in LondonEditing by Matthew Lewis)

(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 David Shepardson and Akash Sriram (Reuters) -Verizon Communications on Monday named former PayPal boss Dan Schulman as its new chief executive officer, replacing Hans Vestberg in a leadership transition aimed at steering the telecom giant through slowing growth in the wireless market. The move comes as Verizon is battling rising competition against the backdrop of slowing subscriber growth and cautious consumers unwilling to buy premium plans offered by wireless carriers. Schulman, 67, led PayPal for nearly a decade before stepping down in 2023, steering the payments firm through its split from eBay and a surge in online transactions during the COVID pandemic. Schulman, who has served on Verizon's board for seven years, is focused on improving the customer experience. He told employees in an email on Monday the lessons from PayPal that "mattered most during that time weren’t about technology or scale, they were about culture, listening to customers and empowering teams to drive real change." He added: "We must drive financial results that exceed current market expectations." Vestberg oversaw the $52 billion purchase and clearing of key wireless C-Band spectrum in a 2021 auction and then negotiated with regulators and airlines over the deployment. He also struck a $20 billion deal to acquire Frontier Communications and a $6 billion acquisition of pre-paid mobile phones provider TracFone Wireless. Verizon has also held talks about potentially acquiring spectrum from EchoStar. "We’ve made transformational investments in C-Band spectrum that have positioned us to win in the next era of connectivity," Vestberg said in a note to employees on Monday. "We’re also on the verge of closing the acquisition of Frontier, which will further expand our broadband footprint and open up even more opportunities for growth." Verizon shares were down 3% in morning trading. Vestberg's tenure at Verizon was marked by heavy investments in 5G networks and efforts to diversify revenue through media and enterprise services, though the company later exited most of its media holdings. Verizon has faced mounting pressure from rivals AT&T and T-Mobile US as the U.S. wireless market matures. Vestberg, who took the helm in 2018, will remain with the company as a special adviser through October 2026. Verizon's stock has underperformed shares of rival telecom operators in the past few years. The appointment comes a few weeks after T-Mobile announced a CEO replacement, reflecting a changing U.S. telecom sector with market leaders working to attract consumer dollars amid the fierce competition. (Reporting by Akash Sriram in Bengaluru and David Shepardson in Washington; Editing by Vijay Kishore, Maju Samuel and Chris Reese)

(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 Max A. Cherney and Arsheeya Bajwa SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) -AMD will supply artificial intelligence chips to OpenAI in a multi-year deal that would bring in tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue and give the ChatGPT creator the option to buy up to roughly 10% of the chipmaker. Shares of the chipmaker surged more than 34% on Monday, putting them on track for their biggest one-day gain in over nine years and adding roughly $80 billion to the company's market value. The deal, latest in a string of investment commitments, underscores OpenAI and the broader AI industry's voracious appetite for computing power as companies race toward developing AI technology that meets or exceeds human intelligence. "We view this deal as certainly transformative, not just for AMD, but for the dynamics of the industry," AMD executive vice president Forrest Norrod told Reuters on Sunday. VOTE OF CONFIDENCE The agreement closely ties the startup at the center of the AI boom to AMD, one of the strongest rivals of Nvidia, which recently agreed to make substantial investments in OpenAI. Analysts said it was a major vote of confidence in AMD's AI chips and software but is unlikely to dent Nvidia's dominance, as the market leader continues to sell every AI chip it can make. It covers the deployment of hundreds of thousands of AMD's AI chips, or graphics processing units (GPUs), equivalent to six gigawatts, over several years beginning in the second half of 2026. This is roughly equivalent to the energy needs of 5 million U.S. households, or about thrice the amount of power produced by the Hoover Dam. AMD said OpenAI would build a one-gigawatt facility based on its forthcoming MI450 series of chips beginning next year, and that it would begin to recognize revenue then. AMD executives expect the deal to net tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue. Because of the ripple effect of the agreement, AMD expects to receive more than $100 billion in new revenue over four years from OpenAI and other customers, they said. The chipmaker is expected to report revenue of $32.78 billion this year, according to LSEG data. In contrast, analysts are expecting Nvidia to report revenue of $206.26 billion for the current fiscal year. "AMD has really trailed Nvidia for quite some time. So I think it helps validate their technology," said Leah Bennett, chief investment strategist at Concurrent Asset Management. Shares of Nvidia dipped more than 1%. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said the AMD deal will help his startup build enough AI infrastructure to meet its needs. It was not immediately clear how OpenAI would fund the massive deal. OpenAI, which is valued at $500 billion, generated around $4.3 billion in revenue in the first half of 2025 and burned through $2.5 billion in cash, according to media reports. DEAL DETAILS As part of the arrangement, AMD issued a warrant that gives OpenAI the ability to buy up to 160 million shares of AMD for 1 cent each over the course of the chip deal. The warrant vests in tranches based on milestones that the two companies have agreed on. The first tranche will vest after the initial shipment of MI450 chips set for the second half of 2026. The remaining milestones include specific AMD stock price targets that escalate to $600 a share for the final installment of stock to unlock. In September, Nvidia announced a deal to supply OpenAI with at least 10 gigawatts worth of its systems. In contrast with the startup's deal with AMD where it will take a stake in the chipmaker, Nvidia will invest $100 billion in the ChatGPT parent under the terms of the agreement announced in September. Taking a stake in AMD could give OpenAI "the power to potentially influence corporate strategy. With Nvidia, OpenAI is simply the client and not a part-owner," said Dan Coatsworth, head of markets at A.J. Bell. OPENAI WANTS MORE GPUs OpenAI has worked with AMD for years, providing inputs on the design of older generations of AI chips such as the MI300X. The San Francisco-based AI company has been taking a number of steps to ensure it has the chips needed for its future needs. Altman has floated expectations of reaching 250 gigawatts of compute in total by 2033, The Information has reported. OpenAI's deal last month with Nvidia includes the deployment of one gigawatt of the chip giant's next-generation Vera Rubin processors in late 2026. OpenAI is also in the process of developing its own silicon for AI use and has partnered with Broadcom, Reuters reported last year. The startup and its main backer, Microsoft, announced last month that they had signed a non-binding agreement to restructure OpenAI into a for-profit entity. A person familiar with the matter said the deal with AMD does not change any of OpenAI's ongoing compute plans, including that effort or its partnership with Microsoft. (Reporting by Max A. Cherney in San Francisco; Additional reporting by Deepa Seetharaman in San Francisco and Arsheeya Bajwa and Sukriti Gupta in Bengaluru; Editing by Muralikumar Anantharaman and Anil D'Silva)

(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) -Qualcomm is fighting a 480 million-pound ($646.8 million) London lawsuit brought on behalf of smartphone owners, which alleges the chipmaker has abused its dominant position to force Apple and Samsung to pay inflated royalties. A British consumers' association that goes by the name of Which? is bringing the case and its lawyers say around 29 million people who bought iPhones or Samsung devices since 2015 are entitled to compensation. The group alleges Qualcomm made the manufacturers pay inflated royalties even if its chips are not used in a device under a worldwide so-called no licence, no chips policy. Lawyers representing Which? said in court documents prepared for a five-week trial starting on Monday that this operates as "an industry-wide private tax which ensures higher profits for Qualcomm and inflates the cost of devices." Qualcomm, however, says the lawsuit mischaracterises its long-standing requirement for manufacturers to obtain a licence for its standard essential patents before buying chipsets. The company's lawyers also rejected the suggestion by Which? that Qualcomm could demand certain royalties from Apple and Samsung, who "can and do exert enormous buyer power". The case brought by Which? at London's Competition Appeal Tribunal is to determine whether Qualcomm is liable to the claimant class, with a further trial to determine any damages if Which? is successful. A similar consumer lawsuit against Qualcomm in California, which challenged the company's patent licensing and exclusive-dealing chip agreements with Apple and other manufacturers, was dismissed in 2023. ($1 = 0.7421 pound) (Reporting by Sam Tobin in LondonEditing by Matthew Lewis)

(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) -Qualcomm is fighting a 480 million-pound ($646.8 million) London lawsuit brought on behalf of smartphone owners, which alleges the chipmaker has abused its dominant position to force Apple and Samsung to pay inflated royalties. A British consumers' association that goes by the name of Which? is bringing the case and its lawyers say around 29 million people who bought iPhones or Samsung devices since 2015 are entitled to compensation. The group alleges Qualcomm made the manufacturers pay inflated royalties even if its chips are not used in a device under a worldwide so-called no licence, no chips policy. Lawyers representing Which? said in court documents prepared for a five-week trial starting on Monday that this operates as "an industry-wide private tax which ensures higher profits for Qualcomm and inflates the cost of devices." Qualcomm, however, says the lawsuit mischaracterises its long-standing requirement for manufacturers to obtain a licence for its standard essential patents before buying chipsets. The company's lawyers also rejected the suggestion by Which? that Qualcomm could demand certain royalties from Apple and Samsung, who "can and do exert enormous buyer power". The case brought by Which? at London's Competition Appeal Tribunal is to determine whether Qualcomm is liable to the claimant class, with a further trial to determine any damages if Which? is successful. A similar consumer lawsuit against Qualcomm in California, which challenged the company's patent licensing and exclusive-dealing chip agreements with Apple and other manufacturers, was dismissed in 2023. ($1 = 0.7421 pound) (Reporting by Sam Tobin in LondonEditing by Matthew Lewis)

(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) -Qualcomm is fighting a 480 million-pound ($646.8 million) London lawsuit brought on behalf of smartphone owners, which alleges the chipmaker has abused its dominant position to force Apple and Samsung to pay inflated royalties. A British consumers' association that goes by the name of Which? is bringing the case and its lawyers say around 29 million people who bought iPhones or Samsung devices since 2015 are entitled to compensation. The group alleges Qualcomm made the manufacturers pay inflated royalties even if its chips are not used in a device under a worldwide so-called no licence, no chips policy. Lawyers representing Which? said in court documents prepared for a five-week trial starting on Monday that this operates as "an industry-wide private tax which ensures higher profits for Qualcomm and inflates the cost of devices." Qualcomm, however, says the lawsuit mischaracterises its long-standing requirement for manufacturers to obtain a licence for its standard essential patents before buying chipsets. The company's lawyers also rejected the suggestion by Which? that Qualcomm could demand certain royalties from Apple and Samsung, who "can and do exert enormous buyer power". The case brought by Which? at London's Competition Appeal Tribunal is to determine whether Qualcomm is liable to the claimant class, with a further trial to determine any damages if Which? is successful. A similar consumer lawsuit against Qualcomm in California, which challenged the company's patent licensing and exclusive-dealing chip agreements with Apple and other manufacturers, was dismissed in 2023. ($1 = 0.7421 pound) (Reporting by Sam Tobin in LondonEditing by Matthew Lewis)

(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) -Qualcomm is fighting a 480 million-pound ($646.8 million) London lawsuit brought on behalf of smartphone owners, which alleges the chipmaker has abused its dominant position to force Apple and Samsung to pay inflated royalties. A British consumers' association that goes by the name of Which? is bringing the case and its lawyers say around 29 million people who bought iPhones or Samsung devices since 2015 are entitled to compensation. The group alleges Qualcomm made the manufacturers pay inflated royalties even if its chips are not used in a device under a worldwide so-called no licence, no chips policy. Lawyers representing Which? said in court documents prepared for a five-week trial starting on Monday that this operates as "an industry-wide private tax which ensures higher profits for Qualcomm and inflates the cost of devices." Qualcomm, however, says the lawsuit mischaracterises its long-standing requirement for manufacturers to obtain a licence for its standard essential patents before buying chipsets. The company's lawyers also rejected the suggestion by Which? that Qualcomm could demand certain royalties from Apple and Samsung, who "can and do exert enormous buyer power". The case brought by Which? at London's Competition Appeal Tribunal is to determine whether Qualcomm is liable to the claimant class, with a further trial to determine any damages if Which? is successful. A similar consumer lawsuit against Qualcomm in California, which challenged the company's patent licensing and exclusive-dealing chip agreements with Apple and other manufacturers, was dismissed in 2023. ($1 = 0.7421 pound) (Reporting by Sam Tobin in LondonEditing by Matthew Lewis)

(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 Akash Sriram (Reuters) -Tesla teased an October 7 event, in which investors and analysts anticipate a more affordable model to sustain sales momentum, sending the shares of the Elon Musk-led electric automaker 4% higher on Monday. In a nine-second video posted on social media platform X on Sunday, Tesla showed a vehicle with its headlights illuminated in a dark setting, while hinting at an event set for Tuesday in a separate video that had "10/7" at the end. The teaser follows Tesla's record third-quarter deliveries, driven by a surge in EV purchases ahead of the expiration of the $7,500 U.S. EV tax credit on September 30. However, analysts expect Tesla's annual deliveries to fall for a second straight year to about 1.62 million vehicles, as expiring incentives and a demand slowdown linked to CEO Musk's polarizing politics weigh on sales. Tesla has previously delayed rolling out a lower-cost version of the Model Y in the U.S. It said in June it had made "first builds" of the vehicle, but would start selling it in the fourth quarter and ramp up output at a pace that would be slower than planned. The stripped-down version is designed to be roughly 20% cheaper to produce than the refreshed Model Y and could scale to about 250,000 units a year in the U.S. by 2026. Wall Street expects Tesla's deliveries to jump next year to 1.85 million vehicles, with the cheaper model accounting for 155,610 units in 2026, according to Visible Alpha estimates. "Tesla is teasing something big as a flurry of X posts has fans bracing for what looks like the launch of a more affordable Model Y tomorrow," said Matt Britzman, senior equity analyst, Hargreaves Lansdown, who personally owns Tesla shares. "The price tag will be the real tell, offering clues on how far Tesla has pushed cost savings and how much new demand it can unlock." The company has not introduced a new mass-market vehicle in years, relying heavily on incremental updates to the Model 3 and Model Y to drive sales. Sales of its last major launch, the Cybertruck, have struggled, with Tesla offering thousands of dollars in discounts for vehicles in inventory in the past few months.  A U.S. recall filing in March showed 46,096 Cybertrucks had been built between its introduction in November 2023 and early this year. (Reporting by Mrinmay Dey and Akash Sriram in Bengaluru; Editing by Jamie Freed, Mrigank Dhaniwala and Arun Koyyur)

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

NEW YORK (Reuters) -Bitcoin hovered near its record high on Monday as the world's largest cryptocurrency by market value continued to benefit from strong demand from investors. The rally in bitcoin since the start of the year has been underpinned by flows from institutional investors, friendlier policies of the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, and an increasing connection with global financial systems. Bitcoin climbed above $125,000 for the first time on Sunday, rising to $125,653.32. It was last up 1.88% to $125,081.85, on course for the second straight session of gains. It has gained more than 33% this year. "Bitcoin is the hurdle rate. If you can't beat it, you have to buy it. And I think the next 12 weeks are going to be very fun for bitcoin holders," wrote Anthony Pompliano, founder and CEO of Professional Capital Management, in a letter to investors on Monday. Bitcoin's ascent has coincided with the weakness of the U.S. dollar against major peers as some investors sought to diversify away from U.S. assets in the wake of uncertainty in trade tensions from Trump's tariffs. The dollar index, which measures the greenback against a basket of currencies including the yen and the euro, was flat at 98.12. It is down nearly 10% this year. [FRX/] "Bitcoin has surged ever since it briefly broke below $110,000 just over a week ago. The current rally means that Bitcoin has added around 13% since 28th September," wrote David Morrison, senior market analyst at FCA-regulated fintech and financial services provider Trade Nation, in emailed comments. "Its daily MACD (Moving Average Convergence Divergence) has turned up sharply, and while this indicates a rise in upside momentum, it may be that bitcoin will need to consolidate before it has a chance to push up further."  (Reporting by Chibuike Oguh and Gertrude Chavez in New York; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Chris Reese)

(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 Mike Scarcella WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a bid by Europe's largest software maker SAP to avoid a lawsuit by U.S. data technology company Teradata that accused it of violating American antitrust law. The justices turned away SAP's appeal of a lower court's decision that let Teradata pursue claims that its larger German rival violated U.S. antitrust law by tying sales of business-planning applications to the purchase of a key SAP database that can perform transactional and analytical functions. San Diego-based Teradata makes a rival analytics database. Teradata filed its lawsuit against SAP in federal court in California in 2018. SAP has denied any wrongdoing. A judge has scheduled an April 2026 trial on Teradata's claims, as well as on a counterclaim that SAP lodged against Teradata accusing it of patent infringement. "We are disappointed the Supreme Court has declined to review these important legal issues. We remain confident in our position, reject Teradata's claims and look forward to resolving the matter in the trial court," SAP said in a statement. Teradata declined to comment. SAP sells "enterprise resource planning" software to companies that lets them manage data used in daily activities such as finance and supply-chain operations. Teradata makes a database that can provide analytics on such a substantial amount of data. The company said SAP customers relied on other tech companies like Teradata to handle the data that SAP's applications produced. The lawsuit accused SAP of illegally tying sales of its business operations software to a new product that was developed to compete with Teradata's database.  Two key legal standards guide how judges resolve whether conduct restrains competition: the "per se rule," under which alleged conduct is presumed illegal; and the "rule of reason," under which judges balance between anticompetitive effects and a defendant's procompetitive justification. SAP won in the district court, but the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived Teradata's case in 2024. The 9th Circuit said there was a material dispute between the companies that a jury could take up and decide. The 9th Circuit, using a version of the "per se rule," applied too stringent a standard in evaluating Teradata's claims, SAP told the Supreme Court in a filing. SAP said the 9th Circuit's ruling clashed with how another federal appeals court in Washington in 2001 resolved a landmark antitrust case against Microsoft. In its filing at the Supreme Court, SAP said its two products were integrated, and that such integration benefits consumers and allows companies to compete effectively. Teradata urged the justices to reject SAP's appeal. It disputed that SAP's two products were integrated and also denied there was any divide among the federal appeals courts about which rules judges should use to evaluate antitrust lawsuits. Meta Platforms and Microsoft jointly submitted a friend-of-the-court brief backing SAP at the Supreme Court. (Reporting by Mike Scarcella; Editing by Will Dunham)

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