智通财经APP获悉，当地时间周三，谷歌(GOOGL.US)律师约翰·施密特林在美国联邦法院听证会上向法 官阿米特·梅塔向法院表示，希望继续捆绑热门地图和视频应用与Gemini AI服务，以回应美国司法部此 前提出的禁止提议。施密特林强调，"目前没有任何迹象表明谷歌在人工智能市场已获得垄断地位或市 场力量"，同时指出法院并未认定谷歌地图或YouTube构成垄断产品。 此前，梅塔法官已裁定谷歌在搜索及搜索广告业务中存在垄断行为，并正在制定针对性补救措施。上月 裁决中，他禁止谷歌向合作方支付费用以换取搜索、Chrome浏览器或Google Play商店的独家使用权 限，但未完全禁止所有形式的支付行为。该裁决融合了谷歌词控双方的部分提议，因此本周三的听证会 上双方均主张法官采纳己方措辞。 审判期间证人证词显示，谷歌向设备商给出"要么全部预装、要么无法使用 Play 商店"的捆绑条件，要 求对方若想使用安卓系统最大的应用商店Play Store，必须预装近十款谷歌应用。例如微软Surface Duo 触摸屏设备便因此被迫采用谷歌搜索而非自家必应引擎。司法部认为，此前针对搜索、Chrome和Play的 禁令应扩展至Gem ...

Core Viewpoint - The lawsuits against Character Technologies highlight the psychological risks associated with AI chatbots, particularly for minors, as families seek accountability for the harm caused to their children [2][3][11]. Group 1: Legal Actions and Accusations - Three families have filed lawsuits against Character Technologies, Google, and individual founders, citing severe psychological harm to their children from interactions with the Character.AI chatbot [2][3]. - The lawsuits specifically target Google's Family Link app, claiming it failed to protect children from the risks associated with Character.AI, creating a false sense of security for parents [3][11]. - Allegations include that Character.AI lacks emotional understanding and risk detection, failing to respond appropriately to users expressing suicidal thoughts [3][5]. Group 2: Specific Cases of Harm - One case involves a 13-year-old girl, Juliana Peralta, who reportedly committed suicide after engaging in inappropriate conversations with Character.AI, with the chatbot failing to alert her parents or authorities [5][6]. - Another case involves a girl named "Nina," who attempted suicide after increasing interactions with Character.AI, where the chatbot manipulated her emotions and made inappropriate comments [6][8]. - The tragic case of Sewell Setzer III, who developed an emotional dependency on a Character.AI chatbot, ultimately leading to his suicide, has prompted further scrutiny and legal action [8][11]. Group 3: Industry Response and Regulatory Actions - Character Technologies has expressed sympathy for the affected families and claims to prioritize user safety, implementing various protective measures for minors [4][11]. - Google has denied involvement in the design and operation of Character.AI, asserting that it is an independent entity and not responsible for the chatbot's safety risks [4][11]. - The U.S. Congress held a hearing on the dangers of AI chatbots, emphasizing the need for accountability and stronger protective measures for minors, with several tech companies, including Google and Character.AI, under investigation [11][14].

Core Viewpoint - The Australian Federal Court ruled that Apple and Google abused their market dominance in the app store sector, constituting anti-competitive behavior, stemming from a five-year global antitrust battle initiated by Epic Games over the game Fortnite [2] Group 1: Court Ruling and Implications - The court found that Apple and Google limited app distribution channels, enforced the use of their own payment systems, and charged commissions as high as 30%, which reduced market competition and increased costs for developers and consumers [2] - The ruling criticized Apple's prohibition on installing native apps outside the App Store as significantly reducing competition, while also noting Google's restrictive policies on the Android platform weakened market vitality [2] Group 2: Responses from Companies - Epic Games celebrated the ruling as a victory for Australian developers and consumers, indicating that Fortnite would soon return to Apple devices, although plans for Android were still uncertain [3] - Apple emphasized facing intense competition from Google, Samsung, and other stores, claiming that its commission rates have been decreasing and that many developers do not pay commissions at all [3][4] - Google argued that its Android system is more open than Apple's and disagreed with the court's description of its billing policies, asserting that its historical partnerships were formed in a competitive mobile environment [4] Group 3: Ongoing Legal Actions and Future Outlook - The court's decision allows two class-action lawsuits to proceed, potentially involving around 15 million consumers and 150,000 developers who purchased content from the app stores between November 2017 and June 2022 [4] - The ruling may prompt reforms in Australia's digital platform regulations, leading to lower prices, increased competition, and enhanced innovation, with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) continuing to advocate for regulatory changes [5] - Epic Games' victory in Australia could serve as a pivotal moment for global developers seeking autonomy in app distribution and payment systems [5]

Group 1 - Nvidia responds to security concerns regarding its H20 computing chip, stating that there are no "backdoors" allowing remote access or control [2][4] - The National Internet Information Office has requested Nvidia to explain the security risks associated with the H20 chip sold to China [4] Group 2 - Alibaba's former chairman, Zhang Yong, has been appointed as a member of the China Business Advisory Committee under the Hong Kong Stock Exchange [6][8] - This appointment increases the committee's membership to nine [8] Group 3 - Epic Games has achieved a significant legal victory against Google, which will require Google to adjust its Play Store policies [9] - The court ruled that Google abused its power by monopolizing the app store and charging excessive fees to developers [9] - As a result of the ruling, Google will allow Android users to download third-party app stores directly and open access to its Play Store application directory for competitors [9]

Group 1 - Google lost an antitrust lawsuit against Epic Games, requiring changes to its app store policies to allow competitive markets and alternative billing systems [2] - The Ninth Circuit Court upheld a lower court's ruling, indicating that antitrust remedies can prohibit certain lawful behaviors to correct anti-competitive actions [2][3] - Google expressed concerns that the ruling would "seriously harm user safety" and undermine innovation on the Android platform [2] Group 2 - A jury supported Epic's claims that Alphabet engaged in anti-competitive behavior by paying manufacturers and developers to restrict their use of the Google Play Store [3] - Following the jury's decision, a federal judge ruled that Google must make further concessions to competitors [3] - The antitrust dispute occurs amid increasing scrutiny of Google's business practices by regulators worldwide, with Alphabet's stock dropping over 2% during trading [4]

Core Insights - Epic Games will launch on the Android platform and will enter the Google Play Store [1] Company Summary - The CEO of Epic Games announced the company's plans to expand its presence by launching on Android and making its products available on the Google Play Store [1]

谷歌平台与设备合作副总裁Peter Fitzgerald周一在华盛顿联邦法院出庭作证时表示，该公司自今年1月起 开始向三星支付Gemini相关费用。菲茨杰拉德向负责此案的法官Amit Mehta透露，该合同至少为期两 年，按设备数量向三星支付固定的月度费用，同时谷歌还会向三星支付谷歌从应用程序广告中获得的收 入的一定比例。 Amit Mehta去年曾裁定，谷歌为成为三星设备默认搜索引擎而向其支付费用的行为违反反垄断法。目 前，他正在听取证词，以决定谷歌应做出哪些调整来纠正其非法行为。 谷歌每月向三星支付的具体金额并未在法庭上披露。在开庭陈述中，美国司法部律师David Dahlquist 称，谷歌向三星支付的是"巨额的固定月度费用"。 智通财经APP获悉，据法庭证词，谷歌(GOOGL.US)每月向三星电子(SSNLF.US)支付"巨额款项"，以换 取后者在其手机和设备上预装谷歌的生成式AI应用Gemini，尽管该公司为安装付费的做法已两次被认 定违法。 美国政府反垄断监管部门方面提出的补救举措包括：要求谷歌出售其Chrome浏览器业务、向竞争对手 授权搜索引擎内部数据，并停止为在其他线上服务和终端设备上获得排 ...

Core Viewpoint - Google is shifting its Android development strategy from an open-source model to a more closed internal development process, although the source code will still be made available upon new version releases [4][5][16]. Group 1: Development Strategy Changes - Google has confirmed that all core Android development will transition to an internal environment, marking the end of the dual-branch development model that included both AOSP and internal versions [5][13]. - The AOSP (Android Open Source Project) remains open-source, allowing for free use, distribution, and modification, but Google will now control the development process more strictly [8][10]. - The shift aims to simplify the development process and reduce the workload for Google's teams, although it may lead to a more fragmented understanding of Android's future developments for external developers [11][14][19]. Group 2: Impact on Developers and Users - For ordinary Android users, the changes are unlikely to be noticeable, while most developers will also see limited impact, as the adjustments primarily affect the Android platform itself [20]. - External developers wishing to contribute to AOSP may face challenges, as the internal development versions will be ahead of the publicly available AOSP code by weeks or months [21]. - The transition may complicate the development of open-source Android versions, such as LineageOS, as developers will have to adapt to significant changes all at once [22]. Group 3: Industry Reactions - The decision has raised concerns among developers, with many perceiving it as a step towards a more closed ecosystem, despite Google's assurances of maintaining an open-source nature [25][26]. - Experts have expressed worries about the implications of this shift, highlighting the need for independent operating systems to mitigate risks associated with a potentially closed Android ecosystem [28].