среда, 16 сентября 2015 г.

uSony’s Virtual Reality Headset Is Called…. PlayStation VRr


4 4 4 9
  • Sony recently named its upcoming virtual reality headset, PlayStation VR.

    After spending more than year referring to its virtual reality headset with the over-the-top working title Project Morpheus, Sony finally revealed the true identity of its immersive accessory, and it’s a bit of a letdown: PlayStation VR.

    While the new name for the virtual reality headset – expected to be available for purchase in the next few months – seems a bit lackluster compared to its code name, Sony says there’s a good reason for that, CNBC reports.

    The company chose to bestow the PlayStation moniker on its latest gaming venture in an attempt to evoke a feeling of nostalgia with consumers.

    “The name ‘PlayStation VR’ not only directly expresses an entirely new experience from PlayStation that allows players to feel as if they are physically inside the virtual world of a game, but it also reflects our hopes that we want our users to feel a sense of familiarity as they enjoy this amazing experience,” Masayasu Ito, division president of PlayStation Product Business, said during the company’s Tokyo Game Show press conference.

    Sony has yet to release a price point for its virtual reality headset, but it’s a safe bet the device will face stiff competition when it’s released, as Oculus Rift is also gearing up to release a consumer version and Samsung’s Gear VR is already available.

    Sony has FINALLY named its VR headset [CNBC]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uAdidas Lawsuit Claims Skechers Ripped Off Its Popular “Stan Smith” Shoe Designr


4 4 4 9
  • LEFT: Adidas' Stan Smith RIGHT: Skechers' Onix

    LEFT: Adidas’ Stan Smith RIGHT: Skechers’ Onix

    Adidas is suing fellow shoe peddlers Skechers, claiming in a lawsuit filed on Tuesday that Skechers’ “Onix” sneaker rips off the design of its “Stan Smith” shoe.

    The Stan Smith design is based on a 1963 shoe worn by tennis star Stan Smith, and features green markings on a white sneaker, with perforations in its signature three lines. The Onix shoe by Skechers is also a white shoe with green markings and perforations, though the holes are punched in a different pattern of five lines.

    Business Insider notes that Skechers has to be aware of the similarities between the two shoes, as until today, a search for “Stan Smith” on the Skechers site brought up its Onix shoe. That same search result now results in a dead end.

    As of this writing, if you search “Adidas Originals” on the Skechers site, you’ll also see results that include the Onix shoe:

    adidasoriginals

    Skechers is staying mum thus far on the pending litigation, but Adidas issued a statement on Tuesday, saying the company “will not stand silently while Skechers copies the iconic Stan Smith shoe and uses terms like ‘adidas Originals’ and ‘Stan Smith’ as keywords on its website to divert customers looking for authentic adidas shoes.”

    Adidas said it filed the suit “to protect its valuable intellectual property and put an end to a long-term pattern of unlawful conduct by Skechers to sell shoes that infringe adidas’ rights.”

    “We believe Skechers’ unlawful behavior, which also includes misappropriation of adidas’ SUPERNOVA and Three-Stripe trademarks, needs to stop now,” the company said.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uUber Appeals Certification Of California Suit Against Them As Class Actionr


4 4 4 9
  • (afagen)

    (afagen)

    Not long ago, Uber took an unsurprising step: they changed their driver agreements so their independent contractors would have to give up their right to sue the company in a class action. The drivers eligible for a recently-certified class action in California are those who never agreed to that provision, but that doesn’t mean that Uber isn’t appealing its certification as a class action anyway.

    The lawsuit seeks to have Uber’s fleet of drivers declared “employees,” at least in the company’s home state of California, which would entitle them to benefits like health insurance for full-time workers, reimbursement of vehicle expenses, and worker’s compensation for on-the-job injuries. That wouldn’t just fundamentally change Uber’s business model, but would also be an enormous expense if class members were granted back wages and benefits.

    Uber’s argument is that their driver base is so diverse that one lawsuit can’t possibly encompass all of them and their needs. Their drivers range from former taxi drivers who work all day to people like a Georgia college president or even the company’s own CEO, Travis Kalanick, who moonlight as drivers during downtime from their real jobs but who clearly don’t need the money… or employee benefits.

    Uber Appeals Class-Action Ruling for Lawsuit [Wall Street Journal]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uBuffalo Wild Wings May Cut Ties With “League” Star Who Lied About Harrowing 9/11 Experiencer


4 4 4 9
  • Another celebrity may be losing his job after admitting he included himself in a real-life tragedy that he had nothing to do with. This time, it’s Steve Rannazzisi — co-star of The League and recently hired TV pitchman for Buffalo Wild Wings — who revealed this morning that he’d lied about his account of being in the World Trade Center when it was struck by a terrorist-piloted plane.

    In 2009, and possibly before, the actor spun a tale of working for Merrill Lynch on the 54th floor of the Trade Center’s south tower when the first plane collided with the north tower.

    “I was there and then the first tower got hit and we were like jostled all over the place,” he said at the time, describing the hectic scene as he and others fled the building before the south tower was struck by a second jet.

    Rannazzisi said that the event was, as one would expect, a life-changing moment that helped put him on the path toward acting and comedy.

    But people recently began to question the veracity of his story and there were no records of the actor ever having been employed by Merrill Lynch.

    Today, Rannazzisi confessed (through a rep) to the NY Times, that “I was not at the Trade Center on that day… I don’t know why I said this. This was inexcusable. I am truly, truly sorry.”

    On Twitter, the actor added further apologies.

    “[I]t is to the victims of 9/11 and to the people that love them–and the people that love me–that I ask for forgiveness,” he added.

    But it may be too little, too late for Rannazzisi’s job as a hot wings shill.

    “We are disappointed to learn of Steve’s misrepresentations regarding the events of September 11, 2001,” a Buffalo Wild Wings rep tells AdWeek. “We are currently reevaluating our relationship with Steve pending a review of all the facts.”



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uOscar Mayer Wants To Put All The Love In One Place With Bacon Dating Appr


4 4 4 9
  • Sometimes, you just know it right away… your pulse quickens, your throat tightens, your stomach rumbles — ah, the heady feeling you get when you’re looking at your dream plate of bacon. Love for another human can be pretty great too. To bring together “bacon soulmates,” Oscar Mayer is touting a new dating app for pork lovers called “Sizzl.”

    Is this just yet another marketing stunt meant to prey on our basest bacon desires in an effort to get us to buy a particular brand of bacon? Yes, undoubtedly so. But what is love without shared interests, anyway?

    Oscar Mayer calls the app the “first-ever, totally real” dating app, meant to “help Americans find their bacons soulmates,” ostensibly to set it apart from any fake bacon dating apps that might be out there.

    It’s free on iTunes, notes AdAge, but will come with paid digital ads. It’s unclear whether those ads will also be for bacon, though that seems pretty likely.

    “Sizzl allows people to specify their bacon preferences in a customizable profile, upload photos and start checking out profiles of local fellow bacon lovers, with the ability to message and meet up with other Sizzl users based on a mutual-matching system,” according to a statement from Oscar Mayer, which says the app gives “new meaning to the term bacon-wrapped dates.”

    My apologies if the headline above made you believe the app was for people who actually want to date bacon, but you can do that on your own, no app required. It’s called going to the store and buying a package of bacon and a bottle of red wine and settling down for a night on the couch binge-watching Battlestar Galactica. In other words, my typical Friday night.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uSenators Ask Automakers For Update On Cybersecurity Protection Measuresr


4 4 4 9
  • Following a string of high-profile incidents in which researchers were able to hack into – and in some cases take control of – a vehicle through its entertainment systems, lawmakers have renewed their push to ensure car manufacturers are adequately protecting consumers from such attacks.

    Today, Senators Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Edward Markey of Massachusetts sent letters [PDF] to 18 car makers asking for updates on how they protect vehicle owners against the threat of cyberattacks or unwarranted invasions of privacy related to the integration of electronic systems into and within automobiles.

    Markey previously sent the car makers letters of inquiry back in 2013 when he first began investigating the potential cybersecurity vulnerabilities in connected vehicles.

    Automakers’ original responses were used in Markey’s 2015 report “Tracking & Hacking: Security & Privacy Gaps Put American Drivers at Risk,” which detailed gaps in how automakers secure connected features in cars against hackers,

    The most recent letters – sent to Aston Martin, BMW, Fiat Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar Land Rover, Lamborghini, Mazda, Mercedes Benz, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Porsche, Subaru, Tesla, Toyota, Volkswagen Audi, and Volvo – ask the companies to provide updates on any changes they’ve made to their vehicles, including characteristics, policies, practices and experiences since last responding to Markey’s inquiry.

    “As vehicles become increasingly connected to the Internet and to one another through advanced features and services, we continue to see how these technologies present vulnerabilities that can compromise the safety and privacy of drivers and passenger,” the letter states.

    The senators go on to illustrate the potential danger of such vehicle cyberattacks by detailing the July hacking of a Jeep Cherokee.

    In that case, security researchers Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek, hacked the Jeep while a Wired.com reporter was driving it, exploited a security flaw in Uconnect that gave them the entry point to wirelessly take control of the vehicle.

    Shortly after the hack was made public Fiat Chrysler recalled 1.4 million vehicles that were found to be susceptible to remote hacks via the Uconnect onboard infotainment system.

    Despite the uptick in high-profile hackings, the senators note that since the release of Markey’s “Hacking & Tracking” report groups have taken steps to better protect consumers.

    For example, the senators cite the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers release of a set of voluntary privacy standards to ensure that consumer data is secure.

    “While we are pleased that the industry has taken a step in the right direction, we believe that protecting the safety, security and privacy of American drives should not be voluntary,” the letter states. “Consumers should have meaningful choice and transparency regarding any collection of their data derived from driving their vehicles.”

    The letter gives automakers until October 16 to provide a response.

    Markey and Blumenthal have been championing better protections related to vulnerabilities in newer vehicles recently.

    Back in July, the pair introduced an automotive security bill to set new digital security standards for cars and trucks called the Security and Privacy in Your Car, or SPY Act.

    The measure would direct NHTSA and the Federal Trade Commission to establish federal standards to secure cars and protect drivers’ privacy, as well as establishing a rating system — or “cyber dashboard” — that informs consumers about how well the vehicle protects drivers’ security and privacy beyond those minimum standards.



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


u59 Law Professors Urge Congress To Pass Bill Protecting Free Speech From Frivolous Lawsuitsr


4 4 4 9
  • Imagine you run a local news site and you’re working on a great new story about the town’s largest employer that uncovers some very bad behavior. You’re all set to publish, then you receive notice that this company has filed a lawsuit against you for something frivolous, like copyright or trademark infringement, that could never be proven at trial — but which could bankrupt you and your small-time operation long before it ever gets to that point. It’s a practice known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) and it’s a not-uncommon way for deep-pocketed companies and individuals to try to intimidate potential whistleblowers and others into remaining quiet.

    Some states, like California, have anti-SLAPP statutes that allow defendants in these cases to challenge the validity of the accusation in an expedited manner, rather than allowing the lawsuit to drag on unnecessarily.

    Earlier this year, Congressman Blake Farenthold of Texas, along with Rep. Anna Eshoo from California, introduced federal legislation — the SPEAK FREE Act (or the Securing Participation, Engagement, and Knowledge Freedom by Reducing Egregious Efforts Act, if you’re so inclined) — which would amend the federal judicial code to allow a defendant to file a special motion to dismiss SLAPP claims.

    The legislation has received bipartisan support and currently has more than two dozen co-sponsors, but has been lingering in the House Judiciary Committee since being introduced in May.

    In the hopes of moving things along, a group of 59 law professors from — representing schools in 25 states and the District of Columbia — have signed a letter [PDF] sent to the chairs and ranking members of the Judiciary Committee and its subcommittee on Constitution and Civil Justice, urging them to approve the SPEAK FREE Act.

    “As professors, we routinely take public positions on controversial high-profile matters,” reads the letter. “As a result, we face legal threats — and, sometimes, meritless lawsuits — intended to keep us from contributing to the public discourse.”

    The legal scholars acknowledge that they are often in the fortunate position of having the “legal and financial resources of our institution to help defend our speech,” but note that most people facing SLAPP claims do not.

    “Technology has enabled anyone to become an online journalist, editor, town crier, or anonymous pamphleteer,” explain the professors, pointing to online review sites, which have often been the target of frivolous or misguided legal actions by companies looking to quiet critics merely for speaking up.

    “But when those speakers face legal challenges to exercising their free speech rights, they face a serious dilemma,” continues the letter, “they can stand by their speech and risk financially ruinous legal defense costs, or they can try to avoid litigation at any cost by shutting up, even when the demands are clearly retaliatory or improper attempts by a plaintiff to silence critics and intimidate other Internet users from speaking up.”

    Because nearly half the states have no anti-SLAPP statutes — and not all anti-SLAPP laws are as equally protective — the professors say this results in “forum shopping” by plaintiffs, meaning they pick and choose in which states they file their SLAPP claims. Plaintiffs can also try to get around state-level anti-SLAPP rules by filing in federal court.

    “By closing these loopholes, the SPEAK FREE Act of 2015 would protect the speech of all Americans in all courts,” write the professors.

    Even in states where anti-SLAPP laws exist, companies still file meritless complaints to discourage whistleblowers. Earlier this year, we told you about a California nursing home that sued a resident’s daughter for defamation simply because she copied her outside attorney on a four-sentence e-mail. Because of the state’s anti-SLAPP statute, the daughter was able to get the defamation complaint dismissed.

    She is now suing both the home and the law firm that filed the original complaint, alleging that the lawyers knew the defamation case was frivolous and was only intended to punish her and her mother for alerting state authorities to conditions at the nursing home.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist