Yazılar

Apple Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Use of Copyrighted Books to Train Apple Intelligence

Apple has been sued in a California federal court by two neuroscientists who claim the company used pirated versions of their books to train its new artificial intelligence system, Apple Intelligence.

Professors Susana Martinez-Conde and Stephen Macknik of SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn filed a proposed class-action lawsuit on Thursday, accusing Apple of relying on “shadow libraries” — online repositories of illegally copied books — to build its AI training datasets.

The lawsuit alleges that Apple used thousands of copyrighted works, including the professors’ books Champions of Illusion and Sleights of Mind, without permission. According to the complaint, Apple’s use of such data contributed to a massive surge in its market value the day after Apple Intelligence was unveiled, calling it “the single most lucrative day in the history of the company.”

The case adds Apple to a growing list of major tech firms — including OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta — facing lawsuits from authors, musicians, and media organizations over the unauthorized use of copyrighted content in AI training. In August, AI firm Anthropic settled a similar case for $1.5 billion.

Apple has not yet commented on the lawsuit. Apple Intelligence, introduced earlier this year, is the company’s suite of AI-powered features for iPhone, iPad, and Mac devices.

TSMC Q3 revenue jumps 30% on AI-fueled chip demand, beats forecasts

TSMC, the world’s largest contract chipmaker, posted a 30% year-on-year surge in third-quarter revenue, driven by the global boom in artificial intelligence demand. The company’s performance outpaced analyst expectations, reaffirming its dominance in the semiconductor supply chain that powers AI leaders like Nvidia and Apple.

Revenue for the July–September period reached T$989.92 billion ($32.47 billion), surpassing the T$973.26 billion consensus estimate from 22 analysts compiled by LSEG SmartEstimate. The figure landed in the midpoint of TSMC’s July guidance of $31.8 billion–$33 billion, according to its previous earnings call.

The strong result underscores how AI-related chip demand is offsetting slower sales of consumer electronics such as smartphones and tablets. TSMC’s cutting-edge chips are essential for powering advanced AI systems and high-performance computing, both of which have fueled a new growth cycle for the company.

TSMC’s Taipei-listed shares have climbed 34% year-to-date, outpacing the broader Taiwan index’s 18.5% gain. Analysts expect the company’s October 16 earnings report to include a revised full-year outlook, likely reflecting continued AI-driven momentum.

The upbeat results mirror a wider surge across Taiwan’s tech sector: Foxconn, Nvidia’s largest server manufacturer, also posted record-high third-quarter revenue, signaling sustained strength in the AI hardware supply chain.

Apple Pulls ICE-Tracking Apps After Trump Administration Pressure, Sparking Free Speech Debate

Apple has removed ICEBlock and several similar apps from its App Store following direct contact from President Donald Trump’s administration, marking a rare case of U.S. federal intervention in app moderation. The apps, which alert users to the presence of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, were accused by the Justice Department of potentially endangering law enforcement officers.

Alphabet’s Google also removed related apps on Thursday, citing policy violations, but said it had not been contacted by federal authorities before taking action.

In an emailed statement, Apple confirmed: “Based on information we’ve received from law enforcement about the safety risks associated with ICEBlock, we have removed it and similar apps from the App Store.” The Justice Department later verified that it had formally reached out to Apple, which complied with the request.

Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the removal, calling ICEBlock “a tool designed to put ICE agents at risk just for doing their jobs.” She added, “Violence against law enforcement is an intolerable red line that cannot be crossed.”

Joshua Aaron, the Texas-based developer of ICEBlock, denied those allegations, accusing Apple of “capitulating to an authoritarian regime.” He told Reuters his legal team is considering next steps, arguing that “civilian surveillance of federal agents is a matter of public interest and protected speech.”

Civil liberties experts note that courts have long upheld the right to record and track law enforcement activities in public spaces, as long as those efforts do not obstruct official duties. Six legal scholars told Reuters that surveillance of ICE operations is “largely protected under the U.S. Constitution.”

The crackdown comes amid renewed immigration raids and the expansion of ICE’s enforcement powers under Trump’s second term, backed by $75 billion in funding through 2029. The administration has also targeted visa holders and lawful residents over political activism, particularly pro-Palestinian advocacy, heightening tensions around civil monitoring of ICE activity.

The removal has drawn attention to Apple’s growing compliance with government takedown requests. In 2024 alone, Apple removed over 1,700 apps globally following such demands — most originating from China (1,300+), Russia (171), and South Korea (79). Until now, the United States had not appeared on that list, according to Apple’s transparency reports.

Critics argue the move sets a troubling precedent for state influence over digital speech. “This decision signals a chilling alignment between Big Tech and political power,” said one digital rights advocate. Others suggest Apple’s economic vulnerability—given that most iPhones are manufactured in China and subject to U.S. tariff pressures—may make the company more susceptible to government demands.

Apple removes tens of thousands of apps annually for reasons ranging from fraud to intellectual property violations, but politically motivated removals remain rare. Whether ICEBlock’s disappearance marks a one-time compliance case or a shift in tech–state relations could define the next chapter of America’s digital free speech debate.