(By You Yunting) Since the advent of the commercial internet, traditional media outlets has developed two principal revenue models centered on user clicks: ad revenue and paid subscriptions. However, the emergence of AI-powered search, particularly Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), enables users to obtain answers directly without clicking through to source websites. This structural shift has triggered widespread litigation against RAG-based AI platforms, ranging from copyright infringement claims to antitrust actions. For many incumbents, litigation has become the default recourse.
From Microsoft to Nvidia: Why Some AI Giants’ “Acquihires” Draw Scrutiny While Others Get a Pass
(By You Yunting) According to press reports, the U.S. Department of Justice has launched an investigation into Nvidia’s roughly $20 billion transaction with AI inference chip company Groq. The question is whether the deal’s structure — a technology licence coupled with the hiring of key personnel — was deliberately designed to circumvent antitrust review. Deals of this kind are now common in AI. Off the top of my head: Microsoft and Inflection AI, Google and Character.AI, Google and Windsurf, Meta and Scale AI. Why do some attract scrutiny while others do not? That is what I want to discuss today.
Smart Home, Hidden Marks: How Apple Keeps Its Trademarks Under Cover?
(By You Yunting) Since John Ternus assumed the role of CEO, Apple has been preparing a significant push into smart home devices. One media outlet, MacRumors, speculated that Apple’s special event on October 13, themed “Welcome Home”, would likely introduce a device named Home View, along with an all-new operating system named Home OS. The reason these two names have come under the spotlight is that two shell companies with unidentified shareholders—believed to be acting on Apple’s behalf—have filed trademark applications for them. Although the names were leaked through this trademark filing channel, Apple’s legal team is not to blame. On the contrary, they deserve a pat on the back for having done their best to delay the disclosure.
Laundering Expert Evidence: Will It Sway the Times–OpenAI Case?
(By You Yunting) The New York Times v. OpenAI and Microsoft—a landmark case in artificial intelligence—has seen one more dramatic twist. In the pretrial proceedings in the consolidated cases, the defendants accused The New York Times of laundering evidence: a paper cited by the plaintiff’s expert was allegedly funded by The Times’ own law firm and the funding was never disclosed to the court. The story has drawn renewed media attention. Today, we will examine whether this evidence-laundering will materially affect the lawsuit — and what the consequences would be if similar conduct occurred in China.
Adobe’s Creative Cloud Gets AI-Cloned—Why Is Everyone Cheering?
(By You Yunting) Adobe has long been known in the industry for its powerful video and image editing software. But recently, a developer used AI to build software that replicates most of the features of seven Adobe products, and released it as open source on GitHub. When the story hit the news, netizens both in China and abroad showed Adobe no sympathy at all. Instead, they cheered. There’s a reason the pitiable are also hateful. Today, let’s talk about why “everyone cheers when Adobe stumbles”.
Apple’s Opposition Against Qinningmeng: Why Does Trademark Examination Always Have a Degree of Subjective Discretion?
(By You Yunting) Recently, a trademark opposition filed by Apple in the European Union has attracted widespread attention across the industry. The trademark at issue was applied for by a Chinese keyboard manufacturer, Yichun Qinningmeng Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Qinningmeng“). What makes this case interesting is that the two trademarks are not actually very similar, yet Apple won. In contrast, an Australian court rejected McDonald’s request for trademark invalidation of the “Big Jack” mark owned by Burger King’s local franchisee on the basis of its “Big Mac” product. Today, let’s discuss how subjective discretion in trademark examination affects similar trademark disputes.
Does Your Open-Source AI License Disclose Enough to Qualify for Exemption in China?
(By You Yunting) On September 7, 2026, the Supreme People’s Court of China (“SPC”) released the Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Trial of Cases Involving Artificial Intelligence Disputes (最高人民法院关于依法审理涉人工智能纠纷案件的意见) (“Opinions”). To support the AI industry development, the Opinions introduce a liability exemption for open-source AI software: where a developer publicly discloses the functions and security risks of open-source AI software and a third party’s use of the code module causes infringement, a court may find the developer exempt from infringement liability. However, having reviewed several of the major open-source AI models currently available in China, I found that their disclosures of functions and security risks are generally rather brief and may well fall short of what the exemption requires. This will discuss what an adequate disclosure of the functions and security risks of open-source AI software should look like.
The U.S. Restores the Right to Repair for Car Owners – Why Not China’s New Energy Vehicles?
(By You Yunting) In July 2026, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a litigation settlement with agricultural machinery giant John Deere. Under the settlement, John Deere will, over the next decade, provide farm equipment owners and independent repair shops with diagnostic, reprogramming and repair resources equivalent to those offered to its authorized dealers on fair and reasonable terms. The case expands the scope of the Right to Repair from physical spare parts to open software access and has drawn global attention. Today, we will discuss whether this settlement will impact the right to repair for China’s new energy vehicles (NEVs).
Porsche Engine Oil Change Only at Authorized Dealerships: The Hidden Repair Monopoly by Design
(By You Yunting) Recently, Porsche has been sued in the United States by car owners for illegally monopolizing the vehicle repair service market. Some car owners believe that even routine maintenance is becoming increasingly difficult to perform outside the official system. In fact, this issue is not unique to Porsche or the automotive industry. In recent years, more and more manufacturers have designed their product systems to be increasingly sophisticated and complex, locking consumers firmly into official repair channels and charging maintenance fees far above market average rates. This trend is known in Europe and the United States as the “Right-to-Repair” controversy. Today, let’s discuss the global legal battle over the right to repair.
Adobe Sued by Own Shareholders Over AI Training on AI-Generated Images
(By You Yunting) Recently, Adobe, a software company that has long been vocal in enforcing its copyrights, together with its management, was sued by its own shareholders in the Northern District of California for alleged securities fraud based on false statements, due to using pirated materials to train its AI. The core allegations in the complaint include Adobe’s use of a large number of pirated books and AI-generated images sourced from its competitor Midjourney to train its AI models. I have often discussed the legal issues of training AI on pirated content, but today I would like to talk about what legal risks arise from using AI-generated images to train AI models.
How Would Elon Musk’s Lost U.S. Antitrust Case Be Decided Under Chinese Law?
(By You Yunting) In April 2024, Elon Musk’s X platform sued the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) and major advertisers including Unilever and Mars for their concerted boycott against the X platform with the organization of Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), constituting a horizontal monopoly agreement in violation of antitrust law and causing it billions of dollars in losses. In March 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the lawsuit at the preliminary hearing. Today we will explore how this case might be handled if it were brought under Chinese law.
Who Should Prove Authenticity in Trademark Disputes Over Goods with Removed Traceability Codes?
(By You Yunting) Due to their lower prices, de-identified products — those with anti-counterfeit codes removed — are highly popular on e-commerce platforms. These discounted offerings, however, undermine brand owners’ price control mechanisms, leading to frequent trademark infringement lawsuits against sellers. While Chinese courts generally decline to find infringement where the de-identified goods are demonstrably genuine and produced by the brand owner, many small and medium-sized sellers are nonetheless held liable even when dealing in authentic goods. Today, let us analyze how courts might equitably balance brand protection against commercial freedom in such disputes.
Must Disputes Arising from Accidents at IHG Hotels in China Be Arbitrated in the U.S.?
(By You Yunting) According to media reports, on April 8, 2026, the consumer associations of Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei jointly summoned the operating entity of InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG) in China, alleging multiple clauses in its membership agreement suspected of infringing upon consumers’ legitimate rights and interests, including excluding the application of Chinese laws and forcing Chinese consumers to arbitrate disputes in the United States, and demanded specific rectifications. This article will discuss a question: if you suffer an accident or personal injury during your stay at an IHG hotel in China, are you legally obligated to go to the U.S. for arbitration?
From “手打” to “一袋半”: How Judicial Tolerance Enables Trademark Wordplay?
(By You Yunting) Recently, Mr. Luo Yonghao, a well-known Chinese entrepreneur and livestreamer, criticized on Weibo that a “120W charger” label was potentially misleading consumers, sparking widespread public attention. Similarly, controversy has resurfaced around two trademarks owned by Jinmailang, a major Chinese food company: “手打” (Chinese Pinyin: “Shou Da”, literally “Hand-Kneaded”) and “一袋半” (Chinese Pinyin: “Yi Dai Ban”, literally “One and a Half Packets”). Although the “120W” mark was never registered, Jinmailang’s “手打” and “一袋半” trademarks were successfully registered. During the invalidation proceedings, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) found both marks deceptive, but the Beijing Higher People’s Court reversed these rulings on appeal. This article will analyze the two cases and their underlying legal issues.
What’s Left for Photographers When the Court Decided That the AI-generated Image Did Not Constitute Infringement Upon the Photographic Work it Mimicked?
(By You Yunting) On April 2nd, 2026, the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court in Germany issued a final judgment regarding a dispute over an AI-generated image that mimicked a photographic work, holding that the defendant’s conduct did not constitute copyright infringement. Under China’s Copyright Law, such conduct would also fall outside the scope of copyright infringement. This judgment means that a significant portion of photographers’ business may be lawfully replaced by AI. The underlying cause is that the traditional idea-expression dichotomy in copyright law can no longer adapt to the creation logic of generative AI.