The Rochelaise company Shark Robotics (4.6 M€ of turnover in 2021) manufacturer of robots for fire safety, nuclear, defense or even space, has just completed a fundraising of ten million euros. It was carried out with the European fund Move Capital Fund I, managed by the financial group Kepler Chevreux. “This financing will enable Shark Robotics to strengthen its position as market leader by increasing its R&D investments, accelerating its internationalization, already initiated through its subsidiary Shark Asia, and improving its production tool”, specifies the young company (created in 2016) in a press release. More than a hundred robots have already been delivered to 15 countries, including the Colossus model, which intervened during the fire at Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris. “Furthermore, this fundraising will contribute to reindustrialization and the creation of jobs with high added value”, specifies the founder and CEO of the company, Cyril Kabbara.
technologies
The Pentagon pledges to support “Patriot” systems after they are delivered to Ukraine
Follow – conscious
The Pentagon announced its intention to contract with Raytheon Technologies to provide technical support and maintenance for the Patriot systems that Washington will deliver to Ukraine.
To receive more news, subscribe to our channel on Telegram
A post on the Pentagon’s bidding website stated that, at the same time, other companies are encouraged to contact the US Department of Defense in order to participate in this contract as subcontractors.
The circular stated that Raytheon Technologies will provide technical support, including advice and assistance in the planning, implementation, maintenance, repair and provision of Ukraine’s Patriot air defense systems, related equipment and logistical support elements.
It is worth noting that the Patriot system was developed by Raytheon Technologies.
The cleanup done by Elon Musk when he arrives at Twitter could cost him dearly
But “regarding 50%” of the 7,500 employees were dismissed on November 3, according to an internal message. “All those who lost their jobs were offered three months of compensation,” Elon Musk tweeted the next day.
Five recently fired Twitter employees immediately filed a class action lawsuit once morest the company.
They put forward two main reasons. On the one hand, the rupture of an agreement concluded before the acquisition of the social network by the boss of Tesla.
Last summer, the former management of Twitter had indeed promised employees that in the event of a social plan they would obtain a certain level of financial compensation.
The goal was to “slow down departures”, says Shannon Liss-Riordan, the plaintiffs’ lawyer. Some 700 employees resigned even before being sure that the multi-billionaire would indeed take control of the platform.
“Then Musk came along and threw that promise out the window,” says the lawyer.
The second reason concerns the 60-day notice period required by US law in the event of mass layoffs (Warn Act), which was not respected for some employees.
“Twitter claims they were fired for professional misconduct, when in our opinion they are part of the social plan”, continues Shannon Liss-Riordan.
Offices-dormitories
The lawyer also accompanies two other class actions, one on behalf of employees of a subcontractor, the other for discrimination.
Because two weeks following the layoffs, Elon Musk imposed an ultimatum: work “fully, unconditionally”, in the office, or walk out. However, teleworking is the only option for some employees with disabilities.
The San Francisco company is also the target of an investigation into the conversion of certain offices at its headquarters into bedrooms for employees sleeping there, according to KQED News, a local radio station.
The legal route taken by the five former employees of the social network is tenuous, because “most Twitter employees are bound by an arbitration clause”, which means that they can only seek compensation before an arbitration tribunal.
Once the contract is signed, this clause prevents the employee from turning to ordinary justice.
The platform asked San Francisco federal judge James Donato to dismiss the claims of the five former bluebirds and force them to go through individual arbitration.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to rule collectively on Twitter’s possible breaches of the law before referring them to arbitration.
“If the court opts for arbitration, we are prepared to file hundreds, if not thousands, of individual claims to ensure that employees receive their due,” said Shannon Liss-Riordan.
“Mass Arbitrations”
On Monday, Californian lawyer Lisa Bloom said at a press conference that she was going to seek arbitration for several of her former social network clients.
“And we’re going to continue to file these demands, one by one, bombarding Twitter,” she said.
“Ordinarily, arbitration clauses are considered to be favorable to the employer and a means of reducing costs,” describes Eric Goldman, professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law.
“But because arbitration puts those costs on Twitter, it creates an opportunity to dramatically increase the bill in the event of mass arbitrations,” he argues.
“This puts Twitter in a worse situation than if it had not requested arbitration,” insists the academic.
In the event of resistance from the social network, the farandole of individual procedures “might take years”, he warns.
“The collective aspect creates an incentive for the employer to find a “global” amicable agreement, argues Risa Lieberwitz, professor of labor law at Cornell University, “rather than going through each arbitration request individually. “.
Eric Goldman recalls that Twitter is already in a bad financial situation, burdened with 13 billion in debt by the takeover and deprived of a considerable proportion of its turnover by the withdrawal of many advertisers.
Elon Musk “thinks he’s above the law, that he can do what he wants,” said Shannon Liss-Riordan, who also defends former Tesla employees.
But “we have laws in this country that protect employees. And even the richest man in the world can’t ignore the law.”
Meta ordered to pay $174.5 million for patent infringement
Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, was ordered on Wednesday to pay $174.5 million in damages to Voxer, an app that accuses the tech giant of infringing its patents.
A Texas jury has determined that Meta copied walkie-talkie messaging patents in its live streaming features on Facebook Live and Instagram Live.
The trial opened in Austin last week.
Meta intends to appeal, a spokesperson told AFP. “We believe the evidence presented at trial shows that Meta did not infringe Voxer’s patents,” he said.
Voxer had launched lawsuits in 2020, claiming that the Californian group had used its patented technology following the failure of an attempt to collaborate between the two companies in 2012.
The mobile app enables “the transmission of audio and video communications with the immediacy of live and the reliability and ease of messaging,” according to the complaint, even under poor network conditions and even if the recipient is not available.
Voxer says he was contacted by Facebook shortly following launching his service in 2011, which was an “immediate success”.
The start-up would then have provided the details of its technologies to the social network, but “the meetings did not lead to an agreement”, detail its lawyers.
“Facebook then identified Voxer as a competitor even though it did not, at the time, have live video or audio tools,” the complaint states.
“Facebook revoked Voxer’s access to key elements of the platform and launched Facebook Live in 2015 and then Instagram Live in 2016. Both products include Voxer technologies and violate its patents”, asserts the plaintiff.