cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".cookielawinfo-checkbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

Slipping?The next Battlefield could be released later this year, but EA said it may arrive in the first quarter of 2026 insteadWe may not end up playing the next Battlefield game this year, even if that's what most of us are counting on.Image credit: EA, DICE. News by Sherif Saed Contributing Editor Published on Feb. 5, 2025 EA has finally offered some guidance as to when we can actually expect the long-awaited next entry in the Battlefield series. This comes just one day after the publisher unveiled a new initiative, dubbed Battlefield Labs, designed to enlist the help of players to test various aspects of the upcoming game, and quickly iterate during this phase of development.The next Battlefield still doesnt have a proper title, however, and this weeks EA update didnt offer any details there.To see this content please enable targeting cookies. As part of the earnings results of EAs third quarter of FY2025, the publisher revealed that the next Battlefield will arrive in fiscal year 2026, which means it will be released between April 1, 2025 and March 31, 2026.This release window is actually very normal for EAs major franchises. For instance, prior to the release of Dragon Age: The Veilguard on October 31 last year, EA said that the game wouldnt be out before October. The Veilguard was much closer to launch than the next Battlefield is, however, which is why the release window in our case is far wider - spanning the entire year.This is, however, the standard window for Battlefield, so nothing is out of the ordinary there. Usually, EA likes to launch its big, non-sports titles late in the year - think October-November. However, the disastrous launch of the most recent release in the series, Battlefield 2024, may impact its decision to push the game back to 2026, assuming theres enough of a need to do so.Things will look much clearer in the summer, as thats when we expect EA to properly reveal the game, announce a tighter release window, and start the marketing push. By that point, many impressions of Battlefield Labs testing will likely be out in the wild. Assuming theyre positive, it could embolden EA to push for a 2025 release. If word of mouth is critical, however, that could be what causes a delay to 2026.Until then, we can only rewatch those few seconds of gameplay tucked away at the end of the Battlefield Labs announcement so many times, even if the footage looks really good.

It's adaptations all the way down in Hollywood these days, as Legendary Pictures and Bandai Namco are making a Gundam film together. Read more

Taiwanese hardware maker Zyxel says it has no plans to release a patch for two actively exploited vulnerabilities affecting potentially thousands of customers.Threat intelligence startup GreyNoise warned late last month that a critical-rated zero-day vulnerability impacting Zyxel routers was being actively exploited. GreyNoise said the flaws allow attackers to execute arbitrary commands on affected devices, leading to complete system compromise, data exfiltration, or network infiltration.The vulnerabilities were discovered by threat intelligence organization VulnCheck in July last year and reported to Zyxel the following month, according to GreyNoise, but had yet to be patched or formally disclosed by the manufacturer.In an advisory this week, Zyxel said it recently became aware of the two vulnerabilities now formally tracked as CVE-2024-40890 and CVE-2024-40891 which it says impact multiple end-of-life products.The company claims that the flaws were not reported to it by VulnCheck and says it first became aware of them on January 29, a day after GreyNoise reported active exploitation.Zyxel, whose devices are used by more than 1 million businesses, says that since these bugs affect legacy products that have reached end-of-life [EOL] for years it has no plans to release patches to fix them. Instead, the company is advising customers to replace vulnerable routers with newer-generation products for optimal protection.In a blog post on Tuesday, VulnCheck notes that the impacted devices are not listed on Zyxels EOL page and says some of the affected models are still available for purchase through Amazon, which TechCrunch has confirmed.While these systems are older and seemingly long out of support, they remain highly relevant due to their continued use worldwide and the sustained interest from attackers, Jacob Baines, CTO at VulnCheck, said.According to Censys, a search engine for Internet of Things devices and Internet assets, almost 1,500 vulnerable devices remain exposed to the Internet.In an update last week, GreyNoise said that it had observed detected botnets, including Mirai, exploiting one of the Zyxel vulnerabilities, suggesting it is being used in large-scale attacks.Zyxel spokesperson Birgitte Larsen did not respond to TechCrunchs multiple requests for comment.

A dispute over legal fees has escalated between Spokane-based law firm Lee & Hayes PC and composite 3D printing technology developer Continuous Composites.According to Coeur dAlene (CDA) Press, the law firm claims it is owed more than $7 million for its legal work, while Continuous Composites insists its obligation does not exceed $3 million. Court filings show that the disagreement stems from a 2021 lawsuit in which Continuous Composites sued 3D printer manufacturer Markforged for patent infringement.Lee & Hayes provided legal representation under an initial agreement, later revising the terms in 2023 to lower the firms potential payment in the event of a successful outcome. Under the new terms, payment would be calculated as 30% of any settlement or verdict.Continuous Composites CEO Steve Starner said, We are disheartened to have received this complaint.3D printing a composite part with CF3D. Photo via Continuous Composites.Patent lawsuit sparks fee disputeA jury in Delaware ruled in April that Markforged infringed on a patent, awarding Continuous Composites $17.34 million in damages. The lawsuit initially involved multiple patents, but only one remained after a court ruling in 2022. While one claim was deemed invalid, the jury ruled that Markforged infringed another, leading to the damages award.Later, the company reached a $25 million settlement with Markforged, concluding the lengthy patent infringement legal battle. Under the settlement terms, Markforged agreed to an $18 million upfront payment, followed by additional payments of $1 million in 2025, $2 million in 2026, and $4 million in 2027.Including cross-licensing of patents and a covenant not to sue, the agreement remains subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.In the latest lawsuit, the Spokane-based firm has stated in court documents that it was unaware of the settlements final amount until reading a press release from Markforged in September last year.According to the complaint, Continuous Composites acknowledged receiving $18 million but declined to set aside or pay the $7.2 million contingency fee the law firm says it is owed. In response, Continuous Composites filed a counterclaim last week, citing an email in which Lee & Hayes allegedly agreed to accept $3 million as full and final payment for its legal work.Starner stated that the company acted in good faith, relying on clear written representations from Lee & Hayes and their board regarding fees for their work on the litigation with Markforged. He stated that the firm later reversed its position and sought additional payment through legal action.A request has been made by Continuous Composites to dismiss the case with prejudice.Markforged HQ. Photo via Businesswire.AM sectors patent disputesThe Continuous Composites case is the latest in the long list of patent infringement lawsuits. In 2024, 3D printer OEM Stratasys took legal action against Bambu Lab, accusing the company of infringing on ten patents.The lawsuit targeted models such as the X1C, X1E, P1S, P1P, A1, and A1 Mini, citing unauthorized use of technologies related to purge towers, heated build platforms, tool head force detection, and networking capabilities. A jury trial was requested, along with damages and an injunction to block further sales of the machines.Debate over the case quickly followed, drawing strong reactions from advocates of open-source 3D printing. Dr. Adrian Bowyer, Founder of RepRap criticized the legal move, arguing that patents restrict creativity and calling Stratasys approach patent parasite behavior.Others raised concerns about potential long-term effects on the industry. Dr. Joshua Pearce warned that the case could set a precedent for the aggressive use of intellectual property, while Crowell & Moring patent litigator Andrew Spitzer suggested the outcome might redefine competition, possibly cementing Stratasys role as a dominant force in 3D printing.Another case included Canadian plasma system and material developer Tekna (Tekna Holding AS) securing a legal victory in a patent dispute with Colibrium Additives subsidiary Advanced Powders & Coatings Inc. (AP&C) over titanium powder production rights in Canada.AP&C had accused Tekna of infringing on two patents related to metal powder atomization, but the Federal Court of Canada ruled in favor of Tekna, invalidating one patent entirely and deeming most claims of the other unenforceable. Legal proceedings began in 2019 when Tekna sought to challenge AP&Cs claims. After years of litigation, the courts decision reinforced Teknas ability to continue production without legal restrictions.Who won the 20243D Printing Industry Awards?All the news fromFormnext 2024.To stay up to date with the latest 3D printing news, dont forget to subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter or follow us on Twitter, or like our page on Facebook.While youre here, why not subscribe to our Youtube channel? Featuring discussion, debriefs, video shorts, and webinar replays.Featured image shows 3D printing a composite part with CF3D. Photo via Continuous Composites.

Boston Micro Fabrication, a company specializing in ultra-high precision 3D printing, has reported continued growth in 2024. The firms Projection Micro Stereolithography (PSL) technology is used in medical devices, electronics, optics, photonics, and life sciences. More than 600 of its microArch systems are installed worldwide, supporting prototyping, development, and short-run production.Four new materials have been introduced, expanding the range of applications for micro-scale additive manufacturing. These include 3D Systems Figure 4 HI TEMP 300 AMB, BASF Ultracur3D 3280, and BMFs own HTF and SR resins. Each formulation is compatible with microArch printers and engineered for applications requiring heat resistance, high accuracy, and fine structural detail.The company has also launched the microArch D1025, a system capable of switching between 10m and 25m resolutions within a single print. This capability provides greater flexibility for manufacturers in healthcare, electronics, and biotechnology, where both ultra-fine details and structural integrity are required in the same component.The new BMF microArch D1025. Image via Boston Micro Fabrication.A U.S. FDA 510(k) clearance was issued for the companys UltraThineer material, which enables the production of ultra-thin cosmetic dental veneers. To support large-scale production, a dedicated UltraThineer Lab has opened at BMFs U.S. headquarters in Maynard, Massachusetts. Expansion continues in China and Japan, where direct-to-patient and provider-enabled access to the veneers is underway. A commercial launch in the U.S. is expected in the first half of 2025.BMFs micro-precision 3D printing technology has completely transformed how we approach connector manufacturing, said George Glatts, owner of Z-Axis Connector Company. Previously limited to tolerances of 5 thousandths with traditional methods, BMF allowed us to achieve tolerances of 1 to 2 thousandths, opening new possibilities for compact, high-performance connectors.The company was recognized among Massachusetts fastest-growing private companies and included on the 2024 Inc. 5000 list, which ranks companies by revenue growth. CEO John Kawola noted, Things are getting smaller in the world and, as they get smaller, they get more difficult to make. We are satisfying customer needs to prototype and manufacture parts that increasingly need higher precision.3D printed micro fluidic device and needle. Photo via Boston Micro Fabrication.Advances in Micro-Scale 3D PrintingResearchers at Stanford University developed a roll-to-roll continuous liquid interface production (r2rCLIP) system to produce up to one million microscale 3D printed particles per day. The process replaces the static build plate of a conventional CLIP 3D printer with a continuous aluminum-coated PET film, allowing simultaneous fabrication, washing, curing, and removal of complex microstructures. The system achieves resolutions as fine as 2.0m and has been tested with ceramics and hydrogels, demonstrating applications in biomedical research and analytical technologies.Elsewhere, Nano Dimension fabricated a 2.7 mm-wide 3D printed medical device used to measure neuronal activity in mice. The component was fabricated in one week, incorporating 110m electrode holes with micron-level precision using a micro-3D printer and biocompatible materials. The brace stabilizes electrodes against the vertebrae while minimizing movement artifacts, improving data accuracy for neuroscientific research. Conventional manufacturing methods would have required several months to achieve the same precision.Ready to discover who won the 20243D Printing Industry Awards?What will the future of 3D printing look like?Which recent trends are driving the 3D printing industry, as highlighted by experts?Subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter to stay updated with the latest news and insights.Stay connected with the latest in 3D printing by following us on Twitter and Facebook, and dont forget to subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry YouTube channel for more exclusive content.Featured image shows the new BMF microArch D1025. Image via Boston Micro Fabrication.

The Old Chicopee High School building islocated at 650 Front Street, between the two major population hubs of Chicopee Center and Chicopee Falls and is one of the finest examples of Collegiate Gothic/Neo-Gothic Revival architecture in Massachusetts. The school building was constructed in 1917from plansby architect, George E. Haynesas a central high school, a single building where pupils from all over the city could be educated. The population growth of Chicopee in the early decades of the 20thcentury necessitated additions and reworking of the spaces of the building, eventually outgrowing the building after WWII.In 1961, plans for a contemporary high schoolwere completed and this building became a middle school for the City of Chicopee. Architecturally, the building stands out for its siting and high-quality design. The main facade features a central clock tower which contains the main entrance. The use of brick with cast stone trim and the castellated parapet add much dimension to the large building. The City of Chicopee have done a commendable job maintaining this important landmark.

Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Microsoft have not taken kindly to the UK competition watchdogs proposal to take a targeted approach to levelling the playing field for smaller providers operating in the UK cloud services market.The published provisional findings from the Competition and Markets Authoritys (CMA) ongoing investigation into how the UK cloud infrastructure services market operates describes the sector as a two-horse race, with AWS and Microsoft way ahead of the chasing pack.The suppliers are described by the CMA as having a significant unilateral market power, which is harming competition in the UK cloud infrastructure services market by making it harder for alternative cloud providers to gain and grow a footing in it.To address this, it is being proposed that the CMAs board draws on powers given to it through the roll-out of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers (DMCC) Act 2024 on 1 January 2025 that could see it impose legally-binding, pro-competition conduct requirements on both firms.This course of action would see AWS and Microsoft marked out as suppliers with strategic market status (SMS), which is a designation reserved for suppliers whose actions have the potential to tip a market in their favour because of the hold they have on it. We consider that measures aimed at AWS and Microsoft would address market-wide concerns by directly benefiting the majority of UK customers and producing wider, indirect effects by altering the competitive conditions or other providers, the CMA said in its provisional findings report.AWS responded in a statement to Computer Weekly by describing the CMAs proposed targeted interventions as unwarranted.Microsoft hit back by similarly stating the CMA was wrong for suggesting this remedy, before seemingly referencing the governments recent calls for regulators to take a pro-growth approach to the work they do. Measures aimed at AWS and Microsoft would address market-wide concerns by directly benefiting the majority of UK customers and producing wider, indirect effects by altering the competitive conditions or other providers CMA reportFor context, the statement references the CMAs criticism of Microsofts decision to charge customers more for running its software namely Windows Server and SQL Server in its competitors clouds.The draft report should be focused on paving the way for the UKs AI [artificial intelligence]-powered future, not fixating on legacy products launched in the last century, said Rima Alaily, corporate vice-president and deputy general counsel in the competition law group at Microsoft.Microsofts cloud licensing practices are under scrutiny from regulators across the world, not just the CMA, and are also subject of a legal challenge in the UK.On the matter, the CMA said: We have provisionally found that Microsoft has the ability and incentive to partially foreclose AWS and Google [from the market] using the relevant Microsoft software products and that its conduct is harming competition in cloud services.With the CMAs provisional findings now out in the open, all participants in the UK cloud infrastructure services market have until 25 February 2025 to provide feedback on its initial conclusions, with the watchdogs final judgment set to drop by 4 August 2025.The CMAs provisional conclusion that AWS and Microsoft have a dominant hold on the UK cloud infrastructure services market, and that targeted interventions might be needed to ensure competition in this sector works as it should, is the headline from its provisional findings.However, the CMAs January document dump of provisional findings also provides an insight into other features of how the cloud market functions that could have an adverse effect on competition (AEC). Not all of these, though, are worthy of regulatory intervention.The offering of committed spend discounts is a feature of how the cloud market functions that does influence customer choice, the CMAs seven-page provisional findings document stated, but rival firms can profitably compete against these so no intervention will be required here.The report also detailed several features of the market that could be subject to regulatory corrective action from the CMA once its investigation finally concludes.For example, the provisional findings document said there are significant barriers to entry and expansion in the cloud services market, due to the significant capital investment needed in fixed assets such as datacentres and networking kit to stand up a cloud infrastructure.And due to the economies of scale providers such as AWS and Microsoft operate at, the ongoing costs of running these fixed assets is lower for them than it would be for a smaller cloud provider.The largest cloud providers are making very large investments to expand their services in coming years, and while this investment can have pro-competitive effects and benefit cloud customers ... it may also deter market entry or expansion by potential rivals, the CMA summary document stated.The broad product portfolios of AWS, Microsoft and Google in both IaaS [infrastructure as a service] and PaaS [platform as a service] are also likely to contribute to barriers to entry and expansion as range of services is an important consideration for customers when selecting a cloud provider. In the cloud services markets, we consider that detriment may manifest itself in terms of UK customers paying higher prices for these services than they would if the markets were more competitive CMA reportOn a related point, the report stated that cloud customers face technical barriers and interoperability issues that can prove off-putting when trying to mix and match services from competing cloud providers to create a multicloud setup. This limits customers ability and incentive to exercise choice of cloud provider, the report continued.The charging of egress fees, which effectively penalise customers for wanting to shift their data from one cloud provider to another, has a similarly negative effect on the willingness of organisations to switch suppliers, the report continued.We consider that the AECs we have provisionally found may be expected to result in substantial customer detriment in cloud services in the UK, in terms of a material impact on customers ability to switch, multicloud and exercise choice over their provider, which may ultimately be expected to impact the price and quality of cloud services, the report continued.In the cloud services markets, we consider that detriment may manifest itself in terms of UK customers paying higher prices for these services than they would if the markets were more competitive.To ensure competition in the cloud market operates as it should, the CMA board is being asked to consider taking targeted action against Microsoft and AWS, as permitted by the newly introduced DMCC Act.We consider that measures aimed at AWS and Microsoft would address market-wide concerns by directly benefiting the majority of UK customers and producing wider indirect effects by altering the competitive conditions for the other providers, said the CMA.The CMAs proposal to take targeted action against AWS and Microsoft has been warmly welcomed by tech industry watchers, including international competition law expert Niamh Christina Gleeson.In her view, this approach will mark AWS and Microsoft out as being the only two providers in the market with the power to engage in anti-competitive behaviour, which will benefit the markets smaller providers from a competitive standpoint.None of the proposed remedies will apply to any other providers and this gives a certain commercial freedom to all other operators in the UK cloud markets, she said.Conferring SMS on AWS and Microsoft also means both firms will have a special responsibility placed on them, because of the dominant hold they have on the market, to behave in a pro-competitive way at all times.Behaviour that is permitted by a firm with less market share is considered abuse [for an SMS company], she said. This is important for all future behaviour in these markets and how much freedom they have to engage in commercial practices that are permitted to other providers.As such, this could have implications for Microsoft and AWS when it comes to offering discounts to customers and charging egress fees, she added. Mark Crane, competition partner at legal firm Addleshaw Goddard, said making it possible for AWS and Microsofts alleged anti-competitive behaviour to be subject to targeted intervention should give their customers assurance about any concerns they have about how either firm treats them. Many businesses now routinely use cloud services, and the CMAs designation process is likely to provide an avenue for a range of concerns to be aired in a much more focused way, and to address particular behaviours, said Crane.Users of cloud services are preparing for this process in earnest, considering how to engage with the new regulatory regime and how this might help to change the playing field in cloud services.Crane added: Against a backdrop of intense scrutiny of the CMA and its role in facilitating growth, both users and providers of cloud services will be advocating in favour of regulatory interventions which support their own approach. The CMA will certainly have a balancing act to undertake and face pressure to do so efficiently and at speed.Nicky Stewart, senior advisor to public cloud competition champion the Open Cloud Coalition, said once the consultation on the proposals closes she hopes the CMA will waste no time in wrapping up its investigation and bringing its proposals to bear. Every month that passes without action is another missed opportunity for innovation and UK economic growth, she said. Every pound spent on restrictive licensing markups and egress fees is a pound not spent on growing the UKs economy.Read more about the CMA cloud competition probeAfter regulator Ofcom raised red flags about the anti-competitive behaviour of Amazon Web Services and Microsoft, the UK cloud market was referred to the Competition and Markets Authority heres why.The CMA has published the summary hearings from Microsoft, AWS and Google, revealing that all three had quite a lot to say on the Redmond software giants cloud licensing practices.

dambuster - stock.adobe.comNewsMoD set to develop 50m data analytics platform with KainosThe Ministry of Defence has chosen IT services provider Kainos to develop its 50m data analytics platform across all armed services, over a three-year programmeByBrian McKenna,Enterprise Applications EditorPublished: 05 Feb 2025 9:45 The Ministry of Defence (MoD) aims to develop its Defence Data Analytics Platform (DDAP) over the next three years, with IT services firm Kainos, in a contract worth 50m.Kainos will provide support for users across the MoD, including the Royal Navy, British Army, Royal Air Force and other MoD support organisations, to change over to a developed version of the platform.The DDAP is billed by the Defence Ministry as a secure data and analytics system, launched by Defence Digital, which is part of the MoDs Strategic Command. Defence Digitals chief information officer is Charlie Forte, and its budget is 2bn, with 2,400 personnel.The MoD launched the DDAP in January 2023, with an 8.625m contract awarded to Cognizant.The DDAPs aim is to support the Data Strategy for Defence, as outlined under the prime ministership of Boris Johnson. The goals of that strategy included, by 2025, for data to be curated, integrated, and human and machine-ready for exploitation in the battlespace and for it to be in second place only to Army, Royal Navy and RAF personnel.The platform is built on Amazon Web Services, and its stated aim is to democratise data access, standardise approaches and tooling, and encourage interoperability and sharing of best practice across the MoD.The MoD already holds excellent analytical minds and capabilities across defence, said an MoD spokesperson, quoted by Kainos. The evolution of DDAP will encourage minds to further unite under one true enterprise system, to help meet the ambitions of the Data Strategy for Defence for standardised, assured and efficient data analytics, as well as accelerate the delivery of new technology capabilities including AI innovation. Kainos brings the technical expertise to evolve the platform, as well as invaluable digital experience. As a partner, Kainos will help us create a data-first mindset and skills across UK defence.Read more about technology strategy at the Ministry of DefenceMoD sets out strategy to develop military AI with private sector.Ministry of Defence releases defence data management strategy.Government announces data strategy for defence.Kainos will provide platform management, maintenance and support for DDAP, and also be responsible for data integration across the MoD. A goal of the programme is to limit the duplication of analytics initiatives across the organisation.On the people side, it has worked with the Defence Digital organisation to create, according to a Kainos statement, skilled data teams to design and roll out end user applications on DDAP to support analytics and bespoke use cases.That activity continues under the new contract, and the vendor will liaise with end users on their specific data analytics requirements.It is a great privilege to expand our partnership with the MoD to drive forward an evolution of how data analytics is used across UK defence, said Brendan Mooney, CEO of Kainos. DDAP is a pioneering initiative which we will help to strengthen by introducing new approaches to data management, tooling and governance, and importantly by working closely with personnel across the MoD to understand their specific data needs.By continuously evolving the platform, DDAP remains at the forefront of data and AI analytics, maximising the value extracted from data assets, and supporting the overall digital vision of the MoD.Kainos has already started work with the MoD under the new contract, which ends on 6 January 2028.In The Current Issue:Forrester: Why digitisation needs strong data engineering skillsLabours first digital government strategy: Is it dj vu or something new?Download Current IssueA driving licence in an app is a boost for digital identity - but not for angry suppliers Computer Weekly Editors BlogRedis restriction reaction: Percona offers support for Valkey Open Source InsiderView All Blogs

TikTok's unbanning is welcomed by its users, but what could it mean for the U.S. companies involved ... [+] in its operations?Getty ImagesWill TikTok be banned again? Its a question on the minds of the apps 170 million U.S. users as the platforms presence in the U.S. continues to proceed in regulatory limbo, after its brief ban and restoration last month.Following President Trumps executive order which extended the grace period of the Supreme Courts legislation for 75 days, TikTok remains useable on devices (albeit absent from Apple and Googles app stores). But while this reprieve is welcomed by its users, it may also have plunged some tech companies vital to TikTok's U.S. operations into a situation of uncertainty.Jim Johnston, partner at law firm Davis+Gilbert, states that "The executive order can be rescinded at any time without notice to any party and the statute of limitations for violations extends beyond the end of the Trump administration nothing President Trump has done invalidates the law or transforms the actions of these companies into non-violations. The Department of Justice is simply not taking steps to enforce violations that are occurring. So, the next administration could pursue enforcement of these violations if it chose.An $850 Billion Question For Big TechIf the legislation is eventually enforced, the potential stakes for U.S. tech firms are high. "Under the legislation, companies could be fined $5,000 per user they help access TikTok... if reportedly 170 million Americans use TikTok and companies could be charged $5,000 per user, that amounts to about $850 billion in fines spread across different types of tech companies, Johnston explains.As a result, Oracle, which has the crucial role of hosting TikTok's U.S. data and content delivery infrastructure, along with Apple and Google, which distribute the app through their respective app stores, face complex decisions about their continued support of the platform. "These companies are assuming two key risks," Johnston states. "That the Trump administration will not change its mind about enforcement and that a subsequent administration would follow the Trump administration's lead on this."MORE FOR YOUShould enforcement resume, companies still operating during this period might defend their actions, Johnston suggests. "If the administration did change its mind and seek to pursue enforcement, the companies would likely argue that they reasonably relied on clear and unambiguous language in the executive order."As things stand, Oracle continues to host TikTok's U.S. data and content delivery infrastructure, while Apple and Google have adopted more conservative positions, maintaining restrictions on new downloads and updates through their app stores. "The potential negative reaction of continuing to comply with the law is much lower for these businesses than it would be for Oracle," Johnston notes. "Apple and Google control access to the app, but the 170 million current U.S. users who already have access do not need Apple or Google to access TikTok," he continues. "If Oracle decided to comply with the law regardless of the executive order, the app would become unavailable in the absence of an offshore hosting solution."Solving The TikTok ProblemTikTok's 170 million U.S. userbase will be hoping for a long-term resolution.Getty ImagesTikTok's future depends on an intricate dance between regulatory requirements, corporate risk tolerance and proposed solutions that face significant practical and constitutional hurdles. As the grace period continues, President Trump has proposed a new potential solution having a yet-to-be-created U.S. sovereign wealth fund which could be used to invest in TikTok.On Feb. 3, Trump signed an executive order directing the Treasury and Commerce Departments to submit plans for creating such a fund within 90 days. Speaking to Reuters, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent explained, "We're going to monetize the asset side of the U.S. balance sheet for the American people. There'll be a combination of liquid assets, assets that we have in this country as we work to bring them out for the American people." Bessent indicated the fund would be established within 12 months.As for the feasibility of such a fund being used to invest in TikTok? Johnston shares his doubts: "The feasibility of a meaningful U.S. sovereign wealth fund with the assets to make investments of this nature is questionable. There is no identifiable funding source for a sovereign wealth fund since the U.S. does not run the budget surpluses or control natural energy resources typically used for these funds. Moreover, the executive order itself acknowledges that Congressional action may be required to establish such a fund. The challenges facing a swift establishment of a sovereign wealth fund are significant."The timing, according to Johnston, also presents additional complications. "Treasury Secretary Bessent outlined a twelve-month timeframe for the creation of a sovereign wealth fund, which is well outside of the timeframe needed to resolve the TikTok ownership situation before President Trump's current executive order expires and well beyond the 90-day extension right available to the President under the law," Johnston notes.He also warns of significant constitutional concerns: "On top of that, an ownership stake in TikTok by the U.S. only enhances the potential First Amendment concerns relating to TikTok. As much as many politicians complain about the First Amendment implications of content moderation by social media platforms, those platforms are private businesses and have much wider latitude to monitor and control the content on their platforms. The federal government doesn't have that latitude. Even the algorithm that serves videos itself could be subject to First Amendment challenge to the extent it favors certain viewpoints."The FutureUltimately, the potential ramifications of these developments extend beyond TikTok. The existing legislation, for example, includes mechanisms for designating additional platforms as Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications, potentially affecting other Chinese apps. Johnston points to ByteDance's other applications, such as Lemon8, which already face U.S. restrictions."While the immediate focus remains on TikTok's social media platform, similar regulatory challenges are emerging in other technology sectors. The emergence of AI tools adds another dimension. "The announcements regarding the AI tool DeepSeek may create a similar tension within the federal government over the manipulation of information by an adversary, the protection of data regarding U.S. citizens and the protection of a vital U.S. industry just beginning to take off," Johnston observes."As the technology industry navigates this uncertain terrain, the resolution of TikTok's status could establish crucial precedents for how American companies engage with foreign technology firms. And for U.S. tech giants, the decisions made during this period could shape their regulatory relationships and market positions for years to come. Representatives from Oracle, Apple, Google and TikTok were contacted for comment but had not responded by the time of publication.