There has been a new update to the ongoing Stratasys v. Bambu Lab patent infringement lawsuit.  Both parties have agreed to consolidate the lead and member cases (2:24-CV-00644-JRG and 2:24-CV-00645-JRG) into a single case under Case No. 2:25-cv-00465-JRG.  Industrial 3D printing OEM Stratasys filed the request late last month. According to an official court document, Shenzhen-based Bambu Lab did not oppose the motion. Stratasys argued that this non-opposition amounted to the defendants waiving their right to challenge the request under U.S. patent law 35 U.S.C. § 299(a). On June 2, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, ordered Bambu Lab to confirm in writing whether it agreed to the proposed case consolidation. The court took this step out of an “abundance of caution” to ensure both parties consented to the procedure before moving forward. Bambu Lab submitted its response on June 12, agreeing to the consolidation. The company, along with co-defendants Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co., Ltd., and Tuozhu Technology Limited, waived its rights under 35 U.S.C. § 299(a). The court will now decide whether to merge the cases. This followed U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s decision last month to deny Bambu Lab’s motion to dismiss the lawsuits.  The Chinese desktop 3D printer manufacturer filed the motion in February 2025, arguing the cases were invalid because its US-based subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, was not named in the original litigation. However, it agreed that the lawsuit could continue in the Austin division of the Western District of Texas, where a parallel case was filed last year.  Judge Gilstrap denied the motion, ruling that the cases properly target the named defendants. He concluded that Bambu Lab USA isn’t essential to the dispute, and that any misnaming should be addressed in summary judgment, not dismissal.        A Stratasys Fortus 450mc (left) and a Bambu Lab X1C (right). Image by 3D Printing industry. Another twist in the Stratasys v. Bambu Lab lawsuit  Stratasys filed the two lawsuits against Bambu Lab in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, in August 2024. The company claims that Bambu Lab’s X1C, X1E, P1S, P1P, A1, and A1 mini 3D printers violate ten of its patents. These patents cover common 3D printing features, including purge towers, heated build plates, tool head force detection, and networking capabilities. Stratasys has requested a jury trial. It is seeking a ruling that Bambu Lab infringed its patents, along with financial damages and an injunction to stop Bambu from selling the allegedly infringing 3D printers. Last October, Stratasys dropped charges against two of the originally named defendants in the dispute. Court documents showed that Beijing Tiertime Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Yinhua Laser Rapid Prototyping and Mould Technology Co., Ltd were removed. Both defendants represent the company Tiertime, China’s first 3D printer manufacturer. The District Court accepted the dismissal, with all claims dropped without prejudice. It’s unclear why Stratasys named Beijing-based Tiertime as a defendant in the first place, given the lack of an obvious connection to Bambu Lab.  Tiertime and Stratasys have a history of legal disputes over patent issues. In 2013, Stratasys sued Afinia, Tiertime’s U.S. distributor and partner, for patent infringement. Afinia responded by suing uCRobotics, the Chinese distributor of MakerBot 3D printers, also alleging patent violations. Stratasys acquired MakerBot in June 2013. The company later merged with Ultimaker in 2022. In February 2025, Bambu Lab filed a motion to dismiss the original lawsuits. The company argued that Stratasys’ claims, focused on the sale, importation, and distribution of 3D printers in the United States, do not apply to the Shenzhen-based parent company. Bambu Lab contended that the allegations concern its American subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, which was not named in the complaint filed in the Eastern District of Texas. Bambu Lab filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the case is invalid under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. It argued that any party considered a “primary participant” in the allegations must be included as a defendant.    The court denied the motion on May 29, 2025. In the ruling, Judge Gilstrap explained that Stratasys’ allegations focus on the actions of the named defendants, not Bambu Lab USA. As a result, the official court document called Bambu Lab’s argument “unavailing.” Additionally, the Judge stated that, since Bambu Lab USA and Bambu Lab are both owned by Shenzhen Tuozhu, “the interest of these two entities align,” meaning the original cases are valid.   In the official court document, Judge Gilstrap emphasized that Stratasys can win or lose the lawsuits based solely on the actions of the current defendants, regardless of Bambu Lab USA’s involvement. He added that any potential risk to Bambu Lab USA’s business is too vague or hypothetical to justify making it a required party. Finally, the court noted that even if Stratasys named the wrong defendant, this does not justify dismissal under Rule 12(b)(7). Instead, the judge stated it would be more appropriate for the defendants to raise that argument in a motion for summary judgment. The Bambu Lab X1C 3D printer. Image via Bambu Lab. 3D printing patent battles  The 3D printing industry has seen its fair share of patent infringement disputes over recent months. In May 2025, 3D printer hotend developer Slice Engineering reached an agreement with Creality over a patent non-infringement lawsuit.  The Chinese 3D printer OEM filed the lawsuit in July 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division. The company claimed that Slice Engineering had falsely accused it of infringing two hotend patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,875,244 and 11,660,810. These cover mechanical and thermal features of Slice’s Mosquito 3D printer hotend. Creality requested a jury trial and sought a ruling confirming it had not infringed either patent. Court documents show that Slice Engineering filed a countersuit in December 2024. The Gainesville-based company maintained that Creaility “has infringed and continues to infringe” on both patents. In the filing, the company also denied allegations that it had harassed Creality’s partners, distributors, and customers, and claimed that Creality had refused to negotiate a resolution.   The Creality v. Slice Engineering lawsuit has since been dropped following a mutual resolution. Court documents show that both parties have permanently dismissed all claims and counterclaims, agreeing to cover their own legal fees and costs.  In other news, large-format resin 3D printer manufacturer Intrepid Automation sued 3D Systems over alleged patent infringement. The lawsuit, filed in February 2025, accused 3D Systems of using patented technology in its PSLA 270 industrial resin 3D printer. The filing called the PSLA 270 a “blatant knock off” of Intrepid’s DLP multi-projection “Range” 3D printer.   San Diego-based Intrepid Automation called this alleged infringement the “latest chapter of 3DS’s brazen, anticompetitive scheme to drive a smaller competitor with more advanced technology out of the marketplace.” The lawsuit also accused 3D Systems of corporate espionage, claiming one of its employees stole confidential trade secrets that were later used to develop the PSLA 270 printer. 3D Systems denied the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss the case. The company called the lawsuit “a desperate attempt” by Intrepid to distract from its own alleged theft of 3D Systems’ trade secrets. Who won the 2024 3D Printing Industry Awards? Subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter to keep up with the latest 3D printing news.You can also follow us on LinkedIn, and subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry Youtube channel to access more exclusive content.Featured image shows a Stratasys Fortus 450mc (left) and a Bambu Lab X1C (right). Image by 3D Printing industry.

We did it gang. We completed another week in the impossible survival sim that is real life. Give yourself a appreciative pat on the back and gaze wistfully towards whatever adventures or blissful respite the weekend might bring.This week I've mostly been recovering from my birthday celebrations, which entailed a bountiful Korean Barbecue that left me with a rampant case of the meat sweats and a pub crawl around one of Manchester's finest suburbs. There was no time for video games, but that's not always a bad thing. Distance makes the heart grow fonder, after all.I was welcomed back to the imaginary office with a news bludgeon to the face. The headlines this week have come thick and fast, bringing hardware announcements, more layoffs, and some notable sales milestones. As always, there's a lot to digest, so let's venture once more into the fray. The first Xbox handhelds have finally arrivedvia Game Developer // Microsoft finally stopped flirting with the idea of launching a handheld this week and unveiled not one, but two devices called the ROG Xbox Ally and ROG Xbox Ally X. The former is pitched towards casual players, while the latter aims to entice hardcore video game aficionados. Both devices were designed in collaboration with Asus and will presumably retail at price points that reflect their respective innards. We don't actually know yet, mind, because Microsoft didn't actually state how much they'll cost. You have the feel that's where the company really needs to stick the landing here.Related:Switch 2 tops 3.5 million sales to deliver Nintendo's biggest console launchvia Game Developer // Four days. That's all it took for the Switch 2 to shift over 3.5 million units worldwide to deliver Nintendo's biggest console launch ever. The original Switch needed a month to reach 2.74 million sales by contrast, while the PS5 needed two months to sell 4.5 million units worldwide. Xbox sales remain a mystery because Microsoft just doesn't talk about that sort of thing anymore, which is decidedly frustrating for those oddballs (read: this writer) who actually enjoy sifting through financial documents in search of those juicy juicy numbers.Inside the ‘Dragon Age’ Debacle That Gutted EA’s BioWare Studiovia Bloomberg (paywalled) // How do you kill a franchise like Dragon Age and leave a studio with the pedigree of BioWare in turmoil? According to a new report from Bloomberg, the answer will likely resonate with developers across the industry: corporate meddling. Sources speaking to the publication explained how Dragon Age: The Veilguard, which failed to meet the expectations of parent company EA, was in constant disarray because the American publisher couldn't decide whether it should be a live-service or single player title. Indecision from leadership within EA and an eventual pivot away from the live-service model only caused more confusion, with BioWare being told to implement foundational changes within impossible timelines. It's a story that's all the more alarming because of how familiar it feels.Related:Sony is making layoffs at Days Gone developer Bend Studiovia Game Developer // Sony has continued its Tony Award-winning tun as the Grim Reaper by cutting even more jobs within PlayStation Studios. Days Gone developer Bend Studio was the latest casualty, with the first-party developer confirming a number of employees were laid off just months after the cancellation of a live-service project. Sony didn't confirm how many people lost their jobs, but Bloomberg reporter Jason Schreier heard that around 40 people (roughly 30 percent of the studio's headcount) were let go. Embracer CEO Lars Wingefors to become executive chair and focus on M&Avia Game Developer // Somewhere, in a deep dark corner of the world, the monkey's paw has curled. Embracer CEO Lars Wingefors, who demonstrated his leadership nous by spending years embarking on a colossal merger and acquisition spree only to immediately start downsizing, has announced he'll be stepping down as CEO. The catch? Wingefors is currently proposed to be appointed executive chair of the board of Embracer. In his new role, he'll apparently focus on strategic initiatives, capital allocation, and mergers and acquisitions. And people wonder why satire is dead. Related:Hong Kong Outlaws a Video Game, Saying It Promotes 'Armed Revolution'via The New York Times (paywalled) // National security police in Hong Kong have banned a Taiwanese video game called Reversed Front: Bonfire for supposedly "advocating armed revolution." Authorities in the region warned that anybody who downloads or recommends the online strategy title will face serious legal charges. The game has been pulled from Apple's marketplace in Hong Kong but is still available for download elsewhere. It was never available in mainland China. Developer ESC Taiwan, part of an group of volunteers who are vocal detractors of China's Communist Party, thanked Hong Kong authorities for the free publicity in a social media post and said the ban shows how political censorship remains prominent in the territory. RuneScape developer accused of ‘catering to American conservatism’ by rolling back Pride Month eventsvia PinkNews // Runescape developers inside Jagex have reportedly been left reeling after the studio decided to pivot away from Pride Month content to focus more on "what players wanted." Jagex CEO broke the news to staff with a post on an internal message board, prompting a rush of complaints—with many workers explaining the content was either already complete or easy to implement. Though Jagex is based in the UK, it's parent company CVC Capital Partners operates multiple companies in the United States. It's a situation that left one employee who spoke to PinkNews questioning whether the studio has caved to "American conservatism." SAG-AFTRA suspends strike and instructs union members to return to workvia Game Developer // It has taken almost a year, but performer union SAG-AFTRA has finally suspended strike action and instructed members to return to work. The decision comes after protracted negotiations with major studios who employ performers under the Interactive Media Agreement. SAG-AFTRA had been striking to secure better working conditions and AI protections for its members, and feels it has now secured a deal that will install vital "AI guardrails."A Switch 2 exclusive Splatoon spinoff was just shadow-announced on Nintendo Todayvia Game Developer // Nintendo did something peculiar this week when it unveiled a Splatoon spinoff out of the blue. That in itself might not sound too strange, but for a short window the announcement was only accessible via the company's new Nintendo Today mobile app. It's a situation that left people without access to the app questioning whether the news was even real. Nintendo Today prevented users from capturing screenshots or footage, only adding to the sense of confusion. It led to this reporter branding the move a "shadow announcement," which in turn left some of our readers perplexed. Can you ever announce and announcement? What does that term even mean? Food for thought. A wonderful new Big Walk trailer melted this reporter's heartvia House House (YouTube) //  The mad lads behind Untitled Goose Game are back with a new jaunt called Big Walk. This one has been on my radar for a while, but the studio finally debuted a gameplay overview during Summer Game Fest and it looks extraordinary in its purity. It's about walking and talking—and therein lies the charm. Players are forced to cooperate to navigate a lush open world, solve puzzles, and embark upon hijinks. Proximity-based communication is the core mechanic in Big Walk—whether that takes the form of voice chat, written text, hand signals, blazing flares, or pictograms—and it looks like it'll lead to all sorts of weird and wonderful antics. It's a pitch that cuts through because it's so unashamedly different, and there's a lot to love about that. I'm looking forward to this one.

monkey abuse The “online monkey torture video” arrests just keep coming Authorities continue the slow crackdown. Nate Anderson – Jun 14, 2025 7:00 am | 34 Credit: Getty Images Credit: Getty Images Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Today's monkey torture videos are the products of a digitally connected world. People who enjoy watching baby animals probed, snipped, and mutilated in horrible ways often have difficulty finding local collaborators, but online communities like "million tears"—now thankfully shuttered—can help them forge connections. Once they do meet other like-minded souls, communication takes place through chat apps like Telegram and Signal, often using encryption. Money is pooled through various phone apps, then sent to videographers in countries where wages are low and monkeys are plentiful. (The cases I have seen usually involve Indonesia; read my feature from last year to learn more about how these groups work.) There, monkeys are tortured by a local subcontractor—sometimes a child—working to Western specs. Smartphone video of the torture is sent back to the commissioning sadists, who share it with more viewers using the same online communities in which they met. The unfortunate pattern was again on display this week in an indictment the US government unsealed against several more Americans said to have commissioned these videos. The accused used online handles like "Bitchy" and "DemonSwordSoulCrusher," and they hail from all over: Tennessee, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. They relied on an Indonesian videographer to create the content, which was surprisingly affordable—it cost a mere $40 to commission video of a "burning hot screwdriver" being shoved into a baby monkey's orifice. After the money was transferred, the requested video was shot and shared through a "phone-based messaging program," but the Americans were deeply disappointed in its quality. Instead of full-on impalement, the videographer had heated a screwdriver on a burner and merely touched it against the monkey a few times. "So lame," one of the Americans allegedly complained to another. "Live and learn," was the response. So the group tried again. "Million tears" had been booted by its host, but the group reconstituted on another platform and renamed itself "the trail of trillion tears." They reached out to another Indonesian videographer and asked for a more graphic version of the same video. But this version, more sadistic than the last, still didn't satisfy. As one of the Americans allegedly said to another, "honey that's not what you asked for. Thats the village idiot version. But I'm talking with someone about getting a good vo [videographer] to do it." Arrests continue In 2021, someone leaked communications from the "million tears" group to animals rights organizations like Lady Freethinker and Action for Primates, which handed it over to authorities. Still, it took several years to arrest and prosecute the torture group's leaders. In 2024, one of these leaders—Ronald Bedra of Ohio—pled guilty to commissioning the videos and to mailing "a thumb drive containing 64 videos of monkey torture to a co-conspirator in Wisconsin." His mother, in a sentencing letter to the judge, said that her son must "have been undergoing some mental crisis when he decided to create the website." As a boy, he had loved all of the family pets, she said, even providing a funeral for a fish. Bedra was sentenced late last year to 54 months in prison. According to letters from family members, he has also lost his job, his wife, and his kids. In April 2025, two more alleged co-conspirators were indicted and subsequently arrested; their cases were unsealed only this week. Two other co-conspirators from this group still appear to be uncharged. In May 2025, 11 other Americans were indicted for their participation in monkey torture groups, though they appear to come from a different network. This group allegedly "paid a minor in Indonesia to commit the requested acts on camera." As for the Indonesian side of this equation, arrests have been happening there, too. Following complaints from animal rights groups, police in Indonesia have arrested multiple videographers over the last two years. Nate Anderson Deputy Editor Nate Anderson Deputy Editor Nate is the deputy editor at Ars Technica. His most recent book is In Emergency, Break Glass: What Nietzsche Can Teach Us About Joyful Living in a Tech-Saturated World, which is much funnier than it sounds. 34 Comments

Three former executives at the French video game company Ubisoft used their position to bully or sexually harass staff, leaving women terrified and feeling like pieces of meat, a French court has heard.The state prosecutor Antoine Haushalter said the trial of three senior game creators for alleged bullying, sexual harassment and, in one case, attempted sexual assault was a “turning point” for the gaming world. It is the first big trial to result from the #MeToo movement in the video games industry, and Haushalter said the case had revealed “overwhelming” evidence of harassment.In four days of hearings, female former staff members variously described being tied to a chair, forced to do handstands, subjected to constant comments about sex and their bodies, having to endure sexist and homophobic jokes, drawings of penises being stuck to computers, a manager who farted in workers’ faces or scribbled on women with marker pens, gave unsolicited shoulder massages, played pornographic films in an open-plan office, and another executive who cracked a whip near people’s heads. The three men deny all charges.Haushalter said “the world of video games and its subculture” had an element of “systemic” sexism and potential abuse. He said the #MeToo movement in the gaming industry had allowed people to speak out.“It’s not that these actions were not punished by the law before. It’s just that they were silenced, and from now on they will not be silenced,” he said.Ubisoft is a French family business that rose to become one of the biggest video game creators in the world. It has been behind several blockbusters including Assassin’s Creed, Far Cry and the children’s favourite Just Dance.The court in Bobigny, in Seine-Saint-Denis, heard that between 2010 and 2020 at Ubisoft’s offices in Montreuil, east of Paris, the three executives created an atmosphere of bullying and sexism that one member of staff likened to a “boys’ club”. One alleged victim told the court: “The sexual remarks and sexual jokes were almost daily.”Tommy François, 52, a former vice-president of editorial and creative services, is accused of sexual harassment, bullying and attempted sexual assault. He was alleged once to have tied a female member of staff to a chair with tape, pushed the chair into a lift and pressed a button at random. He was also accused of forcing one woman wearing a skirt to do handstands.“He was my superior and I was afraid of him. He made me do handstands. I did it to get it over with and get rid of him,” one woman told the court.At a 2015 office Christmas party with a Back to the Future theme, François allegedly told a member of staff that he liked her 1950s dress. He then allegedly stepped towards her to kiss her on the mouth as his colleagues restrained her by the arms and back. She shouted and broke free. François denied all allegations.Another witness told the court that during a video games fair in the US, François “grabbed me by the hair and kissed me by force”. She said no one reacted, and that when she reported it to her human resources manager she was told “don’t make a big thing of it”.The woman said that later, in a key meeting, another unnamed senior figure told staff he had seen her “snogging” François, “even though he knew it had been an assault”.She said François called her into his office to show her pictures of his naked backside on his computers and on a phone. “Once he drew a penis on my arm when I was in a video call with top management,” she said.The woman said these incidents made her feel “stupefied, humiliated and professionally discredited”.François told the court he denied all charges. He said there had been a “culture of joking around”. He said: “I never tried to harm anyone.”Serge Hascoët told the court: ‘I have never wanted to harass anyone and I don’t think I have.’ Photograph: Xavier Galiana/AFP/Getty ImagesSerge Hascoët, 59, Ubisoft’s former chief creative officer and second-in-command, was accused of bullying and sexual harassment. The court heard how at a meeting of staff on an away day he complained about a senior female employee, saying she clearly did not have enough sex and that he would “show how to calm her” by having sex with her in a meeting room in front of everyone.He was alleged to have handed a young female member of staff a tissue in which he had blown his nose, saying: “You can resell it, it’s worth gold at Ubisoft.”The court heard he made guttural noises in the office and talked about sex. Hascoët was also alleged to have bullied assistants by making them carry out personal tasks for him such as going to his home to wait for parcel deliveries.Hascoët denied all the charges. He said: “I have never wanted to harass anyone and I don’t think I have.”The former game director Guillaume Patrux, 41, is accused of sexual harassment and bullying. He was alleged to have punched walls, mimed hitting staff, cracked a whip near colleagues’ faces, threatened to carry out an office shooting and played with a cigarette lighter near workers’ faces, setting alight a man’s beard. He denied the charges.The panel of judges retired to consider their verdict, which will be handed down at a later date.

June 5, 20254 min readThe Trump-Musk Fight Could Have Huge Consequences for U.S. Space ProgramsA vitriolic war of words between President Donald Trump and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk could have profound repercussions for the nation’s civil and military space programsBy Lee Billings edited by Dean VisserElon Musk (left) and President Donald Trump (right) seemed to be on good terms during a press briefing in the Oval Office at the White House on May 30, 2025, but the event proved to be the calm before a social media storm. Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesFor several hours yesterday, an explosively escalating social media confrontation between arguably the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, and the world’s most powerful, President Donald Trump, shook U.S. spaceflight to its core.The pair had been bosom-buddy allies ever since Musk’s fateful endorsement of Trump last July—an event that helped propel Trump to an electoral victory and his second presidential term. But on May 28 Musk announced his departure from his official role overseeing the U.S. DOGE Service. And on May 31 the White House announced that it was withdrawing Trump’s nomination of Musk’s close associate Jared Isaacman to lead NASA. Musk abruptly went on the attack against the Trump administration, criticizing the budget-busting One Big Beautiful Bill Act, now navigating through Congress, as “a disgusting abomination.”Things got worse from there as the blowup descended deeper into threats and insults. On June 5 Trump suggested on his own social-media platform, Truth Social, that he could terminate U.S. government contracts with Musk’s companies, such as SpaceX and Tesla. Less than an hour later, the conflict suddenly grew more personal, with Musk taking to X, the social media platform he owns, to accuse Trump—without evidence—of being incriminated by as-yet-unreleased government documents related to the illegal activities of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Musk upped the ante further in follow-up posts in which he endorsed a suggestion for impeaching Trump and, separately, declared in a now deleted post that because of the president’s threat, SpaceX “will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately.” (Some five hours after his decommissioning comment, tempers had apparently cooled enough for Musk to walk back the remark in another X post: “Ok, we won’t decommission Dragon.”)Dragon is a crucial workhorse of U.S. human spaceflight. It’s the main way NASA’s astronauts get to and from the International Space Station (ISS) and also a key component of a contract between NASA and SpaceX to safely deorbit the ISS in 2031. If Dragon were to be no longer be available, NASA would, in the near term, have to rely on either Russian Soyuz vehicles or on Boeing’s glitch-plagued Starliner spacecraft for its crew transport—and the space agency’s plans for deorbiting the ISS would essentially go back to the drawing board. More broadly, NASA uses SpaceX rockets to launch many of its science missions, and the company is contracted to ferry astronauts to and from the surface of the moon as part of the space agency’s Artemis III mission.Trump’s and Musk’s retaliatory tit for tat also raises the disconcerting possibility of disrupting other SpaceX-centric parts of U.S. space plans, many of which are seen as critical for national security. Thanks to its wildly successful reusable Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets, the company presently provides the vast majority of space launches for the Department of Defense. And SpaceX’s constellation of more than 7,000 Starlink communications satellites has become vitally important to war fighters in the ongoing conflict between Russia and U.S.-allied Ukraine. SpaceX is also contracted to build a massive constellation of spy satellites for the DOD and is considered a leading candidate for launching space-based interceptors envisioned as part of Trump’s “Golden Dome” missile-defense plan.Among the avalanche of reactions to the incendiary spectacle unfolding in real time, one of the most extreme was from Trump’s influential former adviser Steve Bannon, who called on the president to seize and nationalize SpaceX. And in an interview with the New York Times, Bannon, without evidence, accused Musk, a naturalized U.S. citizen, of being an “illegal alien” who “should be deported from the country immediately.”NASA, for its part, attempted to stay above the fray via a carefully worded late-afternoon statement from the space agency’s press secretary Bethany Stevens: “NASA will continue to execute upon the President’s vision for the future of space,” Stevens wrote. “We will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the President’s objectives in space are met.”The response from the stock market was, in its own way, much less muted. SpaceX is not a publicly traded company. But Musk’s electric car company Tesla is. And it experienced a massive sell-off at the end of June 5’s trading day: Tesla’s share price fell down by 14 percent, losing the company a whopping $152 billion of its market value.Today a rumored détente phone conversation between the two men has apparently been called off, and Trump has reportedly said he now intends to sell the Tesla he purchased in March in what was then a gesture of support for Musk. But there are some signs the rift may yet heal: Musk has yet to be deported; SpaceX has not been shut down; Tesla’s stock price is surging back from its momentary heavy losses; and it seems NASA astronauts won’t be stranded on Earth or on the ISS for the time being.Even so, the entire sordid episode—and the possibility of further messy clashes between Trump and Musk unfolding in public—highlights a fundamental vulnerability at the heart of the nation’s deep reliance on SpaceX for access to space. Outsourcing huge swaths of civil and military space programs to a disruptively innovative private company effectively controlled by a single individual certainly has its rewards—but no shortage of risks, too.

The murder of John Forde was the culmination to years of political, social, and criminal intrigue.   Get the Popular Science daily newsletter💡 Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. Researchers have uncovered handwritten letters, court documents, and a coroner’s report related to the nearly 700-year-old cold case murder of a medieval priest. Published on June 5 in the journal Criminal Law Forum, the investigation draws on direct archival evidence from Cambridge University that is helping fill in the gaps to a high-profile true crime scandal that would make headlines even today. But despite a mountain of firsthand accounts, the murder’s masterminds never saw justice. The ‘planned and cold-blooded’ crime On Friday, May 3, 1337, Anglican priest John Forde began a walk along downtown London’s Cheapside street after vespers (evening prayers) shortly before sunset. At one point, a clergyman familiar to Forde by the name of Hasculph Neville approached him to begin a “pleasant conversation.” As the pair neared St. Paul’s Cathedral, four men ambushed the priest. One of the attackers then proceeded to slit Forde’s throat using a 12-inch dagger as two other assailants stabbed him in the stomach in front of onlookers. The vicious crime wasn’t a brazen robbery or politically motivated attack. It was likely a premeditated murder orchestrated by Ela Fitzpayne, a noblewoman, London crime syndicate leader—and potentially Forde’s lover. “We are looking at a murder commissioned by a leading figure of the English aristocracy. It is planned and cold-blooded, with a family member and close associates carrying it out, all of which suggests a revenge motive,” Cambridge University criminology professor Manuel Eisner explained in a statement. The location of the murder of John Forde on May 3, 1337. Credit: Medieval Murder Maps / University of Cambridge’s Institute of Criminology / Historic Towns Trust. A longstanding feud To understand how such a brutal killing could take place in daylight on a busy London street, it’s necessary to backtrack at least five years. In January 1332, the Archbishop of Canterbury sent a letter to the Bishop of Winchester that included a number of reputation-ruining claims surrounding Fitzpayne. In particular, Archbishop Simon Mepham described sexual relationships involving “knights and others, single and married, and even with clerics in holy orders.” The wide-ranging punishments for such sinful behavior could include a prohibition on wearing gold and other precious jewelry, as well as large tithes to monastic orders and the poor. But the most humiliating atonement often came in the form of a public walk of shame. The act of contrition involved walking barefoot across Salisbury Cathedral—England’s longest nave—in order to deliver a handcarried, four-pound wax candle to the church altar. What’s more, Archbishop Mepham commanded that Fitzpayne must repeat this penance every autumn for seven years. Fitzpayne was having none of it. According to Mepham’s message, the noblewoman chose to continue listening to a “spirit of pride” (and the devil), and refused to abide by the judgment. A second letter sent by the Archbishop that April also alleged that she had since absconded from her husband, Sir Robert Fitzpayne, and was hiding in London’s Rotherhithe district along the Thames River. Due to this, Archbishop Mepham reported that Ela Fitzpayne had been excommunicated from the church. Image of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s letters to the Bishop of Winchester on the subject of Ela Fitzpayne, from the register of John de Stratford. Credit: Hampshire Archives and Hampshire County Council. Raids and rats But who tipped the clergy off to her indiscretions? According to Eisner’s review of original documents as part of the Cambridge University Institute of Criminology’s Medieval Murder Maps project, it was almost certainly her ex-lover, the soon-to-be-murdered John Forde. He was the only alleged lover named in Archbishop Mepham’s letters, and served as a church rector in a village located on the Fitzpayne family’s estate at the time of the suspected affair.  “The archbishop imposed heavy, shameful public penance on Ela, which she seems not to have complied with, but may have sparked a thirst for vengeance,” Eisner said. “Not least as John Forde appears to have escaped punishment by the church.” But Forde’s relationship with the Fitzpaynes seems to have extended even more illicit activities. In another record reviewed by Eisner, both Ela Fitzpayne and John Forde had been indicted by a Royal Commission in 1322. The crime–assisting in the raid of a Benedictine priory alongside Sir Fitzpayne. They and others reportedly assaulted the priory a year earlier, making off with around 18 oxen, 30 pigs, and 200 sheep. The monastery coincidentally served as a French abbey’s outpost amid increasing tensions between France and England in the years leading up to the Hundred Years’ War. Archbishop Mepham was almost certainly displeased after hearing about the indictment of one of his own clergy. A strict administrator himself, Mepham “was keen to enforce moral discipline among the gentry and nobility,” added Eisner. He theorizes that Forde copped to the affair after getting leaned on by superiors, which subsequently led to the campaign to shame Ela Fitzpayne as a means to reassert the Church’s authority over English nobility. Forde, unfortunately, was caught between the two sides. “John Forde may have had split loyalties,” argued Eisner. “One to the Fitzpayne family, who were likely patrons of his church and granted him the position. And the other to the bishops who had authority over him as a clergy member.” Archbishop Mepham ultimately wouldn’t live to see the scandal’s full consequences. Fitzpayne never accepted her walk of shame, and the church elder died a year after sending the incriminating letters. Eisner believes the Fitzpaynes greenlit their hit job on Forde only after the dust had seemingly settled. It doesn’t help their case three bystanders said the man who slit the rector’s throat was none other than Ela Fitzpayne’s own brother, Hugh Lovell. They also named two family servants as Forde’s other assailants. Archbishop Mepham died four years before Forde’s murder. Credit: ampshire Archives and Hampshire County Council Turning a blind eye Anyone waiting for justice in this medieval saga will likely be disappointed. “Despite naming the killers and clear knowledge of the instigator, when it comes to pursuing the perpetrators, the jury turn[ed] a blind eye,” Eisner said. Eisner explained the circumstances surrounding an initial lack of convictions were simply “implausible.” No one supposedly could locate the accused to bring to trial, despite the men belonging to one of England’s highest nobility houses. Meanwhile, the court claimed Hugh Lovell had no belongings available to confiscate. “This was typical of the class-based justice of the day,” said Eisner. In the end, the only charge that ever stuck in the murder case was an indictment against one of the family’s former servants. Five years after the first trial in 1342, Hugh Colne was convicted of being one of the men to stab Forde in the stomach and sentenced to the notorious Newgate Prison. As dark and sordid as the multiyear medieval drama was, it apparently didn’t change much between Ela Fitzpayne and her husband, Sir Robert. She and the baron remained married until his death in 1354—when she subsequently inherited all his property. “Where rule of law is weak, we see killings committed by the highest ranks in society, who will take power into their own hands, whether it’s today or seven centuries ago,” said Eisner. That said, the criminology professor couldn’t help but concede that Ela Fitzpayne was an “extraordinary” individual, regardless of the era. “A woman in 14th century England who raided priories, openly defied the Archbishop of Canterbury, and planned the assassination of a priest,” he said. “Ela Fitzpayne appears to have been many things.”

Image of the Archbishop of Canterbury's letters to the Bishop of Winchester on the subject of Ela Fitzpayne, from the register of John de Stratford. Reproduced with permission of Hampshire Archives and Hampshire County Council. (Image Credit: Register of John de Stratford. Reproduced with permission of Hampshire Archives and Hampshire County Council.)NewsletterSign up for our email newsletter for the latest science newsEspionage, sex, public humiliation, murder — these may sound like tropes straight out of Game of Thrones, but they’re actually all elements of a nearly 700-year-old cold case in England. After analyzing Medieval letters and records, a research team from the Cambridge University Institute of Criminology’s Medieval Murder Maps project may have found the killer of a priest. However, this priest may not have been so innocent. A new paper published in Criminal Law Forum takes a deeper look at this 14th-century cold case.Tracing a Medieval MurderThe Medieval Murder Maps project uses interactive maps of three English cities, London, Oxford, and York, during the Medieval period. Throughout the cities are the locations of various deaths and murders. Each location has a story associated with it, directly from written records and coroners' reports at the time. Some of these stories are full of intriguing twists and turns.The Cambridge research team analyzed over 100 murders from texts, translated from Latin, from that period, and used a coding method to separate the deaths into different categories, including time (day, week, month), motivation, weapon used, victim, and location. From this information, one of the deaths the team found most interesting was the murder of John Forde in 1337.A Medieval Lover to Murderer From the letters and texts the team analyzed, they pieced together the events that led up to Forde’s death. Forde was a priest living in London when he was murdered on a busy street. But what possible reason would someone have to want to murder a priest? The motive, according to the research team, was likely revenge. According to Manuel Eisner, one of the study’s authors, the murder may have been an act of revenge by noblewoman Ela Fitzpayne. According to the records, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Simon Mepham, had enacted penance on Fitzpayne after it was discovered that Forde had been her lover. A letter written by Archbishop Mepham accused Fitzpayne of adultery with Forde and possibly others. Her penance was to take a barefoot walk of shame across Salisbury Cathedral. Eisner also found a document that suggested Fitzpayne, her husband, and John Forde sent a gang to rob a church priory and took the livestock for ransom. It’s possible that during this time, Forde found himself in bed with Fitzpayne, before betraying her to the Archbishop Mepham. Commissioned Murder Possibly betrayed by her former lover and sentenced to walks of shame that were to take place once a year for seven years,  Fitzpayne would have none of it. On an early evening on a busy London street, near St. Paul’s Cathedral, three men attacked Forde. One slit his throat while the others stabbed him in the gut. Witnesses claim that the murderers were Fitzpayne’s brother and two of her former servants. “We are looking at a murder commissioned by a leading figure of the English aristocracy. It is planned and cold-blooded, with a family member and close associates carrying it out, all of which suggests a revenge motive,” said Eisner in a press release.Cold Case RevealedAccording to letters from Archbishop Mepham, Fitzpayne was led by the devil and a “spirit of pride.”“The archbishop imposed heavy, shameful public penance on Ela, which she seems not to have complied with, but may have sparked a thirst for vengeance,” said Eisner in a press release. “Not least as John Forde appears to have escaped punishment by the church.” When Archbishop Mepham died in 1333, Fitzpayne waited four years before enacting her revenge, and in 1337, Forde was killed. Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:A graduate of UW-Whitewater, Monica Cull wrote for several organizations, including one that focused on bees and the natural world, before coming to Discover Magazine. Her current work also appears on her travel blog and Common State Magazine. Her love of science came from watching PBS shows as a kid with her mom and spending too much time binging Doctor Who.1 free article leftWant More? Get unlimited access for as low as $1.99/monthSubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In1 free articleSubscribeWant more?Keep reading for as low as $1.99!SubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In

Business leaders are weighing in on the Elon Musk and Donald Trump breakup. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images 2025-06-06T05:49:58Z Save Saved Read in app This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now. Have an account? The friendship between Elon Musk and Donald Trump publicly unravelled on Thursday. It all started when Musk criticized Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill." Here's what business leaders like Mark Cuban and Bill Ackman have to say about the breakup. Amid a dramatic falling out between Donald Trump and his "first buddy," Elon Musk, some of the business world's most influential voices are weighing in.The relationship between the president and his once-close ally imploded on Thursday as they clashed publicly over Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill."Musk, who stepped down from his role at DOGE in May, took to X to criticize the bill, calling it the "Debt Slavery Bill" and the "Big Ugly Spending Bill."In response, Trump fired back at Musk during a White House event. He also defended the bill on Truth Social, while threatening to cancel Musk's government contracts.Musk saw his net worth fall by $34 billion on Thursday, per the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. Tesla shares were also down by more than 14%.Here's what several business leaders have to say about the row.Mark Cuban Mark Cuban appeared to support Elon Musk's suggestion to start a new political party. Richard Rodriguez/Getty Images Amid his feud with Trump, Musk proposed creating a new political party for "the middle" in a poll on X.Mark Cuban appeared to endorse the idea, quoting Musk's post and replying with three check marks. The former "Shark Tank" star previously said he's "not a fan of either party," but would run as a Republican if he wanted to join politics.Bill Ackman Bill Ackman called on Musk and Trump to reconcile. Brian Snyder/Reuters Hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman voiced his support for both Trump and Musk on X, calling on the two to put aside their differences and "make peace for the benefit of our country."Ackman, who had endorsed Trump for his 2024 presidential bid, wrote: "We are much stronger together than apart." "You're not wrong," Musk responded.Paul Graham Paul Graham also took to X to share his thoughts on the feud. Joe Corrigan/Getty Images for AOL Paul Graham, cofounder of the startup accelerator Y Combinator, also weighed in on the public feud between the president and the Tesla CEO. "A lot of people seem to be treating this as if it were just a beef. But the underlying allegation is a very serious one. If it's true, Trump is surely going to have to resign," he wrote in a post on X.Graham did not specify what allegation he was referring to.Hours before Graham made his post, Musk went on X and accused Trump of withholding information about Jeffrey Epstein."Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!" Musk wrote on X.Graham told Musk in February that he should work with the government "carefully" because it's not "just a company."A representative for Graham did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

Home Meta and Yandex Spying on Android Users Through Localhost Ports: The Dying State of Online Privacy News Meta and Yandex Spying on Android Users Through Localhost Ports: The Dying State of Online Privacy 7 min read Published: June 4, 2025 Key Takeaways Meta and Yandex have been found guilty of secretly listening to localhost ports and using them to transfer sensitive data from Android devices. The corporations use Meta Pixel and Yandex Metrica scripts to transfer cookies from browsers to local apps. Using incognito mode or a VPN can’t fully protect users against it. A Meta spokesperson has called this a ‘miscommunication,’ which seems to be an attempt to underplay the situation. Wake up, Android folks! A new privacy scandal has hit your area of town. According to a new report led by Radboud University, Meta and Yandex have been listening to localhost ports to link your web browsing data with your identity and collect personal information without your consent. The companies use Meta Pixel and the Yandex Metrica scripts, which are embedded on 5.8 million and 3 million websites, respectively, to connect with their native apps on Android devices through localhost sockets. This creates a communication path between the cookies on your website and the local apps, establishing a channel for transferring personal information from your device. Also, you are mistaken if you think using your browser’s incognito mode or a VPN can protect you. Zuckerberg’s latest method of data harvesting can’t be overcome by tweaking any privacy or cookie settings or by using a VPN or incognito mode. How Does It Work? Here’s the method used by Meta to spy on Android devices: As many as 22% of the top 1 million websites contain Meta Pixel – a tracking code that helps website owners measure ad performance and track user behaviour. When Meta Pixel loads, it creates a special cookie called _fbp, which is supposed to be a first-party cookie. This means no other third party, including Meta apps themselves, should have access to this cookie. The _fbp cookie identifies your browser whenever you visit a website, meaning it can identify which person is accessing which websites. However, Meta, being Meta, went and found a loophole around this. Now, whenever you run Facebook or Instagram on your Android device, they can open up listening ports, specifically a TCP port (12387 or 12388) and a UDP port (the first unoccupied port in 12580-12585), on your phone in the background.  Whenever you load a website on your browser, the Meta Pixel uses WebRTC with SDP Munging, which essentially hides the _fbp cookie value inside the SDP message before being transmitted to your phone’s localhost.  Since Facebook and Instagram are already listening to this port, it receives the _fbp cookie value and can easily tie your identity to the website you’re visiting. Remember, Facebook and Instagram already have your identification details since you’re always logged in on these platforms. The report also says that Meta can link all _fbp received from various websites to your ID. Simply put, Meta knows which person is viewing what set of websites. Yandex also uses a similar method to harvest your personal data. Whenever you open a Yandex app, such as Yandex Maps, Yandex Browser, Yandex Search, or Navigator, it opens up ports like 29009, 30102, 29010, and 30103 on your phone.  When you visit a website that contains the Yandex Metrica Script, Yandex’s version of Meta Pixel, the script sends requests to Yandex servers containing obfuscated parameters.  These parameters are then sent to the local host via HTTP and HTTPS, which contains the IP address 127.0.0.1, or the yandexmetrica.com domain, which secretly points to 127.0.0.1. Now, the Yandex Metrica SDK in the Yandex apps receives these parameters and sends device identifiers, such as an Android Advertising ID, UUIDs, or device fingerprints. This entire message is encrypted to hide what it contains. The Yandex Metrica Script receives this info and sends it back to the Yandex servers. Just like Meta, Yandex can also tie your website activity to the device information shared by the SDK. Meta’s Infamous History with Privacy Norms This is not something new or unthinkable that Meta has done. The Mark Zuckerberg-led social media giant has a history of such privacy violations.  For instance, in 2024, the company was accused of collecting biometric data from Texas users without their express consent. The company settled the lawsuit by paying $1.4B.  Another of the most famous lawsuits was the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018, where a political consulting firm accessed private data of 87 million Facebook users without consent. The FTC fined Meta $5B for privacy violations along with a 100M settlement with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.  Meta Pixel has also come under scrutiny before, when it was accused of collecting sensitive health information from hospital websites. In another case dating back to 2012, Meta was accused of tracking users even after they logged out from their Facebook accounts. In this case, Meta paid $90M and promised to delete the collected data.  In 2024, South Korea also fined Meta $15M for inappropriately collecting personal data, such as sexual orientation and political beliefs, of 980K users. In September 2024, Meta was fined $101.6M by the Irish Data Protection Commission for inadvertently storing user passwords in plain text in such a way that employees could search for them. The passwords were not encrypted and were essentially leaked internally. So, the latest scandal isn’t entirely out of character for Meta. It has been finding ways to collect your data ever since its incorporation, and it seems like it will continue to do so, regardless of the regulations and safeguards in place. That said, Meta’s recent tracking method is insanely dangerous because there’s no safeguard around it. Even if you visit websites in incognito mode or use a VPN, Meta Pixel can still track your activities.  The past lawsuits also show a very identifiable pattern: Meta doesn’t fight a lawsuit until the end to try to win it. It either accepts the fine or settles the lawsuit with monetary compensation. This essentially goes to show that it passively accepts and even ‘owns’ the illegitimate tracking methods it has been using for decades. It’s quite possible that the top management views these fines and penalties as a cost of collecting data. Meta’s Timid Response Meta’s response claims that there’s some ‘miscommunication’ regarding Google policies. However, the method used in the aforementioned tracking scandal isn’t something that can simply happen due to ‘faulty design’ or miscommunication.  We are in discussions with Google to address a potential miscommunication regarding the application of their policies – Meta Spokesperson This kind of unethical tracking method has to be deliberately designed by engineers for it to work perfectly on such a large scale. While Meta is still trying to underplay the situation, it has paused the ‘feature’ (yep, that’s what they are calling it) as of now. The report also claims that as of June 3, Facebook and Instagram are not actively listening to the new ports. Here’s what will possibly happen next: A lawsuit may be filed based on the report. An investigating committee might be formed to question the matter. The company will come up with lame excuses, such as misinterpretation or miscommunication of policy guidelines. Meta will eventually settle the lawsuit or bear the fine with pride, like it has always done.  The regulatory authorities are apparently chasing a rat that finds new holes to hide every day. Companies like Meta and Yandex seem to be one step ahead of these regulations and have mastered the art of finding loopholes. More than legislative technicalities, it’s the moral ethics of the company that become clear with incidents like this. The intent of these regulations is to protect personal information, and the fact that Meta and Yandex blatantly circumvent these regulations in their spirit shows the absolutely horrific state of capitalism these corporations are in. Krishi is a seasoned tech journalist with over four years of experience writing about PC hardware, consumer technology, and artificial intelligence.  Clarity and accessibility are at the core of Krishi’s writing style. He believes technology writing should empower readers—not confuse them—and he’s committed to ensuring his content is always easy to understand without sacrificing accuracy or depth. Over the years, Krishi has contributed to some of the most reputable names in the industry, including Techopedia, TechRadar, and Tom’s Guide. A man of many talents, Krishi has also proven his mettle as a crypto writer, tackling complex topics with both ease and zeal. His work spans various formats—from in-depth explainers and news coverage to feature pieces and buying guides.  Behind the scenes, Krishi operates from a dual-monitor setup (including a 29-inch LG UltraWide) that’s always buzzing with news feeds, technical documentation, and research notes, as well as the occasional gaming sessions that keep him fresh.  Krishi thrives on staying current, always ready to dive into the latest announcements, industry shifts, and their far-reaching impacts.  When he's not deep into research on the latest PC hardware news, Krishi would love to chat with you about day trading and the financial markets—oh! And cricket, as well. View all articles by Krishi Chowdhary Our editorial process The Tech Report editorial policy is centered on providing helpful, accurate content that offers real value to our readers. We only work with experienced writers who have specific knowledge in the topics they cover, including latest developments in technology, online privacy, cryptocurrencies, software, and more. Our editorial policy ensures that each topic is researched and curated by our in-house editors. We maintain rigorous journalistic standards, and every article is 100% written by real authors. More from News View all View all