Man Sues Amoi For SGD$3 Mil For Rejecting Him, Amoi Friendzone and Reject Him

A man who wanted a romantic relationship with a woman initially threatened to sue her for emotional trauma after he found out that she saw him only as a friend.

The legal action was kept at bay after she agreed to take part in his counselling, but almost 1½ years later, Mr K. Kawshigan still could not accept that Ms Nora Tan did not want to be in a relationship with him.

After she cut off contact with him, he filed two lawsuits against her – a $3 million High Court claim for allegedly causing “damage to his stellar reputation” and “trauma, depression and impacts” to his life, as well as a $22,000 magistrate’s court claim for allegedly breaching an agreement to improve their relationship.

The latter suit was struck out earlier in January by State Courts deputy registrar Lewis Tan, who said Mr Kawshigan’s claim was “manifestly groundless and without foundation” and amounted to an abuse of the court process.

In the judgment published on Saturday, Mr Tan said: “Considered in totality, I find that the present action was intentionally initiated by the claimant with the ulterior motive of vexing or oppressing the defendant by requiring her to defend various claims that fundamentally stem from the same factual matrix in different forums.”

He added: “This court will not be an accessory to his calculated attempt to compel engagement from the defendant who, after years of massaging the claimant’s unhappiness, has finally decided to stand up to his threats rather than cower and give in to his demands.”

Ms Tan and Mr Kawshigan met in 2016 and became friends over time.

In September 2020, problems began to arise when they became misaligned in how they saw their relationship. While Ms Tan regarded Mr Kawshigan only as a friend, he considered her to be his “closest friend”.

Ms Tan asked for their interactions to be reduced, which displeased Mr Kawshigan, as he felt it constituted taking a step back in their relationship. Nevertheless, she emphasised the need for boundaries and urged him to be “self-reliant”.

On Oct 22 that year, Mr Kawshigan issued her a letter of demand, threatening legal action for “monetary damages arising from negligent infliction of emotional distress and possible defamation”.

Ms Tan tried to reason with Mr Kawshigan. She told him in a text message that her “discomfort (was) genuine”. He responded by saying she could either comply with his demands to deepen their relationship or suffer “irrevocable” damage to her personal and professional endeavours.

Mr Kawshigan’s counsellor then asked Ms Tan to participate in their sessions. She agreed, as she thought it would help him come to terms with her decision not to pursue a romantic relationship with him.

After 1½ years, Ms Tan stopped the sessions as she felt they had become futile.

In April 2022, she started harassment proceedings against Mr Kawshigan. In response, he alluded to a potential claim against her in a text message peppered with terms like “damage that has strong legal basis” and “make your liability worst”.

After back-and-forth discussions on the steps to be taken to better align their relationship, Ms Tan decided on May 14 to cease communications as she felt she could no longer deal with his requests for increased interaction and his inability to respect her personal boundaries.

On July 7, he filed a High Court claim against her. He alleged that due to certain remarks and negligence on her part, he suffered a loss in earning capacity and business partnerships, as well as costs incurred in rehabilitation and therapy programmes to overcome the trauma he suffered.

Ms Tan then obtained an expedited protection order against him and engaged lawyers to file her defence and counterclaim to the suit.

On Aug 27, Mr Kawshigan filed the magistrate’s court claim for alleged breach of the steps to better align their relationship.

He claimed that as a result of the breach, his earning capacity as an “active high-capital trader by night and a busy CEO by day” has been negatively affected, and that he has had to look for “deeper psychological assistance”.

Ms Tan then applied to strike out this claim.

The $3 million High Court claim is fixed for a pre-trial hearing on Feb 9.

South Korean ISP Sues Netflix After Traffic Surge From Squid Game And Other Shows

Squid Game, a South Korean produced Netflix original, is probably the most widely talked about TV show as of late. So much so that it has garnered a high number of views worldwide, which earned it the number 1 spot of being the current most popular title on the streaming service across 90 countries – including Malaysia.

Naturally, its popularity also surged in its home turf of South Korea, which resulted in a huge spike in local network traffic. While the influx of viewership may have placed a wide smile on Netflix’s face, the same can’t be said for South Korean internet service provider SK Broadband. 

According to Reuters, the local ISP has sued the streaming service to pay for the costs from increased network traffic and maintenance work caused by the spike, as well as to pay for using its dedicated line since 2018. For context, Netflix is the second-largest data traffic generator in the country – with the first being Google’s YouTube platform.

SK Broadband says that unlike other content providers such as Amazon, Apple and Facebook, both aforementioned platforms are not paying for network usage fees – although, the reason behind this is not stated. It added that Netflix’s data traffic, which it has been handling since May 2018, jumped 24 times to a staggering 1.2 billion bits of data processed per second as of September this year. It says that this surge has been riding on the success of several local Netflix productions, with the most recent being Squid Game and a K-drama known as D.P. 

The lawsuit comes after Seoul Central District Court’s ruling against Netflix back in June this year. The court stated that the ISP is offering “a service provided at a cost” and it is “reasonable” for Netflix to be “obligated to provide something in return” for the service. According to court documents seen by Reuters, SK Broadband estimated the network usage fee the streaming service needed to pay in 2020 alone is about KRW 27.2 billion (RM 95.7 million).

On the other hand, Reuters says that Netflix has appealed against the ruling, with fresh proceedings to start in late December. The streaming service had also recently issued a statement saying that it contributed to the creation of about 16,000 jobs in South Korea – stemming from about KRW 770 billion in investments and an economic effect of about KRW 5.6 trillion. At the same time, it noted that it will review SK Broadband’s claim, as well as to discuss and explore ways to work with the ISP to ensure customers are not affected.

Nokia Sues OPPO For Patent Infringement

Nokia has recently filed numerous patent infringement complaints against OPPO in multiple countries throughout Europe and Asia. The true nature of these complaints are not exactly clear but they apparently revolved around the agreement that both companies signed back in 2018.

As it turns out, the agreement has since expired, according to Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. Based on the official statement from Nokia, the company has already attempted to negotiate for renewal but it broke down after OPPO rejected its offer which naturally has triggered the Finnish company to pursue litigation.

He also noted that the dispute between Nokia and OPPO involved both standard-essential patents (SEP) and non-SEPs which cover a vast list of technologies including connectivity, user interface, security features and more. Florian also pointed out that Nokia has filed 24 complaints in Germany alone.

While OPPO has apparently opposed the move by Nokia and accused it of using litigation as a “tool”, this is not going to be an easy fight for the Chinese company. After all, Nokia is very experienced when it comes to patent disputes and have won many cases over the years against even bigger giants such as Apple, Daimler, and Lenovo.

Nintendo Sues One Gary Bowser For Selling Switch Hacks

One mainstay villains in the many Nintendo franchises is the character Bowser. The company has picked a person with the same name to lead its US side of things. But now, the company is suing someone else with the same name for hacking a Nintendo Switch.

Polygon reports that Nintendo of America filed a suit against a Canadian called Gary Bowser. This Bowser leads Team Xecuter, a group of hack creators. The suit alleges that Bowser infringed on the company’s copyright in the creation of hacks and their sale. Bowser was arrested last year alongside another member of the group, Max Louarn.

The kinds of hacks sold are exactly the type that you’d expect, namely the pirating kind. The report states that Nintendo has filed many previous lawsuits against the sellers of the hacking tools. According to the lawsuit, Bowser has been making and selling hacks since 2013. Back then, the device getting hacked was the Nintendo 3DS.

While it’s definitely no fun for the parties involved, there’s a great sense of irony to all this. First, Nintendo, getting a leader with the same name as one of its own famous villains. Now, the company gets into a legal battle with an actual villainous person with the name Bowser.

ByteDance Sues Tencent; Seek US$14 Million Compensation For Content Blocking

ByteDance, the parent company of the popular social media app, TikTok, recently sued the Shenzen-based Tencent Holdings (Tencent). It is accusing its social media rival of actively blocking content from Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok, on the latter’s own platforms, including WeChat and QQ.

The company’s lawsuit comes months after China introduced draft regulations, aimed at online and internet-based companies that engage in monopolistic behaviour. Also, this isn’t the first time ByteDance has taken Tencent to court in China either. According to Bloomberg, ByteDance has filed several lawsuits against its competitor, but this was the first time it was doing so under anti-monopoly grounds.

For the alleged blocking of its links, ByteDance is also seeking US$14 million (~RM56.7 million) in compensation from Tencent. That said and oddly enough, the company did clarify that it was also blocking certain links from WeChat and QQ. Namely, financial and health care-related content, stating that links from such content had a high probability of being scams or illegal tactics via third-party platforms.

At the time of writing, Tencent has not released an official statement regarding its rival lawsuit.

Xiaomi Sues US Government, Demands To Be Removed From Trump-Era Blacklist

 

Xiaomi is suing the US government, demanding to be removed from a Trump-era investment blacklist. In its court filing, the company again strenuously denied having any links to the Chinese military, arguing that its inclusion on the list was thereby incorrect and illegal.

“More than 75% of the voting rights in the company under a weighted voting rights structure are held by co-founders Lei Jun and Bin Lin. Xiaomi is not owned or controlled by or otherwise affiliated with the Chinese government or military, nor is it owned or controlled by any entity affiliated with the Chinese defence industrial base,” read its legal complaint.

Xiaomi also noted that three of its top ten holders of ordinary shares were US institutional investors, namely BlackRock, Inc., The Vanguard Group, Inc., and the State Street Corporation – this in addition to having many US individuals as shareholders.

The smartphone maker argued that its inclusion on the blacklist violated the US Constitution’s key guarantees of due process as well as property and liberty rights. When it was placed on the list, Xiaomi said it got no advanced notice from the Trump administration and was given no opportunity to respond.

Xiaomi has been on that blacklist since 14 January this year. Companies on the list were designated by the Trump administration as having links to China’s military establishment and security apparatus. Not only are US investors banned from investing in companies on the list, but they must also divest all their holdings in those companies by November 2021.