In Nevada legislation has just been introduced to require certain businesses that use kiosks that replace employees to pay unemployment taxes on the kiosks.
We presume it’s targeted at Walmart and/or hybrid POS systems, but appears there is a lot of work to do to define what’s intended.
If you deploy kiosks in Nevada and are interested in representation of your interests KI can recommend companies ready to assist.
Timeline is typically 2 weeks in committee and then the hearings begin.
Summary: Requires employees that use certain self-service devices to pay a fee. (BDR 53-959)
Title: AN ACT relating to unemployment compensation; requiring an employer that uses certain self-service devices to pay a fee; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Introduction Date: Thursday, March 21, 2019
Fiscal Notes: Effect on Local Government: No. Effect on the State: Yes.
Digest:Existing law requires employers to pay quarterly unemployment contributions that are based on wages paid to employees to the Administrator of the Employment Security Division of the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation for deposit in the Unemployment Compensation Fund. (NRS 612.535) Section 1 of this bill requires employers that utilize certain self-service devices operated by a customer to enter prices and complete a purchase transaction to pay a quarterly fee to the Administrator for each device in an amount equal to the average unemployment contribution per employee.
Section 1 also requires the fees collected to be deposited in the Unemployment Compensation Administration Fund which is used to defray the cost of administering provisions relating to unemployment compensation. (See NRS 612.605)
Jury Verdict Against NCR For Misappropriation of Confidential Information
January 7, 2019 – KT Group a Hong Kong based kiosk manufacturer obtained jury verdicts in the Southern District of New York in its nearly 4-year quest for vindication against NCR Corporation, a publicly traded Fortune 500 company, with assistance of its New York based law firm Garson, Segal, Steinmetz, Fladgate.
The case centered on the design of the SelfServ 90 or SS90, NCR’s award-winning flagship card only self-checkout kiosk which can be seen in Tesco stores in the UK, Muji in Japan, Globus in Russia, SPAR in Europe and airports all across the US.
The jury found that NCR was liable for using or disclosing the mechanical drawings provided by KT under the presumed blanket of confidence provided by the non-disclosure agreements and used it for its own benefit.
Moreover, the jury also found NCR liable for misappropriating the mechanical drawings of KT and in so doing, GS2Law proved to the jury that the NCR team, led by Dusty Lutz, the head of NCR’s retail store transformation division, acted with bad faith i.e. with malice, wilfulness, a dishonest purpose or fraud.
NCR advanced its multiple defences including that the non-disclosure agreements permitted harvesting of information for its own use, and that standard terms and conditions in NCR’s purchase order in it’s supplier system superseded the agreements. GS2Law demonstrated that the defences did not hold water.
This is a rare case where a small company has not only managed to bring a large corporation to task but also to show that a company like NCR and its senior executives had done so willfully and dishonestly.
KT Group has for past four years had to wait for its decision but finally came the day said Kenneth Larsen CEO and we can finally share our success based on the jury verdict which in basis supported what KT Group knew from the onset that its theory that NCR knowingly continued to misappropriate confidential information and breached mutual non disclosure agreement signed by us in good faith from the get-go this further goes to demonstrate that small yet dynamic companies like KT Group are able to set standard for its work high enough that the likes of NCR felt the need to continue using our manufacturing intellectual property even though they breached non disclosure of it which further supports our testament of quality manufactured kiosks.
Kiosk Lawsuit Litigation – KT Intellectual Property and NCR Self-Serv was last modified: January 9th, 2019 by News Editor
The Signores’ company JCS Enterprises, and Schumack’s firm TBTI sold 22,547 kiosks to investors. The kiosks were to be placed at hotels and other venues to provide people information and coupons and allow them to access services such as remotely ordering food.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Carlton told jurors, “I told you this was a case about lying to people in order to get their money. I told you it was all one big fat lie.”
Carlton said the two “big lies” investors were told was that electronic kiosks they purchased for about $3,000 each would be placed in various venues such as casinos and that investors would receive $300 a month for 36 months from advertising revenue.
In reality, Carlton said, testimony during the trial that lasted over a month showed that only 182 of the Virtual Concierge machines were manufactured and only 84 were ever in operation. The company started in 2011 had a mere $21,000 in advertising revenues.
The information here is regarding legal actions related to patent “449” for equipping a kiosk with WiFi basically. Actions began in July of 2014 and still in progress. A total of 14 actions.
For reference as of today here are the closed cases: Catalina, Zivelo, Phoenix, Flex, StoreKraft, Slabb & Digiboo.
The “still Open” suits are: KIS, Olea, Meridian and Dustshield (parent for Phoenix).
1/6/2015: several more litigants have settled including Slabb and Phoenix Kiosk and Zivelo. They join Catalina, Flextronics and Store Kraft in the “closed” category. Opens are: Kodak, KIS, Fab Concepts, Olea, Digiboo, Acosta, Advantage Sales and Dustshield.
12/5: Advantage Sales and Marketing of California added as 449 litigant. Open in Initial Pleadings
From the complaint: On information and belief, Defendant Advantage Sales & Marketing LLC is a California corporation with a principal place of business at 18100 Von Karman Avenue, Irvine, California 92612. Defendant makes, uses and sells wireless interactive consumer video systems, including, but not limited to, systems and applications utilizing its “Advantage Retail Technology Services” platform, described at http://www.asmnet.com/what-we-do/retailCase: services# and in the video located at the same website address. These interactive systems and applications allow users to interact wirelessly through a tablet or other media with back end or back office computers, point-of-sale data, and other data, including interacting with software or applications that provide presentations with graphics or video content. Defendant does business on a regular basis in Illinois and in this District, including making, using, selling and/or offering
New litigant 12/04: Acosta Sales and Marketing. Open in Initial Pleadings.
Abstract: On March 4, 1997, the UUSPO issued Patent No. 5,608,449 (“the ‘449 patent”) entitled “Wireless Interactive Consumer Video System.” RTC is the owner of the ‘449 patent.
Defendant has been and still is infringing and inducing infringement of the ‘449 patent by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing wireless interactive consumer video systems, including, list of systems, in Illinois.
Update on litigation(s)
10/31/2014 — Digiboo added
10/30/2014 — Meridian, Slabb & Phoenix added to list
10/29/2014 — Olea Kiosks added to list
Also appears the Kraft and Flextronix suits status has changed to “Closed”
C2 Desktop Public Terminals, C3 Wallmount Public Terminals, C6 Thin, Floorstanding Public Terminals, C7 Floorstanding Public Terminals, C10
KIS (KIOSK Information Systems)
Defendant makes, uses and sells wireless interactive consumer video systems, including kiosk systems which Defendant refers to as Caddie, Fairway, Portal, Thinman, Stealth, Edge H.D., Edge, Contour Financial Series, Arch, and Wedge, which are installed in numerous Case: 1:14-cv-06683 Document #: 1 Filed:
08/29/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1 2 locations, and are depicted at http://www.kiosk.com/standard/. On information and belief, Defendant does business on a regular basis in Illinois and in this District, including making, using, selling and/or offering for sale its wireless interactive consumer video systems in Illinois and this District which infringe RTC’s rights under the patent asserted herein.