Competition is seen as a panacea in electricity markets: if only we had more, prices would be lower, and investment and supply security would be higher.

Politicians love this story because it offers respite when electricity prices rise. Just unleash regulators and competition authorities to “fix” competition barriers—problem solved (for now).

Encouraging retail competition becomes a priority. Consumers are slow to change retailers, even if they could save hundreds of dollars a year, which is seen as a brake on competition.

Regulators and policymakers therefore champion price comparison services and other measures to encourage electricity customers to shop around.

Also, standalone retailers often protest that they can’t access generation from their rival “gentailers”—firms that combine electricity generation and retailing—on fair terms.

If only they could—and customers more keenly switched providers—retail-only companies could provide stiffer competition. Their solutions include lobbying for gentailers to be broken up, or be forced to supply retailers on the same terms as the gentailers’ own retail arms.

The trouble is, if we misidentify the causes of lackluster electricity market competition, our solutions may only make things worse.

Rather than the lack of competition being about too little customer switching and barriers to retailers entering the market, the more likely cause is too much of both.

Hit-and-run retailers

For the big gentailers (such as New Zealand’s Mercury, Meridian, Contact and Genesis) to face more competition, we need either more gentailers or other ways to achieve the benefits of gentailing. Those benefits are twofold:

• combining generation with retailing effectively manages the huge risks standalone generators or retailers face when they buy and sell on wholesale markets, where prices are highly volatile and can rise to levels that kill businesses; in turn, this helps gentailers finance investment in generation
• and gentailers only need to add one profit margin to their generation cost when setting retail prices; separated generators and retailers add separate margins, which can accumulate to more than what gentailers alone charge.

Separating generation from retailing is therefore a bad idea—if you want lower prices and better investment, you probably want more gentailing.

But why can’t separated generators and retailers replicate these gentailing advantages through long-term contracts? Because generators incur large investment costs to be recovered over many years, so to finance their investments they need long-term revenue security.

Standalone retailers can’t credibly sign contracts offering that security. If they do, new retailers (which can be set up relatively cheaply) can steal their customers when wholesale prices fall below the level of those long-term contracts.

If retailers do sign long-term contracts with generators, they risk failing when exposed to such “hit-and-run” competition by rival retailers—or they renege on those contracts to survive.

Generation investors see this coming, so don’t contract long-term with standalone retailers. Result: lack of viable investment and competition by separated generators and retailers.

The right kind of competition

To resolve this, we would need to eliminate hit-and-run retail entry—first, by making it harder for customers to change retailers if wholesale prices fall below long-term contracted prices.

This could be achieved by requiring retail customers to sign up to long-term retail contracts themselves, rather than being able to flexibly change retailers. Ironically, price comparison websites take us in the wrong direction.

Second, new retailers could be required to have either their own generation—be gentailers, in other words—or have long-term supply contracts in place with generators.

Counterintuitively, this actually makes it easier—or at least more sustainable—for retailers to enter the market, because they know they won’t face hit-and-run competition if they do.

This also means generators can more confidently sign long-term contracts with retailers. Retailers wouldn’t then need to convince regulators to force gentailers to supply them, as they can secure their own supply through contracting.

Standalone retailers might object that they would do this now if they could. But generators can’t supply standalone retailers given the current long-term contracting uncertainty.

Fix that uncertainty—by increasing the ability of retailers to commit to long-term contracts—and both generators and retailers win. Ultimately, this means gentailers face more credible competition, which also means consumers win.

By discouraging the wrong kind of competition (rather than promoting it), genuine competition can be made more durable and effective. That would support long-term investments by generators, and also investments by retailers in innovative services that benefit consumers.

Neither is possible when customers can change retailers with ease, and retailers face hit-and-run competition. If we want more competitive electricity markets, we need to encourage the right type of competition—by discouraging the wrong type.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Anthropic will pay at least $1.5 billion to settle a US class action lawsuit over allegedly using pirated books to train its artificial intelligence models, according to court documents filed Friday.

“This landmark settlement far surpasses any other known copyright recovery,” said plaintiffs’ attorney Justin Nelson. “It is the first of its kind in the AI era.”

The settlement stems from a class-action lawsuit filed by authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson, who accused Anthropic of illegally copying their books to train Claude, the company’s AI chatbot that rivals ChatGPT.

In a partial victory for Anthropic, US District Court Judge William Alsup ruled in June that the company’s training of its Claude AI models with books—whether bought or pirated—so transformed the works that it constituted “fair use” under the law.

“The technology at issue was among the most transformative many of us will see in our lifetimes,” Alsup wrote in his decision, comparing AI training to how humans learn by reading books.

However, Alsup rejected Anthropic’s bid for blanket protection, ruling that the company’s practice of downloading millions of pirated books to build a permanent digital library was not justified by fair use protections.

“We remain committed to developing safe AI systems that help people and organizations extend their capabilities, advance scientific discovery, and solve complex problems,” Anthropic deputy general counsel Aparna Sridhar said in response to an AFP inquiry.

San Francisco-based Anthropic announced this week that it raised $13 billion in a funding round valuing the AI startup at $183 billion.

Anthropic competes with generative artificial intelligence offerings from Google, OpenAI, Meta, and Microsoft in a race that is expected to attract hundreds of billions of dollars in investment over the next few years.

Thousands of books

According to the legal filing, the settlement covers approximately 500,000 books, translating to roughly $3,000 per work—four times the minimum statutory damages under US copyright law.

Under the agreement, Anthropic will destroy the original pirated files and any copies made, though the company retains rights to books it legally purchased and scanned.

“This settlement sends a strong message to the AI industry that there are serious consequences when they pirate authors’ works to train their AI, robbing those least able to afford it,” said Mary Rasenberger, CEO of the Authors Guild, in a statement supporting the deal.

The settlement, which requires judicial approval, comes as AI companies face growing legal pressure over their training practices.

A US judge in June handed Meta a victory over authors who accused the tech giant of violating copyright law by training Llama AI on their creations without permission.

District Court Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco ruled that Meta’s use of the works to train its AI model was “transformative” enough to constitute “fair use” under copyright law.

Apple Intelligence

Meanwhile, Apple on Friday was targeted with a lawsuit by a pair of US authors accusing the iPhone maker of using pirated books to train generative AI built into its lineup of devices.

The tech titan’s suite of capabilities called “Apple Intelligence” is part of a move to show it is not being left behind in the AI race.

“To train the generative-AI models that are part of Apple Intelligence, Apple first amassed an enormous library of data,” read the suit.

“Part of Apple’s data library includes copyrighted works—including books created by plaintiffs—that were copied without author consent, credit, or compensation.”

Apple “scraped” works from sources including “shadow libraries” stocked with pirated books, the suit contends.

Apple did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

The suit filed against Apple by Grady Hendrix, author of “My Best Friend’s Exorcism,” and Jennifer Roberson of Arizon, whose books include “Sword-Bound,” seeks class action status.

© 2025 AFP

Enter the MagSafe Accessory World

I have been testing MagSafe accessories for years, and you should totally take advantage of the vast ecosystem with your new Pixel. Whether you want a magnetic wallet or phone tripod, we have plenty of WIRED-tested recommendations in our guides. Most of them should work without fail on the Pixel 10 series. Here they are:

Other Cases and Accessories We Like

Mous Clarity Pixelsnap Case for $70: This is my second favorite clear case after Dbrand’s Ghost 2.0. There’s a thick bumper around the phone to absorb impacts, a solid magnetic connection, and a nice lip around the screen to keep it off the ground. The buttons are clicky, too.

OtterBox Symmetry Clear Pixelsnap Case for $60: This is a nice, clear case that’s also Pixelsnap-certified. The cutouts are accurate, the edges are slightly raised over the screen, and it offers a decent grip. If you prefer a completely clear case without a separate bumper, this will satisfy.

Spigen Parallax, Nano Pop, and Liquid Air Pixelsnap Cases for $19: I’ve tried several Spigen cases, and the Rugged Armor is my favorite this year (see above). These other options have different designs, but they’re solid cases for the money. I found the Parallax slippery, and the sides also felt a bit cheap. The Nano Pop had a decently grippy texture on the edges, but the Liquid Air is one of my favorite Spigen designs. The buttons are just a little stiffer than I’d like. These are minor nitpicks, though. They’re great cases for under $20, especially considering they’re all Made for Google-certified.

Spigen GlasTR EZ Fit Tempered Glass Screen Protector for $20 (2 Pack): This is the best bang for your buck when it comes to screen protection. Spigen gives you two in the box, and its application tool makes it impossible to make a mistake when installing the tempered glass protector. There’s even a squeegee tool to push out air bubbles. All that for $20.

UAG Pathfinder Pixelsnap Case for $60: Someone probably likes how this case looks. That person is not me, but clearly, there’s a market for this styling. If you fall in that camp, there’s not much to complain about the Pathfinder, except I found the buttons slightly stiffer than usual. It checks off all the other boxes, with a raised lip over the screen, but I just don’t find it that attractive (sorry).

UAG Glass Shield Screen Protector for $40: UAG includes the usual wet wipe, dust removal sticker, and microfiber cloth, and there’s a plastic shell you place on top of your Pixel to use as a guide when applying the tempered glass screen protector. It’s not the easiest method I’ve tried, as there’s room for some error (and potential to get grime or a smudge on the underside as you apply), but it was fairly quick and painless, and the air bubbles disappeared quickly.

Burga Tough Case for $50: This is one of the few non-magnetic cases I’ve tested for the Pixel 10 series. Burga doesn’t have its Pixel 10 cases listed on the website yet, but says it plans to add them soon. If you absolutely don’t care for Qi2 and magnets in these phones, this is a perfectly fine case, and Burga has tons of designs you can choose from. The exterior is a hard plastic shell, but the phone is wrapped in a soft rubbery shell that absorbs impacts. The buttons are fairly clicky—not the most responsive—and there’s a solid lip around the screen.

Poetic Guardian and Poetic Revolution Case for $25: Poetic sent me two of its cases to test for the Pixel 10 series. One thing to note is that Poetic includes a screen protector that embeds itself into the case, like old-school cases that offered full protection. Unfortunately, the screen protector quality is really not great (there’s a visible circle cutout for the fingerprint sensor, and it looks jarring. Sliding your finger on it just doesn’t feel great. You can thankfully opt not to use it; use the plastic frame that comes in the box instead. The Revolution doesn’t have any magnets but has a built-in kickstand and a cover that can completely protect your cameras; I find this a little extreme, so I don’t care for it. It also, in my humble opinion, looks hideous. The Guardian looks much better, with a thick bumper, raised edges, and a covered port. The buttons are a little stiff, but at least it has built-in magnets for Qi2 (not certified).