The Rice Trader affirmed that up to now, only Ho Quang Tri private enterprise is the first and only Vietnamese enterprise officially approved to use the unique “World’s Best Rice” award logo. rights for marketing and business purposes. According to the Rice Trader, there are about 10 Vietnamese companies that use the ST25 rice brand to print on packages and promotional materials in the country and for export without asking for permission or consent from TRT. TRT officially warns Vietnamese piracy companies about the respect needed when using the brand logo “World’s Best Rice” in their rice packages being traded in the market. Photo: TL. Through this release, TRT officially warns Vietnamese companies that infringe on piracy about the necessary respect when using the brand symbol “World’s Best Rice” in their rice packages being traded. business in the market. This is an illegal use of intellectual property rights and provisions of the “World’s Best Rice” award logo. According to TRT, contest participants acknowledge that they have no right to use the contest trademarks without permission and that the winning country is also required to abide by the contest’s commitments. Without a proper resolution to this action, those company names will be made public because of their influence on the overall direction of the industry. “In addition, our organization takes this matter seriously that the country may even lose the right to participate in this competition in the following years. We firmly believe that value creators deserve it. deserves a reward and this has always been our intention throughout the process of organizing this contest,” said a representative of TRT.

“After information was spread online about the image of artist Hoai Linh’s account statement, the Bank checked and verified the incident and discovered that an employee intentionally copied the screen and leaked it. Currently, MB has suspended this person’s work and will take disciplinary action at the highest level; at the same time, transfer the entire case file to the investigating agency for handling in accordance with the law.” , the statement said. MB Bank also confirmed that the disclosure of information on the air was caused by a breakdown in the bank’s information technology system or a hacker attack. Because this system is built on the most advanced technology and security platforms in the world today, the bank’s online transaction rate reaches 90% with hundreds of millions of safe transactions. The MB representative also said that in the spirit of respecting the law, the Bank is committed to taking strict measures to ensure absolute compliance with the provisions of the law on protecting customer information throughout the system. The Bank will take appropriate disciplinary measures for all individuals who disclose/leave information, do not comply with professional ethics regulations, do not comply with legal regulations, industry and MB. It is known that a week ago, on social networks, a “controversial” case appeared, artist Hoai Linh was more than 6 months late paying over 14 billion VND in relief money for flood victims in the Central region, transferred by benefactors. come. Just a few days later, the online community released photos of dozens of statements showing the transactions of comedian Hoai Linh’s account opened at MB bank. Immediately, a wave of protests against MB’s disclosure/passage of confidential customer account information. After about 3 days of actively researching, until today, May 27, MB has an official feedback.

Plaintiffs stated in a press release on Tuesday (May 11) that Apple’s standard 30% fee is “excessive” and “illegal.” The case was formally brought to the Court of Antitrust Appeal in London, demanding that Apple compensate for the outrageous fees it has charged UK iPhone and iPad users over the years. The plaintiffs allege that as of October 2015, any UK iPhone and iPad user who has purchased a paid app, paid subscription, or made other in-app purchases is entitled to compensation. . They estimate that Apple could face more than $2.1 billion in damages. Apple is constantly facing lawsuits. The lead plaintiff in this case, Rachael Kent, a professor at King’s College London, said: “Apple has abused its dominant position in the app store market, thereby harming UK consumers. “. Through studying consumer interaction and dependence on digital platforms, Rachael Kent confirms it. In response, Apple called the lawsuit “baseless” and said in an email: “We believe there is no basis for a lawsuit, but the court welcomes the opportunity to discuss it with us and our unwavering commitment to consumers. This is the same as the UK App Store creating one. The new economy brings a lot of benefits.” “The standard of commission that the App Store charges is very close to that of all other digital platforms. In fact, 84% of the apps in the App Store are free and these developers won’t. pay Apple any fees. For some developers who pay Apple commissions for selling digital products or services, they qualify for the low 15% interest rate.” , Apple continues to share. However, the plaintiff alleges that Apple intentionally excluded competition and forced ordinary users to use its own payment processing system, thereby illegally bringing high profits to the company. . Previously, the famous game developer Epic Games in the US also alleged that Apple’s platform operates exclusively, fraudulently, affecting the interests of developers and consumers. Meanwhile, another lawsuit in the UK also targets Apple, focusing on the damage Apple causes to consumers, not developers. Earlier this year, Apple reduced the App Store fee for some developers from 30% to 15%. Developers with an annual income of less than $1 million and developers new to the platform can enjoy lower fees. In recent times, Apple has also faced strong opposition from global regulators and developers. They accuse Apple of being only interested in its own interests, offering unfair fees and coercive policies. This situation is threatening Apple’s billions of dollars in revenue. Last month, the European Commission issued a statement opposing Apple, detailing how Apple abused its “gatekeeper” rights over music streaming apps in the App Store.

SpaceX denied claims that the Starlink and OneWeb satellites almost collided In a filing submitted to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) after a meeting between representatives of SpaceX, OneWeb and FCC, SpaceX said that, in fact, the probability of a collision never exceeds the allowed threshold and the satellite will not be able to collide even if it is active. They have also corrected records regarding recent press releases regarding the physical coordination between SpaceX and OneWeb. Meeting between the parties took place the day after the flyer The Wall Street Journal published an article titled “Elon Musk’s satellite Internet project is too risky,” in which OneWeb made allegations that the Starlink satellites had approached other satellites alarmingly two. times in the past two years, including the last which took place on April 2, when a satellite Starlink Send a request to a OneWeb satellite to take collision avoidance measures. Sheet The Wall Street Journal quoted Chris McLaughlin, OneWeb’s director of legal and government relations, saying, “While working with OneWeb, SpaceX disabled the automated collision avoidance system supported by artificial intelligence (AI) to allow OneWeb to steer its satellite away from other satellites. It is unclear exactly why SpaceX disables the collision avoidance system when the Starlink satellite is within 57 meters from the opponent’s satellite. SpaceX has not yet commented on this issue. In a filing filed with the FCC on April 21, SpaceX said: “OneWeb recently made clear and inaccurate statements to the media about recent coordination. Specifically, Mr. McLaughlin of OneWeb told the newspaper Wall Street Journal that SpaceX has powered off the automatic satellite collision avoidance system. In reality, however, SpaceX and OneWeb have worked well together on a technical level. And OneWeb itself has asked SpaceX to temporarily turn off the AI ​​system to allow them to control the satellite as agreed by the parties. SpaceX’s automatic collision avoidance system has been and still works well at all times. According to SpaceX, OneWeb admitted wrongly and offered to withdraw its false statements during the meeting with SpaceX and FCC. SpaceX expressed its disappointment to the FCC that OneWeb officials chose to make public false information about the coordination’s plight. Successful coordination depends on trust and transparency among satellite operators. Also in the filing to the FCC, SpaceX confirmed that the possibility of collisions between satellites is very small. Other data also showed that “probability of collisions between satellites is below the permitted threshold and continues to decrease”. OneWeb launched satellite launch operations on April 3, and the satellites are eventually more than 1,000 meters apart. The probability of a collision happening is extremely small. Phan Van Hoa (According to Arstechnica)

Patient Pham Thi H. has lingering complaints about doctors from Hue Central Hospital (facility 2) not having a practice certificate, belittling the patient’s life and causing serious consequences for the patient. harm to health and spirit.

In the press release, Hue Central Hospital Unit 2 appreciates the cooperation in resolving the matter in terms of professional identification in diagnosis and treatment at Ms. Pham Thi H.’s unit.

“Through a direct meeting between the hospital and Ms. Pham Thi H. on defining professional responsibilities in diagnosis and treatment of the disease; based on the content of the professional council on April 7, 2021 with the participation of highly specialized doctors and doctors of the hospital and lawyer Nguyen Van Ky (Director of Ky Nguyen Law Firm and Associates), they I would like to synthesize and analyze the remaining problems between the parties “, the press release of Hue Central Hospital Unit 2 stated.

During and after a prolonged treatment course, patient Pham Thi H. had persistent complaints.

According to the hospital, patient Pham Thi H. was diagnosed with a large lip tumor from the hospital. Through clinical examination, subclinical, medical consultation on September 16, 2020, patient H. had surgery to remove the tumor.

After the surgery, due to the incision in a sensitive area of ​​the woman, the nurse Van is the one who directly changes the bandage every day, reports the incision and the doctor Nguyen Du Quyen asks about the wound status of the patient Pham Thi H through nursing Van.

The fact that Dr. Quyen does not directly examine patients after surgery is wrong with professional regulations and inexperience in handling sensitive medical examination and treatment issues. Currently, after the patient has had a second operation to treat wound infections, Mrs. H.’s health has been stable and progressing well.

Doctor Nguyen Du Quyen is a doctor with full clinical practice time of 18 months. The time of surgery for patient Pham Thi H. Doctor Quyen is in the process of waiting for approval for the application for a practicing certificate. Furthermore, this doctor has a certificate of Oncology Specialist Direction and a Clinical Oncology certificate.

Hue Central Hospital Unit 2 affirmed that Doctor Quyen is eligible to operate surgery for patient Pham Thi H. under the guidance and supervision of a practical instructor.

However, the Professional Council concludes that in the process of medical examination and treatment for patient H., doctor Nguyen Du Quyen has not fully implemented the contents of the professional and technical process; do not explain thoroughly and thoughtfully to patients before and after surgery; do not follow up closely patients after surgery.

Hue Central Hospital Facility 2 said, disagreeing with patient H’s claim of VND 500 million.

When the incident happened, Dr. Quyen did not report to the leadership of the department or the leader of the disease for timely handling. Along with that, the leader of the Department of Oncology – Palliative Care is not closely involved in management.

With patient complaints about the location of surgery, the hospital explained: “The patient has had two operations in the operating room, but due to the incision in the sensitive area and ensuring the patient’s sophistication, the doctor should check in the minor operating room, not perform a bed check as usual. Therefore, it is not true that patient H. reflects his surgery at the hospital warehouse ”.

The hospital repeatedly met, reorganized and introduced the discipline of reprimand and benefit deduction according to the hospital’s internal spending regulations for two related doctors, Dr. Phan Canh Duy – Dean and doctor Dr. Nguyen Du Quyen.

The proposed Hue Central Hospital 2 will be responsible for all hospital fees and surgery costs for patient Pham Thi H. and willingly to support cosmetic treatment of the surgical wound and the caregiver. multiply the amount by 50 million. However, patient H. disagrees and asks the hospital to compensate for the amount of 500 million VND. This request is not consistent with the hospital’s financial capacity and not in accordance with the law.

“In case of disapproval of the plans given by the hospital, the patient has the right to initiate a lawsuit at the People’s Court of Phong Dien district for settlement according to the provisions of Clause 2, Article 80 of the Law on Examination and Treatment 2009.“, Hue Central Hospital Facility 2 stated in the press release.