Latest news with #BinhTriDongB
Time of India
01-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Infosys vs Cognizant: Why two IT giants are fighting over techies in US
In the latest Infosys vs Cognizant fight, Indian IT giant Infosys has named two top Cognizant executives as key figures in what it calls an anti-competitive strategy aimed at blocking its healthcare platform in the US. In a joint court filing, Infosys identified Cognizant's President for Americas Surya Gummadi and Chief People Officer Kathryn Diaz as central to the dispute over talent and trade secrets. The legal battle revolves around TriZetto, a healthcare software platform acquired by Cognizant in 2014, which Infosys says competes with its own product, Helix. Infosys alleges that Cognizant CEO Ravi Kumar S , who once led Helix at Infosys, delayed its launch and later hired key staff to weaken its prospects after joining Cognizant in January 2023. He had resigned from Infosys in October 2022. Infosys vs Cognizant: How the dispute began The conflict began in August 2024, when Cognizant's TriZetto filed a lawsuit against Infosys in a Texas federal court. It alleged that Infosys had misused data obtained under non-disclosure agreements to build a competing product. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Binh Tri Dong B: Unsold Furniture Liquidation 2024 (Prices May Surprise You) Unsold Furniture | Search Ads Learn More Infosys responded with counterclaims, accusing Cognizant of unfairly poaching senior employees and using trade secrets to undermine Helix. In its January 2025 lawsuit, Infosys said these actions were part of a broader strategy to limit competition in the US healthcare IT market. Infosys and Cognizant Targeting top roles In its latest filing, Infosys said Gummadi and Diaz were key to Cognizant's efforts to restrict Helix's market entry. It claimed that the senior-level hiring was not coincidental but part of a structured plan that weakened Infosys's position. Live Events You Might Also Like: ETtech Explainer: Inside the Infosys-Cognizant tussle Infosys also alleged that Ravi Kumar's role in overseeing Helix before his exit gave Cognizant an unfair advantage once he became its CEO. Cognizant's response Cognizant rejected Infosys's counterclaims and asked the court to dismiss them, saying the charges lacked evidence and failed to define the market properly. 'Infosys was caught red-handed misappropriating TriZetto trade secrets that Infosys originally had access to through non-disclosure and access agreements (NDAAs),' Cognizant said in its response. The company also said Infosys had blocked an audit that could have verified the theft of confidential data. You Might Also Like: Infosys names two more Cognizant execs in antitrust case Infosys' monopoly claims Earlier, Infosys accused Cognizant of abusing its market power by reducing output and inflating prices, which it said hurt customer interests and limited competition. 'Monopoly power may be pled directly—through allegations of supra-competitive prices and restricted output—or inferred from the structure and composition of the relevant market,' Infosys stated in its court filing. Cognizant responded that Infosys failed to prove monopoly, arguing that a 65% market share is not sufficient on its own and that Infosys had not clearly defined the market boundaries. You Might Also Like: Cognizant seeks list of Infosys employees in trade secrets case The legal fight comes as Indian IT firms face slowing growth and increasing competition in the US market. With healthcare platforms emerging as a key vertical, the battle over talent and trade secrets may shape future competition between Infosys and Cognizant.
Time of India
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Trump administration seeks to end protections for immigrant children in federal custody
The Trump administration is seeking to end an immigration policy cornerstone that since the 1990s has offered protections to child migrants in federal custody, a move that will be challenged by advocates, according to a court filing Thursday. The protections in place, known as the Flores Settlement Agreement, largely limit to 72 hours the amount of time that child migrants traveling alone or with family and detained by the U.S. Border Patrol. They also ensure the children are kept in safe and sanitary conditions. Government attorneys called the Flores agreement an "intrusive regime" that has "ossified" federal immigration policy. In a motion filed Thursday afternoon, they contend that the agreement is no longer necessary after Congress passed legislation and government agencies enforced policies that also implement standards and regulations called for in the agreement. They also blamed the agreement for increasing the number of migrant children entering the country over the past three decades. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Binh Tri Dong B: Unsold Furniture Liquidation 2024 (Prices May Surprise You) Unsold Furniture | Search Ads Learn More "The FSA itself has changed the immigration landscape by removing some of the disincentives for families to enter the U.S. unlawfully. Unlawful family migration barely existed in 1997," they wrote. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) President Donald Trump tried to end the protections during his first term and his allies have long railed against it. A separate court filing, submitted jointly by the administration and advocates, proposes a hearing on July 18 before Chief U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee of the Central District of California. Live Events "Children who seek refuge in our country should be met with open arms - not imprisonment, deprivation, and abuse," said Sergio Perez, executive director of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law. "The Trump Administration's move to dismiss this agreement, which prevents the government from imprisoning children in brutal conditions indefinitely, is another lawless step towards sacrificing accountability and human decency in favor of a political agenda that demonizes refugees," Perez said. The settlement is named for a Salvadoran girl, Jenny Flores, whose lawsuit alleging widespread mistreatment of children in custody in the 1980s prompted special oversight. In August 2019, the first Trump administration asked a judge to dissolve the agreement. Its motion eventually was struck down in December 2020 by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Under the Biden administration, oversight protections for child migrants were lifted for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services after new guidelines were put in place last year. The Department of Homeland Security is still beholden to the agreement, including Customs and Border Protection, which detains and processes children after their arrival in the U.S. with or without their parents. Children then are usually released with their families or sent to a shelter operated by HHS, though processing times often go up when the number of people entering increases in a short time period. Even with the agreement in place, there have been instances where the federal government failed to provide adequate conditions for children, as in a case in Texas where nearly 300 children had to be moved from a Border Patrol facility following reports they were receiving inadequate food, water and sanitation. "I've spent years fighting for children in government custody because I've seen the toll detention takes on them - sleepless nights on cold concrete floors with bright lights and no blanket, days or weeks without seeing the sun, untreated illness and injuries, and the unbearable trauma of being separated from siblings, parents or grandparents," Leecia Welch, the deputy legal director at Children's Rights, said Thursday. Court-appointed monitors provide oversight of the agreement and report noncompliant facilities to Gee. In 2020, a monitor called on the government to stop detaining children as young as a year old in hotels before expelling them to their home countries. Other monitors also found children were held in conditions that exposed them to the COVID-19 virus during the pandemic. CBP was set to resume its own oversight but in January a federal judge ruled it was not ready and extended the use of court-appointed monitors for another 18 months.
