Search for: "DISH Network LLC" Results 121 - 140 of 180
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Feb 2014, 10:10 am by Devlin Hartline
There must be actual infringing conduct with a nexus sufficiently close and causal to the illegal copying that one could conclude that the machine owner himself trespassed on the exclusive domain of the copyright owner.10 The volitional conduct test has also been adopted by the Second and Ninth Circuits,11 as well as by several district courts.12 In fact, Congress baked Netcom immunity under the volitional conduct test right into the DMCA.13 For example, Section 512(c) grants a qualifying service… [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 7:03 am by Joy Waltemath
On Monday, January 28, the state’s highest court issued an order granting certiorari in Coats v Dish Network, LLC (Dkt No 13SC394). [read post]
5 Jan 2014, 3:30 pm by Barry Sookman
One of the most important, if not the most important, United States copyright cases decided in 2013 is The Authors Guild, Inc. v Google Inc. 2013 WL 6017130 (S.D.N.Y. [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 10:19 am by Mike Madison
Dish Network L.L.C., 723 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2013). [read post]
27 Nov 2013, 12:14 pm by Dorsey
Dish Network, LLC, upheld an employer’s termination of a quadriplegic employee, who was prescribed marijuana by his doctor, after the employee failed the employer’s drug test. [read post]
10 Sep 2013, 3:37 pm by Elijah Yip
Facebook comments about condition of company equipment are protected under the NLRA; a made-up Facebook rant about a company car, not so much – Butler Medical Transport, LLC, 2013 WL 4761153 (N.L.R.B. [read post]
26 Aug 2013, 6:56 am by Joy Waltemath
A Colorado court of appeals explained in Coats v DISH Network, LLC that “lawful activity” for purposes of the statute includes both federal and state law. [read post]
4 Aug 2013, 5:30 am by Barry Sookman
http://t.co/p92Z2mwxmG -> The Evolution of BitTorrent’s Legality http://t.co/CrSJQ7wnDf -> 9th Circuit Opens New Questions In Copyright In Denying Fox's Request To Enjoin Dish Network's Ad-Skipping Service http://t.co/jjyiiallJp -> Copyright at the Bedside: Should We Stop the Spread? [read post]
2 Aug 2013, 11:07 am
Dish Networks, LLC, where Fox Broadcasting was requesting a preliminary injunction against Dish Network, claiming that were engaged in copyright infringement by offering their Auto Hop on Dish Networks' DVRs. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 5:30 am by Barry Sookman
DISH NETWORK LLC, http://t.co/iFi7saqqNP -> Harper government gives eavesdropping agency OK to exchange info with foreign partners despite risk of torture http://t.co/rjaGLe7zth -> Google Play Store Inundated with Scam Apps, Symantec Says http://t.co/SlKBkXZwEW -> Bitcoin tries to become a legal currency in Thailand, gets outlawed instead http://t.co/PPNv1opixC -> Public cloud companies are now worth $100B http://t.co/8Ad7agS428 and the Cdn government wants… [read post]
18 May 2013, 2:06 pm by Michael Beder
Last week’s declaratory ruling came in response to questions referred to the FCC by two federal courts in two separate TCPA-based lawsuits.In one suit, filed against EchoStar Satellite LLC in  an Ohio federal court in 2007, a consumer alleged that telemarketers selling subscriptions to EchoStar’s satellite TV service — now provided by the DISH Network — made 30 calls to the plaintiff in violation of the TCPA. [read post]
19 Dec 2012, 12:38 pm by Gordon Firemark
Awe is ALSO suing Lucasfilm, Paramount Pictures, and the Walt Disney Company, alleging that they have profited off of the use of the Mitchell-Hedges skull (referred to in the film Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull as the “Mitchell-Hedges skull,” but said to be from Peru) Awe is seeking injunctive relief, accounting for profits, and is accusing the film defendants of Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage and Civil Conspiracy The actual… [read post]
26 Oct 2012, 11:17 am by assoulineberlowe
DISH Network LLC, 801 F.Supp.2d 1334 (M.D.Fla. 2011), as authority for the standards applied in a § 1404 motion, the Court found that it is in its own discretion to adjudicate a motion for transfer based on “an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness. [read post]