Search for: "Definitive Audio, Inc." Results 1 - 20 of 188
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Mar 2020, 12:56 pm by Thomas Key
Napster, Inc., noting "[u]nder the plain meaning of the [AHRA's] definition of digital audio recording devices, computers (and their hard drives) are not digital audio recording devices. [read post]
1 Mar 2016, 9:05 am by John Jascob
Also facing the music today was audio equipment maker Harman International Industries, Inc. [read post]
2 Jun 2014, 10:34 am
    Editor's NotesFor further insight, check out the Audio Brief of oral arguments in Nautilus, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 8:33 am by Ben Sheffner
The Ninth Circuit has posted to its web site an audio recording of Monday's oral arguments in UMG Recordings, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 7:29 am by Joy Waltemath
The employer’s petition for writ of mandate was granted and the trial court was ordered to reverse its order overruling the employer’s demurrer (Audio Visual Services Group, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 5:57 am
March 26, 2015 - 2 PM: in re Josef Dolezal , Serial No. 85826122 [Section 2(c) refusal to register JORDAN MAXWELL for "Digital media, namely, pre-recorded video cassettes, digital video discs, digital versatile discs, downloadable audio and video recordings, DVDs, and high definition digital discs featuring talks, lectures and presentations by Russell Joseph Pine a.k.a. [read post]
13 Aug 2008, 11:00 am
Lewis submitted dictionary definitions and encyclopedia entries for "conference call," as well as Internet website evidence indicating that the term "is used to refer to audio or video teleconferencing. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 12:01 pm by ligitsec
” Ripping software allows a computer owner to copy an audio compact disk (“audio CD”) directly onto a computer’s hard drive by compressing the audio information on the CD into the MP3 format. [read post]
14 Jan 2008, 12:25 pm
The January 10th decision was Apple Canada Inc. v. [read post]
4 Jan 2016, 4:30 am by Woodrow Pollack
 The Court was not persuaded:Initially, the Court is not persuaded that the definition of “digital audio transmission” definition set forth in § 114(j) (5) is applicable to an infringement analysis under § 106(6) because the Act cautions that the terms the § 114(j) definitions are only for use in § 114. [read post]
4 Jan 2016, 4:30 am by Woodrow Pollack
 The Court was not persuaded:Initially, the Court is not persuaded that the definition of “digital audio transmission” definition set forth in § 114(j) (5) is applicable to an infringement analysis under § 106(6) because the Act cautions that the terms the § 114(j) definitions are only for use in § 114. [read post]