Search for: "United States v. Microsoft Corp." Results 1 - 20 of 568
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 May 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
More than a dozen1 suits are pending across the United States in which copyright owners are pursuing various theories of infringement against AI platforms, alleging that AI models either infringe their copyrights because they are trained using copyrighted works,2 or because the output of the AI models itself infringes,3 or both. [read post]
2 Dec 2023, 1:45 pm
In other words, exclusively “`foreign conduct is generally the domain of foreign law.'” Microsoft Corp. [read post]
4 Aug 2023, 9:30 pm by ernst
Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. [read post]
16 Feb 2023, 10:00 am by Jo Dale Carothers
Microsoft Corp., the Court found that merely displaying a computer keyboard was not a prior public use because the keyboard was not connected to a computer and was not used for its intended purpose. [read post]
14 Feb 2023, 12:29 pm
</span> </p> <p> <span style="display: initial;"> <br/> </span> </p> <h2> <span style="font-weight: bold; display: initial;"> Patent Law </span> </h2> <p> <span style="display: initial;"> <br/> </span> </p> <p> <span style="display: initial;"> … [read post]
22 Dec 2022, 11:01 pm by Florian Mueller
For convenience, let me show the two documents first and then compare them:In the Matter of Microsoft Corp., a corporation, and Activision Blizzard, Inc., a corporation: Answer and Defenses of Respondent Microsoft Corp.In the Matter of Microsoft Corp., a corporation, and Activision Blizzard, Inc., a corporation: Answer and Defenses of Respondent Activision Blizzard, Inc.Each complaint has three parts: introduction, item-by-item denials and admissions, and… [read post]
2 Sep 2022, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
All this suggests that providing pseudonymity to members of particular religious groups might violate the principle of the Texas Monthly v. [read post]
  The Executive Order endorsed this approach, noting that “this order reaffirms that the United States retains the authority to challenge transactions whose previous consummation was in violation of the [antitrust laws]. [read post]