Search for: "In re Application of Google Inc"
Results 281 - 300
of 628
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jul 2015, 4:05 pm
Attempts by an Australian researcher to hold Google responsible for defamatory posts in the Australian Supreme Court are misguided, according to website techdirt. [read post]
24 Jul 2015, 12:54 am
In June the US Supreme Court denied Google's writ of certiorari to re-examine the 2014 decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in favor of Oracle which held that application programming interfaces (APIs) in Java were subject to copyright protection. [read post]
8 Jul 2015, 9:10 am
This post originally appeared on the Kira Inc. [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 12:36 pm
The application at stake belonged to an association meant to help lawyers and freelances to comply with (or survive) the Freelancers’ Social Security Organization. [read post]
Guest Post: In Rush to Invalidate Patents at Pleadings Stage, Are Courts Coloring Outside the Lines?
1 Jul 2015, 3:30 pm
Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 11:33 pm
Google. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 12:00 pm
Google Inc. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2015, 4:00 am
Google Inc., 2015 BCCA 265 [3] Google contends that the injunction ought not to have been granted because the application did not have a sufficient connection to the Province to give the Supreme Court of British Columbia competence to deal with the matter. [read post]
17 Jun 2015, 10:42 am
A BC corporation, Equustek Solutions, Inc., filed suit against Datalink Technologies, Inc., alleging that Datalink (also based in BC, and a former distributor of network interface hardware manufactured by Equustek) was repackaging Equustek hardware and distributing it (by means primarily of sales conducted over the Internet) under the Datalink name. [read post]
16 Jun 2015, 11:24 am
Google, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Jun 2015, 7:30 pm
Google, Inc., 2011 WL 6749017 (N.D. [read post]
9 Jun 2015, 5:30 am
Google Inc., 653 F. 3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2011). the Court said that “a copyright holder possesses ‘the right to exclude others from using his property. [read post]
20 May 2015, 7:04 pm
Google, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-04080-BLF, April 1, 2015 (“Svenson”). [read post]
8 May 2015, 2:02 pm
They’re more like guidelines, the agency says. [read post]
8 May 2015, 9:55 am
They can also be used by a viewer to re-broadcast copyrighted content. [read post]
3 May 2015, 10:33 pm
* Google says "We want your patent. [read post]
27 Apr 2015, 4:09 pm
It is now over ten years since the landmark decision in Campbell v MGN Ltd ([2004] 2 AC 457) established the misuse of private information (“MOPI”) tort (any lingering doubt that it might not be a tort has been eradicated by the Court of Appeal decision in Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 311). [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 8:10 am
So we’re changing the name,” said Jobs. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 4:01 pm
From now on, our users can feel free to ‘google’ any search term, and they're even welcome to do so on another search engine. [read post]
10 Mar 2015, 5:54 pm
In the recent Google books case, Google was found to have fairly used authors' copyrighted indexes to their books by making them searchable via Google books. [read post]
