Search for: "Deal v. Warner" Results 301 - 320 of 422
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Aug 2010, 6:00 pm by Gordon Firemark
Warner Bros case (.pdf) California Appellate Report: Ladd v. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 3:16 pm by NL
He considers that five authorities: Warner v. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 3:16 pm by NL
He considers that five authorities: Warner v. [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 9:22 am by James Hamilton
A House-Senate conference committee has reported out the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act providing for a sweeping overhaul of the regulation of US financial services and markets. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 4:36 am by Rebecca Tushnet
History of social justice issues around IP—African-American entrepreneurs unable to capture full value of their work because of refusals to deal by whites/lack of access to credit. [read post]
18 Jun 2010, 3:58 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Decide who in the company will be handling the challenge—lawyers may not be best in dealing with networks; media people can talk salesperson to salesperson. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 4:12 am by Mandelman
Baldwin doesn’t know or understand this is not funny, it’s just an indication that we are dealing with someone who, at best, has limited experience with Fortune 500 companies, and at worst, is simply not completely in touch with some aspect of reality. [read post]
27 May 2010, 5:25 am by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Warner v. [read post]
22 Mar 2010, 5:09 am by Broc Romanek
- Based on the findings, what do you think companies should consider before entering into a deal? [read post]
4 Feb 2010, 7:30 am by Adam Thierer
I also wrote a paper about the proposed deal back in December entitled, “A Brief History of Media Merger Hysteria: From AOL-Time Warner to Comcast-NBC” as well as this editorial for Forbes. ____________ Mr. [read post]
4 Jan 2010, 9:32 am by Ed Felten
Verdict: wrong. (9) As a result of the jury's guilty verdict in U.S. v. [read post]