Search for: "Interactive Computer Designs, Inc." Results 301 - 320 of 424
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Mar 2018, 5:00 am by Jesse Lempel
The catch is that Congress categorically immunized platforms from such liability in 1996 with Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, stating: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 8:12 pm by Eric Schweibenz
(collectively, “Apple”) and the Respondents are High Tech Computer Corp., HTC America Inc., and Exedia, Inc. [read post]
12 Aug 2020, 7:17 am by Eric Goldman
The petition is not designed to advance the interests of America; it is designed to burn it all down. [read post]
4 May 2022, 3:37 pm
Provide Commerce, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 855, 861 (Long); see Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. [read post]
2 May 2022, 7:42 am by Venkat Balasubramani
” What user interactions or technological restrictions are sufficient to create a “permission requirement”? [read post]
28 Mar 2008, 6:00 am
: (Afro-IP),If education and pricing policy fail, says Adobe in Nigeria, we can still sue: (Afro-IP),South African arm of Chrysler objects to advertisement by Indian vehicle maker Mahindra and Mahindra that uses the term "jeep": (Afro-IP), (Spicy IP),Kenya’s call for anti-counterfeit legislation… amongst other changes: (Afro-IP),Kenya: Shared computer use raises privacy, confidentiality issues: (Afro-IP)AustraliaChanges to grace period for trade mark renewal:… [read post]
29 Nov 2023, 8:41 am by Dennis Crouch
The Federal Circuit rejected this argument based on dicta in Thryv, Inc. v. [read post]
Other technology vendors, like Drishti Technologies Inc., integrate worker proximity monitoring into safety and assembly monitoring solutions. [read post]
3 Apr 2008, 8:58 am by Michael Erdman
America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), sections [47 U.S.C.] 230(c)(1), (f)(3), and (e)(3) of the CDA bar state law claims (except those relating to intellectual property) against interactive computer services for publishing content provided by another information content provider. [read post]
23 May 2019, 5:33 am by Eric Goldman
While the Communications Decency Act protects interactive computer service providers from liability as a publisher of speech, it does not protect them from liability as the seller of a defective product. [read post]
28 Aug 2019, 12:15 pm by Jeffrey Neuburger
Defendant countered that the CDA barred most of the claims, as the site was an interactive computer service and plaintiff was attempting to treat the defendant as a publisher of third-party content. [read post]
3 Apr 2008, 8:58 am by Michael Erdman
America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), sections [47 U.S.C.] 230(c)(1), (f)(3), and (e)(3) of the CDA bar state law claims (except those relating to intellectual property) against interactive computer services for publishing content provided by another information content provider. [read post]
21 Jul 2010, 1:19 pm by Kelly
Five years ago today, I was tapping away at my computer and I got inspired. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 9:15 am by David Thompson
  It limits the liability of “interactive computer service providers” for “information provided by another information content provider,” with a statutory exception for intellectual property and child pornography. [read post]