Search for: "Price v. Walgreen Co."
Results 21 - 27
of 27
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Oct 2011, 3:15 am
Co., 282 N.W.2d 639, 661 (Iowa 1979); Wolder v.. [read post]
23 Aug 2008, 1:23 am
: (Part 1 - SPICY IP), (Part 2 - SPICY IP) Global – Copyright International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI): ‘Three strikes’ effort hit worldwide home run: (Ars Technica), How to attribute a Creative Commons licensed work: (Molly Kleinman), Chrysalis disappoints, as new artists fail to incubate: (IP finance), DRM for streaming music dies a quiet death: (Electronic Frontier Foundation), (Techdirt) Events 26 August:… [read post]
8 Feb 2008, 7:00 pm
– Facebook’s contractual rights to users’ photos problematic: (Spicy IP)PharmaEuropean Commission probes pharmaceutical sector: (Philip Brooks),WHO Board sets course on IP, avian flu, tighter publication policy: (Intellectual Property Watch),India: The Competition Act, patents and over hyped drugs: (Part I - Spicy IP), (Part II – Spicy IP), (Part III – Spicy IP),Ignoring not the solution –… [read post]
4 May 2023, 9:05 pm
This is “systematic risk,” exemplified by the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, which essentially affected the price of every asset. [read post]
5 Sep 2008, 11:01 pm
& Ors v Deisel Spa and Case C-302/08 Zino Davidoff SA v Bendesfinanzdirektion Sudost: (Class 46), EPO Boards of Appeal finds that when a fax is transmitted and an ‘OK’ is noted by the sender, this is evidence that the transmission was successful: (IPKat), Professor Hugenholtz slams European Commission for ignoring evidence on copyright extension: (Techdirt) Germany Federal Patent Court publishes guidelines on colour trade mark Signal Yellow:… [read post]
2 Jan 2018, 5:08 pm
As discussed here, last year, the Seventh Circuit, in a blistering opinion written by Judge Richard Posner in a merger objection lawsuit involving Walgreen’s acquisition of Alliance Boots, affirmatively adopted the Delaware Chancery Court’s position on disclosure-only settlements. [read post]
13 Aug 2020, 6:59 am
The professors said in their brief on Monday that the case deals with so-called umbrella standing, where an antitrust violator increases its price and creates a price umbrella that other sellers can safely match. [read post]
