Search for: "May et al v. Andres et al"
Results 41 - 53
of 53
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jul 2021, 8:10 am
Attorney Gen. v. [read post]
11 Mar 2020, 6:47 pm
DeCarlo, et al., No. 10879 complaint (Del. [read post]
Can Deals That Do Not Trigger an HSR Filing Raise Antitrust Concerns? Yes, Buyer and Sellers Beware!
8 Nov 2019, 1:25 pm
Twin America, LLC, et. al, Twin America, Coach, and City Sights together were required to pay $7.5 million in disgorgement to remedy alleged violations of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as well as New York State law, including the Donnelly Act (see Proposed Final Judgment, United States v. [read post]
30 Oct 2011, 8:59 pm
” Michele Carbone et al., “Modern Criteria to Establish Human Cancer Etiology,” 64 Cancer Res. 5518, 5522 (2004).) [read post]
1 Feb 2023, 1:46 pm
The plaintiffs in Hughes et al v. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 8:23 pm
The authors criticise the recent ECJ judgment in Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger GmbH v. [read post]
28 Aug 2019, 8:05 am
Aeroquip Credit Union et al, Case No. 18-2326 (6th Cir. [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 11:32 am
I also found this article on EU law by Andres Guadamuz helpful for thinking through high-level copyright questions of AI-authorship and AI-infringement. [read post]
21 Nov 2022, 2:28 pm
”[18]Further, it was argued that while the claim of authorship by species other than homo sapiens may be novel, “authorship” under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C § 101 et seq., is sufficiently broad so as to permit the protection of the law to extend to any original work, including those created by Naruto. [read post]
21 Nov 2022, 2:28 pm
”[18]Further, it was argued that while the claim of authorship by species other than homo sapiens may be novel, “authorship” under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C § 101 et seq., is sufficiently broad so as to permit the protection of the law to extend to any original work, including those created by Naruto. [read post]
25 Jan 2024, 4:06 am
See Feigenbaum, et al., supra. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 2:51 am
And finally Eleonora updated on the CJEU's decision in Case C-279/13 C More Entertainment where the CJEU said that live broadcasts are not communication to the public within InfoSoc Directive, but Member States can protect them: "[The Information Society] [D]irective provides that broadcasting organizations may prohibit the provision to the public fixations of their broadcasts [read post]
14 May 2024, 10:15 pm
This includes documents recently disclosed as a result of the settlement of Penebaker v. [read post]
