Search for: "Companies A, B, and C" Results 7001 - 7020 of 12,894
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Mar 2014, 3:13 pm by David Levine
  Putting aside concerns that the PITAC (a) will operate secretly (itself ironic given that it is hyper-secrecy that has resulted in the criticism to which the USTR is presumably responding), (b) not even have the level of access that the IP ITAC and others currently enjoy, and (c) perhaps preclude academics from membership, the broader concern is the narrowing of our understanding of the public’s interest through a “public interest” ITAC. [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 12:51 pm by Ben
Without item-specific knowledge of infringing activity, a service provider could not be found to have "the right and ability to control" infringing activity under section 512(c)(1)(B). [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 11:08 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  Once again, harm/materiality takes a hammering because the claim is §43(a)(1)(A) and not §43(a)(1)(B), for no good reason. [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 4:45 am by Kevin
(Actually, the Book Depository is apparently now owned by Amazon.com, so maybe Amazon bought the company to make sure Falkland Islanders could get all the books they want.) [read post]
19 Mar 2014, 12:50 pm by Guest Author for TradeSecretsLaw.com
And algorithms are the key to unlocking this value of Big Data; hence they will be key in any IP Strategy. c) What is Intellectual Property Strategy? [read post]
19 Mar 2014, 11:24 am
Without item-specific knowledge of infringing activity, a service provider could not be found to have "the right and ability to control" infringing activity under section 512(c)(1)(B). [read post]
19 Mar 2014, 5:53 am by Adam Weinstein
 The complaint accuses Pershing of aiding and abetting the Stanford fraud by (a) breaching its fiduciary duty to its customers, (b) assisting in the sales of unregistered securities, and (c) violating FINRA Rule 2020, which prohibits any member firm from effecting a transaction in or inducing the purchase or sale of, any security by means of any manipulative, deceptive, or other fraudulent device or contrivance. [read post]
17 Mar 2014, 8:00 am by Paul E. Freehling
District courts are divided as to whether there is a private right of action under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) for persons whose computer service is not interrupted but who nevertheless incur costs (a) responding to a CFAA offense, (b) conducting a damage assessment, or (c) restoring computerized data or programs as they were prior to the offense. [read post]