Search for: "Ebay Inc" Results 61 - 80 of 1,390
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Jan 2022, 8:47 am by David C. Gair
They stole funds from Ayudando Guardians Inc., a nonprofit organization that provided guardianship, conservatorship and financial management to hundreds of people with special needs. 9. [read post]
31 Dec 2021, 8:14 am by Eric Goldman
Case citation: In re DMCA § 512(h) Subpoena to Twitter, Inc., 2021 WL 6135300 (N.D. [read post]
20 Dec 2021, 8:42 am by Dennis Crouch
Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (1988) (arising under jurisdiction); eBay Inc. v. [read post]
15 Dec 2021, 1:31 pm by Eric Goldman
To settle that dispute, the parties worked out an “exclusive” license: the second-comer could sell the design on Amazon, and the registrant could keep selling it on eBay. [read post]
10 Nov 2021, 5:24 am by Kirk M. Hartung
” Next, the bill hopes to reverse the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in eBay Inc. v. [read post]
25 Oct 2021, 1:31 pm by Aaron Moss
One of the few remaining originals will set you back at least $400 on eBay. 3. [read post]
4 Oct 2021, 10:58 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Before eBay, lots of courts held that delay rebutted the presumption, and I expect that to resurrect, but we will have to see—indeed, we don’t even know if the presumption has any weight or simply shifts the burden of production. [read post]
19 Aug 2021, 12:08 pm by Bennett Cyphers
In 2006, he founded Rapleaf, a controversial company that aimed to quantify the reputation of users on platforms like Ebay by linking their online and offline activity into a single profile. [read post]
8 Aug 2021, 8:17 am by Eric Goldman
HSI * Furniture Retailer Enjoined from Sending eBay VeRO Notices–Design Furnishings v. [read post]
22 Jul 2021, 7:37 am by Eric Goldman
Fla. 2016); Nat’l Numismatic Certification, LLC v. eBay, Inc., No. 6:08-cv-42-Orl-19GJK, 2008 WL 2704404 at *24 (M.D. [read post]
28 Jun 2021, 9:45 am by Eugene Volokh
[The statute immunizes computer services for "action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict ... availability of material that the provider ... considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"—but what exactly does that mean?] [read post]