Search for: "SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC." Results 81 - 100 of 166
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Feb 2010, 3:00 am
Google v. myTriggers (Technology & Marketing Law Blog)   US Patents – Decisions District Court N D California: Delay filing suit and failure to seek preliminary injunction negate claim of prejudice from stay pending reexam: Network Appliance Inc v Sun Microsystems Inc (Docket Report) District Court N D Ohio: Plaintiff not required to limit number of asserted claims: EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Technology, LLC et al v. [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 3:00 am
Google v. myTriggers (Technology & Marketing Law Blog)   US Patents – Decisions District Court N D California: Delay filing suit and failure to seek preliminary injunction negate claim of prejudice from stay pending reexam: Network Appliance Inc v Sun Microsystems Inc (Docket Report) District Court N D Ohio: Plaintiff not required to limit number of asserted claims: EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Technology, LLC et al v. [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 1:27 am by Mark Radcliffe
   We started the day with a discussion by Damien Eastwood (formerly of Sun Microsystems, Inc.) about his experience, both legal and practical, in moving Java and Solaris to open source models. [read post]
31 Dec 2009, 7:25 am
Some in the tech sector took issue with the Justice Department’s decision in August not to challenge the merger of Oracle Corporation and Sun Microsystems Inc., which is valued at $7.4 billion. [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 3:07 pm
On November 9, 2009, the European Commission ("EC") issued a Statement of Objections ("SO") regarding Oracle Corporation's ("Oracle") proposed acquisition of Sun Microsystems, Inc., ("Sun"). [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 3:07 pm by Sheppard Mullin
On November 9, 2009, the European Commission ("EC") issued a Statement of Objections ("SO") regarding Oracle Corporation's ("Oracle") proposed acquisition of Sun Microsystems, Inc., ("Sun"). [read post]
5 Dec 2009, 6:51 am by Coby Nixon
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Broadcom Corp., Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., Infineon Technologies North America Corp., Intel Corp., International Business Machines Corp., STMicroelectronics, Inc., Sun Microsystems, Inc., & Texas Instruments, Inc., 1:09-cv-1098 (N.D. [read post]
4 Dec 2009, 9:52 am by John W. Arden
A group of 59 senators from both sides of the aisle have sent a letter to the Acting Head of the Delegation of the European Commission (EC) to the United States, requesting that the EC complete expeditiously its investigation of Oracle Corporation's proposed acquisition of Sun Microsystems Inc. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 3:25 pm
It's not every day that the IPKat starts to peruse a judgment and finds himself reading a set of FAQs, but today was that day, in Sun Microsystems Inc v M-Tech Data Ltd and another [2009] EWHC 2992 (Pat), decided last week by Mr Justice Kitchin in the Chancery Division, England and Wales. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 11:05 am
Ellison plans to buy Sun Microsystems Inc. and transform Oracle into a maker of software, computers, and computer components -- a company more like the U.S. conglomerates of the 1960s than the fragmented technology industry of recent years. ... [read post]
10 Nov 2009, 3:22 am
Oracle Corporation announced on November 9 that the European Commission (EC) has issued a statement of objections (SO) concerning the company’s proposed acquisition of Sun Microsystems Inc. [read post]
19 Oct 2009, 4:32 am
If you want to follow this event, it's Eolas Technologies Inc. v Adobe Systems Inc., et al., No. 6:09-cv-446. [read post]
16 Oct 2009, 10:33 am by Joe Mullin
DataTern-a spinoff of an operating company, Firestar Software-made news last year when it settled a closely watched East Texas patent infringement suit against open source software leader Red Hat Inc. [read post]
3 Sep 2009, 12:55 pm
The unlucky souls: software maker Oracle Corp. and Sun Microsystems Inc. [read post]
1 Sep 2009, 12:35 am
Sun Microsystems, Inc., 2-07-cv-00333(TXED August 28, 2009, Memorandum Opinion & Order) (Everingham, M.J.)First-to-file rule did not apply because the overlap between the instant case and the earlier filed case were not substantial. [read post]