Search for: "DISTRIBUTED SOLUTIONS V. UNITED STATES " Results 101 - 120 of 566
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Oct 2021, 7:07 am by Holly Brezee
Alston, the United States Supreme Court reviewed whether the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (“NCAA”) long-standing rules restricting “education-related benefits” violate the Sherman Antitrust Act (see, NCAA v. [read post]
12 Oct 2021, 10:00 am by Dirk Auer
Stigler assumes the underlying goods are neither substitutes nor complements: Stigler, George J. (1963) “United States v. [read post]
28 Sep 2021, 11:47 am by Eric Goldman
Who’s Covered by the Bill The bill defines “electronic commerce platform” as “any electronically accessed platform that includes publicly interactive features that allow for arranging the sale or purchase of goods, or that enables a person other than an operator of the platform to sell or offer to sell physical goods to consumers located in the United States. [read post]
27 Sep 2021, 7:26 am by Lisa Larrimore Ouellette
Sherkow, Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, Nicholson Price, and Rachel SachsHistorically, the United States’ preparedness for a pandemic is like Charles Dudley Warner’s aphorism on the weather: everybody talks about it but no one ever does anything. [read post]
13 Aug 2021, 2:36 am by Florian Mueller
Again, I wasn't initially sold, but I watched the further developments with an open mind and less than a year later I think--in light of the recent announcement by three United States Senators--that the CAF may go down in history as one of the most impactful and important policy efforts in the history of the tech industry.The tide has turned. [read post]
10 Aug 2021, 5:51 am by Daniel
These substances are categorized from most severe (schedule I) to least severe (schedule V).Illegal possession of a prescribed drug.Other illegal drugs. [read post]
20 Jul 2021, 9:17 am by Phil Dixon
This prompted the prosecutor to check with the United States Attorney’s office. [read post]
13 Jul 2021, 10:58 am by Simon Lester
In the United States (US), as for most developed countries,[6] trade policy and IP standards have consistently been linked, a pattern which can (at least partially) be traced back to extensive lobbying by senior management at US-based technology and pharmaceutical firms.[7] For example, since at least the 1980s, Pfizer Inc. has been involved in mobilizing other US firms and stakeholders to lobby US policymakers on the issue of international IP protection. [read post]