Search for: "Stanford Law Communications"
Results 1881 - 1900
of 2,446
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jul 2011, 12:21 pm
A vibrant community arose, trading ideas and AIBO code. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 9:49 am
” Id., at 255 (quoting Stanford v. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 6:07 pm
If you have one, contact Traywick Law Offices today to arrange either a dunning letter, or a suit to collect your statutory remedy. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 6:07 pm
If you have one, contact Traywick Law Offices today to arrange either a dunning letter, or a suit to collect your statutory remedy. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 9:33 am
A 2001 Stanford graduate with a sociology degree, Wire is a tireless reader with deeply held religious beliefs. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 7:54 am
The case had been closely followed within the biotechnology community given the hundreds of billions of dollars generated by discoveries that originate in U.S. research universities. [read post]
12 Jun 2011, 4:13 am
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) read its regulations and orders in a way that allowed AT&T (now Michigan Bell in Michigan) to charge its competitors only enough to cover its costs, while Michigan Bell wanted to charge market rates (which would allow the company to make a profit). [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 6:24 am
You might want to review (among other things) what GWU LawProf Orin Kerr says (he’s a former Justice Department prosecutor) in “Applying the Fourth Amendment to the Internet: A General Approach” (to be published shortly in the Stanford Law Review). [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 12:42 pm
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 1:24 pm
Stanford had based its patent-rights claims on a 1980 federal law that gives schools the ability to retain patent rights on inventions created with federal funding. [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 10:31 am
It is not at all an exaggeration to say that Bayh-Dole is one of the most successful pieces of domestic legislation ever enacted into law. [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 10:31 am
It is not at all an exaggeration to say that Bayh-Dole is one of the most successful pieces of domestic legislation ever enacted into law. [read post]
5 Jun 2011, 4:28 pm
(see The Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School’s website on this case, which takes it up to the cert. stage). [read post]
27 May 2011, 8:42 am
After reading this version, only 56% opted for great law enforcement, while 44% suggested social reforms. [read post]
20 May 2011, 10:09 am
For more information and to register, please visit the event webpageon the Stanford Law School calendar.General Admission (includes lunch and book) = $99.00Rock Center Affiliates (includes lunch) = Free*Stanford Staff, Faculty or Student (includes lunch) = Free*Click here to registerQuestions? [read post]
12 May 2011, 7:36 pm
" Dan Siciliano, Senior Lecturer in Law and Associate Dean for Executive Education and Special Programs at Stanford Law School said: "There is no evidence to support the idea that worksite raids open up jobs for U.S. workers. [read post]
9 May 2011, 12:55 pm
This session examines the latest developments in illegal activities and reviews key elements of cases such as the Madoff, Stanford and Martin Frankel scandals amongst others. [read post]
9 May 2011, 1:52 am
Its purpose is not to offer a formal legal argument on the proposition of a “legal geography of war,” but instead to reflect more discursively on how the communities of international law, policy, diplomatic, laws of war, military, intelligence, nongovernmental organizations, and international advocacy have debated this since 9/11. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 8:27 am
In addition, a distinction should be drawn between internal and external transparency – although maintaining a divide between internal and external communication is harder than ever, in the age of Above the Law and Twitter.Offering the law school perspective, Susan Robinson of Stanford Law observed that transparency is very important to students as an abstract idea. [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 3:43 am
The judge must also explain to the jury what the law requires each side to show (if anything), in order to prevail. [read post]
