Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
35 U.S.C. § 289. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is the general title of a series of patent infringement lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics in the United States Court system, regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers. Between them, the two companies have dominated the manufacturing of smartphones ...
Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters. Additionally, Apple has also been the defendant of a class action ...
Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. Authors Guild v. Google 804 F.3d 202 (2nd Cir. 2015) was a copyright case heard in federal court for the Southern District of New York, and then the Second Circuit Court of Appeals between 2005 and 2015. It concerned fair use in copyright law and the transformation of printed copyrighted books into an online ...
Entick v Carrington (1765) 95 ER 807 (authorities have no power which is not explicitly given to them by law; repercussions far beyond exclusive rights) Millar v. Taylor (1769) 4 Burr 2303; 98 ER 201 (copyright is perpetual) Donaldson v. Beckett (1774) 4 Burr 2408; 98 ER 257 (copyright is not perpetual) Dick v.
Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021), [ 1 ] was a U.S. Supreme Court decision related to the nature of computer code and copyright law. The dispute centered on the use of parts of the Java programming language 's application programming interfaces (APIs) and about 11,000 lines of source code, which are owned by Oracle (through subsidiary ...
The employee data was later used in filings by both sides, because in some cases employees of the entertainment firms had uploaded their companies' content to YouTube voluntarily. Viacom cited internal e-mails sent among YouTube's founders discussing how to deal with clips uploaded to YouTube that were obviously the property of major media ...
The Ninth Circuit further distinguished the cases because the Napster defendants operated a system that allowed them to monitor and control the potentially infringing activities of its users. [20] In MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. in 2005, the Supreme Court extended this analysis to advanced video file-sharing systems. [21]
States may tax copyright royalties, as they can patent royalties, because even though copyrights & patents are granted by the federal government, they are still private property subject to taxation. George v. Victor Talking Machine Co. 293 U.S. 377: 1934: 9–0: per curiam