Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In an opinion that has defined a section of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), a law that has been clouded by decades of amendments, a federal judge in Philadelphia has ruled in favor of an Internet startup company and against retail giant QVC. QVC v. Resultly, 2:14-cv-06714 (E.D. Pa March 13, 2015).
U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, who joined the bench at the end of 2014, rejected QVC's motion for a preliminary injunction that would have barred the startup called Resultly from selling its intellectual property before the case is over. Resultly is a four-year-old company that uses open source code to crawl retail websites in order to help users find and purchase merchandise, according to Beetlestone's opinion.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.