Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A federal judge in San Jose has refused to certify a class of former Apple customers who claim the company illegally intercepted their text messages as a result of a glitch in its iMessage system.
In'a 28-page order, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California ruled last month that it would be “administratively infeasible” to determine who qualified as a class member and concluded that individual questions would eclipse common ones, making class certification inappropriate.
The ruling frees Apple Inc. from the threat of potentially pricey damages under the Wiretap Act, which carries statutory damages of up to $10,000 per violation. Koh also found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue an injunction barring Apple from making further interceptions.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?