Get flash to fully experience Pearltrees
Effective Date and Application of Rules Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1926, provided: “That the following rules shall take effect on the one hundred and eightieth day [July 1, 1975] beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act [Jan. 2, 1975].
You do not have permission to view this directory or page using the credentials that you supplied because your Web browser is sending a WWW-Authenticate header field that the Web server is not configured to accept. Please try the following: Contact the Web site administrator if you believe you should be able to view this directory or page. Click the Refresh button to try again with different credentials. Technical Information (for support personnel)
Many of us have seen service agreements that specify that the terms could be changed at any time without notifying the user. Well, a recent court decision could change all that. Service providers should not be able to change their terms of service arbitrarily without notifying their registered users, according to the judges in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The decision on the case of Douglas v. Talk America (PDF) could affect how web site operators handle changes made to user agreements, regardless of what the user originally agreed to.
You, the reader, may be an influence expert. You may work in politics, advertising, sales, law, or any number of other careers that require you to persuade people in the course of your daily life. You may be very successful, too. If so, you have an intuitive feel for what moves people. And you probably enjoy thinking about how persuasion works.
Georgetown University Law Center Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 10, p. 841, 2006 Illinois Public Law Research Paper No. 07-03 U Illinois Law & Economics Research Paper No. LE07-11
The legal wranglings of various file-sharing developers has created several common response patterns from those unfortunate enough to face litigation from the RIAA (Recording Industry Associate of America.) If you're of the LimeWire ilk, your response may be to stay and fight. If you're from the BearShare clan, you may wish to settle. Then there's the Ares Galaxy option; a tactic that focuses on apathy in the face of potential litigation and carrying on business as usual.
It seems that the US patent system is regularly abused, so it's no surprise that Microsoft think they can patent the some of the technology related to feed readers, the handy little applications that some of you are probably using to read this post. Microsoft has filed for two patents covering the technology used to organize and read syndicated Web feeds - these patents were made public today after an 18-month period during which applications are kept secret. That means Microsoft filed the patents way back on June 21, 2005. A few days later, they announced a plan to include RSS support in Windows Vista and Internet Explorer. The two patents ( here and here ) cover the ability to "subscribe to a particular Web feed, be provided with a user interface that contains distinct indicia to identify new feeds, and...efficiently consume or read RSS feeds using both an RSS reader and a Web browser."
A programmable search engine system is programmable by a variety of different entities, such as client devices and vertical content sites to customize search results for users. Context files store instructions for controlling the operations of the programmable search engine. The context files are processed by various context processors, which use the instructions therein to provide various pre-processing, post-processing, and search engine control operations.
by Alan D. Minsk  Introduction In a recent article , Matt Rappaport argues for the need for greater transparency in the "marketplace" for transactions involving patents. Rappaport points out several inefficiencies that may result from a lack of transparency regarding the holdings of an entity that is seeking to license one or more of its patents.
(Supreme Court 2006, Oral Arguments). The doctrine of nonobviousness is the cornerstone of American patent law. I was reminded today by Phil Swain that our nonobviousness statute, section 103(a) of the Patent Act, was drafted by Judge Giles Rich . Judge Rich is most celebrated patent judge of this century. His statutory masterpiece eliminated the amorphous concept of a “flash of genius” and replaced it with our now ubiquitous objective standard of a person having ordinary skill in the art. In Graham v.
We recently held one of our regular department update calls that included as a guest speaker the Lead Technologist responsible for driving flash memory across Sun's product portfolio. Truly fascinating stuff. In his presentation, he illustrated how storage technology has not kept pace with advances in servers (especially multi-core systems). The result is that today's systems spend significant time "waiting" for data to be accessed from storage and insuring that it is not altered or corrupted.
Cass Robert Sunstein [ 1 ] (born September 21, 1954) is an American legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law , administrative law , environmental law , and law and behavioral economics , who was the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration. For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School . [ 2 ] Sunstein is currently the Robert Walmsley University Professor [ 3 ] and Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School . [ edit ] Early life and education Sunstein was born on September 21, 1954 in Concord, Massachusetts, the son of Marian (née Goodrich), a teacher, and Cass Richard Sunstein, a builder. [ 1 ] [ 4 ] His family was Jewish. He graduated in 1972 from the Middlesex School in Concord, Massachusetts . He earned an A.B. in 1975 from Harvard College , where he was a member of the varsity squash team and the Harvard Lampoon .
Welcome to Alan Gahtan 's Cyberlaw Encyclopedia (tm) The I.T., I.P. and Electronic Commerce Legal Portal (tm) Sponsored Links: | Home | Add a Site | Modify a Site | Search | FAQ | Discussion Forum | ClariNet News This site currently contains 1217 links.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Article I Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.