query: a 2000 ruling by a federal court found that microsoft

pos: United States v. Microsoft Corp. a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Software, RealNetworks, Linux, and others. Judgment was split in two parts. On April 3, 2000, he issued his "conclusions of law", according to which Microsoft had committed monopolization, attempted monopolization, and tying in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Microsoft immediately appealed the decision. On June 7, 2000, the court ordered a breakup of Microsoft as its "remedy". According to that judgment, Microsoft would have to be broken into two separate units, one to produce the

neg: Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc. page impressions. In early 1997, Ticketmaster filed a lawsuit against Microsoft for unauthorized deep linking to Ticketmaster in its Sidewalk.com website. In February 1999, the case was settled out of court in a non-disclosure agreement that led to Microsoft no longer having deep links to Ticketmaster. In July 1999, Ticketmaster filed a lawsuit against Tickets.com with ten causes of action, including charges that Tickets.com had violated federal copyright laws and violated Ticketmaster's terms and conditions. In March 2000, ruling on Tickets.com's motion to dismiss U.S. District Judge Harry Lindley Hupp found that deep linking was not prohibited by the Copyright

neg: Microsoft litigation countries within the European Economic Area. However, the European Commission has charactized the much delayed protocol licensing as unreasonable, called Microsoft "non-compliant" and still violating antitrust law in 2007, and said that its RAND terms were above market prices; in addition, they said software patents covering the code "lack significant innovation", which Microsoft and the EC had agreed would determine licensing fees. Microsoft responded by saying, that other government agencies had found "considerable innovation". Microsoft appealed the facts and ruling to the European Court of First Instance with hearings in September 2006. In 2000, a group of customers and business

neg: Richard Blumenthal proposed by Blumenthal and eight other attorneys general; these included requiring that Microsoft license an unbundled version of Windows in which middleware and operating system code were not commingled. In 2001, the Bush Administration's DOJ settled with Microsoft in an agreement criticized by many states and other industry experts as insufficient. In November 2002, a federal court ruling imposed those same remedies. In August 2007, Blumenthal, along with five other states and the District of Columbia, filed a report alleging that the federal settlement with Microsoft, and court-imposed Microsoft remedies, had failed to adequately reduce Microsoft's monopoly. On May 10,

neg: Maguire v Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (2000) complaint hearing powers from HREOC to the Federal Court. The commissioner felt that the amendment did not apply because of 31 August 1999 directions. SOCOG sought Federal Court review of the commissioner's ruling, but on 3 August 2000, the Federal court dismissed the case. A witness statement submitted on 1 May 2000 confirmed that Maguire accessed SOCOG's website on 17 April 2000 and found some changes to the website but some other areas remained inaccessible. The witness statement asked for "That SOCOG include ALT text on all images and image map links on the website; That SOCOG ensure access from

neg: Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), is a 2016 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in which the court, for the second time since the United States Supreme Court decision in "Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank" upheld the patent–eligibility of software patent claims. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment ruling that all claims were patent–ineligible abstract ideas under "Alice". Instead, the claims were directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied in the claimed "self-referential table" for a

neg: Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011), was a patent lawsuit originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Both Uniloc and Microsoft utilized a product registration software intended to reduce unauthorized copying of software. At the district court level, the court granted summary judgement of non-infringement by Microsoft of Uniloc's patent. The court's ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which reversed and remanded the decision. In the remanded district court case, the jury returned a

neg: History of United States antitrust law it first had to obtain the approval of either the FTC or the Justice Department. Often the government demanded that certain subsidiaries be sold so that the new company would not monopolize a particular geographical market. In 1999 a coalition of 19 states and the federal Justice Department sued Microsoft. A highly publicized trial found that Microsoft had strong-armed many companies in an attempt to prevent competition from the Netscape browser. In 2000, the trial court ordered Microsoft split in two to punish it, and prevent it from future misbehavior; however the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and removed

neg: Eolas In October 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear Microsoft's appeal, leaving intact the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of Eolas with respect to foreign sales of Microsoft Windows. However, the remand to District Court had not been heard yet. In May 2007, the USPTO agreed to allow Microsoft to argue ownership of the patent after they reissued a Microsoft patent that covers the same concepts as outlined in the Eolas patent, and contains wording that mirrors the Eolas patent. The USPTO ruled in favor of Eolas on that matter in September 2007.

neg: Bristol Technology Microsoft went to trial in the summer of 1999 in Federal Court in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Federal judge Janet Hall presided over the jury trial. Subsequently, the jury ruled that operating systems were not a definable market, thus Bristol did not have standing to sue under antitrust law. The jury did find that Microsoft violated Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act; however, the jury could not quantify damages and only awarded Bristol $1. In a later ruling, Judge Hall awarded Bristol $1 million in punitive damages and $3.7 million in legal fees. In February 2001, Bristol and Microsoft reached a settlement agreement

neg: Ric Richardson found damages and found that Microsoft's conduct was willful. The presiding U.S. District Court Judge William Smith disagreed as a matter of law, overturning the jury's verdict and ruling in favour of Microsoft. This ruling was appealed, and reversed. Microsoft later settled, paying an undisclosed amount. As a result of the publicity surrounding the case, Richardson has been the subject of two Australian Story episodes. The first called "The Big Deal" aired in August 2009 and covered the initial win of $388 million by a jury in Rhode Island. The second entitled "A Done Deal" aired in April 2012 and

neg: Fleeting expletive had ruled in the favor of the networks; the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the FCC's appeal. In a ruling issued April 28, 2009, the United States Supreme Court ruled to uphold the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) fleeting expletive rule. The court reversed a lower court ruling in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York which found in favor of Fox Television that the FCC had not properly followed procedures in creating the rule. In the 5-4 ruling by Justice Antonin Scalia, "the court did not definitively settle the First Amendment implications of allowing a federal

neg: Peracomo Inc v TELUS Communications Co coverage), and made a voluntary statement to the police. He was later charged with committing mischief by wilfully damaging property exceeding $5,000 in value, and was subsequently acquitted. Telus and Hydro-Québec commenced an action in the Federal Court of Canada: The defendants also instituted third party proceedings against their underwriters, Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada in order to regain their insurance cover. At the Federal Court: Harrington J, in his ruling, found that: The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling. In his ruling, Létourneau JA also held that, under existing precedent, employees, officers and directors will

neg: Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. includes the act of foreign “copying”. Judge Rader expressed concerns that such an interpretation was an impermissible “extraterritorial expansion” of U.S. patent law because it reached copying activity overseas. In his view, AT&T’s remedy lied not in U.S. law, but rather the law of the foreign country in which the infringement due to copying occurred. The Supreme Court accepted Microsoft’s petition for a writ of certiorari, mainly in order to answer two questions: On April 30, 2007, the Supreme Court, in a 7-1 majority, reversed the Federal Circuit ruling in favor of Microsoft. The Supreme Court ruled that abstract software

neg: Zunera Ishaq who denied the appeal by Jason Kenney on behalf of Department of Citizenship and Immigration of a Federal Court ruling in Ishaq’s favour. Further the judges found in Canada v Ishaq, In October 2015, the federal government under Harper asked the Supreme Court of Canada to take up the case and pleaded for the Federal Court of Appeal to suspend its ruling in the meantime. On November 16th, 2015 Justice Minister Wilson-Raybould formally withdrew the court challenge as her first act as minister. On March 10, 2015 Prime Minister Stephen Harper explained that the reason the Conservative government is fighting

neg: 2008 California Proposition 8 both subsequently denied: Federal court legal challenge to removal of stay State court legal challenges to statewide implementation of ruling 2008 California Proposition 8 Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 California state elections. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, "In re Marriage Cases", which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage (Proposition 22, 2000) unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by

neg: ProtectMarriage.com the ruling. In June 2011, Walker's ruling was upheld by James S. Ware, chief judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that the proposition violated the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians. When the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, the court found that ProtectMarriage.com had not had legal standing for a federal appeal case, and ordered the Appeals court ruling voided, leaving Walker's ruling standing. California resumed issuing same-sex marriage certificates the following day, leading

neg: History of Microsoft "abusive monopoly" and forcing the company to split into two separate units. Part of this ruling was later overturned by a federal appeals court, and eventually settled with the U.S. Department of Justice in 2001. On June 15, 2000, the company released a new version of its hand-held operating system, Windows CE 3.0. The main change was the new programming APIs of the software. Previous versions of Windows CE supported only a small subset of the WinAPI, the main development library for Windows, and with Version 3 of Windows CE, the operating system now supported nearly all of the core

neg: Microsoft Corp. v. United States had at least one other ruling in its favor, and specially against the decision of the Second Circuit Court, for similar extraterritorial requests under the SCA. In February 2017, federal magistrate judge, presiding over a District Court within the Third Circuit, ruled that Google must comply with a government warrant to turn over data from foreign servers. The magistrate judge rejected Google's reliance on the current standing from the Microsoft case, and stated in his opinion that the scope of the invasion of privacy for the case was entirely within the United States, and not where the electronic transfer of

neg: Richard Blumenthal on Microsoft's Windows 98 operating system and the company's contractual restrictions imposed on personal computer manufacturers to tie the operating system to its Internet Explorer browser, was eventually merged with a federal case brought by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) under Attorney General Janet Reno. A 2000 landmark federal court decision ruled that Microsoft had violated antitrust laws, and the court ordered that the company be broken up. In 2001, the federal appeals court agreed, but rather than breakup the company, sent the case to a new judge to hold hearings and determine appropriate remedies. Remedies were later

neg: NCUBE delivering 17,000 streams and establishing a relationship with Microsoft TV. The company was once again on IPO fast-track, only to be halted again after the bursting of Dot-com bubble. In 2000, SeaChange International filed a suit against nCUBE, alleging its nCUBE MediaCube-4 product infringed on a SeaChange patent. A jury upheld the validity of SeaChange's patent and awarded damages. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit subsequently overturned the ruling on June 29, 2005. As fallout from the dot-com bubble bursting, the recession, and the lawsuit, in April 2001 nCUBE laid-off 17% of its work force and began

neg: National Organization for Marriage truly in contention in the primary campaign. NOM attempted repeatedly to intercede in the legalization of same-sex marriage in Oregon. The group requested to be allowed to act as defendants in the state court case that ultimately found the ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional, but were denied by the judge as lacking standing, a ruling that was confirmed by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. After the ruling that started same-sex marriage in the state, NOM filed a request with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that the state court's ruling be stayed, to allow NOM to further

neg: Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. copies of a program onto multiple computers, violating software license conditions. The algorithms used by Microsoft in their product activation software were alleged to infringe Uniloc's patent. In 2007, judge William E. Smith of the District Court ruled in favor of Microsoft. In reaching this decision, the court first issued a claim construction ruling, resulting in several terms that contributed to the instant appeal. The terms include definitions of "registration system", "licensee unique ID", and "algorithm". The 2007 ruling concluded that Microsoft's algorithm to generate a licensee unique ID was not identical to the parallel algorithm in Uniloc's user's local

neg: ViolaWWW jury's decision in January 2004. In March 2005, an appeals court directed that there be a retrial, overturning a decision that Microsoft pay $521 million in damages. The appeals court said that the initial ruling had ignored two key arguments put forward by Microsoft. Microsoft had wanted to show the court that ViolaWWW was prior art, since it was created in 1993 at the University of California, a year before the key patent were filed. Microsoft had also suggested that Michael David Doyle, Eolas' founder and a former University of California researcher, had intentionally concealed his knowledge of ViolaWWW when

neg: New York State Department of Social Services v. Dublino York law in question was the New York Work Rules which were enacted in 1971 that mandated various conditions for unemployed New Yorkers to continue receiving public assistance. Recipients of public assistance in New York sued claiming that the Work Rules were preempted by the federal WIN provision of the Social Security Act. In overturning the New York District Court’s ruling that the New York statute was preempted by the federal statute the Supreme Court relied heavily on legislative history. The Court found persuasive the legislative debates that occurred after the District Court’s ruling in which senators and representatives stated

neg: Microsoft a new OS designed for devices with low memory and other constraints, such as personal digital assistants. In October 1997, the Justice Department filed a motion in the Federal District Court, stating that Microsoft violated an agreement signed in 1994 and asked the court to stop the bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows. On January 13, 2000, Bill Gates handed over the CEO position to Steve Ballmer, an old college friend of Gates and employee of the company since 1980, while creating a new position for himself as Chief Software Architect. Various companies including Microsoft formed the Trusted Computing Platform

neg: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius unconstitutionally coercive the Supreme Court found an enforceable limit on the Spending Power of the federal government. This limit on the Spending Power of the federal government is part of Neal K. Katyal's ruling analysis. Law professor Neal K. Katyal at Georgetown University, who served as acting solicitor general of the United States and argued the health care cases at the appellate level, argued that the Supreme Court ruling could change the relationship between the federal government and the states because of "the existence of an extraconstitutional limit" on the federal government's power under the Spending Clause. Katyal said that

neg: Altria number 137, whereas its former asset, Philip Morris International, was ranked 94th. In 2006, a United States court found that Philip Morris "publicly ... disputed scientific findings linking smoking and disease knowing their assertions were false." In a 2006 ruling, a federal court found that Altria, along with R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard, and Philip Morris were found guilty of misleading the public about the dangers of smoking. Within this ruling, it was noted that “defendants altered the chemical form of nicotine delivered in mainstream cigarette smoke for the purpose of improving nicotine transfer efficiency and increasing the speed with which

neg: LGBT rights in Arkansas been ruled unconstitutional and are no longer enforced. On May 9, 2014, Sixth Judicial Circuit Judge Chris Piazza issued a preliminary ruling in "Wright v. Arkansas" that found the state Constitution's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. On May 15, he issued a final ruling that enjoined enforcement of the state's statutes prohibiting the licensing and recognition of same-sex marriages as well. The Arkansas Supreme Court stayed his ruling while it heard the appeal in the case. In another lawsuit in federal court, "Jernigan v. Crane", on November 25, 2014, Judge Kristine G. Baker found the state's ban on same-sex marriage

neg: Mattel Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc Federal Court of Appeal both upheld the Trade-marks Opposition Board’s decision. Mattel Inc. appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Board found that there was not a strong likelihood of consumer confusion. The Board based its decision on the fact that Mattel presented no evidence of actual confusion (although it was not required to), the mark had a low degree of inherent distinctiveness (as it is a short form of the name "Barbara"), and the nature of the uses by the two parties were very different. Mattel appealed the Board's ruling to the Federal Court. The Federal Court decided

neg: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada) other judges earn $288,100 annually. In April 2014, the court ruled in favour of the Métis people in a case involving extending protections to Aboriginal peoples in Canada who lived off-reserve. In September 2015, the court dismissed an appeal by the Government of Canada over a ruling by the Federal Court that found a rule banning the Niqāb at citizenship ceremonies to be unconstitutional. In August 2018, the court rejected the expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline on the basis that the National Energy Board's (NEB) process and findings were "so flawed that the Governor in Council could not reasonably

neg: Same-sex marriage in South Carolina Same-sex marriage in South Carolina Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in the U.S. state of South Carolina since a federal court order took effect on November 20, 2014. Another court ruling on November 18 had ordered the state to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. Following the 2014 ruling of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in "Bostic v. Rainey", which found Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, one judge accepted marriage license applications from same-sex couples until the South Carolina Supreme Court, in response to a request by the state Attorney General, ordered them to stop. A federal

neg: European Commissioner for Competition ... We learned we may have to look for a more effective remedy." In September 2007, the Court of First Instance (EU's second highest court) upheld the Commission's decision to fine Microsoft 497 million euro and its order for to Microsoft for it to share its information setting what the Commission described as an "important precedent". Kroes stated that "Today's court ruling…shows that the Commission was right to take its decision, and right to take firm action to enforce that decision". Either party may appeal to the European Court of Justice. In response to the ruling the US Justice Departments

neg: Roger Keith Coleman custody. Since Coleman was in procedural default of his appeal in state court, that was independent of his federal constitutional claims. That was considered adequate to support his continued custody, and he was ineligible for relief in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Although finding that Coleman was in procedural default, the District Court addressed all of his claims and found them without merit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling, as did the US Supreme Court in 1991. In 1990, Coleman's DNA was tested. He was found to be within the 2%

neg: Sherbert v. Verner in which the plaintiff proves a substantial burden on the free exercise of his or her religion. However, four years later, the court struck down RFRA as applied to Constitutional interpretation. In "City of Boerne v. Flores," 521 U.S. 507 (1997), the court found that RFRA, as applied to the states, exceeded Congress's power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But the ruling did not necessarily limit RFRA's effect on interpretation of federal statutes. Using a parliamentary procedure known as "unanimous consent", both the House and the Senate re-enacted RFRA's provisions in 2000, in conjunction with adding a similar

neg: Structure, sequence and organization both types of SSO. Following the 1986 "Broderbund" ruling, Lotus Development Corporation sued two competing spreadsheet program vendors for copying the look and feel of their Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet program, and Apple Computers sued Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard for copying the Macintosh operating system's use of icons, pull-down menus and a mouse pointing device. Both companies drew criticism, since key elements of their look and feel had been introduced earlier by VisiCalc and Xerox. A 1992 federal court finding against Apple largely rejected the idea that copyright law could protect look and feel. The Lotus case went to the Supreme Court,

neg: Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. Supreme Court, which granted "certiorari" and remanded the case to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit did not change its opinion, so on September 25, 2012, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation filed a petition for "certiorari" with the Supreme Court with respect to the Second Federal Circuit decision. On November 30, 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the plaintiffs' appeal of the Federal Circuit's ruling. On June 13, 2013, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court invalidated Myriad's claims to isolated genes. The Court held that merely isolating genes that are found in nature

neg: 2008 California Proposition 8 2008 California Proposition 8 Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 California state elections. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, "In re Marriage Cases", which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage (Proposition 22, 2000) unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court (on different grounds) in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26,

neg: Censorship in Canada the Canadian Human Rights Act. In the mid-2000's, there was a series of high-profile cases involving s. 13, and the related provincial provisions. For example, Marc Lemire and Paul Fromm challenged the constitutionality of s. 13. In September 2009 the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that s. 13 violated Canadians' charter rights to freedom of expression. However, that ruling was overturned on appeal by the Federal Court of Appeal, which found that s. 13 continued to be constitutionally valid. In 2008 the Alberta Human Rights Commission held hearings on a complaint against former publisher Ezra Levant after the "Western Standard"

neg: Danny Gardella 1922 Supreme Court ruling that found baseball was not a business engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of federal antitrust law. But in February 1949, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-to-1 ruling, sent the case back to District Court and ordered a full trial on Gardella's contentions. In June 1949, faced with the prospect of a courtroom defeat, Chandler offered amnesty to the players who had gone to the Mexican League. Gardella, warned by his lawyer that he faced a long and costly legal battle, dropped his lawsuit. He said later that he received a $60,000

neg: Bush v. Gore By rejecting those ballots, Florida provided Gore a 202-vote lead in the state. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida on December 8, 2000, overturned these rejections and ordered that all federal write-in ballots previously rejected be counted. The effect of these additional overseas ballots provided Bush with a 537-vote lead in the state. The ruling also noted: The subsequent analysis revealed that black-majority precincts had three times as many rejected ballots as white precincts. "For minorities, the ballot survey found, a recount would not have redressed the inequities because most ballots were beyond retrieving. But

neg: Line-item veto in the United States Supreme Court ruled the act to be unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision in "Clinton v. City of New York". The court found that exercise of the line-item veto is tantamount to a unilateral amendment or repeal by the executive of only parts of statutes authorizing federal spending, and therefore violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. Thus a federal line-item veto, at least in this particular formulation, would only be possible through a constitutional amendment. Prior to that ruling, President Clinton applied the line-item veto to the federal budget 82 times. Though the Supreme Court struck down the

neg: LGBT rights in Malaysia of "freedom of expression, movement and the right to live in dignity and equality". On 8 October 2015, the Federal Court of Malaysia overturned the ruling on procedural grounds. The Court found that the three women should have obtained judicial permission of a Federal Court judge when they commenced their constitutional challenge. Although a High Court judge had granted permission in November 2011, the Federal Court ruled that it had done so erroneously. In August 2016, the Kuala Lumpur High Court ordered the National Registration Department (NRD) to update a trans man’s information on his identity card to better reflect

neg: Dragan Vasiljković Australia overturned the Federal Court decision and ruled that Vasiljković should be extradited to Croatia. After the ruling, Vasiljković was nowhere to be found, prompting the Australian Federal Police to launch a nationwide manhunt. Vasiljković was captured by federal police in New South Wales on 12 May 2010, 43 days after his disappearance. On 19 May, the Australian Court rejected Vasiljković's defence that Croatian courts would not give him a fair trial and that claims that Croatian courts had been more lenient towards Croats were "scanty" and "feeble". On 16 November 2012 the Australian Government decided to extradite Vasiljković to

neg: United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez and not to speak with Dickhaus, enforcing the order by having a federal marshal sit between Dickhaus and Low throughout the trial. Gonzalez-Lopez was found guilty. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Gonzalez-Lopez's conviction, ruling that the district court both erred in ruling that Low violated the rules of professional conduct and in refusing to allow Low to represent Gonzalez-Lopez. It further ruled that the error in denying Gonzalez-Lopez his right to choice of counsel (Low) was "structural" in nature—i.e., reversible without harmless error analysis. The prosecution then petitioned for certiorari from the United States Supreme Court.

neg: Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc. May 2012, the jury trial at District Court found for Google, stating that Google had not infringed on the Java patents, and that the APIs were uncopyrightable. On appeal in May 2014, the Federal Circuit partially reversed the district court ruling, ruling in Oracle's favor on the copyrightability issue, and remanding the issue of copyright and fair use back to the District Court. A second jury trial related to the fair use issue still ruled in favor of Google in May 2016, in that the use of the APIs by Google fell within fair use. Oracle appealed to the United

neg: Efrat Ungar In 2000, Efrat's family filed a lawsuit in a U.S. federal court against Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. In 2003, the court ruled that the Hamas and the Palestinian Authority were liable for damages totaling $116 million for the murder of the couple. The Palestinian Authority appealed the decision but the appeal was rejected. In 2008, the District Court in Jerusalem confirmed the ruling of the U.S. Federal Court and ruled that it would also be enforceable in Israel as well. Efrat's father, Rabbi Uri Dasberg, who in practice became the caregiver of Efrat's two children, was killed in a

neg: Tax protester constitutional arguments all. Also, the words "wages" and "salaries" are not found anywhere in the text, and there is no ruling in that case that the federal income tax statutes apply only to "corporations." The "Colonial Pipeline" case actually involved the Louisiana corporate franchise tax, not a federal tax. The validity of the Louisiana franchise tax was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in this case. No issues involving the validity or applicability of federal income taxes were presented to, mentioned by, or decided by the Supreme Court in the "Colonial Pipeline" case. For the argument that wages are not taxable, some

neg: Supremacy Clause several statutes designed to nullify the desegregation ruling. The Supreme Court relied on the Supremacy Clause to hold that the federal law controlled and could not be nullified by state statutes or officials. In "Edgar v. MITE Corp.", , the Supreme Court ruled: "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute". In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the Supremacy Clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist: In 1920, the Supreme Court applied the Supremacy Clause to international treaties, holding in

neg: Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co. Celebrate 90 Years of Federal Farm Loan Act." Congress's ability to pass an act that created new banks for farmers that allowed tax exemptions was unprecedented. Also, the Supreme Court's ruling gave a new precedent for federal-question jurisdiction. The ruling for "Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co." took power from state law and gave power to federal law. By ruling on the constitutionality of the issue, the Supreme Court took a district case and made it federal. By doing so, the court redefined the boundaries for federal-question jurisdiction. Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co. Smith v.

neg: James Moore Wayne to increase dominion in the courts. The court case of "Dred Scott v. Sandford" was argued in front of the United States Supreme Court, and was decided for Sanford by a 7-2 vote on March 6, 1857, with Chief Justice Roger B. Taney giving the majority opinion and Judge Wayne concurring. This landmark decision against slave Dred Scott ruled that African-Americans, whether slave or free, were not to be considered American citizens and thus could not sue in federal court. The ruling also found the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, ruling that it violated the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution,

neg: XHMRT-FM then used in Mexico, there was no additional room for FM radio stations in Tampico. Morales Reséndiz proceeded to file a "juicio de amparo" against the federal government in Tamaulipas district court that October. After being transferred to the Specialized Court for Economic Competition, Telecommunications and Broadcasting, the district judge in telecommunications court found in favor of Morales Reséndiz in August 2016. After an appeal filed by the IFT, the appeals section of the telecommunications court upheld the lower court verdict. The ruling found that the guidelines applicable at the time of the filing failed to provide adequate justification for

neg: Black Eagle Dam court of appeals remanded the issue of Canyon Ferry Dam back to the district court, as that dam had recently been sold to the federal government. Montana Power appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, which denied certiorari (refused to hear the case) in March 1951. Montana Power subsequently sought and won licenses for Black Eagle Dam and the seven others required to do so by the court's ruling. (Black Eagle dam was relicensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the successor agency to the FPC, on September 27, 2000 for 40 years. The license, number

neg: John Conyers time they were collecting signatures, as required under Michigan law. However, on May 23, Federal District Judge Matthew Leitman issued an injunction placing Conyers back on the ballot, ruling that the requirement that circulators be registered voters was similar to an Ohio law previously found unconstitutional by a Federal appeals court in 2008. The Michigan Secretary of State's office subsequently announced they would not appeal the ruling. Conyers is one of the 13 founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and was considered the Dean of that group. Formed in 1969, the CBC was founded to strengthen African-American lawmakers'

neg: Microsoft Corp. v. United States using a two-pronged test. Circuit Judge Susan L. Carney wrote the opinion of Court with District Court Judge Victor A. Bolden. Circuit Judge Gerard E. Lynch wrote a concurring opinion. The court relied heavily on the United States Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in "Morrison v. National Australia Bank" that the "longstanding principle of American law that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States" applies in all cases. The Second Circuit found no mention of extraterritorial application in the SCA nor in its legislative history. The court

neg: United States antitrust law found that Microsoft had strong-armed many companies in an attempt to prevent competition from the Netscape browser. In 2000, the trial court ordered Microsoft to split in two, preventing it from future misbehavior. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. In addition, it removed the judge from the case for discussing the case with the media while it was still pending. With the case in front of a new judge, Microsoft and the government settled, with the government dropping the case in return for Microsoft agreeing to cease many of the practices the government challenged. In

neg: Tania Simoncelli went before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which, although affirming part of the district court's ruling, also partly overturned it, ruling instead that isolated DNA sequences are patent eligible. Ultimately, the case went before the Supreme Court, which, in a unanimous decision on June 13, 2013, invalidated Myriad's claims to isolated genes in "Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics", ruling that merely isolating genes that are found in nature does not make them patentable. Tania Simoncelli Tania Simoncelli is Senior Advisor to the Director of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. Prior to

neg: Premo v. Moore Premo v. Moore Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the right of individuals to federal habeas corpus relief on state-law claims. In a unanimous ruling, the court held that habeas relief may not be granted with respect to any claim a state-court has found on the merits unless the state-court decision denying relief involves an "unreasonable application" of "clearly established federal law, as determined by" the Court. Respondent Moore and two accomplices attacked a man, tied him up, and threw him in the trunk of a car before driving into the

neg: Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. products, who provided the necessary instructions, would result in the defendants' induced infringement of the physician, under § 271(b). In "Medgraph, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc." the Federal Circuit upheld a district court ruling that the new "Akamai" standard did not aid the patentee Medgraph in its suit because there was no "showing that Medtronic itself directly infringed the method claims or that it acted as a ‘mastermind’ by controlling or directing anyone else’s direct infringement." Medgraph argued that it should prevail under the Federal Circuit's 2015 ruling that infringement could be found "when an alleged infringer conditions participation in an

neg: Richard Warman jury was charged. On October 2, 2013, the jury found in Warman's favour, awarding him $42,000 in damages, plus costs which were later set at $85,000. Free Dominion closed to the public as a result. On December 11, 2015, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's ruling and awarded Warman an additional $23,000 in costs. Warman ran as a Green Party of Canada candidate in the 1997 federal election in the Windsor West riding, and in the 2000 federal election in Ottawa—Orléans, placing fifth on both occasions. He ran as the Green Party of Ontario candidate in the

neg: Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. decrease. As was noted by expert testimony in the case as well, industry standard royalty rates are rarely ever as much as 25 percent. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011), was a patent lawsuit originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Both Uniloc and Microsoft utilized a product registration software intended to reduce unauthorized copying of software. At the district court level, the court granted summary judgement of non-infringement by Microsoft of Uniloc's patent. The court's ruling was appealed to the United

neg: General Motors of Canada Ltd v City National Leasing Federal Court of Appeal, the section was constitutionally valid. Leave was granted by the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal, and the case was heard in conjunction with an appeal from the corresponding case from the Federal Court of Appeal. The issues before the Supreme Court were whether: In a unanimous decision, Dickson CJ found that the Act was valid under the general branch of the trade and commerce power, and that the provisions necessarily incidental to the valid subject of the Act were thus valid as well. In so ruling, he listed several indicators which while neither exhaustive nor

neg: Cindy Blackstock extraneous material in arriving at her decision. The Federal Court ruling cleared the way for a differently constituted panel at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to conduct a full hearing on the discrimination matter. A subsequent appeal of the Federal Court ruling by the Canadian Government was dismissed by the Federal Court of Appeal in March 2013. Meanwhile, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal began hearing evidence on the discrimination claim on February 25, 2013. On April 18, 2012, the Federal Court ruled that further scrutiny is needed to determine whether Ottawa is discriminating against First Nations children on reserves by

neg: Android (operating system) called Dalvik. In May 2012, the jury in this case found that Google did not infringe on Oracle's patents, and the trial judge ruled that the structure of the Java APIs used by Google was not copyrightable. The parties agreed to zero dollars in statutory damages for a small amount of copied code. On May 9, 2014, the Federal Circuit partially reversed the district court ruling, ruling in Oracle's favor on the copyrightability issue, and remanding the issue of fair use to the district court. In December 2015, Google announced that the next major release of Android (Android Nougat) would

neg: Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc. with the district court ruling that the two structures are different in that aspect. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upholds the ruling made by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. This ruling states that Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997), was a case for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in which Lawrence B. Lockwood sued American Airlines, Inc for patent infringement for their reservation system, SABREvision. The case was first heard by the United States

neg: Abortion in Brazil had drawn needed attention to Brazil's restrictive abortion laws. In July 2004, a Brazilian federal judge issued a preliminary ruling that waived the requirement for court authorization for abortions in cases of fetuses with anencephaly. The Brazilian Council of Bishops lobbied against the ruling and the National Confederation of Healthcare Workers wanted to make the exception permanent. In October 2004, the full Brazilian Supreme Court convened and voted 7-4 to suspend the judge's ruling until the full tribunal had the opportunity to deliberate and rule on the matter. A 2005 study found that 53% of doctors had performed an abortion

neg: 1995 Quebec referendum charged by the DGEQ with violating elections laws, but in 1996 were found not guilty (a decision upheld by the Quebec Court of Appeal), after it was found that the ballots were not rejected in a fraudulent or irregular manner, and that there was no proof of conspiracy. A Quebec Court judge acquitted a Deputy Returning Officer charged with illegally rejecting 53% of the ballots cast at his Chomedey polling district. In 2000, the Quebec Superior Court denied an application by Alliance Quebec that attempted to force the DGEQ to give access to all 5 million ballots, ruling that the

neg: 2000 United States presidential election recount in Florida the Florida Supreme Court with an order vacating its earlier decision. In its opinion, the Supreme Court cited several areas where the Florida Supreme Court had violated both the federal and Florida constitutions. The Court further held that it had "considerable uncertainty" as to the reasons given by the Florida Supreme Court for its decision. The Florida Supreme Court clarified its ruling on this matter while the United States Supreme Court was deliberating "Bush v. Gore". At 4:00 p.m. EST on December 8, the Florida Supreme Court, by a 4 to 3 vote, rejected Gore' s original four-county approach and

neg: Permatemp For example, a plan can exclude contingent workers or workers hired through a third party agency. It can also exclude workers who do not elect to participate in the plan. The case and subsequent appeals were heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Before a final ruling could be issued, Microsoft settled the case for US$97 million. The Microsoft permatemps collected their money almost 10 years later. Simultaneous with "Vizcaino", the United States Internal Revenue Service issued a ruling that Microsoft owed millions of dollars in payroll taxes. The IRS determined that permatemp employees were

neg: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico controversial instance occurred in November 2004, when the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico declared that all ballots should be counted during the Puerto Rican general election, 2004. The New Progressive Party brought the matter to the Federal Court and claimed that some of the ballots were applied. Federal Judge Daniel Dominguez took jurisdiction of the case, in a ruling that would effectively have nullified the decision of the Supreme Court. However, on December 15, 2004, the First Circuit Court reversed Dominguez's decision and found that questions on the electoral process of Puerto Rico are matters reserved for the Puerto Rico

neg: Margaret Rudin Margaret Rudin had filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court seeking a new trial and reversal of her conviction based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel, impermissible hearsay testimony, faulty jury instructions and other points. On January 25, 2012, U.S. District Court Judge Roger L. Hunt dismissed Margaret Rudin's federal habeas corpus case with prejudice. In a nine-page decision, Judge Hunt found that Rudin's federal petition was not filed in a timely manner. The ruling paves way for an appeal to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. On September 10, 2014, in a split decision

neg: Same-sex marriage in Mexico of State Workers (ISSSTE)" were unconstitutional because they discriminated against same-sex couples. The Court found that the wording of articles 6, 39, 40, 131 and 135, and sections I and II of the ISSSTE Act violated the rights of same-sex couples to affiliate as beneficiaries of the Institute, and thus, those articles violate the principle of equality and non-discrimination established in Articles 1 and 123 of the Federal Constitution. On 30 January 2017, a ruling issued by the First Chamber of Mexico's Supreme Court took effect. The ruling states that all same-sex couples in Mexico have a nationwide right to

neg: Kirkbi AG v Ritvik Holdings Inc concern with "overextending monopoly rights on the products themselves and impeding competition, in respect of wares sharing the same technical characteristics." The Court agreed with the Federal Court of Appeal ruling, which found no difference between the legal attributes held by registered and unregistered marks. It looked to the text and the legislative history of the act to determine that there was no intention to give unregistered marks more protection than registered marks. Though the Court disposed of the case in ruling there was no cause of action under trade-mark law, it nonetheless considered the common law tort of passing

neg: Daniels v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development) at section 91(24) was large enough to deal with all Aboriginal people, including the Métis of the West. The court found support for that interpretation in the fact that Métis had been recognized as "Indians" under the . He agreed that the definition of "Indian" in the "Indian Act" was narrower with the one found in section 91(24). On 6 February 2013, the government of Canada appealed the ruling. The appeal was heard on 29–30 October 2013 by the Federal Court of Appeal, with the court upholding the original decision, although excluding non-status Indians from its scope. The Supreme Court

neg: Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. Supreme court revoked the original ruling of the Federal Circuit, and asked the lower court to re-hear the entire case again. These Supreme Court actions were made in light of its recent decision in "Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.", where the Court ruled that certain kinds of claims in medical diagnostics patents, including natural phenomena, were not patentable. The Supreme Court expected the Federal Circuit to take this precedent into account in its new ruling. On August 16, 2012, the Federal Circuit held its ground, ruling again in a 2–1 decision in favor of Myriad. The new court

neg: Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. the court's ruling was based on the original licensing agreement between Apple and Microsoft for Windows 1.0, and this fact made the case more of a contractual matter than of copyright law, to the chagrin of Apple. This also meant that the court avoided a more far-reaching "look and feel copyright" precedent ruling. However, the case did establish that the analytic dissection (rather than the general "look and feel") of a user interface is vital to any copyright decision on such matters. In 1998, three years after the lawsuit was decided, all lingering infringement questions against Microsoft regarding the Lisa

neg: Wasted vote control the state for the duration of the validity of the district map. Citing in part an efficiency gap of 11.69% to 13% in favor of the Republicans, a U.S. District Court ruling in "Whitford v. Gill" in 2016 ruled against the 2011 drawing of Wisconsin legislative districts. It was the first U.S. Federal court ruling to strike down a redistricting on the grounds of favoring a political party. In the 2012 election for the state legislature, Republican candidates had 48.6% of the two-party votes but won 61% of the 99 districts. The court found that the disparate treatment of

neg: Sky UK Planet, Discovery HD, Discovery History, Discovery Home & Health, Discovery Science, Discovery Shed, Discovery Turbo, DMAX, Eurosport1, Eurosport2, Investigation Discovery, TLC and Quest." At the time of the statement release, it had not been revealed how much Sky UK had paid Discovery Networks. In July 2013, the English High Court of Justice found that Microsoft’s use of the term "SkyDrive" infringed on Sky’s right to the "Sky" trademark. On 31 July 2013, Sky and Microsoft announced their settlement, in which Microsoft will not appeal the ruling, and will rename its SkyDrive cloud storage service after an unspecified "reasonable period of

neg: Cheek v. United States "factual issue" (for the jury to decide) into a "legal issue". The Supreme Court stated that whether the defendant acted willfully is a factual issue to be determined by the jury, and that a valid defense of "lack of willfulness" could be found even though the defendant's belief is not "objectively reasonable." The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for a retrial. The Court also provided guidelines that could be used by the jury at the retrial: Justice Harry Blackmun, joined by Justice Marshall, agreed with the Court's ruling that a belief that the federal income tax

neg: Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. Federal Circuit reversed the grant of JMOL of non-infringement and new trial on infringement, but affirmed the grant of JMOL of no willfulness and a new trial on damages. The case for infringement, according to the Federal Circuit of Appeals rested on three primary issues. Based on expert testimony at the district level, the court found that the Microsoft's accused product indeed matched close enough in algorithm to deem that infringement had occurred. Similarly, they found that the '216 patent sufficiently encompassed the methods used in Microsoft's Product Activation. Finally, the Federal Circuit determined, based on precedent, that although the

neg: Ladies' night charge patrons differing amounts based on gender. Ladies' nights have been found not to violate state anti-discrimination law, or the federal constitution, by the Washington Supreme Court, even if held at a stadium owned by a city. The Washington Supreme Court concluded that "the respondent has shown no discrimination against men as a class and no damage to himself. As a consequence he has no right of action under the state Law Against Discrimination. " In part, the court emphasized in its ruling evidence presented in the trial court that "women do not manifest the same interest in basketball that

neg: Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership standard applied by the Federal Circuit was inappropriate and that a preponderance of the evidence standard should be applied. The Court rejected Microsoft's position. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 564 U.S. 91 (2011), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. Under 35 U.S.C. § 282, a patent is entitled to a presumption of validity in court. In "i4i", the Court held that when a court reviews the validity of a patent, the presumption may only be overcome based on clear and convincing evidence. The case was a patent

neg: Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation not have been analyzed by the court. In his dissent Black wrote of a string of injustices by the United States Government and violations of treaties. He added that this ruling was another broken promise. He finished with: Great nations, like great men, should keep their word. Although the Court found that the Nonintercourse Act did not bar condemnation under the Federal Power Act, it laid down an expansive interpretation of the Act: As to the Tuscaroras' contention that [25 U.S.C. § 177] prohibits the taking of any of their lands for the reservoir 'without the express and specific consent

neg: History of Nintendo a patent-infringement lawsuit. Leveled by the Anascape Ltd., the suit claimed that Nintendo's use of analog technology in their game controllers constitutes a violation of their patents. The lawsuit sought to recover damages from both corporations and possibly force them to stop selling controllers with the violating technology. Microsoft settled with Anasacape, while Nintendo went to trial, initially losing and being ordered to pay US$21 million in damages. Nintendo appealed, and on April 23, 2010 the Federal Circuit reversed the ruling. In November 2010, Anascape's appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States was denied. In mid-September 2006, during

neg: Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007), was a United States (U.S.) Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court reversed a previous decision by the Federal Circuit and ruled in favor of Microsoft, holding that Microsoft was not liable for infringement on AT&T's patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f). In this case, Microsoft exported abroad the "master version" of its Windows software disk, which incorporated a speech processing function claimed by one of AT&T's patents, with the intent that such software be copied abroad for installation onto foreign-manufactured computers. According to the

neg: Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. it is irrelevant that any individual step or limitation of such processes by itself would be unpatentable under § 101.Finally, the Federal Circuit found that because the claims are directed to an entire process, and not just the correlation itself, the claims do not preempt all applications of the correlation. Mayo appealed to the Supreme Court, and in June 2010 the Supreme Court granted certiorari and immediately vacated the Federal Circuit decision and remanded the case back to the Federal Circuit for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's ruling on the "Bilski" case (in other words, it issued

neg: Zeran v. America Online, Inc. and that as a result, the CDA should hold sway. Since the CDA was enacted in February 1996, after the defamatory messages were posted on AOL's bulletin board, the questions at issue in the lower court ruling were determined to be: In analyzing the preemption of the state laws, the court determined that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution demands preemption of state laws where they conflict with federal laws. The court analyzed three ways in which the state and federal laws could conflict: In analyzing the first theory of direct conflict, the court found that AOL could "comply

neg: Premo v. Moore Moore sought federal habeas relief, renewing his ineffective-assistance claim. The District Court denied the petition, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the state court’s conclusion was an unreasonable application of clearly established law in light of "Strickland" and was contrary to "Arizona v. Fulminante" (1991). Premo v. Moore Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the right of individuals to federal habeas corpus relief on state-law claims. In a unanimous ruling, the court held that habeas relief may not be granted with respect to any claim a state-court has found on

neg: Elián González to keep him in the United States against his father's demands that González be returned to Cuba. A United States district court ruling from the Southern District of Florida that only González's father, and not his extended relatives, could petition for asylum on the boy's behalf was upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, by order of U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, federal agents took González from the paternal relatives and returned him to his father in Cuba in June 2000. Many Cubans had left Cuba for the United

neg: Paul Cosgrove the bench. The federal court ruling temporarily halted the proceedings against Judge Cosgrove who had been on a paid leave of absence since Bryant's April 2004 request for a disciplinary hearing. On March 12, 2007, however, the appellate division of the Federal Court of Canada reversed the trial division, and found against Justice Cosgrove. The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the Federal Court, dismissed the application for judicial review, and referred the matter back to the Inquiry Committee of the Canadian Judicial Council. On December 4, 2008, in a 4-1 decision, a committee of the Canadian

neg: United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp. cost of a tax levied by the City of Mobile on natural gas sales. The Supreme Court vacated a lower court ruling that the tax was actually a means of licensing a pipeline company’s right to enter the state, and stated that federal courts should abstain from ruling on complex state law issues which have not yet been resolved. This form of federal court abstention is based on the case of "Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co." (1941) and is known as the "Pullman" abstention doctrine. On October 1, 1977, the FPC was replaced by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. United

neg: Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser of Appeal noted that accidental genetic contamination of a crop beyond a farmer's control should be an exception to the rule that intent is not an issue in patent disputes. The Court's ruling concluded: The case was then heard by the Federal Court of Appeal at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, beginning May 15, 2002. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the trial judge. The Federal Court of Appeal in particular stressed the importance of the finding that Schmeiser had knowingly used the seed, in their decision to find Schmeiser in infringement of the patent, and noted that in a

neg: Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp. by the law or facts", since Microsoft had already paid $16 million to license the technology from Fraunhofer IIS which, it claims, is "the industry-recognized rightful licensor". Subsequently, on August 6, 2007 the federal judge in San Diego, U.S. District Judge Rudi Brewster, granted Microsoft's motions for Judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and for new trial, saying that the jury's decision was not supported by the evidence. The Judge's Order found that there was insufficient evidence both for Microsoft's liability and for the damages model used by Alcatel-Lucent. Alcatel-Lucent appealed the judge's decision, and the Court of Appeals

neg: Barbarians Led by Bill Gates and GO Corporation. In April 2008, as part of a larger federal court case, the gesture features of the Windows/Tablet PC operating system and hardware were found to infringe on a patent by GO Corp. concerning gesture interfaces in operating systems for portable computers. Barbarians Led by Bill Gates Barbarians Led by Bill Gates: Microsoft from the Inside is a book that was jointly written by Jennifer Edstrom and Marlin Eller, an American programmer who was a manager and a software developer at Microsoft Corporation from 1982–95, and development lead for the Graphics Device Interface (GDI) of Windows 1.0 and

neg: The Ronettes New York against Phil Spector over unpaid royalties and for unpaid income he made from licensing of Ronettes’ music. It took the case a decade to make its way to trial. In 2000, Spector was ordered to pay them more than $2.6 million. Spector appealed and in 2001 the state Supreme Court's Appellate Division upheld a lower court finding that Spector had violated his 1963 contract. He appealed that ruling as well, taking the case to the New York State Supreme Court in 2002. In its ruling, the State Court of Appeals said it found the Ronettes' "plight sympathetic, because

neg: Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. of whether a genetically modified organism was "markedly different" from those found in nature to rule that genetically modified organisms are patent eligible. Thus, he concluded that since Myriad's patents describe DNA sequences that do not alone exist in nature, they are patent eligible. After the Federal Circuit ruling, the Association for Molecular Pathology petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, asking it to review this case. The Supreme Court granted the writ, and on March 26, 2012, it vacated the Federal Circuit decision, and remanded the case back to the Federal Circuit. In other words, the

neg: Bootleg recording apply both prior to and since the passage of the federal bootleg statute. The "US v. Martignon" case challenged the constitutionality of the federal bootleg statute, and in 2004, U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. struck down the port banning the sale of bootleg recordings of live music, ruling that the law unfairly grants a seemingly perpetual copyright period to the original performances. In 2007, Judge Baer's ruling was overruled, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the anti-bootlegging statute was within the power of Congress. Record companies have described bootlegs as "grey area,

neg: Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. As a result, both parties agreed that a jury trial was unnecessary given the rulings, and Apple filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in order to have the district court's characterization overruled. After the district court ruled in favor of Microsoft, Apple appealed the decision arguing that the district court only considered infringements on the individual elements of Apple's GUI, rather than the interface as a whole. The appeals court almost entirely affirmed the ruling of the district court, establishing that, "almost all the similarities spring either from the license or from basic ideas and their

neg: Case or Controversy Clause by a favorable ruling.” Generally, the clause is taken to mean that a generalized, as opposed to particular, injury, is not grounds for a federal lawsuit. Relevant cases: The clause does not forbid individual States from granting standing to such parties; it only mandates that federal courts may not do so: Case or Controversy Clause The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the United States Constitution (found in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) as embodying two distinct limitations on exercise of judicial review. First, the Court has held

neg: Impeachment investigations of United States federal judges Bill Clinton on his last day in office. Hastings filed suit in federal court claiming that his impeachment trial was invalid because he was tried by a Senate committee, not in front of the full Senate, and that he had been acquitted in a criminal trial. Judge Stanley Sporkin ruled in favor of Hastings, remanding the case back to the Senate, but stayed his ruling pending the outcome of an appeal to the Supreme Court in a similar case regarding Judge Walter Nixon, who had also been impeached and removed. Sporkin found some "crucial distinctions" between Nixon's case and Hastings',

neg: Nebraska Initiative 416 Hodges". Consequently, the Eighth Circuit Court lifted the stay of Judge 's ruling and Initiative 416 was formally struck down, with Nebraska officials and agencies formally enjoined from enforcing the ban on same-sex marriage in the state. Nebraska Initiative 416 Nebraska Initiative 416 was a 2000 ballot initiative that amended the Nebraska Constitution to make it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriage or civil unions. The referendum was approved on November 7, 2000, by 70% of the voters. The initiative has since been struck down in federal court and same-sex marriage is now legally recognised in