Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Once in a while, something known as 'new distribution forms' of software catch the attention of people in the tech market in Germany. But standard license agreements and provisions of German copyright law do not always match perfectly, and these discrepancies give rise to gaps and misunderstandings that courts must ultimately settle.
Accordingly, a couple of landmark decisions have come down from the Bundesgerichtshof ('German Federal Court') over the last few years. While the German Federal Court has refused to accept the once famous original equipment manufacturer ('OEM') clause that set forth restriction of stand-alone sale of software without hardware in 1999 (BGH, July 6, 2000, File Number I ZR 244/97 (OEM)), it has decided, on the other hand, that network licenses must be accepted as a permissible use of software licenses (BGH Oct. 24, 2002, File Number I ZR 3/00 (CPU)). Even though these license forms have been subject to Federal Court evaluation, other concepts to circumvent software-licensing restrictions have come up, and have yet to be decided.
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.
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.
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.