To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Hailed by Google and others as the “copyright case of the decade,” the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long awaited decision in
Google LLC.v Oracle America, Inc
. The Court sided with Google in deciding that it is “fair use” for Google to
verbatim take 11,000 lines of Java code and incorporate that into their application programming interface (“API”) software.
Notably, the Supreme Court made no ruling on the fundamental issue of whether APIs are eligible for copyright protection. Google argued that they were not. Instead, the Court assumed for the sake of considering fair use that APIs were protectable, and then found that the fair use doctrine applied to Google’s use of the code. Fair use in the context of this particular case involved whether the use by Google of Oracle’s code was “transformative.” In ruling for Google, the Court determined that Google transformed Oracle’s API code into somethin
California Expands COVID-19 Supplement Paid Sick Leave | Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP
jdsupra.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from jdsupra.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 Expands Voluntary Families First Coronavirus Response Act Leave | Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP
jdsupra.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from jdsupra.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Health
your username
March 15, 2021
On Friday, the court issued an opinion in the case of Government Employees Insurance Co. et al v. AFO Imaging, Inc. et al. The case, filed in the Middle District of Florida, deals with a massive fraud complaint by Geico against Radiology Imaging Specialists, LLC d/b/a CareFirst Imaging.
The radiology practice is accused of two counts: First, fraudulently billing radiological procedures that were not medically necessary solely for the purpose of inflating the pip claims made to GEICO, and second, that the practice was not sufficiently licensed and overseen in contravention of Florida statute. The opinion represents the second motion to dismiss by a defendant in this case. In the original motion to dismiss, the court denied a motion to dismiss that included arguments that the claim was a shotgun complaint and that it didn’t plead the fraud counts with sufficient specificity.