Comments for Berkeley Technology Law Journal http://btlj.org A student-run publication of the UC Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) focused on intellectual property, high-tech, and biotech Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:19:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Spring 2012 Writing Competition by Amy http://btlj.org/2012/01/17/spring-2012-writing-competition/comment-page-1/#comment-6607 Amy Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:19:12 +0000 http://btlj.org/?p=1658#comment-6607 Is this only for US students? Is this only for US students?

]]> Comment on Spring 2012 Writing Competition by The DOCKET » Berkeley Technology Law Journal 2012 Writing Competition http://btlj.org/2012/01/17/spring-2012-writing-competition/comment-page-1/#comment-6510 The DOCKET » Berkeley Technology Law Journal 2012 Writing Competition Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:09:25 +0000 http://btlj.org/?p=1658#comment-6510 [...] For eligibility, rules, and contact information, please visit the source: http://btlj.org/2012/01/17/spring-2012-writing-competition/ [...] [...] For eligibility, rules, and contact information, please visit the source: http://btlj.org/2012/01/17/spring-2012-writing-competition/ [...]

]]> Comment on Internet “Kill Switch” Legislation: Can Obama Turn Off the Internet? by Anonymous http://btlj.org/2011/03/09/internet-kill-switch-legislation-can-obama-turn-off-the-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-3928 Anonymous Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:29:12 +0000 http://btlj.org/?p=1100#comment-3928 [...] of time before "National Security Purposes" allows the Executive branch to employ the Kill Switch. Remember when the Patriot Act was interpreted to mean "if you buy illegal drugs, you are [...] [...] of time before "National Security Purposes" allows the Executive branch to employ the Kill Switch. Remember when the Patriot Act was interpreted to mean "if you buy illegal drugs, you are [...]

]]> Comment on U.S. v. Aleynikov: Source Code as a Stolen “Good” in a Case of Interstate Economic Espionage by frank rhame http://btlj.org/2011/10/24/u-s-v-aleynikov-source-code-as-a-stolen-%e2%80%9cgood%e2%80%9d-in-a-case-of-interstate-economic-espionage/comment-page-1/#comment-3571 frank rhame Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:55:40 +0000 http://btlj.org/?p=1491#comment-3571 Excellent review. I wonder if Teza still has the source code and how it might be gotten back or how Teza might now be kept from using it. I also wonder how Agrawal stole code without it ever crossing state lines. That must have taken some effort and avoided ever crossing the Hudson with a relevant thumb drive or emailing anything (surely one packet would have left NY) Excellent review.

I wonder if Teza still has the source code and how it might be gotten back or how Teza might now be kept from using it.

I also wonder how Agrawal stole code without it ever crossing state lines. That must have taken some effort and avoided ever crossing the Hudson with a relevant thumb drive or emailing anything (surely one packet would have left NY)

]]> Comment on Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.: A Radical Change in the Legal Standard of Inequitable Conduct by Stent Wars: Cordis Corp v. Boston Scientific Corp., Fed. Cir. (2011) | Berkeley Technology Law Journal http://btlj.org/2011/06/22/therasense-inc-v-becton-dickinson-and-co-a-radical-change-in-the-legal-standard-of-inequitable-conduct/comment-page-1/#comment-3392 Stent Wars: Cordis Corp v. Boston Scientific Corp., Fed. Cir. (2011) | Berkeley Technology Law Journal Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:48:57 +0000 http://btlj.org/?p=1290#comment-3392 [...] The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) decision in Cordis Corp v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2011 (“Cordis”), is the latest episode in the ongoing Stent Wars, and provides an example of CAFC review of JMOL verdicts and review of the intent prong of inequitable conduct under the new standard in Therasense. [...] [...] The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) decision in Cordis Corp v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2011 (“Cordis”), is the latest episode in the ongoing Stent Wars, and provides an example of CAFC review of JMOL verdicts and review of the intent prong of inequitable conduct under the new standard in Therasense. [...]

]]> Comment on People v. Diaz: Is Your iPhone Constitutionally Protected? by California veto allows warrantless cellphone searches « MatrixGazette http://btlj.org/2011/02/23/people-v-diaz-is-your-iphone-constitutionally-protected/comment-page-1/#comment-3129 California veto allows warrantless cellphone searches « MatrixGazette Thu, 13 Oct 2011 21:08:25 +0000 http://btlj.org/?p=910#comment-3129 [...] he says the state Supreme Court’s decision is good enough, a decision the U.S. Supreme Court let stand last [...] [...] he says the state Supreme Court’s decision is good enough, a decision the U.S. Supreme Court let stand last [...]

]]> Comment on People v. Diaz: Is Your iPhone Constitutionally Protected? by Calif. Governor Veto Allows Warrantless Cellphone Searches | Pacific Progress http://btlj.org/2011/02/23/people-v-diaz-is-your-iphone-constitutionally-protected/comment-page-1/#comment-3109 Calif. Governor Veto Allows Warrantless Cellphone Searches | Pacific Progress Thu, 13 Oct 2011 03:58:56 +0000 http://btlj.org/?p=910#comment-3109 [...] he says the state Supreme Court’s decision is good enough, a decision the U.S. Supreme Courtlet stand last [...] [...] he says the state Supreme Court’s decision is good enough, a decision the U.S. Supreme Courtlet stand last [...]

]]> Comment on People v. Diaz: Is Your iPhone Constitutionally Protected? by Jerry Brown Lets Police Look at Suspects' Mobile Phones Without a Warrant - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine http://btlj.org/2011/02/23/people-v-diaz-is-your-iphone-constitutionally-protected/comment-page-1/#comment-3074 Jerry Brown Lets Police Look at Suspects' Mobile Phones Without a Warrant - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:29:09 +0000 http://btlj.org/?p=910#comment-3074 [...] the state Senate by a vote of 32 to 4, was introduced in response to People v. Diaz, a January decision in which the California Supreme Court said examining a drug suspect's text messages 90 minutes [...] [...] the state Senate by a vote of 32 to 4, was introduced in response to People v. Diaz, a January decision in which the California Supreme Court said examining a drug suspect's text messages 90 minutes [...]

]]> Comment on People v. Diaz: Is Your iPhone Constitutionally Protected? by In California, Police Can Still Search Your iPhone Without a Warrant | WebProNews http://btlj.org/2011/02/23/people-v-diaz-is-your-iphone-constitutionally-protected/comment-page-1/#comment-3073 In California, Police Can Still Search Your iPhone Without a Warrant | WebProNews Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:28:41 +0000 http://btlj.org/?p=910#comment-3073 [...] California Supreme Court decision that Brown references is the People v. Diaz, a case ruled upon by the supreme state body in January of this [...] [...] California Supreme Court decision that Brown references is the People v. Diaz, a case ruled upon by the supreme state body in January of this [...]

]]> Comment on People v. Diaz: Is Your iPhone Constitutionally Protected? by No Cajones — Jerry Brown blows off his responsibility to safeguard the rights of Californian’s | Questions and Observations http://btlj.org/2011/02/23/people-v-diaz-is-your-iphone-constitutionally-protected/comment-page-1/#comment-3066 No Cajones — Jerry Brown blows off his responsibility to safeguard the rights of Californian’s | Questions and Observations Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:42:21 +0000 http://btlj.org/?p=910#comment-3066 [...] he says the state Supreme Court’s decision is good enough, a decision the U.S. Supreme Court let stand last [...] [...] he says the state Supreme Court’s decision is good enough, a decision the U.S. Supreme Court let stand last [...]

]]>