Category Archives: Uncategorized

Notre Dame Deception Roundtable, part 4

Posted on May 20, 2016 by rtushnet

Session 4 – Contracts and Securities Discussion Leaders: Greg Klass, Ann Lipton, Andrea Matwyshyn   Matwyshyn: there’s a duty to perform in good faith in the US, but no duty to negotiate in good faith. If you have an integration … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Notre Dame Deception Roundtable, part 3

Posted on May 20, 2016 by rtushnet

Session 3 – Defamation and Speech Discussion Leaders: Amy Gajda, Rebecca Tushnet, Eric Goldman, Jessica Silbey   Silbey: Alvarez and a theory of deception as speech. The three opinions are helpfully, though perhaps erroneously, talking about bad speech in three … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Notre Dame Deception Roundtable, part 2

Posted on May 20, 2016 by rtushnet

Session 2 – Privacy and Technology Discussion Leaders: Ryan Calo, Aaron Perzanowski, Woody Hartzog, Danielle Citron   Matwyshyn: attempts to create commonality/familiarity w/consumer—good feeling.  Can also be a part of having ads be artistic expression.   Ryan Calo: important role … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Notre Dame Deception Roundtable, part 1

Posted on May 20, 2016 by rtushnet

Deception Roundtable Notre Dame Law School, Chicago   Session 1 – Advertising and Trademark Discussion Leaders: Bill McGeveran, Mark McKenna, Zahr Said   Mark McKenna: deception comes up in many fields, but people aren’t talking to each other/citing each other … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

1201 roundtable, renewal of previously granted exemptions

Posted on May 19, 2016 by rtushnet

SESSION 3 Rulemaking Process – Renewal of Previously Granted Exemptions This session will explore the process for renewal of exemptions granted under a prior rulemaking, including consideration of proposals for presumptive renewal when there is no meaningful opposition.   Andrew … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

1201 roundtable, evidentiary and procedural issues in rulemaking process

Posted on May 19, 2016 by rtushnet

SESSION 2 Rulemaking Process – Evidentiary and Procedural Issues This session will explore the general operation of the triennial rulemaking process under section 1201, including the evidentiary showing required for an exemption, and the procedural aspects of the rulemaking. Andrew … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

1201 roundtable, relation of 1201 to infringement, consumers, and competition

Posted on May 19, 2016 by rtushnet

Copyright Office, 1201 Roundtable, DC James Madison Building, Mumford Room NB: I won’t be here tomorrow because the Office had the temerity to schedule the roundtables after I committed to a different exiting roundtable, this one at Notre Dame on … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

First Amendment/commercial speech conference in NYC, June 13

Posted on May 18, 2016 by rtushnet

Via Ron Collins at Concurring Opinions: On Monday, June 13th (8:45 a.m. – 2:30 p.m.) the Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression will host a major conference on the commercial speech doctrine. The event will take place in New York City. → Click here to register … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Et tu, Copyright Office?

Posted on May 18, 2016 by rtushnet

Authors’ rights are for other people, apparently.  (I don’t actually begrudge them this release, but it does say something about the difference between “reasonable for me to want” and “reasonable for you to want.”  OK, a little more snark: “irrevocable,” … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Second Circuit narrowly interprets materiality for Lanham Act purposes

Posted on May 18, 2016 by rtushnet

Apotex Inc. v. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc., — F.3d —-, 2016 WL 2848911, No. 14–4353–cv (2d Cir. May 16, 2016)   The parties compete to make tizanidine, a drug for treating spasticity. Apotex alleged that Acorda (i) filed a sham citizen … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment