Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Computer Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 7 of 7

Full-Text Articles in Computer Law

It Takes Time: The Need To Extend The Seal Period For Qui Tam Complaints Filed Under The False Claims Act, Joel D. Hesch Apr 2015

It Takes Time: The Need To Extend The Seal Period For Qui Tam Complaints Filed Under The False Claims Act, Joel D. Hesch

Seattle University Law Review

Each year, 10% of all federal government spending is lost due to fraud, which adds up to over $350 billion a year. Unfortunately, many well-meaning federal judges are inadvertently making it easier for wrongdoers to retain these ill-gotten gains by unnecessarily cutting short the investigative time for the government to evaluate fraud allegations brought by whistleblowers under the False Claims Act (FCA). The FCA is the federal government’s primary tool to recover funds obtained through the submission of false claims. Because the government is unable to detect most fraud cases absent the help of whistleblowers, Congress included qui tam provisions …


Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. C - Chen Deposition (Google Trademark Counsel), Terri Chen Feb 2010

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. C - Chen Deposition (Google Trademark Counsel), Terri Chen

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?


Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 28 - Email From Christopher Klipple, Christopher Klipple Sep 2009

Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 28 - Email From Christopher Klipple, Christopher Klipple

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?


Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 21 - Email From Christina Aguilar, Christina Aguilar Sep 2008

Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 21 - Email From Christina Aguilar, Christina Aguilar

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?


Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex 23 - Email From John Ramsey (Rosetta Stone Corporate Counsel), John Ramsey Apr 2008

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex 23 - Email From John Ramsey (Rosetta Stone Corporate Counsel), John Ramsey

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?


Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 20 - Email From Lena Huang, Lena Huang Sep 2007

Vol. Vi, Tab 38 - Ex. 20 - Email From Lena Huang, Lena Huang

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?


Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. 24 - Fax From Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Insurance Company May 2005

Vol. Ix, Tab 41 - Ex. 24 - Fax From Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Insurance Company

Rosetta Stone v. Google (Joint Appendix)

Exhibits from the un-sealed joint appendix for Rosetta Stone Ltd., v. Google Inc., No. 10-2007, on appeal to the 4th Circuit. Issue presented: Under the Lanham Act, does the use of trademarked terms in keyword advertising result in infringement when there is evidence of actual confusion?