Nonostante il possibile sciopero dei mezzi di trasporto (che, in ogni caso, a Milano dovrebbe aver inizio a partire dalle ore 8.45 della mattina), la lezione di Informatica Giuridica del prossimo venerdì 1 aprile 2011, si svolgerà regolarmente dalle ore 8.30 alle ore 10.30, in aula V2.
Al fine di far fronte alle richieste ed esigenze degli studenti, onde evitare sovrapposzioni con il corso di Programmazione II, L’ORARIO DELLE LEZIONI DEL VENERDI’ E’ STATO MODIFICATO. A far data dal prossimo 25 marzo 2011, e sino alla fine del corso, le lezioni di Informatica Giuridica del venerdì osserveranno il seguente orario:
venerdì 8.30 – 10.30 Aula V2 (via Venezian)
Il corso di INFORMATICA GIURIDICA (F2X) inizierà regolarmente il prossimo LUNEDI’ 21 MARZO 2011, alle ORE 10.30, in AULA V9 (via Venezian).
Le lezioni osserveranno il seguente calendario:
(dal 21 marzo 2011 al 10 giugno 2011)
lunedì 10.30 – 12.30 Aula V9 (via Venezian)
venerdì 8.30 – 10.30 Aula V2 (via Venezian) [aggiornato]
Apple filed for the trademark shortly after the launch of the iPhone App Store in July 2008, describing the App Store as “retail store services featuring computer software provided via the internet and other computer and electronic communication networks; Retail store services featuring computer software for use on handheld mobile digital electronic devices and other consumer electronics.”
On Monday, Microsoft challenged Apple’s application by filing a motion for a summary judgment that would deny Apple the trademark, PC World reports. According to the filing, the Redmond, Wash., software giant objects to the trademark on the “grounds that ‘app store’ is generic for retail store services featuring apps and unregistrable for ancillary services such as searching for and downloading apps from such stores.”
The filing alleges that “undisputed facts” establish that ‘app store’ is generic for retail store services featuring apps: “‘App’ is a common generic name for the goods offered at Apple’s store, as shown in dictionary definitions and by widespread use by Apple and others,” and “‘Store’ is generic for the ‘retail store services’ for which Apple seeks registration, and indeed, Apple refers to its ‘App Store’ as a store.”
The motion goes on to cite a recent quote from Apple’s own Steve Jobs as evidence of the term’s use as a generic name. “In addition to Google’s own app marketplace, Amazon, Verizon and Vodafone have all announced that they are creating their own app stores for Android,” the filing quotes Jobs as having said. “There will be at least four app stores on Android which customers must search through to find the app they want and developers will need to work to distribute their apps and get paid.”
According to Microsoft, Apple has unfairly prevented other companies from referring to their application retail stores as app stores. “Microsoft would like the ability to use ‘app store’ to fairly describe its own retail store services for apps, but Apple asserts that such uses are infringements of its rights and it has sent demand letters to companies using ‘App Store’ in their names,” the motion reads. “Apple’s demands have apparently caused some competitors to change their use to ‘Application Store’ or ‘App Marketplace.’
The High Court in Cardiff heard the Twitter libel case between two councillors.
A councillor is to pay £3,000 and costs to a political rival for posting a libellous comment on Twitter. Caerphilly county councillor Colin Elsbury had claimed that Eddie Talbot had been removed from a polling station by police during a by-election in 2009. Town councillor Mr Talbot said the untrue claim left him open to ridicule.
Mr Elsbury agreed to pay compensation and legal costs and to publish an apology via Twitter, the High Court in Cardiff heard.
Mr Talbot was a Caerphilly town councillor seeking election to the county council as an independent in the by-election held in Caerphilly’s St Martin’s ward in June 2009. Mr Elsbury, the Plaid Cymru candidate and eventual winner, wrote on his Twitter page on the day of the poll: “It’s not in our nature to deride our opponents however Eddie Talbot had to be removed by the Police from a polling station.”
Mr Talbot’s solicitor Nigel Jones told the court that the implication of the Twitter statement was that his client had been forcibly removed for criminal or disreputable conduct, adding that the allegation was completely untrue and defamatory. The man targeted by the tweet – who came second in the closely-fought six way by-election – says the statement left him open to ridicule.
The High Court heard that Mr Elsbury had agreed to pay Mr Talbot £3,000 in compensation, to publish an apology on his Twitter site, and pay legal costs, understood to be substantial.