Luxist Web Search

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Kronos Incorporated - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronos_Incorporated

    Kronos Incorporated corporate headquarters in Lowell, MA. Kronos was founded in 1977 by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Simon Business School alumnus Mark S. Ain. [4] Under Mark Ain's leadership, Kronos sustained one of the longest records of growth and profitability as a public company in software industry history.

  3. Microsoft Corp. v. Lindows.com, Inc. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows...

    Microsoft v. Lindows. Microsoft v. Lindows.com, Inc. was a court case brought by Microsoft against Lindows, Inc in December 2001, claiming that the name "Lindows" was a violation of its trademark "Windows." After two and a half years of court battles, Microsoft paid US$ 20 million for the Lindows trademark, and Lindows Inc. became Linspire Inc.

  4. UKG - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKG

    The company was founded in April 2020 as a result of the merger of Ultimate Software and Kronos Incorporated. [3] Former Kronos CEO Aron Ain was the CEO and chairperson of the combined company until July 1, 2022, when he stepped down as CEO to become Executive Chairperson. [4] On February 20, 2020, Ultimate Software and Kronos Incorporated ...

  5. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSR_International_Co._v...

    Teleflex sued KSR International, claiming that one of KSR's products infringed Teleflex's patent [2] on connecting an adjustable vehicle control pedal to an electronic throttle control. KSR argued that the combination of the two elements was obvious, and the claim was therefore not patentable. The district court ruled in favor of KSR, [3] but ...

  6. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spokeo,_Inc._v._Robins

    Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court vacated and remanded a ruling by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the basis that the Ninth Circuit had not properly determined whether the plaintiff has suffered an "injury-in-fact" when analyzing whether he had standing to bring his case in federal court. [1]

  7. Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamex_Operations_West...

    Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court and Charles Lee, Real Party in Interest, 4 Cal.5th 903 (Cal. 2018) was a landmark case handed down by the California Supreme Court on April 30, 2018. A class of drivers for a same-day delivery company, Dynamex, claimed that they were misclassified as independent contractors and thus unlawfully deprived of ...

  8. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v...

    Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994), [1] was a copyright infringement lawsuit in which Apple Computer, Inc. (now Apple Inc.) sought to prevent Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements that were similar to those in Apple's Lisa and Macintosh operating systems. [2]

  9. Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc...

    Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, often shortened to Verizon v. Trinko, 540 U.S. 398 (2004), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in the field of Antitrust law. It held that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 had not modified the framework of the Sherman Act, preserving claims that satisfy ...