ISSN 0018-6694
Vol. 47, Issue 4, 2010December 23, 2010 CDT
What’s so Improper About Improper Revival? Infringement Defenses After Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd. v. International Game Technology
What’s so Improper About Improper Revival? Infringement Defenses After Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd. v. International Game Technology
Articles in Vol. 47, Issue 4, 2010
Vol. 47, Issue 4, 2010
- Prologue | The Statute of Anne: Yesterday and TodayCraig Joyce
- The Statute of Anne and the Great Abridgement SwindleRonan Deazley
- The Statute of Anne: Rhetoric and Reception in the Nineteenth CenturyCatherine Seville
- The Statute of Anne: An American MythologyOren Bracha
- Queen Anne in the Emperor's ShadowDavid Nimmer
- The Statute of Anne and Its Progeny: Variations Without a ThemeDiane Leenheer Zimmerman
- Epilogue | The Statute of Anne: Today and TomorrowCraig JoycePeter JasziMarshall LeafferTyler Ochoa
- Understanding the RAND CommitmentDoug Lichtman
- Weaseling Out of the Deal: Why Buyers Should be Able to Invoke Material Adverse Change Clauses in the Wake of a Credit CrunchDaniel Gottschalk
- The Alien Tort Statute and Customary International Law: The Judicial Albatross Hanging Around the Executive's NeckJonathan B. Lancton
- What's so Improper About Improper Revival? Infringement Defenses After <i>Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd. v. International Game Technology</i>Andrew Ward
Andrew Ward, What’s so Improper About Improper Revival? Infringement Defenses After Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd. v. International Game Technology, 47 Hou. L. Rev. (2010).