Recently, the Supreme Court justices have taken quite a beating when it comes to their technical aptitude. “How can they be expected to weight issues at the bleeding edge of law and technology,” it’s been asked, “when they don’t even understand the basics of how some stuff works?” Well, some of the justices may or not may know how to use a smartphone, but they made the right decision in a key ruling on them.
When you look around, it’s difficult to find anything but negative and dramatic reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling that, when citing religious reasons, closely-held businesses do not have to abide by the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. But upon closer inspection, maybe there’s something more to Burwell v. Hobby Lobby—that perhaps it’s a nuanced and limited decision that doesn’t spell doom?
The NLRB v. Noel Canning case is one many in the employment law community have had their eye on for a very long time. Though the NLRB has since figured out its authority issues, the impact of whether or not President Obama’s recess appointments to the Board were legal was still plenty large.
We’ve talked about it before on LXBN TV: widespread use of drones is right around the corner. But for as many uses as these drones stand to have, not all of them are good—and that includes the potential threat they could pose to the threat of trade secrets.
In one of the biggest Supreme Court cases this term, the justices ruled against the internet streaming startup and stated that it had violated copyright law by streaming broadcasters’ content without permission. In the leadup to this case, some had argued that a ruling for broadcasters could spell doom for innovation in the television industry. But is that really the case?