Modern AI (artificial intelligence) involves sophisticated algorithms and massive computing power. AI has been used to solve numerous problems, and it seems AI's only limit is human creativity. Despite its successes, however, no AI has reached sentience (or even so-called "strong" AI), despite claims that a Google employee recently made regarding LaMDA. We are a ways away from HAL 9000, but even so, weak AI is powering numerous industries and helping researchers, scientists, and others develop groundbreaking and novel technologies.
In a petition for review of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims' order setting an effective date for Petitioner's receipt of disability benefits, the petition is denied where an earlier decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs implicitly denied Petitioner's informal claim that his heart condition was connected to his military service. Read the full decision in Adams v. Shinseki, No. 2008-7162. Marshall O. Potter, Jr., of Vienna, Virginia, argued for claimant-appellant.
Dr. Dre, the rap star, sued to block a trademark by Dr. Drai, a gynecologist. Dr. Draion Bruch, who goes by Dr. Drai, said he uses his short name for business purposes. Dr. Dre, whose real name is Andre Young, said the trademark would confuse people. The Patent and Trademark Office was not confused, however, and ruled against the music man in Young v. Burch. But what is mind-blowing, how come the highest paid doctor is a rapper? Doctor, Doctor How rich is Dr. Dre?
In a dispute involving a request for a tax refund, Court of Federal Claims' judgment is affirmed where the government's interpretation of the law is entitled to deference as its denial of plaintiff's refund claim on grounds that the assessment period under 26 U.S.C. sec. 6501 had expired was reasonable and not inconsistent with any prior interpretation that was entitled to deference. Read Abbott Labs. v. US, No.
In a patent infringement case involving a method for detecting fraudulent bank checks, district court's dismissal of certain counts of plaintiff's suit is affirmed as the allegedly infringing activity was for the United States and with its authorization and consent and thus could only be pursued in the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. section 1498(a). Read Advanced Software Design Corp. v. Fed. Reserve Bank of St. Louis, No.
More Recent News
Greedy AssociatesProfessor Claims Age Is Not Just a Number in Discrimination Case
Practice of LawStudy Suggests Chatbots Could Lessen Legal Chores
Greedy AssociatesNew Survey Says Mothers Still Facing Burdens In Legal Practice