Remove about policies plain-language
article thumbnail

adult venue's insurer did not successfully exclude ads from ad injury coverage

43(B)log

If policy terms are “ambiguous or capable of more than one reasonable meaning, the policy will be strictly construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer.” The problem was that the policy and the exclusion were “clearly worded, specific, and directly contradictory to each other.

article thumbnail

Government Rejection of Key Senate Bill C-11 Amendment Reveals Its True Intent: Retain Power to Regulate User Content

Michael Geist

In doing so, he has left no doubt about the government’s true intent with Bill C-11: retain power and flexibility to regulate user content. But regardless of the upcoming legislative steps, the government has left no doubt about its position.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Federal Circuit Hears Case on Whether an AI-Generated Invention Is Patentable

IP Intelligence

The court based its decision on the plain language of the statute and prior Federal Circuit decisions that considered inventorship in different contexts. The court declined to consider any policy arguments, reasoning that such issues should be left to Congress. Any policy arguments counseling otherwise are simply irrelevant.

article thumbnail

Federal Circuit Hears Case on Whether an AI-Generated Invention Is Patentable

LexBlog IP

The court based its decision on the plain language of the statute and prior Federal Circuit decisions that considered inventorship in different contexts. The court declined to consider any policy arguments, reasoning that such issues should be left to Congress. Any policy arguments counseling otherwise are simply irrelevant.

article thumbnail

To No One’s Surprise, FOSTA Is Confounding Judges–J.B. v. G6

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This is the statutory language (from Section 230(e)(5)(A))at issue: Section 230(c)(1) does not apply to “any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 ” (emphasis added). Prior courts have split on this question.

Blogging 116
article thumbnail

Clarifying the Clarification of the Clarification: Why Yet Another Upcoming “Clarification” from CRTC Chair Ian Scott Demonstrates the Risks of Bill C-11 and Government Interference

Michael Geist

Scott’s adventure with Bill C-11 started with an appearance before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on May 18 th , when he was asked about user content regulation by MP Rachael Thomas: Thomas: So all these individuals are individual users creating content. What did you mean by the term “regulate” at that time?

article thumbnail

Oops, He Did It Again: CRTC Chair Ian Scott Tries to Walk Back Bill C-11 Comments, But Officials Confirm Power to Regulate User Content is in the Bill

Michael Geist

There is a reason the government and those groups speak of Schitt’s Creek and not Gotta Love Trump (both Cancon) and cat videos rather than Brousseau (who goes by ResilientInuk) as they seek to diminish the value of digital creators and avoid hard questions about Cancon. . But then Simons asked directly about the interpretation of Section 4.2