LandHawk helps site-finders and property developers find land and buildings that are suitable for development by harnessing the power of geospatial information

LandHawk

, a leading name in the global crypto sportsbook and casino gaming arena, is thrilled to unveil a groundbreaking collaboration with one of football's most illustrious talents, . WILLEMSTAD, Curaçao, November 29th, 2023/Chainwire/-- Duelbits Luis Suárez This partnership celebrates Suarez's remarkable legacy, including his victories in the Champions League, Copa America, and securing the Golden Boot on two occasions. Luis Suárez, affectionately known as El Pistolero, has left an indelible mark on European football, with storied tenures at Barcelona, Liverpool, Atletico Madrid, and Ajax, and is presently dazzling fans with Gremio in Brazil. A talisman for Uruguay's national team, Suarez has netted over 500 goals, earning him a place among the pantheon of football's greatest strikers. This collaboration signifies a major milestone for Duelbits, as it aligns with a sports figure who embodies the same values of excellence and innovation that have driven Duelbits to the forefront of the industry. As Duelbits continues to foster prestigious partnerships, including with the English Premier League's and , bringing Luis Suárez on board marks another strategic move in expanding its global presence. Aston Villa Argentina's national team Throughout this partnership, Suárez will champion Duelbits' campaigns, lending his image to a brand synonymous with superior quality and unmatched rewards. His professional ethos mirrors Duelbits' commitment to offering a secure, trustworthy, and leading-edge crypto sportsbook and casino experience, further solidifying the brand's identity and its resonance with a discerning global audience. Duelbits is set to amplify this alliance with an enticing welcome offer, providing new members a $100 credit to kickstart their betting journey on any desired outcome upon signing up, thereby inviting fans to not just witness, but also partake in the thrill of the game. In a statement, Luis Suárez shared his excitement about the collaboration, "Joining forces with Duelbits is a proud moment for me. It's more than a partnership; it's a shared vision of excellence and trust. I look forward to what we will achieve together." Marco Pinnisi, CEO of Duelbits, echoed Suarez's sentiments, "We are ecstatic to welcome Luis Suárez to the Duelbits family. His unparalleled achievements and our platform's promise of an exceptional betting experience are a perfect match. We're paving a new path for the future of crypto gambling together." Through this collaboration, Duelbits is poised to continue offering enthusiasts an elevated gaming experience, where innovation and top-tier entertainment converge seamlessly. About Duelbits Duelbits is a leading name in the crypto gaming industry, offering a premium platform tailored for bold and passionate cryptocurrency enthusiasts. With an exclusive library of original games, Duelbits redefines the gaming experience through innovation, personalisation, and unparalleled rewards. The platform prioritises security and trustworthiness, recognising and rewarding every player's unique journey. Our unwavering commitment is to provide the most enriching iGaming experience in the market, defined by fast payments and seamless accessibility. At Duelbits, we pride ourselves on offering the best odds, monumental bonuses, including up to a whopping 50% in Rakeback bonuses, and a uniquely personalised user experience. Positioned at the forefront of embracing cutting-edge innovations, we hold a steadfast belief in advanced technologies, AI, and cryptocurrencies. Each click is a purposeful stride towards an extraordinary adventure. | | | | | Website X Instagram Telegram YouTube d Discor Contact Head of Marketing Caroline Attard caroline.attard@duelbits.com This story was distributed as a release by Chainwire under HackerNoon’s Business Blogging Program. Learn more about the program . here

Duelbits Announces Landmark Collaboration With Football Icon Luis Suárez

BLEISTEIN v. DONALDSON LITHOGRAPHING CO. 239 Court Filing, retrieved on September 29, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 3 of 4. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here Opinion of the Court MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the court. This case comes here from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit by writ of error. Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 6, 26 Stat. 828. It is an action brought by the plaintiffs in error to recover the penalties prescribed for infringements of copyrights. Rev. Stat. §§ 4952, 4956, 4965, amended by act of March 3, 1891, c. 565, 26 Stat. 1109, and act of M arch 2, 1895, c. 194, 28 Stat. 965. The alleged infringements consisted in the copying in reduced form of three chromolithographs prepared by employes of the plaintiffs for advertisements of a circus owned by one Wallace. Each of the three contained a portrait of Wallace in the corner and lettering bearing some slight relation to the scheme of decoration, indicating the subject of the design and the fact that the reality was to be seen at the circus. One of the designs was of an ordinary ballet, one of a number of men and women, described as the Stirk family, performing on bicycles, and one of groups of men and women whitened to represent statues. The Circuit Court directed a verdict for the defendant on the ground that the chromolithographs were not within the protection of the copyright law, and this ruling was sustained by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Courier Lithographing Co. v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 104 Fed. Rep. 993. There was evidence warranting the inference that the designs belonged to the plaintiffs, they having been produced by persons employed and paid by the plaintiffs in their establishment to make those very things. Gill v. United States, 160 U. S. 426, 435; Colliery Engineer Company v. United Correspondence Schools Company, 94 Fed. Rep. 152; Carte v. Evans, 27 Fed. Rep. 861. It fairly might be found also that the copyrights were taken out in the proper names. One of them was taken out in the name of the Courier Cow pany and the other two in the names of the Courier LithograpLing Company. The former was the name of an unincorporated joint stock association formed under the laws of New York, Laws of 1894, c. 235, and made up of the plaintiffs, the other a trade variant on that name. Scribner v. Clark, 50 Fed. Rep. 473, 47 4, 475 ; S. C., sub nom. Belford v. Scribner, 144 U. S. 488. Finally, there was evidence that the pictures were copyrighted before publication. There may be a question whether the use by the defendant for Wallace was not lawful within the terms of the contract with Wallace, or a more general one as to what rights the plaintiffs reserved. But we cannot pass upon these questions as matter of law; they will be for the jury when the case is tried again, and therefore we come at once to the ground of decision in the courts below. That ground was not found in any variance between pleading and proof, such as was put forward in argument, but in the nature and purpose of the designs. We shall do no more than mention the suggestion that painting and engraving unless for a mechanical end are not among the useful arts, the progress of which Congress is empowered by the Constitution to promote. The Constitution does not limit the useful to that which satisfies immediate bodily needs. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S. 53. It is obvious also that the plaintiffs' case is not affected by the fact, if it be one, that the pictures represent actual groups-visible things. They seem from the testimony to have been composed from hints or description, not from sight of a performance. But even if they had been drawn from the life, that fact would not deprive them of protection. The opposite proposition would mean that a portrait by Velasquez or Whistler was common property because others might try their hand on the same face. Others are free to copy the original. They are not free to copy the copy. Blunt v. Patten, 2 Paine, 397, 400. See Kelly v. Morris, L. R. 1 Eq. 697; .3farris v. l5ight, L. R. 5 Ch. 279. The copy is the personal reaction of an individual upon nature. Personality always contains something unique. It expresses its singularity even in handwriting, and a very modest grade of art has in it something irreducible, which is one man's alone. That something he may copyright unless there is a restriction in the words of the act. If there is a restriction it is not to be found in the limited pretensions of these particular works. The least pretentious picture has more originality in it than directories and the like, which may be copyrighted. Drone, Copyright, 153. See Hender.so v. Tomkins, 60 Fed. Rep. 75S, 765. The amount of training required for humbler efforts than those before us is well indicated by Ruskin. "If any young person, after being taught what is, in polite circles, called 'drawing,' will try to copy the commonest piece of real work,-suppose a lithograph on the title page of a new opera air, or a woodcut in the cheapest illustrated newspaper of the day-they will find themselves entirely beaten." Elements of Drawing, 1st ed. 3. There is no reason to doubt that these prints in their ensemble and in all their details, in their design and particular combinations of figures, lines and colors, are the original work of the plaintiffs' designer. If it be necessary, there is express testimony to that effect. It would be pressing the defendant's right to the verge, if not beyond, to leave the question of originality to the jury upon the evidence in this case, as was done in Hegema v. Springer, 110 Fed. Rep. 374. We assume that the construction of Rev. Stat. § 4952, allowing a copyright to the "author, inventor, designer, or proprietor of any engraving, cut, print . . . [or] chromo" is affected by the act of 1874, c. 301, § 3, 18 Stat. 78, 79. That section provides that "in the construction of this act the words ' engraving,' ' cut' and ' print' shall be applied only to pictorial illustrations or works connected with the fine arts." We see no reason for taking the words "connected with the fine arts" as qualifying anything except the word "works," but it would not change our decision if we should assume further that they also qualified "pictorial illustrations," as the defendant contends. These chromolithographs are "pictorial illustrations." The word "illustrations" does not mean that they must illustrate the text of a book, and that the etchings of Rembrandt or Steinla's engraving of the Madonna di San Sisto could not be protected to-day if any man were able to produce them. Again, the act however construed, does not mean that ordinary posters are not good enough to be considered within its scope. The antithesis to "illustrations or works connected with the fine arts" is not works of little merit or of humble degree, or illustrations addressed to the less educated classes; it is " prints or labels designed to be used for any other articles of manufacture." Certainly works are not the less connected with the fine arts because their pictorial quality attracts the crowd and therefore gives them a real use-if use means to increase trade and to help to make money. A picture is none the less a picture and none the less a subject of copyright that it is used for an advertisement. And if pictures may be used to advertise soap, or the theatre, or monthly magazines, as they are, they may be used to advertise a circus. Of course, the ballet is as legitimate a subject for illustration as any other. A rule cannot be laid down that would excommunicate the paintings of Degas. Finally, the special adaptation of these pictures to the advertisement of the Wallace shows does not prevent a copyright. That may be a circumstance for the jury to consider in determining the extent of Mr. Wallace's rights, but it is not a bar. Moreover, on the evidence, such prints are used by less pretentious exhibitions when those for whom they were prepared have given them up. It would be a dangerous undertaking for persons trained only to the law to constitute themselves final judges of the worth of pictorial illustrations, outside of the narrowest and most obvious limits. At the one extreme some works of genius would be sure to miss appreciation. Their very novelty would make them repulsive until the public had learned the new language in which their author spoke. It may be more than doubted, for instance, whether the etchings of Goya or the paintings of Manet would have been sure of protection when seen for the first time. At the other end, copyright would be denied to pictures which appealed to a public less educated than the judge. Yet if they command the interest of any public, they have a commercial value-it would be bold to say that they have not an aesthetic and educational value-and the taste of any public is not to be treated with contempt. It is an ultimate fact for the moment, whatever may be our hopes for a change. That these pictures had their worth and their success is sufficiently shown by the desire to reproduce them without regard to the plaintiffs' rights. See Henderson v. Tomkins, 60 Fed. Rep. 758, 765. We are of opinion that there was evidence that the plaintiffs have rights entitled to the protection of the law. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed; the judgment of the Circuit Court is also reversed and the cause remanded to that court with directions to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 2023-0409 retrieved on September 29, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. tile.loc.gov

Court Upholds Copyright Protection for Circus Advertisement Prints in Landmark Decision

: Lina Khan, chair of the FTC since 2021, rose to prominent with her 2017 book "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox". In many ways, is THE big tech lawsuit to watch. Editorial Note FTC v. Amazon FTC v. Amazon Court Filing, retrieved on Sep 26, 2023, is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 2 of 34. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “the Commission”), alleges: 1. Plaintiff brings this action under Sections 5(a), 5(m)(1)(A), 13(b), 16(a), and 19 of he Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(m)(1)(A), 53(b), 57b, and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, (“ROSCA”), 15 U.S.C. § 8404, which authorize the TC to seek, and the Court to order, permanent injunctive relief, restitution, civil penalties, and other equitable relief for Defendant’s acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and Section 4 of ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 8403. SUMMARY OF CASE 2. For years, Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) has knowingly duped millions of consumers into unknowingly enrolling in its Amazon Prime service (“Nonconsensual Enrollees” or “Nonconsensual Enrollment”). Specifically, Amazon used manipulative, coercive, or deceptive user-interface designs known as “dark patterns” to trick consumers into enrolling in automatically-renewing Prime subscriptions 3. The Nonconsensual Enrollment problem was well known within Amazon. (Redacted). (Redacted). 4. In a draft memorandum (Redacted). 5. Some Amazon employees pushed the company executives responsible for Prime—including Neil Lindsay (“Lindsay”), Russell Grandinetti (“Grandinetti”) and Jamil Ghani (“Ghani”)—to address Nonconsensual Enrollment and make changes so that Amazon would not be tricking its customers. Redacted 6. (Redacted) Amazon and its leadership—including Lindsay, Grandinetti, and Ghani—slowed, avoided, and even undid user experience changes that they knew would reduce Nonconsensual Enrollment because those changes would also negatively affect Amazon’s bottom line. (Redacted) 7. For years, Amazon also knowingly complicated the cancellation process for Prime subscribers who sought to end their membership. Under significant pressure from the Commission—and aware that its practices are legally indefensible—Amazon substantially revamped its Prime cancellation process for at least some subscribers shortly before the filing of this Complaint. However, prior to that time, the primary purpose of the Prime cancellation process was not to enable subscribers to cancel, but rather to thwart them. Fittingly, Amazon named that process “Iliad,” which refers to Homer’s epic about the long, arduous Trojan War. Amazon designed the Iliad cancellation process (“Iliad Flow”) to be labyrinthine, and Amazon and its leadership—including Lindsay, Grandinetti, and Ghani—slowed or rejected user experience changes that would have made Iliad simpler for consumers because those changes adversely affected Amazon’s bottom line. 8. As with Nonconsensual Enrollment, the Iliad Flow’s complexity resulted from Amazon’s use of dark patterns—manipulative design elements that trick users into making decisions they would not otherwise have made. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 2:23-cv-00932 retrieved on September 28, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. ftc.gov

The FTC (Read: Lina Khan) Finally Sues Amazon in Landmark Antitrust Lawsuit #BreakUpBigTech

এফটিসি (পড়ুন: লিনা খান) অবশেষে অ্যামাজনের বিরুদ্ধে ল্যান্ডমার্ক অ্যান্টিট্রাস্ট মামলা #BreakUpBigTech

Die FTC (Lesen Sie: Lina Khan) verklagt Amazon schließlich in einem wegweisenden Kartellrechtsstreit #BreakUpBigTech

La FTC (Leer: Lina Khan) finalmente demanda a Amazon en una histórica demanda antimonopolio #BreakUpBigTech

La FTC (Lire : Lina Khan) poursuit enfin Amazon dans le cadre d’un procès antitrust historique #BreakUpBigTech

एफटीसी (पढ़ें: लीना खान) ने आखिरकार लैंडमार्क एंटीट्रस्ट मुकदमे में अमेज़ॅन पर मुकदमा दायर किया #BreakUpBigTech

FTC (読み: リナ・カーン) がついに画期的な独占禁止法訴訟 #BreakUpBigTech でアマゾンを告訴

FTC(읽기: Lina Khan), 마침내 랜드마크 독점 금지 소송 #BreakUpBigTech에서 Amazon을 고소

A FTC (leia: Lina Khan) finalmente processa a Amazon em um processo antitruste histórico #BreakUpBigTech

Федеральная торговая комиссия (читай: Лина Хан) наконец подала в суд на Amazon в знаковом антимонопольном иске #BreakUpBigTech

FTC (Oku: Lina Khan) Nihayet Amazon'a Önemli Antitröst Davasında Dava Açtı #BreakUpBigTech

FTC (Đọc: Lina Khan) Cuối cùng kiện Amazon trong vụ kiện chống độc quyền Landmark #BreakUpBigTech

联邦贸易委员会（阅读：Lina Khan）最终在具有里程碑意义的反垄断诉讼中起诉亚马逊#BreakUpBigTech

SEC v. Binance Court Filing, retrieved on June 5, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 15 of 69. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here BACKGROUND II. BACKGROUND ON CRYPTO ASSETS AND CRYPTO TRADING PLATFORMS E. The DAO Report 78. On July 25, 2017, the SEC issued the (the “DAO Report”), advising “those who would use … distributed ledger or blockchain-enabled means for capital raising[] to take appropriate steps to ensure compliance with the U.S. federal securities laws,” and finding that the offerings of certain crypto assets identified therein were offerings of securities. 79. The DAO Report also advised that “any entity or person engaging in the activities of an exchange must register as a national securities exchange or operate pursuant to an exemption from such registration” and “stress[ed] the obligation to comply with the registration provisions of the federal securities laws with respect to products and platforms involving emerging technologies and new investor interfaces.” The DAO Report also found that the trading platforms at issue therein “provided users with an electronic system that matched orders from multiple parties to buy and sell [certain crypto asset securities] for execution based on nondiscretionary methods” and therefore “appear to have satisfied the criteria” for being an exchange under the Exchange Act. Report of Investigation Pursuant to Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: The DAO Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 1:23-cv-01599 retrieved on September 6, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. docdroid.net

The DAO Report: SEC's Landmark Ruling on Crypto Assets and Trading Platforms

DAO রিপোর্ট: ক্রিপ্টো সম্পদ এবং ট্রেডিং প্ল্যাটফর্মের উপর SEC এর ল্যান্ডমার্ক রুলিং

Der DAO-Bericht: Das wegweisende Urteil der SEC zu Krypto-Assets und Handelsplattformen

El informe DAO: fallo histórico de la SEC sobre criptoactivos y plataformas comerciales

Le rapport DAO : décision historique de la SEC sur les actifs cryptographiques et les plateformes de négociation

डीएओ रिपोर्ट: क्रिप्टो एसेट्स और ट्रेडिंग प्लेटफॉर्म पर एसईसी का ऐतिहासिक फैसला

DAOレポート：暗号資産と取引プラットフォームに関するSECの画期的な判決

DAO 보고서: 암호화폐 자산 및 거래 플랫폼에 대한 SEC의 획기적인 판결

O Relatório DAO: Decisão histórica da SEC sobre ativos criptográficos e plataformas de negociação

Отчет DAO: знаковое решение SEC в отношении криптоактивов и торговых платформ

DAO Raporu: SEC'in Kripto Varlıklar ve Ticaret Platformlarına İlişkin Dönüm Noktası Kararı

Báo cáo DAO: Phán quyết mang tính bước ngoặt của SEC về tài sản tiền điện tử và nền tảng giao dịch

DAO 报告：SEC 对加密资产和交易平台的里程碑式裁决

Google's $3 Billion Dollar Acquisition of DoubleClick in 2008 cited in Landmark Lawsuit

La adquisición de DoubleClick por 3 mil millones de dólares por parte de Google en 2008 citada en una demanda de Landmark

L'acquisition de DoubleClick par Google pour 3 milliards de dollars en 2008 citée dans un procès historique

2008 में Google द्वारा डबलक्लिक के $3 बिलियन डॉलर के अधिग्रहण का उल्लेख लैंडमार्क मुकदमे में किया गया है

2008年のGoogleによる30億ドルでのDoubleClick買収がランドマーク訴訟で引用される

Aquisição da DoubleClick por US$ 3 bilhões pelo Google em 2008 citada em processo Landmark

Thương vụ mua lại DoubleClick trị giá 3 tỷ đô la của Google vào năm 2008 được trích dẫn trong Vụ kiện Landmark

谷歌 2008 年斥资 30 亿美元收购 DoubleClick 被引为里程碑式诉讼

USA v. Google LLC Court Filing, retrieved on January 24, 2023, is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is the table of links with all parts. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here Case Number: 1:23-cv-00108 Plaintiff: USA Defendant: Google LLC Filing Date: January 24, 2023 Location: US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia - Alexandria Division TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. NATURE OF THIS ACTION III. DISPLAY ADVERTISING TRANSACTIONS A. How Ad Tech Tools Work B. How Ad Tech Intermediaries Get Paid C. How Publishers and Advertisers Select Ad Tech Tools D. Why Scale and the Resulting Network Effects are Necessary to Compete in Ad Tech E. How Multi-Homing Enables Competition in the Ad Tech Stack IV. GOOGLE’S SCHEME TO DOMINATE THE AD TECH STACK A. Google Buys Control of the Key Tools that Link Publishers and Advertisers B. Google Uses Its Acquisitions and Position Across the Ad Tech Stack to Lock Out Rivals and Control Each Key Ad Tech Tool Google Thwarts Fair Competition by Making Its Google Ads’ Advertiser Demand Exclusive to Its Own Ad Exchange, AdX In Turn, Google Makes Its Ad Exchange’s Real-Time Bids Exclusive to Its Publisher Ad Server Finally, Google Uses Its Control of Publisher Inventory to Force More Valuable Transactions Through Its Ad Exchange Google’s Dominance Across the Ad Tech Stack Gives It the Unique Ability to Manipulate Auctions to Protect Its Position, Hinder Rivals, and Work Against Its Own Customers’ Interests a) Google Works Against the Interests of Its Google Ads’ Customers By Submitting Two Bids Into AdX Auctions b) Google Manipulates Its Fees to Keep More High-Value Impressions Out of the Hands of Rivals C. Google Buys and Kills a Burgeoning Competitor and Then Tightens the Screws Google Extinguishes AdMeld’s Potential Threat Google Doubles Down on Preventing Rival Publisher Ad Servers from Accessing AdX and Google Ads’ Demand Google Manipulates Google Ads’ Bidding Strategy to Block Publisher Partnerships with Rivals D. Google Responds to the Threat of Header Bidding by Further Excluding Rivals and Reinforcing Its Dominance The Industry Attempts to Rebel Against Google’s Exclusionary Practices Google Blunts Header Bidding By “Drying Out” the Competition a. Google Develops So-Called Open Bidding, Its Own Google Friendly Version of Header Bidding To Preserve Its Control Over the Sale of Publisher Inventory b) Google Further Stunts Header Bidding by Working to Bring Facebook and Amazon into Its Open Bidding Fold. c) Google Manipulates Its Publisher Fees Using Dynamic Revenue Sharing in Order to Route More Transactions Through Its Ad Exchange and Deny Scale to Rival Ad Exchanges Using Header Bidding d) Google Launches Project Poirot to Manipulate Its Advertisers’ Spend to “Dry Out” and Deny Scale to Rival Ad Exchanges That Use Header Bidding e) Google Imposes So-Called Unified Pricing Rules to Deprive Publishers of Control and Force More Transactions Through Google’s Ad Exchange f) Google Outright Blocks the Use of Standard Header Bidding on Accelerated Mobile Pages g) Google Replaces Its Last Look Preference from Dynamic Allocation with an Algorithmic Advantage and Degrades Data Available to Publishers V. ANTICOMPETITIVE EFFECTS VI. RELEVANT MARKETS A. Geographic Markets B. Product Markets Publisher Ad Servers Ad Exchanges Advertiser Ad Networks VII. JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND COMMERCE VIII. VIOLATIONS ALLEGED First Claim for Relief: Monopolization of the Publisher Ad Server Market in Violation of Sherman Act § 2 Second Claim for Relief: Monopolization of the Ad Exchange Market in Violation of Sherman Act § 2 Second Claim for Relief, in the Alternative: Attempted Monopolization of the Ad Exchange Market in Violation of Sherman Act § 2 Third Claim for Relief: Monopolization of the Advertiser Ad Network Market in Violation of Sherman Act § 2 Fourth Claim for Relief: Unlawful Tying in Violation of Sherman Act §§ 1 and 2 Fifth Claim for Relief: Damages Incurred by the United States by Reason of Google’s Violations of the Antitrust Laws, 15 U.S.C. § 15a IX. REQUEST FOR RELIEF X. DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 1:23-cv-00108 retrieved on September 8, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. justice.gov

US v. Google - a Breakdown of the Landmark Monopoly Case

Estados Unidos contra Google: un desglose del caso Landmark Monopoly

États-Unis contre Google - une analyse de l'affaire du monopole historique

यूएस बनाम गूगल - ऐतिहासिक एकाधिकार मामले का विश्लेषण

米国対グーグル - 画期的な独占事件の内訳

EUA x Google – uma análise do caso de monopólio histórico

Hoa Kỳ kiện Google - Phân tích vụ án độc quyền mang tính bước ngoặt

美国诉谷歌——具有里程碑意义的垄断案的破裂

In a groundbreaking ruling that is sending shockwaves through the cryptocurrency world, United States District Judge Analisa Torres declared that XRP, the digital asset at the center of a high-stakes legal battle between Ripple and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), is not a security. With the gavel’s resounding strike, Judge Torres shattered expectations, revealing a verdict that will undoubtedly shape the future of the crypto landscape. While the ruling brings newfound clarity to XRP’s legal status, it also raises intriguing questions about the implications for Ripple, the broader crypto industry, and individual investors. The reverberations of this decision have already ignited a surge in XRP’s value, leaving social media ablaze with speculation and the entire cryptocurrency market experiencing a significant uptick. As we delve into the ramifications of this landmark case, it becomes increasingly evident that Ripple’s victory carries far-reaching consequences that extend well beyond its own corporate interests. The Official Ruling On July 13th, United States District Judge Analisa Torres officially ruled that XRP is not a security. US Judge Torres ruled that XRP sold on exchanges “programmatically” to public buyers “did not constitute the offer and sale of investment contracts”. The ruling came down to the third part of the in which the Judge determined that programmatic buyers could not reasonably expect a profit, or an increased value to their investment. Howey test However, the US Judge did rule that “Ripple’s Institutional Sales of XRP constituted the unregistered offer and sale of investment contracts in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act.” The court found that Ripple sold $728.9 million of XRP directly to certain Institutional Buyers in written contracts. Judge Torres determined that these direct sales were made by investors who “would have purchased XRP with the expectation that they would derive profits from Ripple’s efforts.” Here is a direct link to the official ruling by US District Judge Analisa Torres: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.551082/gov.uscourts.nysd.551082.874.0.pdf “Having considered the economic reality of the Programmatic Sales, the Court concludes that the undisputed record does not establish the third Howey prong. Whereas the Institutional Buyers reasonably expected that Ripple would use the capital it received from its sales to improve the XRP ecosystem and thereby increase the price of XRP. Programmatic Buyers could not reasonably expect the same. Indeed, Ripple’s Programmatic Sales were blind bid/ask transactions, and Programmatic Buyers could not have known if their payments of money went to Ripple, or any other seller of XRP. Since 2017, Ripple’s Programmatic Sales represented less than 1% of the global XRP trading volume. Therefore, the vast majority of individuals who purchased XRP from digital asset exchanges did not invest their money in Ripple at all. An Institutional Buyer knowingly purchased XRP directly from Ripple pursuant to a contract, but the economic reality is that a Programmatic Buyer stood in the same shoes as a secondary market purchaser who did not know to whom or what it was paying its money.” - United States District Judge Analisa Torres What’s Next? Unsurprisingly, XRP has exploded for a 30% gain in the short time since the news dropped. Social media is going wild with hype, and all cryptocurrencies seem to be experiencing gains as well. Many have speculated about what would happen after a Ripple victory in this landmark case, but now we are living it, and it will be exciting to see what actually happens from here on out. Personally, I think this was an extremely important legal victory for Ripple, as well as the rest of the crypto industry and even individuals like us. I want to take a moment here to thank Ripple for taking on the SEC in a fight and scoring a huge win. What are your thoughts on this news? How high will XRP rise? What does this mean for the world of cryptocurrency? Check out my Socials: https://linktr.ee/zerorequiem0x Also published here

Ripple Wins Landmark Legal Battle: XRP Is Officially Not a Security

রিপল ল্যান্ডমার্ক আইনি যুদ্ধে জিতেছে: XRP আনুষ্ঠানিকভাবে একটি নিরাপত্তা নয়

Ripple gewinnt bahnbrechenden Rechtsstreit: XRP ist offiziell kein Wertpapier

Ripple gana una histórica batalla legal: XRP oficialmente no es un valor

Ripple remporte une bataille juridique historique : le XRP n'est officiellement pas une sécurité

रिपल ने ऐतिहासिक कानूनी लड़ाई जीती: एक्सआरपी आधिकारिक तौर पर कोई सुरक्षा नहीं है

リップルが画期的な法廷闘争に勝利：XRPは正式に有価証券ではない

Ripple, 획기적인 법적 싸움에서 승리: XRP는 공식적으로 증권이 아닙니다.

Ripple vence batalha legal histórica: XRP não é oficialmente um título

Ripple Önemli Yasal Mücadeleyi Kazandı: XRP Resmi Olarak Bir Menkul Kıymet Değil

Ripple chiến thắng trong trận chiến pháp lý mang tính bước ngoặt: XRP chính thức không phải là chứng khoán

Ripple 赢得了具有里程碑意义的法律诉讼：XRP 正式不是一种证券

Hey Hackers! On April 24th, announced, via , that they have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which would compel the to respond to a filed by Coinbase in July of 2022. Coinbase blog post SEC rulemaking petition This rulemaking petition was filed almost a year ago without any answer, and it simply requested that the SEC “propose and adopt rules to govern the regulation of securities that are offered and traded via digitally native methods, including potential rules to identify which digital assets are securities”. Coinbase has reached out multiple times to the SEC for an answer, but all they received was a , notifying the exchange of impending charges or enforcement actions. Wells Notice Coinbase’s Chief Legal Officer, Paul Grewal, took to to let Coinbase customers know about the lawsuit. Twitter Here is a direct link to the lawsuit filed by Coinbase in federal court: https://assets.ctfassets.net/c5bd0wqjc7v0/5PWsXaPsqQ61gA9wlFWKEX/d1d3a27d35687082565770589ef9a3ac/Coinbase_-_Mandamus_Petition__TO_FILE_.pdf “Coinbase does not take any litigation lightly, especially when it relates to one of our regulators. Regulatory clarity is overdue for our industry. Yet Coinbase and other crypto companies are facing potential regulatory enforcement actions from the SEC, even though we have not been told how the SEC believes the law applies to our business. The rulemaking process is a critical step to giving the public notice about what activities they can and cannot engage in. So until the crypto industry gets that clarity, we will continue to take every step available to us to seek it, which includes today’s filing. We also remain available to the SEC and all of our regulators for dialogue any time on these issues.” - , Chief Legal Officer of Coinbase Paul Grewal As a way to drum up support for regulatory clarity, Coinbase is currently offering a to the crypto community. free NFT mint The “Stand with Crypto” commemorative Shield NFT is “a symbol of unity for the crypto community seeking sensible crypto policy”. The NFT is free, but it will actually cost 0.000777 ETH to mint it. According to Coinbase, all minting fees will be donated to “vetted organizations through a Crypto Advocacy Round with Gitcoin”. Please keep in mind that this is supposed to be a commemorative NFT, and Coinbase states that their is no intended value or utility to the NFT. We have not seen too many cryptocurrency companies take the fight to the regulatory agencies, like the SEC, so I am quite keen to see what happens as a result of this course of action. This move by Coinbase might very well motivate other cryptocurrency companies to stop playing defense and start being proactive. What are your thoughts on this news? Is this a smart move for Coinbase to sue the SEC? What do you think this could lead to? Did you mint the free NFT? Let me know in the comments below! Check out my Socials: https://linktr.ee/zerorequiem0x See ya! :)

This Landmark Lawsuit Will Establish Regulatory Clarity for Digital Assets

Esta demanda histórica establecerá claridad regulatoria para los activos digitales

Ce procès historique établira la clarté réglementaire pour les actifs numériques

यह मील का पत्थर मुकदमा डिजिटल संपत्तियों के लिए नियामक स्पष्टता स्थापित करेगा

この画期的な訴訟は、デジタル資産の規制を明確にする

Este processo histórico estabelecerá clareza regulatória para ativos digitais

Vụ kiện mang tính bước ngoặt này sẽ thiết lập sự rõ ràng về quy định đối với tài sản kỹ thuật số

这一具有里程碑意义的诉讼将为数字资产建立明确的监管

LANDHAWK

landhawk.uk

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

LANDHAWK

EVERGREEN INDEX #5841

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

LandHawk WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

LANDHAWK

landhawk.uk

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

LANDHAWK

EVERGREEN INDEX #5841

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT LANDHAWK

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

LandHawk WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!