• Facets (new session)
• Description
• Metadata
• Settings
  • Rule: ActivityStreamsMapasEquivalentb3sb3sifpdbprdf-labelfacetshttp://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/dbpedia#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/opencyc#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/umbel#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/yago#http://dbpedia.org/schema/property_rules#http://www.ontologyportal.org/inference/rules/SUMO#http://www.ontologyportal.org/inference/rules/WordNet#http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#ldpoplwebskos-transurn:det:rdf:labelvirtrdf-labelvirtrdf-urlNone
    
  • Inverse Functional Properties: Disabled (fastest) Apply to subjects only Apply to objects only Apply to both subjects and objects
  • "Same As": Disabled (fastest) Apply to subjects only Apply to objects only Apply to both subjects and objects (recommended) Apply to subjects, objects and predicates (not recommended on big datasets) Apply to predicates only (special use cases only)

About: Apple v. Does     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : yago:TradeSecret106674385, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)

Type: yago:WikicatTradeSecretsyago:WikicatUnitedStatesLawsuitsyago:WikicatScandalsInTheUnitedStatesyago:Abstraction100002137yago:Act100030358yago:Case107308889yago:Communication100033020yago:DueProcess101181475yago:Event100029378yago:Gossip107223170yago:GroupAction101080366yago:Happening107283608yago:Information106634376yago:Informing107212190yago:Lawsuit101182654yago:Message106598915yago:Proceeding101184814yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100yago:Report107217924yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntityyago:Scandal107223811yago:Secret106673142yago:SpeechAct107160883yago:TradeSecret106674385 New Facet based on Instances of this Class

Apple v. Does (O'Grady v. Superior Court) was a high-profile legal proceeding in United States of America notable for bringing into question the breadth of the shield law protecting journalists from being forced to reveal their sources, and whether that law applied to online news journalists writing about corporate trade secrets. The case was also notable for the large collection of amici curiae who joined in the matter.