I've been covering politics since 2008. The anti-AI-regulation takes from the left (by no means all/most of the left; Bernie disagrees!!!) might be the most literally incomprehensible political position I've ever encountered.
The reason why we feel so confident that Judge Andrews is going to rule in $LQDA's favor after the recent order in July is because it showed that he cared about the timing of disclosures.
The crux of the debate up until this order was two-fold - did $UTHR make it clear to $LQDA in advance that they were making this common ownership argument and did they give enough evidence to support it?
$UTHR points to the fact that they cited common ownership in the last interregnum and they point to Dr. Byrd's testimony.
If Andrews agreed that that changed citation was enough then he would have not written the order that he wrote asking to know how and why the citation was changed and why $LQDA was not notified and asking for lawyer's names and sworn testimonies.
$UTHR's lawyers response was to basically throw $UTHR under the bus by saying we mixed up our files and we originally had this citation in place for a 2024 submission but then we took it out.
That means that $UTHR didn't just discover this common ownership theory last minute but had it in their possession for over a year and selectively choose not to disclose it, only accidentally disclosing it at the end when it was too late for $LQDA to take discovery and do all the normal things that one does in a patent trial when it comes to theories like this.
Judge Andrews is obsessed with rules and bringing forth arguments in an orderly manner. This is exactly what he wants to avoid.
He doesn't need to sanction the lawyers, but he can grant the rule 37 motion to strike very cleanly now. Under your own testimony, you guys knew of this argument and you choose for whatever subjective reason to not bring it forward when asked to do so by $LQDA. I am going to assume that this was an honest mistake and not an attempt to deliberately obfuscate an argument, but the point of the pre-trial process is to bring forth arguments and evidence
And even if you were allowed to bring forward this argument, you didn't clear the burden of production by just citing Dr. Byrd and not providing assignment documents.
A transgender player has been dominating France's second-tier women's basketball league, and now the WNBA question is front and center.
Julie Tétart averages 21 points and 20 rebounds this season while sweeping Player of the Year, Defensive Player of the Year and Domestic Player of the Year honors after a record-breaking campaign.
When asked whether she'd join the WNBA if a team called, Tétart responds: "I won't say no."
@Outkick
The fastest female, 100-meter sprinter in recorded history is American legend Florence Griffith Joyner. She set the world record of 10.49 seconds on July 16, 1988.
In 2026, there were over 1000 high school boys that beat this record! You read that correctly. In this year alone, there were over 1000 high school boys that beat the record of fastest woman in the world ever!
If just one of those boys, or a meager 1/10 of 1%, decided to compete as a woman, he would crush the women’s world record!
I’m not talking about a high school record or a college record or even an Olympic or professional record. I’m talking about the women’s world record that has held since 1988!
Remind me again, why you’re not supportive of women’s rights.
@FoxNews I just want to take off and land at the airport that is most convenient for my travel plans…if you change your flight because of the name of the airport, you and TDS