Browse through the curated selection of our completed assessments to get a sense of the quality and depth of our work. Whether you need guidance, inspiration, or just want to evaluate our work, this page is your go-to resource.
What comes to the forefront in people’s minds when the word technology is brought up is the Internet. BUG, Inc. believes in that theory and wants to act upon the wave of Internet merchandising to expand the brand name and appeal internationally for their products. According to Cheeseman (2007), as technology and transportation bring nations closer together and American and foreign firms increase their global activities, international law will become even more important to governments and businesses.
Intellectual property is “intangible property that is the result of creativity” (WordNet, 2009). Within the boundaries of the United States, patents, trademarks, and copyrights protect the original owner of an idea, product, logo, or manuscript by giving the original owner the right to sell his or her property without interference from competitors. However, international laws differ, and intellectual property rights might not be enforced outside the boundaries of the United States.
The types of products designed, developed, and manufactured at BUG, Inc., vary according to use; therefore, different types of legal protection are required. Because BUG designs and manufactures electronic recording devices, the threat of original designs and inventions that are stolen exist; therefore, the company must protect the original design by filing for a United States Patent. The patent grants an inventor 20 years of protection for inventions and 14 years of protection from competition (Cheeseman, 2007).
Patents are not the only form of legal protection for intellectual property. Copyrights protect tangible writings for a longer period than patents. The Sonny Bono Copyright Term of Extension Act of 1998 granted the owner of a copyright protection from imitation for the life of the owner plus 70 years. The term for businesses was extended to 95 years. With the advent of the computer, Congress added software to the list of tangible writing protected by copyright laws (Cheeseman, 2007). Because BUG develops software, the company needs to protect its work with copyrights to all software developed.
While working for BUG, Inc., Steve, an employee from WIRETAP hacked into BUG e-mails regarding top secret products and designs. Although WIRETAP is in Canada and does not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States, corporate espionage is a punishable offense through the international courts. Intellectual property belonging to BUG, Inc., is protected by both domestic and foreign laws. Treaties signed by various countries at the Paris and Berne Conventions protect intellectual rights of companies that do business within the treaty nations (Cheeseman, 2007).
Because of the Paris Convention, patents and trademarks have international protection. Additionally, the Berne Convention places international protection on copyrights. Last, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) adds further protection to copyrights by extending protection to include software and computer programs (Cheeseman, 2007).
Steve and WIRETAP face criminal charges [Are these charges civil or criminal?] for infringement on intellectual property according to international agreements arranged in the treaties mentioned previously. Therefore, according to patent and copyright infringement laws enforced by the international treaties, BUG is entitled to recover damages and impose other legal remedies to Steve and WIRETAP (Cheeseman, 2007).
The case of Walter the security guard for BUG is an interesting case. He held Steve, an undercover agent for another company for six hours while questioning him on his integrity. During that time, Walter did threaten physical harm to Steve if he did not provide the information that Walter was looking for. Under regular conditions, Steve would be able to seek damages based on false imprisonment. Walter did hold him in a soundproof room, used threats, and kept him there until information was provided. However, under tort law there are merchant protection statutes. The possibility in this case is that Walter may have some protection from the false imprisonment allegations. The merchant protection statutes permit detainment and questioning if there are reasonable grounds for suspicion. Although Walter had plenty of proof to claim reasonable grounds for suspicion, he may lose this case. Walter’s detainment of Steve was not done for a reasonable amount of time, or in a reasonable manner. [Interesting analysis.]
BUG, Inc. is one of many companies in the United States that wants to expand into the international market via the Internet. To sell its products legally, there are many laws and guidelines to follow. It would make it easier if there were one single source for creating, interpreting, and enforcing International Law. Because this is the situation and with rare exceptions in mind, nations do need to obey laws enacted by other countries that have some people question if there is an “International Law.” Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice involves treaties … and much more. Bilateral and Unilateral treaties would be used with the requirements of BUG (Cheeseman, 2007).
Intellectual Property is a legal concept that includes trademark, and related rights. Under intellectual property law, the holder of one these abstract “properties” has certain exclusive rights to the creative work, commercial symbol, or invention that is covered by it. The Anti cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 USC §1125(D) “was intended to prevent ‘cybersquatting,’ an expression that has come to mean the bad faith, abusive registration and use of the distinctive trademarks of others as Internet domain names, with the intent to profit from the goodwill associated with those trademarks.” This applies in BUG’s situation with the domain name already purchased by a domain Pac-man. [Not sure what this means. What’s a “domain Pac-man?”] This company who buys up domain names with the intent to resell will come under fire from BUG if they take it to court. Items BUG should keep in mind are the facts of the principles of International Law. One very important point for BUG to realize is that each country has an absolute power over what transpires inside of its own borders. The Act of State Doctrine is the official written word that encompasses this law. Another is The Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (TDRP) applies to transactions in which a domain-name holder transfers or attempts to transfer a domain name to a new registrar. This applies with the fact someone whose business is eating up possibly big domain names. Any ICANN-accredited member may initiate a TDRP proceeding against another member by submitting a complaint in accordance with the selected registry operator’s supplemental rules. Judgments that do not involve damages may usually be enforced, upon recognition as final, unless internal law mandates a treaty obligation (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, 2009).
According to Cheeseman (2007), the Constitution does not vest exclusive power over foreign affairs in the federal government, but any state or local law that unduly burdens foreign commerce is unconstitutional under the Foreign Commerce Clause. If an issue makes its way to the International Court system, which each case is decided on its own merits, the courts also use their past decisions for guidance. Court decisions of national courts do not create precedent for international courts. If BUG ever seeks judicial resolution of an international dispute, there are several problems attached to it. One would be deciding which nation’s courts will hear the case and what law should be applied to the case. Jurisdiction is often a highly contested issue. Absent an agreement providing otherwise, a case involving an international dispute will be brought in the national court of the plaintiff’s home country (Cheeseman, 2007). A court must have personal jurisdiction over a defendant before it can enter a valid judgment imposing a personal obligation on the defendant.
In today’s business world there are many points to consider and achieve. [Points to achieve? Not sure what that means.] Businesses that make or sell products are responsible for ensuring that those products are safe, and do not pose a hazard to the public. BUG, Inc., had experienced vandalism and theft with the vehicles in their parking lot, located in their plant in Shady Town, USA. As the vendor was delivering products to BUG he was robbed of his wallet and electronic chips. Because the lights in the parking area were not working correctly, Bug’s liability to protect its employees from danger or harm and they have to maintain safety standards, their negligent was that the lighting in the parking lot was not working properly.
So, the theories of liability in most jurisdictions, a person’s cause of action may be based on one or more of four different theories: negligence, breach of warranty, is representation, and strict tort liability [Keep your cases (upper and lower) consistent.] (Legaldictionary.com). BUG could be held vicariously liable for this incident because there is an employee/employer relationship. [Why would it be vicarious and not directly liable?] BUG can be sued by the employee because of the liability associated with their legal relationship. But if the company can claim that the employee didn’t take the proper precautions when making the delivery, if this can be proven BUG will not be held liable. Strict liability incorporates extending the responsibility of the vendor or manufacturer to all individuals who might be injured by the product, even in the absence of fault (Legaldictionary.com). So the best argument for the employee is that BUG’s neglect in providing the proper safe working environment for its employees, the employer, or more specifically the insurance policy carried by the employer, will pay off on the liability.
When a company sells a product that is manufactured incorrectly, such as in the case of Sally DoGood, they are subject to paying damages under the tort theory of negligence. In this case, the BUG, Inc., company was negligent in manufacturing their product to its fullest safety potential because of costs. This form of negligence resulted in the injury of their customer, Sally DoGood.
Because this tort falls under strict liability, BUG, Inc., organization is liable for the injury of their customer. Monetary damages can vary depending on local state laws. However, under strict liability, all personal injuries, and property damages are recoverable. Another damage that Sally DoGood can seek after is punitive damages. This is a monetary value that can be awarded to the plaintiff if the plaintiff can prove that the injury was either intentional or the defendant acted recklessly in regards to safety. In this case, the BUG, Inc., organization did act recklessly because they jeopardized the safety of their equipment for the cost of production.
In technology today, there is constant competition and quality standards that need to be followed by businesses and employees. Business ideas and information are protected through our United States legal system, and employees and companies that illegally gain information on competitors will face the legal system and criminal or civil charges. In the same legal system, employees’ well being and safety are protected. Employees cannot be verbally harassed or threatened, regardless of their crimes. Individuals, who purchase new technology; purchase the technology with the understanding that the technology be quality and of value, and that the person is not harmed due to technology malfunction. If this occurs, employees are protected under laws designed just for this. The United States legal system is an amazing structure, and when it is tested, proves to protect the information and safety of businesses and their employees.
There are many considerations for BUG when taking a step that BUG needs to be aware of such as copyrights, employee ethical standards, and company liabilities. Without the proper awareness of these topics, BUG may not be able to make the transition they are hoping for successfully. Knowledge and good information are the keys here.
This paper is significantly longer than the maximum requirement. Most of the analysis is very good, however.
(2009). Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions. Martin H. Samson. Retrieved from
http://www.internetlibrary.com/publications/anticybsquattSamson9-05_art.cfm
Cheeseman, H. R. (2007). The Legal Environment of Business and Online Commerce: Business Ethics, E-Commerce, Regulatory, and International Issues (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. (2009). ICANN. Retrieved from http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/
Legal Dictionary. (1981-2005). Tort Liability. Retrieved from http://www.thefreedictionary.com
WordNet (2009) Intellectual Property. Retrieved December 14, 2009 from http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=intellectual+property&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=
All orders at our writing service are delivered exceptionally for research purposes.
