Week 8 EOC: Questions

Questions:

1.       When a executor bilateral contract is made verbally, will it hold up in court? Or must you have something in writing? What makes it voidable?

2.       Often times a job will require new hires to sign a waiver form releasing any and all rights to sue the company in court, instead having to go to mitigation. Are you required by law to sign that form, and if you chose not to, can they legally refuse to hire you?

3.       What is the best way to formulate or draw up a contract?

4.       If I own a business and a shipment of merchandise arrives late more than once, can I sue for missed profits?

5.       During a job interview, if the employer tells the person being interviewed that they will not be hired based on appearance (hair color, weight, etc.) or body modifications (piercings or tattoos), is it technically discrimination?

6.       When is it better to have partners in your business, rather than having a sole proprietorship? What about a partnership?

7.       When hiring potential employees, how far can you go when choosing to look up personal information, and when can you ask for drug testing?

8.       Is it illegal to hire unauthorized workers, yet it seems to happen all the time. Are laws becoming more lax due to increasing numbers of illegals residing in this country?

9.       When opening your own business with outside investor capital, is it best to go with an LLC or an S corporation (assuming you are not using any “angel investors”)?

10.   In the instance of libel, how far can you take a defamation case? Is it even worth perusing legal action against someone who is defaming you say, on a popular internet website?

Week 8 EOC: Bratz Brawl

The company MGA has been involved in a legal battle with Mattel, the company who created and owns the rights to Barbie. It all revolved around someone named Carter Bryant, who was employed at Mattel during the time he created the Bratz dolls. It seems so cut and dry. If this guy was working at Mattel during the time he created the dolls, then he must have stole information, ideas, and other things while creating them, right? Money should go to Mattel. Not so fast. Bryant claims that it was all his idea, and that he owns the rights to the “gig eyes, pouty lips” look of the dolls. As quoted from an article by Tasmin McMahon from Maclean's (http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/03/14/at-long-last-a-doll-detente/) “With their Angelina Jolie lips, bedroom eyes and killer wardrobes, Bratz dolls have shaken up the toy industry, capturing about 35 per cent of the fashion doll market since their debut in 2001. Barbie’s share, meanwhile, has fallen from a virtual monopoly to just over half.” Losing market share is a quick way for a company to go under. Also, Mattel is very strict about licensing their name, and stolen intellectual property. Plus, they were probably just pissed off about the fact that one of their employees “turned” on them, and instead of going through Mattel to promote his new product, he branched out on his own in an attempt to make more money.

After the initial trial, Mattel was awarded money. But MGA had the case overturned and counter-sued. They won, and were awarded $309 million, including $137 million in legal fees. Adding in Mattel's legal fees it paid to fight MGA, the total was nearly $700 million. Naturally, Mattel was not going to take that kind of loss lying down. A Los Angeles Daily News article by Muhammed El-Hasan (http://www.dailynews.com/business/20130124/bratz-mattel-both-claim-legal-wins) states, “Mattel won a partial victory Thursday when a federal appeals court tossed out $172 million in damages the toy giant had been ordered to pay to the maker of Bratz dolls.

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals vacated an April 2011 jury verdict that favored MGA Entertainment in a counter-suit claiming that El Segundo-based Mattel Inc. stole trade secrets."

Thursday's appeals court decision was based on a technicality, that Van Nuys-based MGA's trade-secrets counter-suit should not have been tried by the jury because it was not sufficiently relevant to Mattel's suit.” So both parties have pretty much lost out, because neither one has really even won anything, right? Well, according to an article on Tech Dirt by Tim Cushing (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121019/17344420768/its-finally-over-8-years-mattel-vs-bratz-no-ones-getting-paid-lawyers.shtml ) “But MGA gets the last laugh. The Ninth Circuit left untouched $137 million in attorney fees and costs awarded to MGA for defending against Mattel's copyright claims.”

Week 7 EOC: Lawyers

Melissa L. Waite-3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1600 Las Vegas, NV 89169. 702-699-750

Yvette R. Freedman- 830 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Las Vegas, NV 89101-6723 702-475-3437

Anthony Ciulla- 720 S. Fourth Street, Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89101 702-382-6911

Airene Williamson-1060 Wigwam Parkway, Henderson, NV 89074 702-823-3311

P. Sterling Kerr- 2450 Saint Rose Parkway, Suite 250, Henderson, NV 89074 702-608-0835

Adam McMillen-10000 West Charleston Blvd., Suite 240 Las Vegas, NV 89135 775-324-4100

Kelly G. Watson- 10000 West Charleston Blvd., Suite 240 Las Vegas, NV 89135  775-324-4100

W. West Allen-3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 600, Las Vegas, NV 89169 702-949-8200

Peter H. Ajemian- 3773 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 400N Las Vegas, NV 89169 702-792-3773

Jennifer Ko Craft- 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, 9th Floor Las Vegas, NV 89169 702-796-5555

Week 6 EOC: Supreme Court Prayer

To be required to sit through a prayer in order to be allowed to attend a Town Board meeting in Greece, New York is something that seems out of the past. There has been prior controversy over this issue, just in different settings. There has been some difficulty along the way as far as how to work something like prayer into political/public settings. To take a snippet from an online New York Times article (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-prayer-20131107,0,4489674.story#axzz2jzGHdCpZ), “The justices have struggled for decades to come up with a coherent set of rules for prayers conducted at government forums. Past decisions have allowed public bodies, including Congress, state legislatures and city councils, to open their meetings with prayers, but the justices have also ruled that public officials may not take actions that appear to endorse a specific set of religious beliefs.” This is a very volatile topic, and a sensitive one as well. People get very emotional when dealing with belief. Forcing people to have to pray to a religion or God they do not believe in can ostracize, and created a “bully” type of environment. An article from CNN Politics (http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/us/supreme-court-board-meeting-prayers/) stated, “...But Justice Sonia Sotomayor worried about the effect on local citizens who choose not to stand and bow their heads when asked during a public prayer. 'You think any of those people wouldn't feel coerced to stand?'”

Oddly enough, most would think, “there is no way that our government or party in power would ever support this!” But you would be wrong. It had been decided a while ago that prayer is what our very country was founded on. To quote an ABC News article

(http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/supreme-court-hears-case-legislative-prayer-20799734),

“Greece is being backed by the Obama administration and many social and religious conservative groups in arguing that the court settled this issue 30 years ago when it held that an opening prayer is part of the nation's fabric and not a violation of the First Amendment.”

Do I personally believe in mixing religion and state? No, not really. I think there is nothing wrong with having a “moment” if you will, before an official meeting or a class, if the situation is appropriate or calls for it. But I am sure there are ways in which something could be written that can apply to every belief system out there. Something that would not offend anyone, and still relates back to an emphasis on coming together out of respect for this country, not one particular faith.

Week 5 EOC: Legal Issues Surrounding The Internet

There are many issues surrounding the invention of the internet we have to be aware of after its invention, and now, explosive expansion. The legal issues I have decided to discuss are domain name issues, free speech, and spam.

As far as domain name issues are concerned, many issues arise from something called cybersquatting.

According to the World Intellectual Property Organization or WIPO (http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/studies/publications/domain_names.htm), “...which involves the per-emptive registration of trademarks by third parties as domain names. Cybersquatters exploit the first-come, first-served nature of the domain name registration system to register names of trademarks, famous people or businesses with which they have no connection.... As the holders of these registrations, cybersquatters often then put the domain names up for auction, or offer them for sale directly to the company or person involved, at prices far beyond the cost of registration. Alternatively, they often keep the registration and use the good name of the person or business associated with that domain name to attract business for their own sites.” This is deemed an unfair practice, and there have been many disputes over this. That is why WIPO created the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, which permits complainants to file a case with a resolution service provider.

The issue of free speech has been brought up a few times in class. The most prominent example that sticks out in my mind being “First Monday In October.” But that had to do with porn on a film basis. This example has to do with it on the internet. The first case addressing the issue was Reno vs. American Civil Liberties Union. This attempt by Janet Reno to go against the ACLU in an attempt to protect minors from pornographic material. On a website for Berkeley Students (http://courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i206/f97/GroupH/privacy.html), it states that, “The Supreme Court found the Communications Decency Act to be unconstitutional because the expressions "

'transmissions' and 'patently offensive display' were so vague as to abridge First Amendment freedom of speech guarantees. Striking about the decision is the fact that the entire court found the statute unconstitutional; only O'Connor and Rhenquist did not join the majority opinion, yet wrote a concurring opinion. The Court did not agree with the Justice Department's argument that the Communications Decency Act was needed in order to attract more people to the Internet (and thereby enhance Internet commerce) because there is no indication that pornography on the Internet is driving away potential users.” It was struck down by the Supreme Court, but resulted in Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to effect the internet.

And for the last issue, spam. Everyone hates spam. But some people do actually purchase items from spam, which motivates the spammers to keep at it. As stated on the website for the Washington State Office of the Attorney General (http://www.atg.wa.gov/internetsafety/spam.aspx#.UnW58vlJOAg), “The Federal Trade Commission, the agency with jurisdiction to receive and investigate spam email complaints, reports receiving over 130,000 complaints a day. Almost 45 percent of all email is now spam and that number is growing each year. Nearly three trillion spam messages are sent each year — 13 times the total snail mail delivered by the U.S. Postal service. The average wired American is hit with nearly 2,200 spam messages annually — this after most ISPs have filtered 80-90 percent of the junk messages. Some reports indicate that these numbers could increase by five times in the near future. Junk email is an issue not only reserved for individuals — it is estimated that spam costs legitimate businesses $9 billion dollars a year.” It looks as if spam is here to stay, because it is too difficult to attempt to catch and regulate all illegal spam. The best way to protect yourself is to do things like use your spam filter, don't put your email address out on a public site, and just plain ignoring spam and not replying to it.

Week 4 EOC: Copyrights

The definition of a copyright from Merriam-Webster says, “The exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work).” People use copyrights to protect their intellectual property from being stolen and used by others. Upon copyright infringement, the entity holding the copyright can take action against the offending party. These actions include (as listed on www.copyright.gov website): Impounding and disposition of infringing articles, which means they will take away the molds, pictures, or any method that is being used to in violation of the copyright owner. They are also allowed to collect any damages and profits from the infringer. These include the legal costs and fees. 

According to Regina Paul on Yahoo Voices (http://voices.yahoo.com/how-protect-digital-art-online-thieves-253355.html), there are a few things to add to your property to protect it. You must put a watermark on it. She says, “A watermark is a transparent mark that you can put across your images.” Also, you can create a logo. “While anyone can create a logo, and it is not a guarantee this will deter an online art thief, the thief might think twice about stealing an image with a logo if they think that as a business you may the resources to pursue a(n)… (sic) thief.” You need to add a copyright signature. “An example would be: © 2007 by Regina Paul. Adding this to your pictures is one way to let the art thieves of the online world know your work is copyrighted.” You can add the words “All Rights Reserved.” "Adding the words All Rights Reserved to your copyright signature is letting the world know that only you have the right to post or use your artwork unless you give someone permission in writing.”

A recent lawsuit found online at the Salt Lake City Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57034653-78/video-goblin-hall-rock.html.csp) details a case of a video that the newspaper posted to YouTube of two men pushing over a rock formation at the Goblin Valley State Park was taken down by one of the men in the video using the copyright law. Apparently, YouTube told the newspaper that they can file a counter claim. “YouTube sent The Salt Lake Tribune a message Wednesday about the copyright claim and offering tips on filing a counter claim. Both claims and counter claims go through the site’s copyright page.”

Week 3 EOC: Erin Brockovich

The story of Erin Brockovich suing PG&E ends with a settlement of $333 million dollars. According to Michael Asimow on http://usf.usfca.edu/pj//brockovich-asimow.htm, “The killer document implicated the top management of PG&E in the Hinkley cover-up. Under Calif. Civil Code §3294, in order to support a claim for punitive damages against a corporation, it is necessary to show that an officer, director or managing agent of the corporation ratified the wrongful conduct. The document was clearly the key to the arbitrators' huge punitive damage awards.”

David Pierson and Hemmy So from the Los Angeles Times state that the settlement included an apology. “Clearly, this situation should never have happened, and we are sorry that it did. It is not the way we do business, and we believe it would not happen in our company today," the company said.

The lawsuit settlement is certainly not the end to this story. Event today, there is still a negative cloud lingering over the town of Hinkley, California. According to a story on Nightline by Alyssa Litoff, “It turns out despite the settlement and the lawsuit, Hinkley's water problem never got fixed. In fact, according to the Lahontan Water Board, the area of chromium-6 contamination has grown in recent years.”

My personal opinion is that the settlement was supposedly split between 1, 100 people. $295 million was divided between those people. My calculations revealed that is only $268,181 per family. In my humble opinion, that is certainly not enough money. It is good that Erin fought the case and at least got them something to compensate, but that is just not enough money. Even with proper medical care, these people are going to suffer for the rest of their lives with health complications. Does that amount of money seem fair, or enough? My guess is no.