Week 5
Forms of Intellectual Property Rights
Pursuant to chapter 15, several forms of intangible property rights protections exist. First, the chapter discussed patents, which was identified as a type of intellectual property protection, which offers its holders the right to exclude other parties from producing, using, and trading in an invention for a specific period. In addition, the patent rights owners are required by law to publish enabling public disclosures of such inventions (Miller et al., 2004). Importantly, patents could be divided into utility, which cover product, machine or process functionality for up to 20 years and design patents, which deals with the features of products—the way the products appear for 15 years (Miller et al., 2004). Lastly, plant patents deal with new forms of plants that are created by third parties, the same literature reports.
Second, the chapter discussed copyrights, and described them as exclusive rights that are given to the producers of creative works concerning the reproduction of such works for a specific period (Miller et al., 2004). Third, chapter 15 discussed a trademark, which is a word, symbol, or group of words, which a company legally registers or develops with the objective of representing a given company or its products. Fourth, trade names are another form of intangible property rights protection, which are names, which have the status of trademarks. Lastly, the chapter discussed trade dress, which is the designs, shapes, and colors that are associated with a specific product, including how such products feel and appear.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Redbox Automated Retail LLC
The facts of the case indicate that Walt Disney, one of the largest entertainment companies in the world, sued Redbox with the intention of stopping the defendant from the provision of legally obtained codes to the market. The codes in question were specially generated by Disney as one of the components of its DVD packages for its movies. Moreover, Disney alleged that Redbox went against its mandate and did not consider the copyrights that were reserved for the company (Disney). The copyright terms included aspects such as licenses for operations and the content allowed to distribute. Redbox argued based on the RedeemDigitalMovies terms, which allows any company to use movie codes as authorized. It has however, not sought any authorization from the regulatory firm. The court granted preliminary injunction that barred Redbox from reselling the codes arguing that the actions of the defendants were contributory copyright infringement as established Walt Disney’s revised terms of use. Disney had stated that Redbox signed an agreement with Disney when they entered into the movie business to resale DVDs but with the condition “Codes are not for sale or transfer” ( Disney Enters., Inc. v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, 336 F. Supp. 3d 1146, 2018 ).
Remedies for IP Owners
Breach of IP rights arises in remedies of injunctions, damages, and account of lost profitability. Much as the IP rights owners have the legal rights to claim damages from infringement as established by caselaw and statute, the law to determine the exact amounts that could be awarded to individual cases establishes no specific applicable formulas. The IP rights owners are required to prove the ownership of such rights under the related law and to establish that third parties infringed the provisions of such laws as set by the same laws (Miller et al., 2004).
IP Rights of Employees in the Scope of their Working
The law provides that an employer owns all IP that is generated by an employee who acts in the scope of their employment. However, when such property is created outside the scope of the employment, then the IP rights belong to the employee (Miller et al., 2004).
Week 6
Monopolies
A plausible example of monopolies in modern-day entrepreneurship which exhibits both horizontal and vertical restraints is social media giant Facebook. Social media is a relatively simple trade niche that currently does not require a vast amount of capital for a new entrant. Further, the social media market is massive and lucrative; hence, many new investors should be joining and thriving in this market. However, Facebook has been the singular dominant player in the market niche for over a century. Most importantly, other players who venture into the market may gain customers, but Facebook maintains a substantive monopoly in advertising, the primary source of revenue for social networks.
According to Bartz (2019), the US government intends to open formal investigations against Facebook for antitrust violations. The federal investigations would operate alongside a retinue of state government investigation on the same allegations of antitrust violations. There have always been concerns about the dominance of Facebook in the social media market. However, investigations into the 2016 presidential elections and the impact of social media as a tool for misinformation augmented the concerns into apprehensions leading to the investigations. It is evident that Facebook’s practices create an unfair advantage for the company against its competitors.
For a start, there is an apprehension that Facebook engages in horizontal trade constraints by acquiring and controlling its main or potentially main competitors. According to Bartz (2019), within the last several years, Facebook has acquired over 90 companies that operate in the same market niche. A careful evaluation of Facebook’s acquisitions will show that they are companies directly competing with Facebook or with the potential to provide competition for the company in future. Two main examples of such monopoly are Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram. The two companies were major players in the social media platforms market that perhaps held the potential to compete with Facebook. However, when Facebook acquired them, it was able to steer them into operating in a manner that does not interfere with Facebook’s revenues.
Through its acquisitions, Facebook has also engaged in vertical trade constrains. By definition, vertical trade constrains happen when companies on different levels of production make agreements that debilitate competition. Among the companies that Facebook has acquired are players in the software development industry. Among the keys to Facebook’s success is its software algorithm-based programs. Facebook limits competition by acquiring companies capable of developing software that would compete on Facebook's own. Finally, Facebook engages in vertical constraints by limiting the customers’ choices of preferred social network platforms. According to Ayeni (2019), one of Facebook’s founding executives Sean Parker admitted that the company seeks to make its customers addicted to the social network. Addiction keeps customers of Facebook, thus limiting their choice to sample other social networks in the market. Limiting customer choices in this instance qualify as a strategy for propagating a monopoly status.
Week 7
Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdictions
Personal jurisdiction is a legal requirement that a specific court, state or federal, has the power over defendants based on their minimum contacts with the forum. For example, personal jurisdiction concerns whether an individual in Oregon can be sued in Florida. On the other hand, subject matter jurisdiction refers to the legal requirement that a specific court, federal or state, has the power to adjudicate over a specific type of claim that is brought before it (Shany, 2013). For instance, subject matter jurisdiction concerns whether terrorist claims can be heard in state of federal courts. Pursuant to the definitions and examples, personal jurisdiction can be applied to one who does business in different states because the court should establish if they have minimum contact with each of the states while personal matter jurisdiction concerns international trade.
Stare decisis is a legal principle in which courts make decisions based on the extant precedent on the subject matter. In 2017, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania applied the precedent in Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh to determine if the motion to dismiss in Ellingsworth v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co was admissible. The case involved issues of gender stereotyping and sexual orientation at the workplace. The plaintiff, Marykate Ellingsworth, claimed that she had been harassed and discriminated against based on the way she appeared, dressed, her style, and perceived sexual orientation by her co-workers. The plaintiff filled a complaint against her employers with allegations that she had been discriminated against, harassed, and retaliation that violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In response, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss on two grounds 1) pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b) (6), the plaintiff failed to state a claim 2) the plaintiff’s claims were untimely. Based on the precedent, the court granted the motion for failure to state a claim. I agree with the court’s determination since the plaintiff did not state, as legally required, the claim for relief.
References
Ayeni, P. T. (2019). Social Media Addiction: Symptoms And Way Forward. The American Journal of Interdisciplinary Innovations and Research , 1 (04), XIX-XLII.
Bartz, D. (2019, September 26). U.S. Justice Department to open Facebook antitrust investigation: source. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-probe-antitrust/justice-department-to-open-facebook-antitrust-investigation-source-idUSKBN1WA35M .
Disney Enters., Inc. v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, 336 F. Supp. 3d 1146 . (2018). Retrieved 4 November 2019, from https://casetext.com/case/disney-enters-inc-v-redbox-automated-retail-llc
Ellingsworth v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co, CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-3187 | Casetext . (2019). Casetext.com . Retrieved 2 November 2019, from https://casetext.com/case/ellingsworth-v-hartford-fire-ins-co
Miller, J. C., Serrato, R., Represas-Cardenas, J. M., & Kundahl, G. (2004). The handbook of nanotechnology: Business, policy, and intellectual property law . John Wiley & Sons.
Shany, Y. (2013). The competing jurisdictions of international courts and tribunals (p. 87). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
