Recent events have made the patents value of question

Before BUG, Inc. decides to go international the smart set needs to apply for patents and trademarks to fortress their corporate image and their product. At the baer minimum, the political party needs to apply for an American patent and trademark. Under the guidelines of the genus Paris Convention of 1870, much than 125 nations manhoodwide recognize patents that are registered with the World Patent Office in Switzerland (International Protection of Intellectual Property 2007).Recent outcomes have made the patents value of question in just about Third World countries as on that point is an international movement to allow developing nations an exemption from world patent integritys, but given the the nature of the product and the import regulations of most modernized countries, the patent vindication is certainly worth having. Also important is an international trademark for the company logo (U. S. Trademark law of nature 2007). Establishing a legal claim to the trademark c an help the company to establish an international personal identity associated with both their pick up and logo.Neither of these protections are particularly expensive and they can prevent the sale of black commercialize goods which infringe on the BUG, Inc. product. They can as well as make it possible for BUG, Inc. to seek recompense in the event of patent infringement. Establishing the trademark and patent becomes especially important when Steve engages is corporate espionage and relays internal research and development data to BUG, Inc. s competitor, WIRETAP.The first thing that BUG needs to take into consideration with regard to the Steves actions as an employee of WIRETAP is that he ahs committed a federal annoyance under the sparing Espionage Case of 1996 (Economic espionage, 2007). That means that if the company can prduce sufficient curtilage, Steve could be lining federal charges for his action. Steve could attend 10 historic period in prison and up to $500,000 in fines related to bend charges of the theft of trade secrets (Halligan 1996). WIRETAP could face $5 million in fines. (Halligan 1996).Because Walter was not a law enforcement official, it could be managed that his keeping Steve in a locked room for six hours constitutes false imprisonment and he could face criminal charges related to those actions (Best Practice 1, 1999). harmonize to the International Association of Security Professional, the law allows security guards to detain people suspected of a crime long enough to ascertain their identity and to contact the police, not to question them for six hours, depending on the read they are operating in, he could be charged with false imprisonment or kidnapping.(Best Practice 1, 1999). In addition, in most states, his threats of physical violence, though only threats, constitute a verbal assault on Steve and he could be charged with assault as well. (Online Dictionary, 2007) Furthermore, because Walter did this while on the job a nd used a company facility to do so, BUG, Inc. may face some liability for his actions as well. BUG could argue that Walter was not acting within the scope of his duties, but that is belied by the fact that he took these actions on company time and on company property.(Best Practice 1, 1999). This may mean that because of Walters actions, BUG could be facing greater liability than Steve is. When BUG goes online, it is possible that they may be able to acquire the domain pull in previously purchased by the clearinghouse corporation through a lawsuit arguing that the clearinghouse purchased it with the intention of depriving them from the trademark (Uniform Domain, 1999).There are also provide for administrative hearings if BUG can demonstrate that the other entity adopted the domain name just in an attempt to deprive them of the name by which they are commonly known (Uniform Domain, 1999). However, it would be imperative as their attorney to explain that the constitute of instigat ing the lawsuit could be large and that they should weigh the cost of the lawsuit against the cost of simply purchasing the domain name from the current owners. There are provisions for the recovery of fees through the administrative hearing process, but they are not guaranteed to win (Uniform Domain, 1999).BUG should also be aware that as the instigators of an online contract they can determine what circumstances constitute acceptance of the contract and that American courts have held that online contracts are every bit as binding as written contracts (CyberLaw 2007). The company should also determine what their policy is with regards to sale of their product to non-law enforcement personnel and if they intend to distribute exclusively to appropriate law enforcement personnel, how they will verify that the person ordering the supplies is who they claim to be.The corporation should also consider contracting with an removed firm to supply website security to protect their financial transactions from hackers (CyberLaw 2007). At the BUG plant in Shady Town, BUG liability for the attack on the vendor and employees is mitigated by the fact that there is a community-wide crime spree underway and by the fact that the company has not replaced lights that have been impoverished or burned out. As an invited guest of the company, the vendor has the right to expect securety as do employees (Killion, 2007).When sued for losses which occurred on their property, Bugs attorneys can argue that their responsibility to provide a safe environment for employees and clients was undermined by the community-wide crime spree (Killion, 2007) The investigation into Steves actions efficiency result in obliging RICO proceedings if the company can prove underlying mail, wire or securities fraud (Overview 2007). Without evidence of the underlying crime, there is no way to pursue civilian RICO charges (Overview 2007).Because the company was aware of the say-so danger posed by the earli er sample and opted not to correct it in an effort to glare production costs, BUG is liabile for the injuries suffered by Sally. ( mathematical product Liability 2007) If the company had been unaware of the injury potential from the model or had discovered it after the model was in mass distribution and had issued a recall, their liability might have been lower. However, the company was aware of the problem and chose not to fix it in an effort to make more money.At that point, a good personal injury lawyer could argue that BUG was negligent and therefore should be forced to pay not only actual indemnity to Sally, but also punitive damages in the form of an award for pain and suffering. Punitive damages are awarded when the court determines that a company should be punished for their actions in this side, for knowing that the product was potentially hazardous and doing nothing to end the danger.If the case went to trial, BUGs attorneys could argue that the newer models of the dev ice were safer and that the responsibility for Sallys injury should be overlap by her employer for failing to provide her with the newer model, but this argument does nothing to decrease BUGs liability. (Product Liability 2007). WORKS CITED Best Practice 1 Detaining Shoplifiting Suspects www. iapsc. org/uploaded_documents/bp1. doc, November 6, 2007. Computer Crimes & Intellectual Property Law http//www. usdoj. gov/criminal/cybercrime/iplaws. html November 6, 2007. Cyber Law http//www. sidley. com/cyberlaw/features/int_juris.asp, November 6, 2007. Free Dictionary http//www. thefreedictionary. com/assault, November 6, 2007. Halligan, R. Mark. The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 The Theft of Trade Secrets is Now a national Crime http//my. execpc. com/mhallign/crime. html November 6, 2007. International Protection of Intellectual Property http//www. wipo. int/pct/en/treaty/about. htm November 6, 2007. Killion, Susan Westrick and Katherine Dempski. lawful And Ethical Issues http//boo ks. google. com/books? id=I20ZNJHFRVcC&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=corporate+liability+for+attack+on+premises&source=web&ots=WTIBrE-gj2&sig=iVtr5bLslUY7wZLeBT1zNzagWRQ