|Due By (Pacific Time)||11/27/2016 03:00 pm|
2 Discussion Cases Below
Tutor Instructions: For Discussion Case 1, Please read instructions of each case and complete them separately using the IRAC analysis method in a 300 word minimum response. Before working on this case, please read the three attachments; chapter 12 and (2) mini-lectures “Discussing Ownership of Intellectual Property and Employee Agreements.” Use only references provided.
Discussion Case 1 - Nanosoft
This is a big case on an important topic and it is very relevant to today’s technology-driven marketplace. It’s loaded with issues, so, start early and keep working on it. I’ll jump in frequently to guide you through this large and important topic.
Reginald Bates (Reggie) is the CEO of Nanosoft, a software development company dealing primarily in financial analysis tools. Over the years, Nanosoft has developed a series of software applications that have made it the leader in its field. Recently, it developed a computerized financial and stock evaluation model called “Financial Portals.” This program is central to the portfolio management process of many of the major stock brokerage companies in the US and Europe. Brokers rely heavily on the model’s unique abilities and use it in developing investment strategies for their clients. The program is responsible for Nanosoft’s current profits.
An ugly situation has recently arisen. It involves a former computer programmer who was employed by Nanosoft for the past 3 years, Alice, and a programming consultant, Ted, who has worked on an erratic basis for Nanosoft over the past couple of years, Ted. Both Ted and Alice worked on the Financial Portals program. There were no written employment or consulting contracts.
Recently, Alice left Nanosoft and joined Ted to form their own company, Micropuff. Micropuff intends to develop a line of financial analysis software tools. In fact, Micropuff has just announced the introduction of its first product, “Money Gates,” which will be sold to independent investors and financial planners as an investment analysis tool. Reggie learned about all this from one of his company’s clients, who is thinking about “giving Micropuff a try.” Reggie went ballistic. He wants Micropuff “shut down.”
To further complicate matters, at about the time Micropuff announced its maiden product, Nanosoft was about to launch “Portals Millennium,” a new stock and investment portfolio management program that Nanosoft was planning on patenting, especially with the new attitude in Washington concerning business method patents.
Reggie believes Alice and Ted have stolen Nanosoft’s trade secrets, such as application and stock analysis forms, among other things, and are infringing on Nanosoft’s copyrighted computer programs.
Reggie is also concerned with the patentability of Portals Millennium, both in general, and in light of the problems with Alice and Ted.
Discuss all the IP issues in this case, including who owns what IP and why.
Be sure to discuss this case using a full IRAC analysis. Be sure to cite your references.
Tutor Instructions: For Discussion Case 2, Please read case instructions and complete using the IRAC analysis method in a 300 word minimum response. Before working on this case, please read the three attachments; chapter 7 and article titled “Regulatory Strategy in a fast changing world: An integrated Approach. Use only references provided.
Discussion Case 2 - The Gatherers
Stealth Corp. (Stealth) wants to stay on top of the information curve, especially concerning its competitors (real or imagined). One of the ways it does so is by hiring individuals (Gatherers) to snoop on its competitors, particularly through their trash. The Gatherers sort through competitors’ trash before the trash collector comes. The Gatherers go through it to find out confidential information regarding the competitors.
Can the Gatherers or Stealth become the legal owner of this property? Why or why not?
Discuss the legal issues involved using IRAC analyses.
Discuss the ethical issues involved using some of the concepts from week 1.
out of 1971 reviews
out of 766 reviews
out of 1164 reviews
out of 721 reviews
out of 1600 reviews
out of 770 reviews
out of 766 reviews
out of 680 reviews