CompTac vs Electrotex Competition - Essay Example

When a customer trips over a cement block in the parking lot of a store, the store is not necessarily responsible for negligence to the property. However, this customer saw that the cement block fell off a truck from the same company as the store. CompTac is legally negligible when the block fell off of a CompTac truck. When the block fell off the truck someone on the truck, or who worked for CompTac was supposed to immediately pick up the block. If someone had immediately picked up the block then the customer would not have tripped over the block and broken her leg, however, no one who worked for CompTac immediately picked up the block.

When one of a company’s key employees leaves the company the company is going to suffer a loss. However, the company does not always have a claim to recoup some of the losses caused by the untimely departure of a key employee. Because this key employee at CompTac was under a contract to complete a specified amount of time with the company and still made an untimely departure, CompTac is eligible to sue the key employee to recover some of the losses the company faced when the key employee left. Because the employee was under a contract and left the business early the key employee was in breach of the contract signed by him, and CompTac. So, CompTac has the right to file suit against the key employee to recover some of the losses CompTac suffered when the key employee left. CompTac would file suit against the former employee in court citing a breach of a contract.

Yes, Green committed a crime. Green committed hacking crimes, as well as a white-collar crime, is known as employee theft. Even though Green returned the money the next week and no one noticed the discrepancy in the accounting books. These transactions to and from his checking account would still reflect in the CompTac records. These transactions can still be linked to Green. Green is guilty of laundering ten thousand dollars from his employer’s business checking into his checking. Then Green laundered the money back to the accounts at CompTac in an attempt, to be honest. However, Green should have been honest, to begin with, and never laundered the money from his employer into his checking. When the accounts are audited, these transactions will reflect on the company’s statements. The company can file criminal charges against Green, as well as terminate Green’s employment with the company.

I would implement a rating system of some sort. I would continue to market the game to older teens, and adults. These kinds of games are suitable for older teens. The parents of younger teens and children might agree with me that if their children were a little older then the game would be suitable for their child to play. However, because the game is not marketed to just older teens, and adults some younger teens, and children are beginning to discover the game, and are beginning to reflect the actions taken by the characters in the game. This is what has so many educators, parents, and other public committees outraged, that because of the violence the younger teens, and children are beginning to become more aggressive. This is not something that happens to older teens, and adults when they play games like this. I would stand behind my decision citing those older teens, and adults can handle the responsibility of playing games with violence.

CompTac would have to petition for international copyright on the software first. This is the only way to prevent the company in Vietnam from pirating the software CompTac sells the company. If the company then begins to pirate the software the company will violate international copyright law, and CompTac will have a claim against the company for infringing the copyright of the software.