Bug as a Software Database - Essay Example

1. The different types of legal protection in which BUG should acquire is linked to the need to have safety and security among their products. Intellectual properties and information laws are the first set of applications that need to be applied. The products should include copyright, registered design, design rights, patents, confidential information and trade marks. This is because BUG is a software database, in which the product is based off of the specific codes written by developers combined with the products. This is also because infringement related to intellectual creations are highly possible if the BUG products are not claimed through law. The copyright, design rights and registered design will all protect the code that is being written. The patents, confidential information and trademarks will protect the product that is being sold. These will also protect distribution rights in order to sell the product and rights that claim that public and private interactions of BUG products solely belong to them (Davison, 2003). 2. Sending Steve in through WIRETAP in order to gather information about BUGs product line is one that breaks protection rights from BUG. The first civil liability which is broken through Steve is the e-mail forwarding that he does, not only to the WIRETAP office in his area, but also abroad. This not only breaks confidentiality on a regional level, but also on an international level. The hacked information breaks the confidentiality of Steve working at BUG, and also breaks disclosure agreements of BUG. Beyond this, sending the information overseas, moves into a break of confidentiality on an international level, and pertains to bilateral agreements with states in other countries, which relates to privacy laws and disclosure agreements moving from businesses and into others outside of the business (Lichtbau, 2002). The second civil liability which Steve broke was forwarding all of the information at the end of the week to WIRETAP. This moved beyond the confidentiality agreements that were broken and moves into the competition law, which states that business entities can not abuse or practice business unfairly with competition in their own business. More specifically, Steve broke the economic tort law, which states that competition can not be unfair in building their own products against others. The actions that Steve took, in relation to this, broke the trademark of BUG because of his forwarding the information to directly steal from BUG to WIRETAP. It also included the economic tort of misappropriation, meaning that Steve used information that was not authorized for him to use and was supposed to be protected in the BUG organization (Elhauge and Geradin, 2007). 3. The response to Steve, through interrogation and threats, is one that is linked to committing torts. Because the leader at BUG kept Steve in the office for six hours and questioned him until he gave the information, Steve, even though he works for WIRETAP, still has the ability to say that he was psychologically and emotionally tormented, in which BUG should be liable for. Threatening to inflict Steve, as well as the way in which the BUG employer reacted, is one in which Steve could say caused him to be in a place of jeopardy with the WIRETAP organization in which he worked for. Tort law is different from other laws because it is based around civil wrongs. While most other laws will need to be stated as to someone breaking a specific law that is written for that state, tort laws are based around an individual who is liable for being responsible for another through respect and responses to situations that arise. Typically, a tort law will be based around justifying someone's actions according to whether there intentions acted in response to someone out of negligence or through an action in which the individual should be liable for, whether it be physical, economic or as a nuisance (Deaken et al, 2003). 4. The ability to sell the BUG products on the Internet is one that may arise with international conflict of law. Because BUG is located in one area, moving into an international agreement takes different laws and provisions in relation to security, privacy and infringement. Regulating the transnational effects and continuing to protect their intellectual property of the BUG products is one that now has to provide similar transactions across territories while remaining protected with their products. This is one that specifically relates to the ownership from the BUG domain name already being owned, as this shows how the products and information that BUG is releasing now must be monitored internationally so that others do not breach the ownership or infringe any of the rights (Murphy, 2006). 5. Under tort law, BUG has some liabilities towards the vendors and employees who were attacked in the parking lot. Their responsibility is to keep the parking lot well lit and to be accountable for the employees who are on the property, because it is also BUG's property. BUG can be held liable under the tort area of negligence, meaning that they were not being responsible or paying attention to the property areas in which they had. They can also be held under the statutory tort, meaning they are responsible for the health and well being of all who are on their property. This could have been done through security measures and by replacing the lights in the parking lot. At the same time, BUG will be able to defend themselves by showing that their intention in the work area was not to cause damage or harm to the employees or vendors. It was not the intent of BUG to have these things happen, and it occurred because of trespassing on their property, meaning that others were breaking tort laws and should be held responsible for the negligence. Part of this defense is not only linked to the individuals who were robbing others on the territory, but also because the robberies were not taking place at night, as one of the vendors were attacked during lunch, showing that the misplaced lights were not the problem. Proving that the problems are arising not because of BUGs intentions, but because of the trespassing and other individuals' negligent behavior will allow BUG to have a defense against the situation (Deakin et al, 2003). 6. The first tort that Sally can pursue against BUG is negligence. Because BUG did not install the insulator in the model of the monitor that Sally was using, they are negligent on two accounts. The first is the inability to be responsible for the monitor that was purchased by BUG, which should have been taken off of the product market when the problem was found. The second was the shock that Sally received, causing injury to herself. The second tort in which Sally can use is the Statutory torts. This states that the business who makes the product is responsible for damage and harm that may happen from the defective products. Because BUG knew the monitor needed an insulator and refused to do so because of finances, Sally can show that the business was not performing the correct statutory, in the need to save money with the production of the monitors. In relation to this, Sally has the right to request damages to bodily injury because of the shock, as well as damages done to the monitor and her capacity to work (Deaken et al, 2003). Bibliography 1. Davison, Mark. (2003). “The Legal Protection of Databases.” Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. 2. Deaken, Simon, Angus Johnston, Basil Markenis. (2003). “Tort Law.” Oxford University Press: London. 3. Elhauge, Einer, Damien Geradin. (2007). “Global Competition Law and Economics.” Hart Publishing: New York. 4. Lichtbau, Anita. (2002). Can I Disclose This Information? Complying With Confidentiality and Disclosure Requirements. CAPLAW Legal Services. 5. Murphy, Sean. (2006). “Principles of International Law.” Thomson West: New York. Read More