Bug. Inc Problems - Essay Example

BUG, Inc. Paper This paper pertains to the various legal issues facing Bug Inc based on intellectual property rights issues, domain disputes, and negligence and occupier’s liability. Question number 1 Pertaining to the first issue Bug.Inc is advised to utilize “digital rights management" devices and legislation to circumvent unfair use and abuse of such software to avoid monetary loss if this software is stolen or hacked. In this vein Bug.Inc would also be protected by The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which is a United States copyright law which criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or is used to circumvent copyrighted control technology (digital rights management).To protect its logo the company should make use of Trademark law by registering the logo which is a ladybug wearing a set of headphones.(see Trademark Dilution Act or possibly the Anti-cyber squatting Consumer Protection Act 2000.) In case anyone would like to misuse this trade mark now on the internet or the offline world. Additionally, they can use the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, and succeed in the suit for saving their trademark if they can show that they have a registered trade mark ,legitimate interest and if the misuse is in bad faith. Jurisdictional issues are a big problem in intellectual property disputes and since Bug.Inc is a multinational they are advised to ensure that they register their trademark in at least two or three major jurisdictions beforehand. Finally if they have invented the software and the equipment they are advised to patent this technology at the earliest. Patents can be secured for a specified period and will need to be renewed beyond that. The patent Registration confers powers on the product inventor of exclusive use and sale .In case the patent is a modification of an earlier product or process, the permission of the original patent holder needs to be sought and recorded. If, because of the reworking done, the identity of the final product is lost, the new registration to be availed of, and with the original patent’s consideration, the new patent is secured. 2) The borderless nature of the Internet involves problems both for the resolution of disputes between private parties in courts of states and for law enforcement authorities of a state to impose and enforce its regulations. The rules determining jurisdiction use certain localisation factors based on where the actors are located, on where the activities are carried out and on where the activities take effect. The problem of applying these traditional localisation principles to an Internet transaction is that every country in the world may potentially assume jurisdiction since the Internet is accessible from anywhere in the world. Steve is undoubtedly committing a crime and a tort of trespass and passing off. Since passing off is a tort and the courts of the place where the harmful event occurred may assume jurisdiction. This rule supplements the main rule that the defendant can be sued in the courts of his domicile. The question here arises which torts can be committed using the Internet. Since the Internet is accessible from anywhere in the world, the damage may occur in any jurisdiction so that potentially any Member State may assume jurisdiction. For example, malicious virus code on a website can infect any person accessing that website from any other Member State. The magnitude of the damage to confidential information caused by Steve is not yet known either. As far as criminal prosecution is concerned either Canada or the US may assume jurisdiction since the crime was committed and materialised in the Canadian territory. 3) Walter may be liable for committing false imprisonment and trespass to person. Walter is not a police man and had no official authority to arrest or imprison Steve. International and American law protects individuals/citizens who are wrongfully deprived of their liberty by another. Steve if he can claim jurisdiction under either US or Canadian law can claim his constitutional rights have been divested and breached and Walter has arrested him in bad faith and without a right to do so. He can make a claim and recover damages. Walter could have done all this lawfully if he was a genuine police/state official. But he is a mere security guard and he cannot plead that he knew or suspected Steve was a hacker. 4) Bug.Inc can bring an intellectual property action against that famous company for Cyber squatting under the Anti Cyber Squatting Act or make a complaint to ICANN to try and obtain a transfer of the .net and .org domain names from the Company the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) of ICANN1, which is responsible for the management of the generic top-level domain names (e.g., .biz, .com, .info, .name, .net, .org), .ICANN has instituted the Policy for the resolution of disputes between trademark owners and domain name holders over disputes concerning a trademark registered as a domain name. This policy sets a procedure under which a Bug.Inc the trademark holder can start a complaint with one of the accredited dispute resolution providers. The dispute resolution provider appoints a panel and the panel can order the transfer or cancellation of the domain name. In case this complaint fails they must be however advised that there is no appeal to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure and that therefore their only chance of success is to sue before a US court for trademark infringement. The Anti Cyber- squatting Act means that a person can be liable for damages where there is an intent with bad faith to profit from the goodwill of anothers trademark by registering or using a domain name that is identical or similar to or which dilutes a trademark (irrespective of the goods or services of the parties). There is a strong chance Bug.Inc’s action can succeed here and they wont have to be blackmailed by the company into buying such a costly domain name if their trademark of the lady bug and the name Bug.Inc is already registered in the offline world. Again Bug.Inc is advised to go for international registration of their trademark and business etc to avoid conflict of law issues later on. 5) The most feasible action here would be undoubtedly negligence although occupier’s liability would also be a good option. The vendor can sue for economic loss and maybe even physical injury or psychiatric loss which he has suffered due to the negligence of Bug Inc. who had a duty of care to keep their premises safe and secure for the visitors. The employees will be successful in their action based on their right to have a safe place of work. Bug Inc would have a duty of care to keep the dock in good repair and arrange for security. However they can plead as defence remoteness of damage that is them not being able to foresee this end for not securing and repairing the dock. This defence may not succeed though based on the warning of the recent crime wave. 6) This is a situation where Sally can sue the retailer for the economic loss of the monitor and the manufacturer of the monitor for negligence. Upon finding the safety lapse in the older version of the monitor the manufacturer had a duty of care to make this defect in the older models known to the present users? However if Sally had knowledge of this safety lapse and continued to use this monitor she will be liable for contributory negligence whereas her damages against the manufacturer may be reduced based on her own carelessness. She will be able to recover damages for economic loss and personal injury and possibly also psychiatric injury if she suffered so. If the injury causes her to lose her job or go unemployed then she will be able to recover damages under that head of loss. References Morten H. (2005)Intellectual Property—Rights or Privileges? Hans Morten Haugen,Intellectual Property—Rights or Privileges? The Journal of World Intellectual Property 10:1, 53–69 .The Journal of World Intellectual Property, Volume 8, Issue 4, Page 445-458, Jul 2005, doi: 10.1111/j.1747-1796.2005.tb00262.x Ethan Katsh, (2004)“Bringing Online Dispute Resolution to Virtual Worlds: Creating Processes Through Code” (2003-2004) 1 N.Y.L. Sch. L.Rev. 271. Greg Lastowka, (2008)“Virtual Trademarks” at Terra Nova, http://terranova.blogs.com/terra nova/2006/07/virtual tradema.html [Accessed January 6, 2008]. W.V.H Rogers. (2005) Winfield And Jolowicz On Tort (Sweet And Maxwell) Read More