Recent events have made the patents value of question

Before rally, Inc. decides to go planetary the club needs to fool for distincts and trademarks to safeguard their corporate image and their product. At the baer minimum, the come with needs to deem for an Ameri keister patent and trademark. Under the guidelines of the Paris Convention of 1870, more than one hundred twenty-five nations worldwide recognize patents that ar registered with the World Patent Office in Switzerland (International Protection of Intellectual home 2007).Recent topics take up made the patents rank of question in any(prenominal) Third World countries as in that respect is an multinational movement to allow developing nations an exemption from world patent faithfulnesss, barely given the the nature of the product and the import regulations of most overhaul countries, the patent protection is certainly worth having. Also important is an international trademark for the company logo (U. S. Trademark Law 2007). Establishing a statutory claim to the trademark stub help the company to establish an international identity element associated with both their name and logo.Neither of these protections are particularly expensive and they buttocks prevent the sale of black market goods which infringe on the BUG, Inc. product. They cannister also make it doable 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 upcountry research and development information 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 tap is that he ahs committed a federal crime under the economic Espionage Case of 1996 (Economic espionage, 2007). That means that if the company can prduce sufficient evidence, Steve could be facing federal charges for his action. Steve could face 10 years in prison and up to $500,000 in fines related to criminal charges of the theft of trade secrets (Halligan 1996). WIRETAP could face $5 million in fines. (Halligan 1996).Because Walter was non a law enforcement official, it could be argued that his keeping Steve in a locked room for six hours constitutes dishonorable 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 populate 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 state 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 all 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 and apply a company facility to do so, BUG, Inc. may face some indebtedness for his actions as well. BUG could argue that Walter was not acting inwardly 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 name previously purchased by the clearinghouse corporation through a vitrine arguing that the clearinghouse purchased it with the inclination of depriving them from the trademark (Uniform Domain, 1999).There are also provender 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 cognise (Uniform Domain, 1999). However, it would be imperative as their attorney to explain that the cost of instigating the lawsuit could be large and that they should weigh the cost of the lawsuit against the cost of scarcely 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 pass held that online contracts are every bit as binding as indite contracts (CyberLaw 2007). The company should also determine what their policy is with regards to sale of their product to non-law enforcement power and if they intend to distribute exclusively to appropriate law enforcement personnel, how they will confirm that the person ordering the supplies is who they claim to be.The corporation should also consider spotting with an outside firm to supply website security to protect thei r financial legal proceeding 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 at that place is a community-wide crime spree underway and by the fact that the company has not replaced lights that have been broken or burned out. As an invited thickening of the company, the vendor has the right to expect safety as do employees (Killion, 2007).When sued for losings which occurred on their property, Bugs attorneys can argue that their responsibility to appropriate a safe environment for employees and clients was undermined by the community-wide crime spree (Killion, 2007) The probe into Steves actions might result in civil RICO transactions if the company can prove underlying mail, wire or securities deceit (Overview 2007). Without evidence of the underlying crime, there is no way to pursue noncombatant RICO charges (Overview 2007).Because the company was aware of the potential dan ger posed by the earlier ensample and opted not to correct it in an swither to subvert production costs, BUG is liabile for the injuries suffered by Sally. (Product obligation 2007) If the company had been unsuspecting 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 attorney could argue that BUG was negligent and therefore should be forced to comport not only actual restoration to Sally, but also penitentiary 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 event, 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 device were safer and that the responsibility for Sallys injury should be shared 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. hypertext markup language 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 meet of 1996 The Theft of Trade Secrets is Now a Federal Crime http//my. execpc. com/mhallign/crime. html November 6, 2007. International Protection of Intellectual Property http//www. wipo. int/pct/en/ pact/about. htm November 6, 2007. Killion, Susan Westrick and Katherine Dempski. Legal And Ethical Issues http//books. google. com/books? id=I20ZNJHFRVcC&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=corporate+liability+for+attack+on+ expound&source=web&ots=WTIBrE-gj2&sig=iVtr5bLslUY7wZLeBT1zNzagWRQ